9
Lectio 1 LECTURE I Postquam dominus doctrinae suae illuminativam virtutem ostendit verbo, hic consequenter confirmat eam facto, caecum corporaliter illuminando. Et circa hanc illuminationem tria ponuntur. Primo infirmitas; secundo infirmitatis sanatio, ibi hoc cum dixisset, expuit in terram etc.; tertio de sanatione, Iudaeorum disceptatio, ibi itaque vicini et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur infirmitas; secundo inquiritur causa eius, ibi interrogaverunt eum discipuli. 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). Sciendum est circa primum, quod Iesus abscondens se, et de templo recedens, dum praeteriret, vidit hunc caecum. Et hoc est quod dicit et praeteriens Iesus, vidit hominem caecum a nativitate. Ubi tria considerantur. Primo quidem praeterivit, ut declinaret Iudaeorum furorem; Eccli. VIII, 13: ne accendas carbones peccatorum, arguens eos, et ne incendaris flamma ignis peccatorum illorum. Secundo ut emolliret Iudaeorum duritiam ex miraculo facto et fiendo; infra c. XV, 24: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. Tertio ut per operationem signi, verba sua firmaret; nam facta domini, eorum quae dicta sunt a se, faciunt fidem; Mc. ult., 20: sermonem confirmante, sequentibus signis. 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). Mystice autem, secundum Augustinum, genus humanum est iste caecus. Nam spiritualis caecitas peccatum est, Sap. II, 21: excaecavit eos malitia eorum. Qui a nativitate caecus est, quia ex sua origine trahit peccatum. Haec enim caecitas contigit per peccatum in homine primo, de quo omnes originem traduximus; Eph. II, 3: eratis natura, idest naturali origine, filii irae. In the mystical sense, according to Augustine, this blind man is the human race. [2] 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). Consequenter cum dicit et interrogaverunt eum discipuli eius, agitur de causa ipsius infirmitatis, et primo inquiritur causa ipsius a discipulis; secundo manifestatur a Christo, ibi neque hic peccavit. 1295 Then (v2), the cause of this man's infirmity is discussed: first, the disciples ask about its cause; secondly, Christ explains it. Circa primum tria quaerenda occurrunt. Primum est causa inquisitionis discipulorum a Christo, quae est, ut Chrysostomus dicit, quia Iesus egrediens de templo, et videns hunc caecum, valde studiose respexit, quasi videns in eo materiam operandae virtutis; ita ut discipuli hoc videntes, scilicet eum studiose videntem, moti fuerunt ad interrogandum. 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. [3] Secundo discipulorum diligentia, quia dicunt Rabbi, vocantes eum magistrum, ut innuant se sic quaerere, quasi discere desiderantes. Tertio quare, quaerentes causam peccati, dixerunt quis peccavit? Secondly, we see the seriousness of the disciples, because they say, Rabbi, calling him Teacher, to indicate that they are questioning him in order to learn. Thirdly, we see why they asked, who sinned? when they inquire into the reason for the man's blindness. Dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod quia dominus supra V, 14, scilicet quando paralyticum sanavit, dixerat ei: ecce iam sanus factus es: vade, et amplius noli peccare, cogitaverunt discipuli, quod propter peccatum ei illa infirmitas accidisset, aestimantes ulterius quod omnis humana infirmitas proveniret ex peccato, secundum quod Eliphaz dicit, Iob IV, 7: quis unquam innocens periit? Et ideo quaerebant utrum ex peccato suo vel parentum caecus natus fuisset. Sed quod ex peccato suo esset, non videtur: quia nullus peccat antequam nascatur, cum animae ante corpora non fuerint, nec peccaverint, ut quidam falso opinati sunt: secundum illud Rom. IX, 11: cum nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid boni egissent aut mali (...); non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est ei; quia maior serviet minori. Quod autem hoc ex peccato parentum passus fuerit, non videtur: quia Deut. XXIV, 16, dicitur: non occidentur patres pro filiis, nec filii pro parentibus. 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. [4] 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). Sed sciendum, quod est duplex poena qua homines puniuntur. Una est spiritualis quantum ad animam; alia est corporalis quantum ad corpus. Et poena quidem spirituali numquam filius pro patre punitur. Cuius ratio assignatur Ez. XVIII, 4, quia anima filii non est ex patre, sed a Deo. Omnes, inquit, animae meae sunt, scilicet per creationem, sicut anima patris, ita anima filii mea est: anima quae peccaverit ipsa punietur. Hoc etiam dicit Augustinus in quadam epistola. Sed poena corporali filius pro patre punitur, cum quantum ad corpus sit quaedam res patris. Et expresse hoc habetur Gen. XIX, ubi filii Sodomorum occisi sunt pro peccato parentum in subversione Sodomae. Multoties etiam dominus comminatur Iudaeis occisionem puerorum propter peccata parentum. 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. [5] 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. Quare autem uno peccato alius puniatur, sciendum, quod poena duo habet, laesionem et remedium. Nam aliquando abscinditur membrum ut totum corpus conservetur: et sic poena huius laesionem infert inquantum abscinditur, sed remedium habet inquantum conservat corpus. Numquam tamen medicus nobilius membrum abscindit propter conservationem minus nobilis, sed e converso. In rebus autem humanis, anima nobilior est corpore, et corpus nobilius exterioribus rebus; et ideo numquam fit ut aliquis propter corpus in anima puniatur, sed potius in corpore propter remedium animae. Quandoque ergo Deus irrogat poenas corporibus, vel rebus exterioribus, propter remedium bonum animae: et tunc huiusmodi poenae non inferuntur ut laesivae tantum, sed ut purgativae in remedium. Unde et ipsa puerorum Sodomitarum occisio fuit ad bonum animarum: non quidem ad meritum, sed ne paternae malitiae imitatores, vivendo peccata cumulantes, atrocius punirentur. Sic etiam pro peccatis parentum pluries aliqui puniuntur. 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. [6] Consequenter cum dicit respondit Iesus etc., manifestat dominus causam infirmitatis, et primo excludit causam opinatam; secundo subdit veram; et tertio manifestat ipsam. 1298 Then when he says, Jesus answered, 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. Causam quidem opinatam excludit, cum respondit dicens neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius. Hanc enim esse causam infirmitatis, opinati sunt discipuli, ut dictum est. Sed contra. Rom. III, 23: omnes enim peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et ibid. V, 12, dicitur, quod peccatum ab Adam in omnes pertransiit. Respondeo dicendum, quod tam caecus quam parentes eius originali peccato tenebantur, et etiam alia actualia vivendo superaddiderant, quia, si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, ipsi nos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est: I Io. I, 8. Quod autem dominus dicit neque hic peccavit, intelligendum est eos non peccasse, ad hoc quod caecus nasceretur; quasi diceret, quod eius caecitas non est consecuta ex eorum peccato. 1299 He excludes the reason they assumed when he says, it was not that this man sinned, or his parents: 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, it was not that this man sinned, or his parents, he means that his blindness did not come as a result of their sins. Causam autem veram subdit dicens sed ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo: nam per opera Dei in eius cognitionem ducimur; Rom. I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur; supra V: opera quae dedit mihi pater, haec sunt quae testimonium perhibent de me. Cognitio autem Dei est summum bonum hominis, cum in ea consistat hominis beatitudo; infra XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum Deum verum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum. Et Ier. IX, 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. Si ergo infirmitas contingit ut manifestentur opera Dei, et per ipsorum manifestationem Deus innotescit; manifestum est quod huiusmodi corporales infirmitates contingunt propter bonum. 1300 He mentions the real reason when he says, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him, 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 performthey 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. Posset autem alicui videri quod manifestatio operum Dei non sit sufficiens causa infirmitatis huiusmodi, praesertim cum neque hic, neque parentes eius peccaverunt, et ideo volunt dicere, quod ly ut tenetur non causaliter, sed consequenter; quasi dicat: eo existente caeco, opera Dei manifestantur ipsum curantis. Sed hoc non videtur sane dictum; et ideo melius dicendum, quod tenetur causaliter. Est enim duplex malum: scilicet culpae et poenae. Sed malum quidem culpae Deus non facit, sed permittit fieri; quod non permitteret, nisi intenderet inde bonum aliquod. Unde dicit Augustinus in Enchir.: Deus adeo bonus est, quod numquam permitteret aliquod malum fieri, nisi esset adeo potens quod de quolibet malo eliciat bonum. Sic ergo permittit aliqua peccata fieri ex intentione boni quod intendit: sicut permisit saevire tyrannos, ut coronaret martyres. Multo ergo magis debet dici, quod malum poenae, quod ipse fecit, ut dicitur Amos III, 6: non est malum quod dominus non fecerit, numquam inducit nisi ex intentione boni. Et inter alia bona optimum est quod opera Dei manifestentur, et ex eis innotescat Deus. Non est ergo inconveniens si aliqua flagella immittit, vel peccata aliqua fieri permittit, ut bonum inde proveniat. 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 but that 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 Enchiridion: "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." [7] 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. [8] Et sciendum, quod, ut Gregorius dicit I Moral., quinque modis Deus hominibus immittit flagella. Quandoque quidem ad initium damnationis, secundum illud Ier. VII, 18: duplici contritione contere eos. Et hoc flagello percutitur peccator in hac vita sic, ut sine retractatione et fine puniatur in alia; sicut Herodes qui occidit Iacobum, punitus est in hac vita, et in Inferno similiter: Act. XII, 23. Quandoque autem ad correctionem: et de hac dicitur in Ps. XVII, 36: disciplina tua ipsa me docebit. Quandoque autem flagellatur aliquis non propter praeteritorum correctionem, sed ad futurorum praeservationem: sicut de Paulo legitur II Cor. XII, 7: ne magnitudo revelationum extollat me, datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae, Angelus Satanae, qui me colaphizet. Quandoque autem ad promotionem virtutis: ut scilicet cum in aliquo nec praeterita culpa corrigitur, nec futura prohibetur, dum inopinata salus persecutionem sequitur, salvantis virtute cognita, ardentius amatur; II ad Cor. XII, 9: virtus in infirmitate perficitur; Iac. I, 4: patientia opus perfectum habet. Quandoque vero ad manifestationem divinae gloriae: unde et hic dicitur ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo. 1302 It should be noted, as Gregory says in I Morals, that God sends afflictions to men in five ways. [9] 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, that the works of God might be made manifest in him. Consequenter cum dicit me oportet operari etc., manifestat causam veram quam posuit: et quia mentionem fecerat de operibus Dei, ideo primo ponit opportunitatem opera Dei manifestandi; secundo assignat opportunitatis, seu necessitatis rationem, ibi venit nox; tertio eam exponit, ibi quamdiu in mundo sum. 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, night comes; and thirdly, he explains this (v 5). Dicit ergo: ideo scilicet caecus natus est, ut manifestentur opera Dei in illo, quae quidem manifestari oportebat: nam me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me. Quod quidem potest referri ad Christum secundum quod homo; et sic est sensus: me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, idest, opera commissa mihi a patre; supra c. V, 36: opera quae dedit mihi pater ut faciam. Infra XVII, 4, dicit: pater, opus consummavi quod dedisti mihi ut faciam. Vel ad Christum, secundum quod Deus; et sic dicit aequalitatem suae potentiae ad patrem, ut sit sensus: me oportet operari opera eius qui misit me, idest, opera quae habeo a patre. Omnia enim quae filius facit, etiam secundum divinam naturam, a patre habet; supra V, 19: non potest filius a se facere quidquam, nisi quod viderit patrem facientem. 1304 He says, therefore, this man was born blind that the works of God might be made manifest in him. And it was necessary that they be manifested, for we must work the works of him who sent me, 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, we must work the works of him who sent me, 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). Oportet, inquam, donec dies est. Dies quidem materialis ex praesentia solis super terram causatur. Sol autem iustitiae est Christus Deus noster; Mal. IV, 2: vobis timentibus nomen meum, orietur sol iustitiae. Quamdiu ergo sol iste nobis praesens est, opera Dei fieri possunt in nobis, erga nos, et a nobis. Praesens autem fuit nobis aliquando quidem corporali praesentia; et tunc dies erat; Ps. CXVII, 25: haec dies quam fecit dominus: exultemus et laetemur in ea. Et ideo oportet operari opera Dei. Est etiam nobis praesens per gratiam: et tunc est dies gratiae, in quo scilicet oportet operari opera Dei, donec dies est; Rom. XIII, v. 12: nox praecessit, dies autem appropinquabit. Abiiciamus ergo opera tenebrarum, et induamur arma lucis; I Thess. V, 7: qui dormiunt, nocte dormiunt. Vos autem non estis in tenebris et cetera. 1305 I say we must work while it is day. 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, while it is day; "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). Sed sciendum, quod si praesentia solis facit diem et absentia noctem, cum sol sibi praesens sit semper, ipsi soli semper dies est: et sic soli semper est tempus operandi et lucendi. Sed quantum ad nos, quibus aliquando est praesens, aliquando absens, non semper operatur et lucet. Eodem modo apud Christum, solem iustitiae, semper est dies et tempus operandi; non autem apud nos: quia non semper sumus capaces suae gratiae, propter impedimentum ex parte nostra. 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. Rationem autem opportunitatis praedictae subdit, dicens venit nox, quando nemo potest operari. Sicut est duplex dies, ita est duplex nox. Una est per abscessum corporalem solis iustitiae, sicut apostoli incurrerunt, quando Christo eis corporaliter sublato tempore passionis, perturbati sunt; Matth. XVI, 31: omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me in ista nocte. Et tunc non fuit tempus operandi, sed patiendi. 1307 He mentions why this is our opportunity when he says, night comes, when no one can work. 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. Sed melius est ut dicamus, quod etiam Christo absente corporaliter per ascensionem, dies apostolis erat, inquantum illucebat eis sol iustitiae, et tempus operandi. Et ideo intelligendum est de nocte quae est per spiritualem separationem solis iustitiae, scilicet per subtractionem gratiae: quae quidem nox duplex est. Una per subtractionem actualis gratiae quam inducit peccatum mortale; I Thess. V, 7: qui dormiunt, nocte dormiunt. Et quando haec nox venit, nemo potest operari opera meritoria vitae aeternae. Alia nox est consummata, quando non solum privatur actuali gratia quis per peccatum mortale, sed etiam facultate adipiscendi, per aeternam damnationem in Inferno, ubi profunda nox est, quae erit illis quibus dicitur: ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum: Matth. XXV, 41. Et tunc nemo potest operari, quia non est tempus merendi, sed secundum merita recipiendi. Dum ergo vivis, fac sicut facturus es. Unde Eccle. IX, 10: quaecumque potest manus tua, instanter operare: quia neque ratio, neque opus, nec sapientia, nec scientia erunt apud Inferos, quo tu properas. 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). Rationem autem dictorum exponit dicens quamdiu sum in mundo, lux sum mundi; quasi diceret: si vultis scire quis sit dies, et quae nox, de quibus loquor; ego, inquam, sum lux mundi: nam praesentia mea diem facit, et absentia noctem; supra VIII, 12: ego sum lux mundi. Quamdiu ego sum in mundo, corporaliter per meam praesentiam; infra XVI, 28: exivi a patre, et veni in mundum; iterum relinquo mundum, et vado ad patrem. Lux sum mundi: unde dies iste duravit usque ad ascensionem Christi. Item, quamdiu sum in mundo, spiritualiter per gratiam; Matth. ult., 20: ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi. Lux sum mundi: unde dies iste usque ad consummationem saeculi extendetur. 1308 He gives the reason for what he has just said, saying, as long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 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 I am the light of the world, for my presence makes day, and my absence night; "I am the light of the world" (8:12). As long as I am in the world 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) - I am the light of the world. And thus this day lasted until the ascension of Christ. Or again, as long as I am in the world spiritually by grace - "I am with you until the consummation of the world" [Mt 28:20] - I am the light of the world. And this day will last until the consummation of the world. Consequenter cum dicit hoc cum dixisset, expuit in terram etc., agitur de sanatione caeci, ad quam quinque per ordinem concurrunt facta per Christum. Primo quidem sputatio, unde dicit spuit in terram; secundo luti factio, unde dicit lutum fecit ex sputo; tertio oculorum linitio, unde dicit et linivit super oculos caeci; quarto mandatum quod lavaretur, unde dicit vade (inquit) et lava in natatoriis Siloe; quinto, visionis perceptio, unde subdit et venit videns: quae quidem omnia causam habent et litteralem et mysticam. 1309 Next, when the Evangelist says, as he said this, he spat on the ground, he describes the healing of the blind man. Here five things were done by Christ. First, he moistens the earth, he spat on the ground. Secondly, he made the clay, as we read, he made clay of the spittle. Thirdly, Christ smeared the man's eyes and anointed the man's eyes. Fourthly, he commands the man to wash, with go, wash in the pool of Siloam. And fifthly, the man's sight is restored, and he came back seeing. Each of these has both a literal and a mystical explanation. Litteralem quidem, secundum Chrysostomum, hoc modo. Sputo illuminat, ut ostendat quod virtute a se egrediente hoc faciebat, et nulli alteri rei miraculum ascribatur; Lc. VI, 19: virtus exibat de illo. Licet enim omnia miracula dominus solo verbo facere potuisset, quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt, frequenter tamen corpore suo in eis utitur, ut ostendat ipsum, inquantum est divinitatis organum, virtutem quamdam salutarem esse sortitum. Lutum autem fecit ex sputo, ut ostendat se membra homini deficientia posse formare, qui formaverat totum primum hominem. Unde sicut primum hominem de luto formavit, ita lutum fecit ut formaret oculos caeci nati. 1310 The literal meaning is explained by Chrysostom in this way. [10] 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. Linivit autem lutum super oculos caeci nati, ut ostenderet se conditorem corporum, per id quod potissimum est in corporibus. Homo enim inter creaturas corporales praecellentior est; inter membra vero hominis praecellit caput; inter membra autem capitis, oculus excellentior invenitur. Unde Matthaeus VI, 21: lucerna corporis tui est oculus tuus. Formando ergo oculum ceteris corporalibus excellentiorem, ostendit se creatorem esse totius hominis et naturae corporeae. Dixit autem ei vade, et lava te in natatoria Siloe, ne videretur terra super oculos linita virtutem sanativam oculi habere. Unde quamdiu lutum in oculis habuit, non vidit, sed postquam lavit. 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, go, wash in the pool of Siloam, 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. Misit autem eum longe ad lavandum, scilicet ad natatoria Siloe: primo quidem ad confutandam Iudaeorum duritiam; nam oportebat eum transire civitatem, ut sic omnes viderent eumdem caecum euntem, lutum super oculos habentem, et redeuntem visu suo restituto. Secundo vero ut commendetur caeci obedientia et fides: frequenter enim forte lutum in faciem receperat, frequenter in natatoria Siloe se laverat, et tamen non viderat. Unde potuisset dicere: lutum solet magis excaecare, et multoties me ibidem lavi, et in nullo sum adiutus, sicut de Naaman legitur IV Reg. V, 10 ss. Sed non contradixit, immo simpliciter obedivit. Unde sequitur abiit, et lavit. Ideo autem ad natatoria Siloe eum misit, quia per illam aquam signatus est populus Iudaeorum; Is. VIII, 6: populus iste abiecit aquas Siloe, quae currunt cum silentio. Ut ergo ostendat quod non est alienus ab amore populi Iudaici, ad Siloe mittit eum. 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, so he went and washed. 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. Effectus autem sequitur, quia venit videns. Hoc praedictum fuit Is. XXXV, 5: tunc aperientur oculi caecorum. The effect follows, because he came back seeing. This was predicted in Isaiah (35:5): "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened." Causam vero mysticam et allegoricam assignat Augustinus, qui dicit, quod per sputum, quod est saliva de capite descendens, signatur verbum Dei, quod a patre capite omnium rerum procedit; Eccli. c. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore altissimi prodii. Tunc ergo dominus de sputo et terra lutum fecit, cum verbum caro factum est. Linivit autem oculos caeci, idest humani generis, oculos scilicet cordis, per fidem incarnationis Christi. Sed nondum videbat: quia quando forte inunxit, catechumenum fecit, qui fidem habet, sed nondum est baptizatus. Et ideo mittit eum ad piscinam, quae vocatur Siloe, ut lavetur et illuminetur, idest baptizetur et in Baptismo plenam illuminationem recipiat. Unde, secundum Dionysium, Baptismus dicitur illuminatio; Ez. XXXVI, 25: effundam super vos aquam mundam, et mundabimini ab omnibus inquinamentis vestris. Et ideo signanter hoc Evangelium legitur illo die in Quadragesima quo incipit fieri scrutinium baptizandorum in sabbato sancto. Nec sine causa Evangelista subdit interpretationem piscinae, dicens quod interpretatur missus: quia quicumque baptizantur oportet baptizari in Christo, qui est missus a patre; Gal. III, 27: quotquot baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Nisi enim ille fuisset missus, nemo nostrum esset ab iniquitate dimissus. 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. [11] 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). [12] 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, which means Sent, 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. Secundum Gregorium autem, per salivam sapor intimae contemplationi accipitur, quae ad os de capite defluit, quia de caritate conditoris adhuc in hac vita nos positos, gustu revelationis tangit. Unde dominus salivam luto miscuit, et caeci nati oculos reparavit, quia superna gratia carnalem cogitationem nostram per mixtionem suae contemplationis irradiat, et ab originali caecitate homines ad intellectum reformat et cetera. 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. [13] 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.
Lectio 2 LECTURE 2 Posita miraculosa illuminatione caeci, hic consequenter ponitur miraculi examinatio, et primo quidem miraculum examinatur a populo; secundo a Pharisaeis et principibus, ibi adducunt eum ad Pharisaeos; tertio caecus propter suam confessionem instruitur a Christo et commendatur, ibi audivit Iesus quia eiecerunt eum foras. Circa primum tria facit, quia primo inquiritur de persona illuminati; secundo de ipsa illuminatione, ibi dicebant ergo ei etc.; tertio de persona illuminantis, ibi et dixerunt ei: ubi est ille? Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponitur quaestio de persona illuminati; secundo assumuntur diversae opiniones ad quaestionem; tertio determinatur quaestio. 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. Ponitur quidem quaestio a populo. Unde dicit itaque vicini, et qui viderant eum prius, quia mendicus erat, dicebant: nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Ubi duo consideranda occurrunt. Unum est quod ex miraculi magnitudine ipsum incredibile reddebatur: unde dicebant, infra: a saeculo non est auditum quod aperuerit quis oculos caeci nati. Unde impletur in eis quod dicitur Hab. I, 5: opus factum est in diebus nostris, quod nemo credet cum narrabitur. Aliud est mirabilis Dei clementia, quia non solum circa potentes, sed etiam circa ignobiles dominus miracula operatur, dum eos qui mendicant, cum multa pietate curabat: in quo ostenditur quod propter paupertatem nullum repellit, qui propter salutem hominum venit; Iac. II, 5: nonne dominus elegit pauperes, divites in fide, et haeredes regni? Unde et isti signanter dicunt nonne hic est qui sedebat et mendicabat? Quasi dicant, ignobilis et curatione indignus. Contra dicitur Baruch III, 26: ibi gigantes nominati. 1313 The question is asked by the people. He says, the neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar said: Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? 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, Is not this the man who used to sit and beg? 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 thereGod did not choose them" (3:26). Opiniones autem ponuntur a plebe: unde dicit alii dicebant quia hic est, scilicet qui mendicabat; et hoc ideo, quia pluries eum viderant mendicantem, et similiter discurrentem per civitatem, quando cum luto ad natatoria ibat, inspexerant. Unde non ultra poterant dicere, non est hic. Sed aliorum opinio erat contraria: unde dicebant nequaquam, scilicet hic est, sed similis eius est. Cuius ratio est, quia, ut Augustinus dicit, oculi restituti mutaverunt vultum eius. Nihil enim ita cognoscibile sicut visus; Eccli. c. XIX, 26: ex visu cognoscitur sensatus. 1314 The opinions of the people are presented when he says, Some said: 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, No, but it is like him. 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). [15] Quaestio determinatur per caecum; quia ille dicebat, scilicet caecus, ego sum, scilicet qui mendicabam. Vox grata est ista, ne damnetur ingrata. Quia enim non poterat esse ingratus tanto beneficio, nec aliud signum gratitudinis ostendere poterat quam quod constanter confiteretur se a Christo curatum, dicit ego sum, qui scilicet caecus eram, et mendicabam; et modo video; Tob. c. XII, 6: benedicite Deum, coeli, et coram omnibus viventibus confitemini ei, quia fecit vobiscum misericordiam suam. 1315 The question is settled by the blind man because he said, the blind man, I am the man, 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, I am the man, the one who was blind and begged; and now I see: "Praise God and give thanks to himfor what he has done for you" (Tob 12:6). Consequenter cum dicit dicebant ergo ei: quomodo aperti sunt oculi tui?, agitur de inquisitione facti, scilicet de ipsa illuminatione, et primo ponitur quaestio Iudaeorum; secundo responsio caeci, ibi respondit: ille homo, qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit et cetera. 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). Dicit ergo: si tu es ille qui caecus mendicabas, dic ergo nobis quomodo aperti sunt tibi oculi? Sed ista quaestio ex curiositate procedit, quia hunc modum nec ipse qui curatus est, nec nos novimus; Eccli. c. III, 24: in pluribus operibus eius ne fueris curiosus. 1317 They continue: If you are the blind man who used to beg, then tell us, how were your eyes opened? 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). Responsio caeci fuit mirabilis, unde dicit respondit: ille homo, qui dicitur Iesus, lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos et cetera. In qua primo quidem demonstrat personam illuminantem, dicens ille homo qui dicitur Iesus. Recte nominat eum hominem, quem hominem noverat, et verus homo erat; Phil. c. II, 7: in similitudinem hominum factus. Licet autem eum non vidisset, quia caecus ab eo recessit, ad Siloe vadens, cognovit eum ex auditu et collocutione hominum de ipso. 1318 The blind man's answer was remarkable; he says, the man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes In his answer he first points out the person who gave him his sight, saying the man called Jesus. 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. Secundo recitat factum, dicens lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos; ubi se veracem ostendit, non asserens incerta. Dominus enim lutum fecerat ex sputo, quod quidem iste nescivit; sed lutum factum, et oculis superpositum, per sensum tactus didicit; et ideo non dixit lutum fecit ex sputo sed simpliciter lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos; I Io. c. I, 1: quod audivimus, quod vidimus oculis nostris, et perspeximus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt (...) testamur et annuntiamus vobis. Secondly, he tells what was done, saying, he made clay and anointed my eyes. 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 made clay and anointed my eyes: "That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our handswe proclaim also to you" (1 Jn 1:1). Tertio refert mandatum dicens et dixit mihi, scilicet Iesus, vade ad natatoria Siloe, et lava. Hoc etiam nobis necessarium est; nam si volumus mundari a caecitate cordis, oportet quod spiritualiter lavemur; Is. I, 16: lavamini, mundi estote. Thirdly, he mentions the command, saying, and he said to me, Go to Siloam and wash. 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). Quarto commendat suam obedientiam, dicens et abii, et lavi, quasi diceret: ex quo mandatum audivi, desiderio visionis ductus, executus sum mandatum. Neque mirum: quia dicitur Prov. VI, 23: mandatum, scilicet impletum, lucerna est, et lex lux. Fourthly, he shows his obedience, saying, so I went and washed. 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). Quinto confitetur beneficii effectum, dicens et vidi. Et recte post obedientiam illuminatur: quia, ut dicitur Act. V, 32, dabit spiritum sanctum obedientibus sibi. Vide caeci constantiam. Nam, ut Augustinus dicit, ecce annuntiator factus est gratiae, ecce evangelizat et confitetur Iudaeis. Caecus ille confitebatur, et cor impiorum stringebatur, quia non habebant lumen, scilicet in corde, quod ille habebat in facie. Consequenter cum dicit et dixerunt ei: ubi est ille? Fifthly, he mentions the good effect, saying, and I received my sight. 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." [16] Ponitur inquisitio de persona illuminantis; et primo ponitur Iudaeorum quaestio, cum dicunt ubi est ille? Malitiose interrogant occisionem meditantes; iam enim adversus Christum conspiraverant; supra VIII, 40: nunc autem quaeritis me interficere? 1319 Next, we have the inquiry about the person who restored his sight (v 12). First, there is the question asked by the Jews, Where is he? 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). Secundo ponitur caeci responsio, cum ait nescio. Ut Augustinus dicit, ex verbis apparet quod sicut corporaliter in ipso gestum fuit, ita spiritualiter diversis temporibus repraesentatur. Nam adhuc primo linitur caecus, et post lotus videt. Et inunctio quidem inchoationem sanitatis corporalis repraesentat; lotio autem perfectam consequitur sanitatem. Specialiter autem inunctio efficit catechumenum; lotio, scilicet Baptismus, perficit et illuminat. Sic ergo diversa diversis temporibus repraesentatur fides. Nam per hoc quod dicit nescio, repraesentatur fides imperfecta in catechumenis; supra IV: vos adoratis quod nescitis. Potest etiam per hoc significari fides nostra; I Cor. XIII, 9: ex parte enim cognoscimus et ex parte prophetamus. Secondly, we have the answer of the blind man, I do not know. As Augustine says, from these words it is clear that what was accomplished in him physically represents what is accomplished spiritually at different stages. [17] 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, I do not know, 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). Consequenter cum subditur adducunt eum ad Pharisaeos, agitur de inquisitione, et primo inquirunt a caeco; secundo a parentibus, ibi non crediderunt ergo Iudaei. Circa primum tria facit. Primo praesentatur inquirendus; secundo ponitur inquirentium intentio; tertio ponitur ipsa inquisitio. 1320 Then when he says, they brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind, 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. Inquirendus autem, scil. caecus, praesentatur a populo Pharisaeis; unde adducunt, scilicet turbae, eum qui caecus fuerat, ad Pharisaeos; et hoc ideo, quia quaesierant ab eo ubi esset Iesus, ut si eum invenirent ducerent eum ad Pharisaeos, damnandum propter solutionem sabbati. Quia vero Christum non habuerunt, ducunt caecum, ut eum vehementius interrogantes, cogant importunitate vel timore aliquid falsitatis contra Christum confingere; Ier. V, 5: ibo ergo ad optimates; ipsi enim cognoverunt viam domini, iudicium Dei sui; et ecce hi magis confregerunt iugum, ruperunt vincula. 1321 The one to be examined, the blind man, is led to the Pharisees by the people. They brought, that is, the crowd, to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. 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). Intentionem autem eorum Evangelista perversam esse ostendit, dicens erat autem sabbatum quando lutum fecit. Hoc dicit, ut eorum malam mentem demonstret, et causam propter quam eum quaerebant; ut scilicet occasionem contra eum invenirent, et detraherent miraculo per aestimatam legis praevaricationem; cum tamen, Matth. XII, 8, dicatur quod dominus est filius hominis etiam sabbati. 1322 The Evangelist shows that their intention was perverse, saying, it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the clay. 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). Examinatio autem fit a Pharisaeis, cum dicitur iterum ergo interrogabant eum Pharisaei, etc., et primo interrogant de facto; secundo de persona facientis, ibi dicebant ergo ex Pharisaeis quidam. 1323 His examination is conducted by the Pharisees, since it is said, The Pharisees again asked him. First, they question him about what was done; secondly, about the person who did it (v 16). Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur eorum interrogatio; secundo caeci responsio. Interrogant autem eum de materia consecutae visionis: unde iterum interrogabant eum Pharisaei etc.: non ut scirent, sed ut calumniam inferrent et falsitatem imponerent. Respondit autem caecus, non dictis contraria, nec dissona veritati. Unde ille, scilicet caecus, dixit eis: lutum posuit mihi super oculos. Ubi primo admiranda est caeci constantia; nam etsi coram turbis, a quibus sine periculo interrogabatur, veritatem dixerat, non magnum videbatur; sed hoc mirae est constantiae quod in ampliori periculo constitutus, scilicet coram Pharisaeis, neque negat, neque contraria dicit prioribus, secundum illud Ps. CXVIII, 46: loquebar de testimoniis tuis in conspectu regum, et non confundebar. Secundo admiranda est eius industria; nam mores recitantium servat, qui primo diffuse et cum circumstantiis omnibus referunt; et si secundo referri oporteat, succinctius loquuntur. Unde neque nomen dicentis expressit, neque quoniam: dixit mihi: vade et lava, sed confestim solam substantiam facti tangens, dicit lutum fecit. 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, the Pharisees again asked him, 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. He, that is, the blind man, said to them, He put clay on my eyes. 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, He put clay on my eyes. Consequenter cum subditur dicebant ergo ex Pharisaeis quidam etc., fit inquisitio de persona illuminantis, et primo ponuntur diversae sententiae Pharisaeorum de Christo; secundo exquiritur sententia caeci, ibi dicunt ergo caeco iterum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit opinionem Christum blasphemantium; secundo opinionem eum commendantium; et tertio concludit, quod inter eos erat schisma et dissidium. 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. Circa primum sciendum est, quod illi qui malitiose contra aliquem agunt, tacent, si quid boni in facto eius vident; et mala, si qua videntur, manifestant, etiam bonum in malum convertentes; secundum illud Eccli. XI, 33: bona in mala convertens insidiatur, et in electis imponet maculam. Quod et isti faciunt; nam id quod videbatur bonum, scil. caeci illuminationem, subticentes, quod contra Christum esse poterat, manifestant, scilicet solutionem sabbati. Unde dicebant quidam ex Pharisaeis, scilicet malitiosi et pravi, non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit; cum tamen Christus sabbatum servaret. Dominus enim prohibens operari in sabbato, intendit de opere servili, quod est peccatum; supra VIII, 34: qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Ergo qui facit opera peccati in sabbato, solvit sabbatum. Christus ergo qui sine peccato erat, potius sabbatum, quam ipsi, custodiebat. 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 some of the Pharisees said, that is, those who were malicious and corrupt, this man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath. 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. Commendantium autem opinio ponitur, cum subdit quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Isti enim aliquam fidem ex signis conceperant et imperfecte et imbecilliter erant dispositi; quia ex timore Pharisaeorum et principum, quasi sub dubio proponunt, dicentes quomodo potest homo peccator haec signa facere? Infra XII, 42, dicitur, quod multi ex principibus crediderunt in eum, sed propter Pharisaeos non confitebantur. Qui tamen potius debuissent ostendere qualiter sabbatum non solveret, et convenienter respondere pro Iesu. 1327 The opinion of those commending him is presented when he reports them as saying, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? 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, How can a man who is a sinner do such signs? 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. Dissidium autem concludit inter eos, dicens et schisma erat inter eos: quod scilicet fuerat etiam inter populos; et hoc erat signum interitus illorum; Oseae X, 2: divisum est cor eorum, nunc interibunt; Matth. XII, 25: omne regnum in seipsum divisum, desolabitur. 1328 The difference of opinion among them is mentioned when he says, there was a division among them; 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). Consequenter inquirunt sententiam a caeco, et dicunt tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Et primo ponitur Pharisaeorum interrogatio; secundo caeci responsio. 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. Interrogant quidem cum dicunt tu quid dicis de illo? Quae quidem interrogatio, secundum Chrysostomum, non est eorum qui Christum blasphemabant, sed eorum qui commendabant. Et hoc apparet ex modo interrogandi. Unde commemorant ei receptum beneficium, dicentes tu quid dicis de illo qui aperuit oculos tuos? Alioquin si alii interrogassent, non hoc dixissent, sed potius, qui solvit sabbatum. Ideo autem beneficium commemorant, ut eum gratum reddentes, inducant ad Christi praedicationem. They question him, saying, what do you say about him? According to Chrysostom, this question was not asked by those who were blaspheming Christ, but by those favorably disposed. [18] This is clear from the way they questioned him; for they call his attention to the gift he received, saying, since he has opened your eyes. 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. Secundum autem Augustinum, est interrogatio adversariorum, volentium calumniari hominem qui constanter veritatem confitebatur, vel ut ex timore mutaret sententiam, vel saltem ut eum de synagoga eiicerent. 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. [19] Responsio autem caeci constans ponitur: unde subdit ille autem dixit, quia propheta est. Licet enim adhuc, quasi inunctus in corde, Dei filium nondum confiteretur, constanter tamen quod sentiebat expressit, non tamen mentitus est. Nam ipse dominus de se dixit Mc. VI, 4 et Matth. XIII, 57: non est propheta sine honore nisi in patria sua; Deut. XVIII, 15: prophetam suscitabit vobis Deus, ipsum audietis. The answer of the blind man remained the same, he said, He is a prophet. 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 prophethim shall you heed" (Dt 18:15). Consequenter cum dicit non crediderunt ergo Iudaei de illo, agitur de inquisitione a parentibus, et primo ponitur causa inquisitionis; secundo subditur interrogatio, ibi et interrogaverunt; tertio adhibetur responsio, ibi responderunt ergo eis; quarto assignatur responsionis ratio, ibi hoc dixerunt parentes eius. 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). Causa autem secundae inquisitionis fuit infidelitas Pharisaeorum. Et hoc est quod dicit non crediderunt ergo de illo, scilicet Pharisaei, quod caecus natus fuisset, et vidisset, donec vocaverunt parentes eius, scilicet caeci, qui viderat. Hoc quidem faciunt volentes annullare Christi miraculum, ne perdant gloriam suam; supra V, 44: quomodo potestis credere, qui gloriam ab invicem accipitis? 1331 The reason for this second questioning was the unbelief of the Pharisees. He says, the Jews, that is, the Pharisees, did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man. 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). Inquisitio autem ponitur a Pharisaeis ad parentes: ubi tria proponunt. Primo de persona filii, dicentes hic est filius vester? Quasi dicerent: numquid est hic? Secundo de eius caecitate: unde subdunt quem dicitis quia natus est caecus? Non dicunt, qui quandoque fuit caecus sed quem dicitis; quasi dicerent: hoc confingitis. Numquid hoc est verum? Sed, o inquinati. Quis pater eligeret talia mentiri de filio? Conantur enim per hoc eos ad negationem ducere. 1332 The Pharisees now question his parents. Here they ask about three things. First, about their son, saying Is this your son? Secondly, about his blindness; and so they add, who you say was born blind. They did not say, "who at one time was blind," but who you say, 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. Tertio quaerunt de modo consecutae visionis, dicentes quomodo ergo nunc videt? Quasi dicant: aut hoc est falsum quod nunc videat, aut primum quod caecus fuerat; sed constat hoc esse verum, quod videt: falsum ergo fuit quod caecum eum dicebant; Eccli. c. XIII, 14: ex multa enim loquela tentabit te, et subridens interrogabit te de absconditis tuis. Thirdly, they ask how he had obtained his sight, How then does he now see? 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). Responsio parentum ponitur consequenter, cum dicit responderunt eis parentes eius et cetera. De tribus autem interrogaverant Pharisaei; sed de duobus constanter respondent, et de tertio remittunt ad filium. Primo quidem confitentur primum, scilicet quod filius eorum sit: unde dicunt scimus quia hic est filius noster. Item confitentur secundum, cum subdunt et quia caecus natus est. In quo patet quod veritas semper vincit mendacium. Unde in apocryphis Esdrae dicitur, quod veritas super omnia vincit. Tertium autem, scilicet qualiter vidit, dicunt quomodo autem nunc videat, nescimus. 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, we know that this is our son. They also admit the second when they add, and that he was born blind. 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 answer, but how he now sees we do not know. Secundo de persona illuminante, cum subdunt aut quis aperuit oculos eius, nos nescimus. Hoc ideo dicunt, quia inquisitio fiebat contra personam illuminantem. Et ideo remittunt ad filium, dicentes ipsum interrogate: aetatem habet, ipse de se loquatur; quasi dicant: etsi genuimus eum caecum, non tamen mutum; unde loqui potest pro se in causa. Quod quidem dispensative factum est, ut, dum parentes confitentur quod sciunt, et caecus confirmat qui est curatus, veritas miraculi magis appareret. They reply, secondly, about the person who gave him his sight, now do we know who opened his eyes. 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, Ask him, he is of age. 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. Ratio autem responsionis ponitur, cum subdit hoc dixerunt parentes eius, quoniam timebant Iudaeos: adhuc enim imperfecti erant, nec adimplere ausi quod dicit dominus, Matth. X, 28: nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus. Causa autem timoris fuit, quia iam conspiraverant Iudaei, ut si quis eum confiteretur esse Christum, extra synagogam fieret. Infra XVI, 1: haec locutus sum vobis, ut non scandalizemini: absque synagogis facient vos. Et, ut dicit Augustinus, iam non erat malum fieri extra synagogam: nam quos illi repellebant, Christus recipiebat. 1334 The reason for their answer is given when he says, his parents said this because they feared the Jews; 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 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. "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. [20]
Lectio 3 LECTURE 3 Posita supra inquisitione negotii, scilicet a caeco et parentibus, hic persuadent negare veritatem, et afferre falsitatem, et primo persuadent veritatis negationem; secundo irrogant maledictionem; tertio inferunt condemnationem. Secundum ibi maledixerunt ergo ei; tertium ibi responderunt et dixerunt ei: in peccatis natus es totus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo persuadent ei veritatem negare; secundo quomodo iterato interrogant, ut calumniam possint inferre, ibi dixerunt ergo illi: quid fecit tibi? Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit eorum malitiam; secundo caeci constantiam, ibi dixit ergo ille. Malitia Pharisaeorum ostenditur in veritatis negandae persuasione. Constantia caeci apparet in firma veritatis confessione. 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. Dicit ergo, quantum ad primum, vocaverunt ergo, scilicet Pharisaei, rursum hominem qui fuerat caecus: nam parentes interrogati remiserant eos ad caecum, et dixerunt ei: da gloriam Deo. Unum dicunt, sed aliud intendunt. Intendunt quidem ut cogant eum dicere, se non fuisse illuminatum a Christo, vel, si hoc non possunt, saltem confiteatur se ab eo aliquo maleficio curatum. Hoc tamen non aperte dicunt; sed tacite et sub praetextu religionis. Ad hoc enim inducere volunt dicentes da gloriam Deo; quasi dicant: illuminatus es; sed hoc non est nisi a Deo: ergo hoc nulli alii attribuas nisi Deo, et non isti, scilicet Christo, quia si hoc facis, ostendis te non accepisse a Deo curationis beneficium, quia Deus per peccatores non operatur miracula. Unde subdunt nos scimus quia hic homo peccator est; quasi dicerent: confitere quoniam hic nihil operatus est, nega quod accepisti. Sed, ut Augustinus dicit, si hoc fecisset, non dedisset gloriam Deo, sed potius ingratus existens blasphemasset. Sed vere mendacium locutus est stylus Pharisaeorum, dicentium nos scimus quoniam hic homo peccator est; nam supra VIII, v. 46, eumdem de peccato arguere non potuerunt, cum dixit: quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato? Nec mirum, quia hoc dicitur I Petr. II, 22: peccatum non fecit, nec inventus est dolus in ore eius. 1336 In regard to the first he says, for the second time they called the man who had been blind, for his parents had referred them to the blind man, and said to him: Give God the praise. 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, Give God the praise. 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, we know that this man is a sinner. But, as Augustine says, if he had done this, he would not be giving glory to God but rather, being ungrateful, would be blaspheming. [22] But in truth, the Pharisees were lying when they said, we know that this man is a sinner; 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). Hic ponitur caeci constantia: nam stomachatus contra Pharisaeorum duritiam, et impatiens ad verba eorum, cum veritatis assertione dicit si peccator est, nescio. 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, Whether he is a sinner, I do not know. Sed, cum supra dixerit quia propheta est, numquid hoc propter timorem quasi dubitans dicit si peccator est, nescio? Absit; sed quasi indignatus Pharisaeos irridens. Quasi dicat: vos asseritis eum peccatorem; sed hoc ego nescio quod sit peccator, et miror quod hoc asseritis, quia opus fecit quod non videtur esse peccatoris, quia caecus cum essem, modo video, eius beneficio. Secundum Augustinum, hoc dicit ut neque pateretur calumniam, neque veritatem subcelaret. Fortassis enim si dixisset, scio eum iustum, quod verum erat, calumniati fuissent eum. Sed, secundum Chrysostomum, ideo hoc dixit ut daret eis maius testimonium, scilicet ipsius miraculosae operationis, et suam responsionem faceret fide dignam ab accepto beneficio. Yet because he had said before that "He is a prophet," is he not now saying, Whether he is a sinner I do not know, 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 though I was blind, now I see, 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. [23] 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. [24] Hic iterato interrogant, ut calumniam inferant, et primo ponitur dolosa Pharisaeorum interrogatio; secundo respondentis caeci derisio, ibi respondit eis et cetera. 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). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum, dixerunt ergo illi: quid fecit tibi? Quia enim caecus confessus fuerat se a Christo visum recepisse, quod isti non quaerebant, sed potius in ipso modo faciendi, contra Christum calumniam inferre intendebant. Ideo non dicunt, qualiter vidisti? Sed quomodo aperuit tibi oculos? Quasi dicant: numquid aliquo praestigio seu maleficio hoc fecit? Secundum illud Ps. XXXVII, 13: qui quaerebant mala mihi, locuti sunt vanitates, et dolos tota die meditabantur. 1339 He says, with respect to the first, They said to him: What did he do to you? 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 How did he open your eyes? 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). Hic ponitur responsio: quia enim caecus quasi iam viderat, ideo non remisse, sed audacter de reliquo eis loquitur. Unde primo irridet Pharisaeorum iteratam interrogationem, dicens dixi vobis iam, et audistis: quid iterum vultis audire? Quasi dicat: ex quo semel dixi vobis, quid iterum vultis audire? Hoc enim insipientis est. Videtur enim quod non attenditis ad ea quae dicuntur. Unde non est ultra respondendum vobis, inaniter interrogantibus, et cavillari potius quam discere volentibus; Eccli. XXII, v. 9: cum dormiente loquitur qui narrat stulto sapientiam: et in fine narrationis dicit: quis est hic? 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, I have told you already and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? 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). Secundo deridet praesumptuosam Pharisaeorum intentionem, dicens numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri? Quando enim aliquis diligenter inquirit: aut hoc facit bona intentione, ut scilicet ei adhaereat, aut mala, ut eum condemnet. Quia ergo isti diligenter quaerebant, et caecus non ausus est eis imponere quod mala intentione quaererent, declinat ad aliam partem, dicens numquid et vos vultis discipuli eius fieri? Quasi dicat: si non quaeritis malitiose, ergo vultis adhaerere ei; Ier. XIII, 23: si mutare potest Aethiops pellem suam, aut pardus varietates suas; et vos poteritis bene facere. Et, ut Augustinus dicit, illuminatus libenter volebat istos illuminare. Unde signanter dicit et vos, quasi se innuens discipulum; quasi dicat: numquid et vos vultis, ut et ego sum, discipuli eius fieri? Ego iam video, vestrae illuminationi non invideo. Et, ut Chrysostomus dicit, ex ista caeci constantia apparet quam forte quid sit veritas, quae si despectos assumpserit, claros et fortes eos facit. Et quam imbecille quid sit mendacium, quod etsi cum fortibus fuerit, imbecilles eos monstrat et reddit. Secondly, he mocks the presumptuous intention of the Pharisees, saying, Do you too want to become his disciples? 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, Do you too want to become his disciples? 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. [25] Thus, he significantly says, you too, implying that he himself was a disciple. He is saying in effect: Do you want to become his disciples 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. [26] Hic irrogatur caeco a Pharisaeis maledictio, et primo ponitur Pharisaeorum ad caecum maledictio; secundo caeci ad Pharisaeos redargutio, ibi respondit ille. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponitur Pharisaeorum maledictio; secundo maledictionis occasio, ibi nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. 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). Dicit ergo quantum ad primum: maledixerunt ei, scilicet Pharisaei caeco, et dixerunt: tu discipulus eius sis. Quae quidem maledictio est, si pravum cor eorum discutias, non si verba perpendas: immo est summa benedictio. Et tale maledictum sit super nos, et super filios nostros; supra VIII, v. 31: vere discipuli mei eritis, si manseritis in sermone meo. Ideo tamen Evangelista dixit maledixerunt, quia ex malo eorum corde procedebant; Prov. XXVI, 23: quomodo si ornare velis vas fictile argento sordido, sic labia tumentia cum pessimo corde sociata. Et de hac maledictione dicitur in Ps. CVIII, v. 28: maledicent illi, et ut benedices; et Matth. V, 11: beati eritis cum maledixerint vobis et cetera. 1342 With respect to the first he says, and they reviled him, saying, You are his disciple. 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." Causam maledictionis subiungit consequenter cum dicit nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. Reputabant enim maledictionem quod caecus dixerat eis, quod fierent discipuli Christi; cum ipsi gloriarentur se esse discipulos Moysi, quem maiorem reputabant. Et ideo primo proponunt suam conditionem, dicentes nos autem Moysi discipuli sumus. Eccli. XXIV, 33: legem mandavit Moyses in primitiis iustitiarum et cetera. Sed falsa est eorum gloria, quia nec eum sequebantur, nec praecepta eius implebant; supra V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi; quasi dicat: nec sequimini servum, et deorsum ponitis contra dominum. 1343 He next adds the reason for their reviling when he says, we are disciples of Moses. 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, we are disciples of Moses. 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. Secundo extollunt Moysi dignitatem, cum dicunt nos scimus quia Moysi locutus est Deus. In quo verum dicunt, quia, ut dicitur Ex. XXXIII, 11, loquebatur dominus Moysi facie ad faciem, sicut loqui solet homo ad amicum suum; et Num. XII, 6, dicit dominus: si fuerit inter vos propheta domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum. At non talis servus meus Moyses, qui in omni domo mea fidelissimus est: ore enim ad os loquor ei. Unde excellentiori modo loquebatur cum eo quam cum aliis prophetis. Et de hac locutione hic ipsi loquuntur. Constat autem quod cum ad Moysem Deus loqueretur verbum suum, quod dignitas Moysi est ex verbo Dei. Et sic verbum maioris dignitatis est quam Moyses; Hebr. c. III, 3: amplioris gloriae iste, scilicet Christus, prae Moyse dignus habitus est, quanto ampliorem honorem habet domus, qui aedificavit illam. Secondly, they praise the dignity of Moses when they say, we know that God has spoken to Moses. 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). Tertio occulte insinuant Christi dignitatem, cum dicit hunc autem, scilicet Christum, nescimus unde sit: quod quidem verum est, non tamen secundum eorum intentionem. Nesciebant enim patrem, unde Christus erat; supra VIII, 19: neque me scitis, neque patrem meum. Sed falsum est quantum ad eorum intentionem. Dixerunt enim hunc autem nescimus unde sit; quasi dicant: nullius auctoritatis est, et quasi apocryphum, ita ut non constet de eo an a Deo venerit; per quod videbantur ei imponere illud Ier. XXIII, v. 21: non mittebam eos, et ipsi currebant. Thirdly, they hint at the dignity of Christ in a veiled manner when they say, as for this man, Christ, we do not know where he comes from. 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 not know where he comes from, 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). Hic ponitur caeci contra Pharisaeos argutio, et primo admiratur eorum duritiam; secundo confutat eorum falsitatem, ibi scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit. 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). Sciendum autem circa primum, quod non ea quae frequenter fiunt, et secundum communem modum miramur; sed insolita et ardua, sive bona, sive mala sint, admiramur. Nam insolita bona et ardua admiramur, secundum illud Esther XV, 17: valde enim admirabilis es, domine, et facies tua plena est gratiarum. Admiramur etiam ardua mala, secundum illud Ier. II, 12: super hoc obstupescite, caeli (...) duo enim mala fecit populus meus. Secundum hoc ergo respondens caecus, dixit eis in hoc mirabile est quia vos nescitis unde sit, quasi dicat: si aliquem parvum et nobis similem non reputaretis alicuius auctoritatis, non esset mirandum; sed quia videtis expressum et evidens signum divinae virtutis in Christo, et dicitis quia vos nescitis unde sit, valde mirabile est, praesertim quia aperuit mihi oculos. 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 thisfor my people have committed two evils" (Jer 2:12). In line with this, the blind man says in answer, Why this is a marvel! You do not know where he comes from. 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. Falsitatem eorum confutat dicens scimus autem quia peccatores Deus non audit. Utitur tali ratione. Quemcumque Deus audit, est a Deo; sed Deus exaudivit Christum: ergo est a Deo. Primo ergo ponit primam; secundo assumit minorem, ibi a saeculo non est auditum etc.; et tertio infert conclusionem, ibi si non esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam. Circa primum duo facit. Primo insinuat quos Deus non audiat; secundo ostendit quos Deus audiat, ibi sed si quis Dei cultor est (...) hunc exaudit. 1346 The man born blind refutes their false opinion by saying, we know that God does not listen to sinners. 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). Non audit autem Deus peccatores; et quantum ad hoc dicit scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit, quasi dicat: in ista opinione ego et vos consentimus, quod non exaudiantur peccatores a Deo. Unde in Ps. XVII, 42: clamaverunt ad dominum, et non exaudivit eos; Prov. I, 28: tunc invocabunt me, et non audiam. Sed contra. II Paral. VI, 36: si autem peccaverint tibi neque enim est homo qui non peccet, (...) et reversi fuerint ad te in toto corde suo (...) aperiantur, quaeso, oculi tui, et aures tuae intentae sint ad orationem quae fit in loco isto. Lc. XVIII, 14, de publicano dicitur, quod descendit iustificatus in domum suam. 1347 God does not hear sinners. In regard to this he says, we know that God does not hear sinners. 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." Et propter hoc dicit Augustinus, quod caecus iste adhuc loquitur ut inunctus, nondum perfecte sciens. Nam et peccatores exaudit Deus, alias frustra publicanus diceret: domine Deus, propitius esto mihi peccatori. Si autem verbum caeci salvare volumus, dicendum est, quod Deus non exaudivit peccatores in peccatis persistentes; exaudivit tamen peccatores de peccatis poenitentes, qui magis sunt computandi in numero poenitentium, quam peccatorum. 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. [27] Sed insurgit dubitatio. Constat enim quod miracula non fiunt ab hominibus propria virtute, sed per orationem. Peccatores autem frequenter miracula faciunt, secundum illud Matth. VII, 22: nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus (...) et virtutes multas fecimus? Et tamen Deus non novit eos. Non videtur ergo verum quod caecus dicit scimus quia peccatores Deus non audit. 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 nameand 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, we know that God does not listen to sinners. Ad hoc est duplex responsio. Una communis. Oratio enim duo habet, quia scilicet impetrat, et meretur: quandoque ergo impetrat, et non meretur; quandoque autem meretur, et non impetrat. Et sic nihil prohibet orationem peccatoris impetrare quod petit, absque hoc quod mereatur. Sic ergo Deus audit peccatores, non per modum meriti, sed inquantum ex divina virtute, quam praedicant, impetrant quod petunt. Alia est specialis, in casu isto quo loquebatur, scilicet quando miraculum factum notificabat personam Christi. 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. Sciendum est autem, quod omne miraculum factum testimonium quoddam est. Quandoque ergo miraculum fit in testimonium veritatis praedicatae; quandoque autem in testimonium personae facientis. Est autem attendendum, quod nullum verum miraculum fit nisi virtute divina; et quod Deus numquam est testis mendacii. Dico ergo quod, quandocumque miraculum fit in testimonium doctrinae praedicatae, necessarium est doctrinam illam esse veram, etsi persona praedicans non sit bona. Quando etiam fit in testimonium personae, necesse est similiter quod persona illa sit bona. Constat autem quod miracula Christi fiebant in testimonium personae eius; supra V, 36: opera quae dedit mihi pater ut perficiam ea, testimonium perhibent de me. Hoc ergo modo loquendo caecus dixit, quod numquam Deus peccatores audit, scilicet quod faciant miracula attestantia sanctitati peccatorum. 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 accomplishbear me witness that the Father has sent me" (5:36). It was with this meaning that the blind man said that God does not listen to sinners, that is, so that they could perform miracles as a testimony to their supposed holiness. [28] Consequenter cum dicit sed si quis Dei cultor est (...) hunc exaudit, ostendit quod iusti exaudiuntur a Deo et per modum meriti. Ubi sciendum est, quod operatio miraculorum attribuitur fidei; Matth. XXI, 21: si dixeritis huic monti, tolle, et iacta te in mare, fiet. Cuius ratio est, quia miracula fiunt per omnipotentiam Dei, cui fides innititur: qui ergo vult impetrare a Deo aliquid, oportet quod habeat fidem; Iac. I, 6: postulet autem in fide. Si autem vult merendo impetrare, oportet quod faciat Dei voluntatem. Et ista duo hic ponuntur. Quantum ad primum dicit sed si quis Dei cultor est, per sacrificia et hostias; Is. XIX, 21: colent eum in hostiis etc. in his enim consistit cultus latriae, quae fidei attestatur. Quantum ad secundum dicit et voluntatem eius facit, implendo eius mandatum, hunc exaudit: supple, Deus. 1350 Then when he says, but if any one is a worshiper of God 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, If any one is a worshipper of God by sacrifices and offerings: "They will worship him with sacrifice and burnt offering" (Is 19:21). These belong to the worship of latria, which attests to one's faith. As to the second he says, and does his will by obeying his commandments, God listens to him. Hic assumit minorem suae rationis; quasi dicat: ex ipso opere eius, quod adhuc nullus hominum fecit, manifestum est quod per operationem Dei hoc fecit, et quod exauditus est a Deo; infra XV, 24: si opera non fecissem in eis quae nemo alius fecit, peccatum non haberent. 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). Hic infert conclusionem; quasi dicat: ex quo talia opera operatur, manifestum est quod est a Deo. Nam, nisi esset hic a Deo, non poterat facere quidquam, scilicet libere, constanter et veraciter: quia ut dicitur infra XV, 5: sine me nihil potestis facere. 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 if this man were not from God, he could do nothing, that is, freely, often and truly, because "apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5). Hic Pharisaei caecum condemnant. In qua quidem condemnatione triplicem defectum sive peccatum incurrunt; scilicet mendacii, superbiae et iniustitiae. Mendacii quidem, caecitatem improperando; unde dicunt in peccatis natus es totus. Ubi sciendum est, Iudaeos huius opinionis fuisse, quod omnes infirmitates et adversitates temporales provenirent hominibus propter eorum praecedentia peccata; quam quidem opinionem asserit Eliphaz dicens, Iob c. IV, 7: recordare, obsecro, quis unquam innocens periit, aut quando recti deleti sunt? Quin potius vidi eos qui operantur iniquitatem et seminant dolos, et metunt eos, flante Deo, periisse. Cuius quidem opinionis ratio est, quia in veteri lege et pro bonis praemia temporalia, et pro malis poenae temporales promittebantur; Is. I, 19: si volueritis et audieritis me, bona terrae comedetis. Videntes ergo quod iste homo caecus natus fuerat, credebant quod hoc contigisset ei propter sua peccata; et ideo dicunt in peccatis natus es totus. Sed falsum dicunt, quia supra, eodem, dominus: neque hic peccavit, neque parentes eius; Eccli. XIX, 28: est correctio mendax in ira contumeliosi. 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, saying, you were born in utter sin. 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, you were born in utter sin. But they were wrong, because the Lord said: "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents." Addunt autem, totus, ut ostendant quod non solum est peccatis inquinatus quantum ad animam, secundum quod omnes nascuntur peccatores, sed etiam quod peccatorum vestigia appareant in corpore per caecitatem. Vel, secundum Chrysostomum, totus, idest, toto tempore vitae tuae, et a primaeva aetate in peccatis es. They say in utter sin 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, in utter sin means that he was in sin all his life, from his earliest years. [29] Superbiae vero defectum incurrunt, contemnendo caeci doctrinam, cum dicunt tu doces nos? Quasi dicerent: non es dignus. In quo apparet eorum superbia: nullus enim homo, quantumcumque sapiens, debet a quocumque parvo doctrinam repellere; unde apostolus docet, I Cor. XIV, 30, quod si minori aliquid revelatum fuerit, quod tunc maiores debent tacere, et eum audire. Dan. XIII, v. 60 dicitur quod totus populus et seniores audierunt iudicium pueri iunioris, scilicet Danielis, cuius spiritum dominus suscitavit. They are guilty of pride by rejecting what the man born blind was teaching, when they say, Would you teach us? 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. Iniustitiae autem defectum incurrunt, iniuste eum eiiciendo: unde dicitur, quod eiecerunt eum foras, scilicet propter veritatis confessionem. In caeco autem iam impletur quod dominus dixerat, Lc. VI, 22: beati eritis cum vos oderint homines, et separaverint vos, et eiecerint nomen vestrum tamquam malum propter filium hominis. They are guilty of injustice by unjustly casting him out. Thus we read, and they cast him out, 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).
Lectio 4 LECTURE 4 Postquam Evangelista ostendit quomodo Iudaei caecum in veritate persistentem eiecerunt hic ostendit quomodo Iesus eum recepit et instruxerit, et primo ponitur Christi instructio; secundo caeci devotio, ibi at ille ait: credo, domine; tertio devotionis eius commendatio, ibi dixit ei Iesus: in iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit studium Christi ad instruendum; secundo desiderium caeci ad credendum, ibi respondit ille, et dixit: quis est, domine? Tertio fidei documentum ad perficiendum, ibi dixit ei Iesus: et vidisti eum. 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). Studium autem Christi ad instruendum describitur ex tribus. Primo ex diligenti consideratione eorum quae circa caecum agebantur. Sicut enim princeps diligenter considerat ea quae suus athleta patitur propter eum, ita et Christus ea quae caecus patiebatur propter veritatem et sui confessionem, diligenter attendit. Et ideo dicit quod audivit Iesus, idest diligenter attendit, quia Pharisaei eiecerunt eum foras, scilicet ex templo; Ier. XVIII, 19: attende, domine, ad me, et ad voces adversariorum meorum. 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 Jesus heard, attentively considered, that the Pharisees had cast him out, of the temple: "Give heed to me, O Lord, and to the voices of my adversaries" [Jer 18:19]. Secundo ex diligenti inquisitione; unde subdit et cum invenisset eum, dixit ei et cetera. Illud enim inveniri dicitur quod diligenter quaeritur; Lc. XV, 8: quaerit diligenter donec inveniat. Ex quo videtur quod Christus solum eum quaerat, quia in illo solo plus invenit de fide quam in omnibus aliis. Unde colligitur quod plus diligitur unus iustus a Deo, quam decem millia peccatorum, Is. XIII, v. 12: pretiosior erit vir auro, et homo mundo obrizo. Et Gen. XVII, dominus pro decem iustis voluit servare Sodomam. Secondly, we see Christ's eagerness from his efforts in searching for him, for the Evangelist says, and having found him; 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. Tertio ex seriosa interrogatione; unde dixit ei: tu credis in filium Dei? Iste caecus typum baptizandorum gerebat. Unde etiam consuetudo inolevit in Ecclesia ut baptizandi interrogentur de fide; I Petr. III, 21: nos salvos facit Baptisma, non carnis depositio sordium sed bonae conscientiae interrogatio in Deum. Interrogans autem de fide non dicit, credis in Christum? Sed in filium Dei: quia, ut Hilarius dicit, futurum erat ut aliqui Christum confiterentur, quem tamen filium Dei et Deum negarent; quod postmodum Arius finxit. Unde per hoc error eius manifeste excluditur. Nam si Christus non esset Deus, non esset in eum credendum, cum solus Deus sit obiectum fidei, quae in prima veritate quiescit. Unde et signanter dicit, in filium: nam bene possum credere alicui creaturae, puta Petro et Paulo; non tamen in Petrum, sed in Deum solum sicut in obiectum. Unde patet quod filius Dei non est creatura; Io. XIV, 1: creditis in Deum, et in me credite. Thirdly, our Lord's eagerness is seen from the seriousness of his question; he said, Do you believe in the Son of God? 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: "Baptismnow 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 Do you believe in the Son of God? 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. [31] 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, in the Son (in Filium); for I am certainly able to believe some creature, such as Peter and Paul (credere Petro et Paulo), yet I do not believe in Peter (credere in Petrum), but in God (in Deum) 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). Hic ponitur desiderium caeci ad credendum. Sciendum est autem circa hoc, quod caecus iste adhuc non viderat Christum corporaliter: nam quando Christus linivit oculos suos, et misit eum ad natatoria Siloe, nondum viderat eum; et antequam ad eum reverteretur, postquam lavit et vidit, detentus fuit a Pharisaeis et Iudaeis. Licet autem corporaliter eum non vidisset, credebat tamen eum qui aperuit oculos suos, esse filium Dei. Et ideo in verba desiderantis et valde inquirentis animae prorumpit, dicens quis est, domine? Scilicet filius Dei, qui aperuit mihi oculos, ut credam in eum? Ex quo hic apparet, quod eum ex parte cognoscebat, et ex parte ignorabat. Nisi enim eum cognovisset, non tam constanter pro eo disputasset, et si non ignorasset, non utique dixisset quis est, domine? Is. XXVI, 9: anima mea desideravit te in nocte, scilicet ignorantiae. 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, And who is he, sir, namely, the Son of God, who opened my eyes, that I may believe in him? 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, Who is he, sir? "My soul yearns for you in the night," that is, the night of ignorance (Is 26:9). Sed quia, ut dicitur Sap. VI, 14: praeoccupat eos qui se concupiscunt, scilicet sapientia, ideo caeco se concupiscenti demonstrat, cum dicit et vidisti eum, et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est: in quo ponitur documentum fidei, quo Christus eum instruit. Et primo commemorat ei susceptum beneficium, dicens et vidisti eum, scilicet corporaliter, qui prius nullum videbas. Quasi dicat: ab ipso virtutem videndi accepisti; Lc. X, 23: beati oculi qui vident quae vos videtis; et Lc. II, 29: nunc dimittis servum tuum, domine (...) quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum. Secundo ponitur documentum, cum dicit et qui loquitur tecum, ipse est; Hebr. I, 2: novissime locutus est nobis in filio. 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, You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you. Here Christ is giving him a teaching of faith. First, he mentions the gift he received, saying you have seen him, 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 peacefor my eyes have seen your salvation" [Lk 2:29]. Secondly, the teaching itself is given when he says, It is he who speaks to you: "In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son" (Heb 1:2). Ex his ergo verbis confutatur error Nestorii, qui dixit, aliud suppositum in Christo filii Dei, aliud filii hominis. Nam qui loquebatur, ex Maria natus est, et hominis filius: et ipse idem qui loquitur est filius Dei, ut dominus dicit. Non est ergo alius et alius, quamvis natura non sit eadem utriusque. These words refute the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ the suppositum [or person] of the Son of God is different from the suppositum 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 supposita [persons] in Christ, although the natures [the divine and the human] are not the same. [32] Consequenter cum dicit at ille ait, credo, domine, ponitur devotio fidei in caeco. Et primo fidem quam credit corde, confitetur ore, dicens credo, domine; Rom. c. X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem. Secundo protestatur eam opere; unde procidens adoravit eum: per quod ostendit se credere eius divinam naturam, quia mundata conscientia cognoscit illum non solum filium hominis, quod exterius videbatur, sed filium Dei, qui carnem susceperat: nam adoratio debetur soli Deo; Deut. VI, 13: dominum Deum tuum adorabis. 1358 Then when the Evangelist says, he said, Lord, I believe, we see the devout faith of the man born blind. And first, he professes with his lips the faith in his heart, saying, Lord, I believe: "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, and he worshipped him. 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]. Consequenter cum dicit et dixit ei Iesus etc. commendatur caeci devotio, et primo ponitur devotionis caeci commendatio; secundo Iudaeorum murmuratio, ibi audierunt quidam ex Pharisaeis; tertio murmurantium confutatio, ibi dixit eis Iesus: si caeci essetis, non haberetis peccatum. 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). Commendatur autem caecus ex fidei illuminatione; unde dicit in iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni. Contra. Supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum et cetera. Respondeo. Loquitur de iudicio condemnationis, de quo dicitur supra V, 29: qui mala egerunt, ibunt in resurrectionem iudicii, idest condemnationis; ad quod non misit Deus filium suum in primo adventu, sed potius ad salvandum. Hic vero loquitur de iudicio discretionis, de quo dicitur in Ps. XLII, 1: iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam et cetera. Nam ad hoc venit ut discerneret bonos a malis: et hoc ostendunt verba sequentia, scilicet ut qui non vident, videant; et qui vident, caeci fiant. 1360 The man born blind is commended for his faith. We read, for judgment I came into this world. 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: that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind. Nam secundum Augustinum, illi non vident qui reputant se videre, illi autem qui reputant se non videre, vident. Dicuntur autem homines caeci spiritualiter, inquantum habent peccata; Sap. c. II, 21: excaecavit eos malitia eorum. Ille ergo reputat se videntem, qui peccata sua non recognoscit; non videre autem se reputat qui recognoscit se peccatorem. Primum est proprium superborum; secundum est humilium. Est ergo sensus: in iudicium veni ut non videntes videant, ut discernam humiles a superbis. Dies enim erat inter lucem et tenebras discernens, ut scilicet, humiles, qui non vident, idest reputant se peccatores, videant, illuminati per fidem, et qui vident, idest superbi, caeci fiant, idest remaneant in tenebris. 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). [33] 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, who do not see, that is, who regard themselves as sinners, may see, having been illuminated by faith, and that those who see, that is, the proud, may become blind, that is, may remain in the darkness. Secundum Chrysostomum, exponitur de iudicio condemnationis, ita tamen quod hoc quod dicit in iudicium ego in hunc mundum veni, non accipiatur causaliter, sed consecutive; quasi dicat: me veniente in mundum, consecutum est in quibusdam iudicium condemnationis, inquantum in aliquibus condemnationis causa magis crevit. Simile dicitur Lucae II, 34: ecce positus est in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum: non quod ipse sit causa ruinae, sed quia ex adventu suo hoc consequitur. Et subditur ut qui non vident, scilicet gentiles, carentes lumine divinae notitiae, videant, idest, admittantur ad cognitionem Dei; Is. IX, 2: populus qui ambulabat in tenebris, vidit lucem magnam, et qui vident, scilicet Iudaei, habentes Dei cognitionem, Ps. LXXV, 2: notus in Iudaea Deus, caeci fiant, idest, ab ipsa Dei cognitione excidant. Et hoc expresse tangit apostolus, Rom. IX, 30: gentes quae non sectabantur iustitiam, apprehenderunt iustitiam. 1361 Chrysostom understands this passage in terms of the judgment of condemnation, so that the statement, for judgment I came into this world is not understood in a causal sense, but it indicates the sequence of events. [34] 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, that those who do not see, that is, the Gentiles, who lacked the light of divine knowledge, may see, i.e., be admitted to the knowledge of God: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light" (Is 9:2); and that those who see, the Jews, who did have a knowledge of God - "In Judah God is known" (Ps 76:1) - may become blind, 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). Hic ponitur murmur Iudaeorum: quia enim verba domini carnaliter intellexerunt, videntes caecum corporaliter illuminatum, et intelligentes quod dominus commendaret in ipso solum lumen faciei et non mentis, crediderunt similiter quod comminaretur eis corporalem caecitatem, et exprobraret, cum dixit caeci fiant et ideo dicit quod audierunt quidam ex Pharisaeis qui cum ipso erant, verba praedicta. Ideo autem dicit qui cum ipso erant, ut ostendat eorum instabilitatem: quia quandoque cum ipso sunt propter aliqua miracula quae vident; sed tamen ab eo recedunt, cum aperitur eis veritas; Lc. VIII, 13: ad tempus credunt, et in tempore tentationis recedunt. Et dixerunt ei: numquid et nos caeci sumus? Scilicet corporaliter; quamvis spiritualiter caeci essent; Matth. XV, 14: sinite illos: caeci sunt et duces caecorum. 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 may become blind. Therefore, the Evangelist says, some of the Pharisees near him heard this, the above words. He says who were near him, 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). And they said to him, Are we also blind, i.e., physically? Yet they were spiritually blind: "Let them alone; they are blind guides" (Mt 15:14). Hic ponitur Iudaeorum confutatio: ubi, secundum expositionem Augustini, manifestatur intentio praecedentium, ut scilicet ostendatur de qua caecitate loquitur dominus, quia de spirituali. Dicit ergo si caeci essetis, idest vos caecos reputaretis, recognoscentes per humilitatem peccatum vestrum, non haberetis peccatum: quia curreretis ad remedium. Peccatum enim remittitur per gratiam, quae non datur nisi humilibus; Iac. IV, 6: humilibus autem dat gratiam. Nunc vero dicitis quia videmus; idest, superbe vos videre putantes, non recognoscitis vos peccatores. Peccatum vestrum manet, idest non remittitur; Iac. IV, 6: Deus superbis resistit. 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. [35] He says, If you were blind, you would have no guilt, 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). But now that you say, We see, i.e., proudly thinking that you do see, you do not recognize that you are sinners, your guilt remains, i.e., is not taken away: "God opposes the proud" (Jas 4:6). Secundum Chrysostomum, exponitur de caecitate corporali, ut sit sensus si caeci essetis, corporaliter, non haberetis peccatum, de hoc quod caeci essetis: quia cum sit corporalis defectus, non habet rationem peccati. Nunc vero quia dicitis, videmus, peccatum vestrum magis arguitur; quia videntes oculis corporalibus miracula quae ego facio, non creditis mihi; Is. VI, 10: excaeca cor populi huius. Chrysostom understands this passage as referring to physical blindness. [36] The meaning is then: If you were blind, physically, you would have no guilt, because since blindness is a physical defect, it does not have the nature of sin. But now that you say, We see, 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]. Vel aliter, si caeci essetis, idest ignorantes iudiciorum Dei et sacramentorum legis, non haberetis peccatum; supple: tantum. Quasi dicat: si ex ignorantia peccaretis, peccatum vestrum non esset adeo grave. Nunc vero quia dicitis, videmus, idest arrogatis vobis scientiam legis et cognitionem Dei, et tamen peccatis, ideo peccatum vestrum manet, idest aggravatur; Lc. XII, 47: servus qui scit voluntatem domini sui, et non fecit secundum voluntatem eius, vapulabit multis. Here is another explanation. If you were blind, i.e., ignorant of the judgments of God and of the sacraments of the law; you would have no guilt, i.e., so much. As if to say: If you were sinning out of ignorance, your sin would not be so serious. But now that you say, We see, i.e., arrogate to yourselves an understanding of the law and a knowledge of God, and still sin, then your guilt remains, 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).
[1] St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:3 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 87, a. 7, obj. 1; III, q. 40, a. 4, ad 1; Jn 9:4: ST III, q. 35, a. 8, obj. 3; q. 83, a. 2, ad 4; Jn 5: ST III, q. 46, a. 9, obj. 4; q. 83, a. 2, ad 4; Jn 9:6: ST III, q. 44, a. 3, ad 2.
[2] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 1, col. 1713; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:1-7.
[3] In Ioannem hom., 56, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 305; cf. Catena Aurea, 8:1-7.
[4] Ibid; cf. Catena Aurea, 8:1-7.
[5] Augustine, Epistola XLIV, ch. V no. 12, PL 33, col. 179.
[6] summa-punishment as a corrective.
[7] cf. Augustine, Epistola CLV, ch. I, no. 3; PL 33, col. 668
[8] Summa-evil of fault and evil of punishment
[9] Moralia, Praefatio, ch. 5 no. 12; PL 75, col. 523A, B; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:1-7.
[10] In Ioannem hom., 57, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 311; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:1-7.
[11] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 2, col. 1714; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:1-7.
[12] Dionysius.
[13] Moralia, Lib. 8, ch. 30, no. 49; PL 75. col. 832 C; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:1-7.
[14] St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:16 in the Summa Theologiae: I-II, q. 107, a. 2, obj. 3; III, q. 40, a. 4, ad 1.
[15] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 8, col. 1716; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:8-17.
[16] Ibid., 8; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:8-17.
[17] See Tract in Io, 44, ch. 8, col. 1716-17.
[18] In Ioannem hom., 58, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 58; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:8-17.
[19] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 9, col. 1717; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:8-17.
[20] Tract. in Io., 44, 10, col. 1717; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:18-23.
[21] St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:31 in the Summa Theologiae: II-II, q. 83, a. 16, obj. 1; q. 178, a. 2, obj. 1; III, q. 64, a. 1, obj. 2; Jn 9:32: ST III, q. 43, a. 4.
[22] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 11, col. 1718; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:24-34.
[23] Augustine-this is not in Tract in Io. (so far as I could tell)
[24] In Ioannem hom., 58, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 317; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:24-34.
[25] Tract. in Io, 44, ch. 11, col. 1718.
[26] In Ioannem hom., 58, ch. 2; PG 59, col. 318; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:24-34.
[27] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 13, col. 1718; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:24-34.
[28] Summa-sc 138-139 way in which God hears the prayers of sinners; miracles can testify to a doctrine or to a person.
[29] In Ioannem hom., 58, ch. 3; PG 59, col., 319; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:24-34.
[30] St. Thomas refers to Jn 9:39 in the Summa Theologiae: III, q. 51, a. 2, obj. 2; Jn 9:41: ST II-II, q. 15, a. 1, obj. 1.
[31] De Trinitate, 6 ch. 48; PL 10, col. 196B; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:35-41.
[32] Ought this to be concluding that there are two persons in Christ?
[33] Tract. in Io., 44, 16, col. 1719; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:35-41.
[34] In Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 323; cf. Catena Aurea , 9:35-41.
[35] Tract. in Io., 44, ch. 17, col. 1719; cf. Catena Aurea, 9:35-41.
[36] In Ioannem hom., 59, ch. 1; PG 59, col. 323; cf. Catena Aurea , 9:35-41.