You have heard that story in the Gospel where we are told that the Lord Jesus, as he was passing by, caught sight of a man who had been blind from birth. Since the Lord did not overlook him, neither ought we to overlook this story of a man whom the Lord considered worthy of his attention. In particular we should notice the fact that he had been blind from birth. This is an important point.

There is, indeed, a kind of blindness, usually brought on by serious illness, which obscures one’s vision but that can be cured, given time; and there is another sort of blindness, caused by cataract, that can be remedied by a surgeon: he can remove the cause, and so the blindness is dispelled. Draw your own conclusion: this man, who was actually born blind, was not cured by surgical skill but by the power of God.

It is clear that, on going out of the temple, he proceeded intentionally to do the work [of the miracle] from the fact that it was he who saw the blind man, not the blind man who came to him. And so intently did Jesus look at him that even his disciples perceived it.

We have just heard that Jesus gave sight to the man who was blind from birth. Do you wonder? Jesus is the Savior. He did something in keeping with his name, for by his kindness he restored what he had given to a lesser degree in the womb. Now when he made his eyes less powerful, surely he did not make a mistake, but he deferred it for the miracle…. Behold, why Christ delayed when he made the eyes less powerful in the womb. Do not think that the parents of that blind man had no sin and that the blind man himself, when he was born, did not contract original sin; because of the fact of original sin even very little children are baptized. However, that blindness was not due to the sin of his parents or due to the sin of the blind man, but in order that the glory of God might be made manifest in him. For when we are born we all contract original sin,^[1] and still we are not born physically blind. That blind man was prepared as a salve for the human race. He was bodily restored to light, in order that by considering his miracle we might be enlightened in heart.

They were led to ask this question because our Lord had said above, when he healed the paralytic, See, you are well! Sin no more. Thinking from this that the man had been paralyzed because of his sins, they say, That other person was paralyzed because of his sins, but what would you say about this man? Had he sinned? How can you say that, since he was blind from birth? Have his parents sinned? Neither can one say this because the child does not suffer punishment because of his parents. The same way we ask how it can be when we see a child suffering, this is how the disciples spoke here, not so much asking for information as being perplexed.

There was a certain philosophy among the ancients that troubles came from sin because they were confident that God was not responsible for any evil. The notion that people suffer as an exercise so that they might perceive the power of God at last—this was not well known at all because they would rather have God give good rewards to the just then and there and not prolong suffering any longer for the sake of eternal life. Since he was a blind man from birth, it occurred to the disciples to ask. Since no one can sin before his birth, they ventured a guess that the parents were to blame. For they knew that children may suffer in order to bring grief to the parents. But the Lord said that the blindness did not occur because of any sin but for the sake of the glory of God that was about to take place as the power of God would be revealed through his unexpected recovery of sight.

It was not unusual for his disciples to ask this kind of question about all that was happening to the Lord so that they could learn those things that lead to godliness. Indeed, since they had left everything and had given themselves completely to the Lord in order to learn from him godliness and piety, it is with laudable care that they took the opportunity from what happened around them to ask him such questions. When they saw this man born blind who, before he could sin, had this damage, and to whom this defect of the eyes happened when he was still in the womb, they were upset in their human way about this fact in trying to relate it to their faith. They thought that there was a just reason for such an accident and that such adversity had occurred not without good cause because they knew that God rules all human things. They were not able to understand what had happened in any other way because of their human weakness, attributing the reason for what happened either to the sin of the parents or to the blind man himself. It was not that he had been injured because he had sinned already— indeed, how could he sin if he was not born yet? But, since he would commit future sins, God, in his foreknowledge, restrained him by that disability. They justly and piously thought that the sins of people were the cause of all evils. But since, because of their human weakness, they could understand nothing more by themselves, they thought that the cause for this disability could only be attributed to the blind man himself or to his parents; as if the son had received that punishment for their sins, or he was the cause of his misfortune because he had received that punishment for his future sins.

Was he then born without original sin, or had he committed no sin in the course of his lifetime?… Both this man and his parents had sinned… but that sin itself was not the reason why he was born blind. … Our Lord gives the reason why… That the works of God should be made known in him.

Here again is another difficulty if [it is true that] it was not possible that the glory of God should be shown without this man’s punishment. Certainly it was not impossible, for it was possible. But it happened so that [God’s glory] might be made evident even in this man. One might ask, however, Did he suffer wrong for the glory of God? Tell me what he did wrong. For what if God had never willed to make him at all? But I assert that he even received benefit from his blindness. Because he recovered the sight of the eyes within. What were the Jews profited by their eyes? They incurred the heavier punishment, being blinded even while they saw. And what injury did this man have because of his blindness? For through his blindness he recovered his sight. As, then, the evils of the present life are not evils, so neither are the good things good. Sin alone is an evil, but blindness is not an evil. And he who had brought this man from not being into being also had power to leave him as he was.

One blow falls on the sinner for punishment only, not conversion. Another occurs for correction; still another happens not in order to correct past sins but for the prevention of future sins. Another blow happens neither for correcting past nor preventing future sins. Rather, the unexpected deliverance following the blow serves to excite a love more focused on the Savior’s goodness.

We do not believe that the soul previously existed; nor indeed can we think that it sinned before the body, for how can someone sin who has not yet been born? But if there has been no sin or fault preceding the suffering, what then shall we allege as the cause of the suffering? Truly, by our minds we cannot comprehend those things that are far above us. And, I should advise the prudent and myself above all to abstain from wishing to thoroughly scrutinize them. For we should recall to mind what we have been commanded^[1] and not curiously examine things that are too deep, or pry into those that are too hard or rashly attempt to discover those things that are hidden in the divine and ineffable counsel alone. Rather, concerning such matters we should piously acknowledge that there are certain wondrous things that God alone understands. At the same time we should maintain and believe that since God is the fountain of all righteousness, God will neither do nor determine anything whatsoever in human affairs or in those of the rest of creation that is unbecoming to God or differs at all from the true righteousness of justice. Since therefore it is fitting for us to be affected in this way, I say, that the Lord does not speak dogmatically when he says that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Rather, he says it to redirect the questioner in another direction and to lead us from things too deep for us to more suitable ones.

The Lord taught the disciples that there are many reasons for all these events and that they are certainly secret and unexplainable. And so, we always complain about events whose causes we ignore, but then we also learn that nothing happens in vain. This knowledge will be given to us in the future world, because what is hidden now will be revealed to us.

He says here, I must reveal myself and do those things that may show that I do the same things with the Father—not things similar but the same. This is an expression that marks greater invariability and that is used of those who do not differ even a little. Who then, after this, will face him when he sees that he had the same power with the Father? For not only did he form or open eyes; he also gave the gift of sight. This is proof that he also breathed in the soul. If that [soul] did not work, the eye, though perfected, could never see anything. He gave both the energy,^[1] which is from the soul, and gave the member also, possessing all things, both arteries and nerves and veins, and all things of which our body is composed.

While it is day means I must work while people can still believe on me as long as this life lasts. The night comes, that is, the future, when no one can work. He did not say, when I cannot work but when no one can work, that is, when there is no longer faith, labors or repentance. For to show that he called faith a work,… he replied, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent. Why then can no one do this kind of work in the future world? Because there is no faith there, but all, whether willingly or unwillingly, will simply submit.

Here Jesus is saying, Why do you ask questions that are better left unsaid? Or why, leaving what suits the time, do you hurry to learn things beyond the capacity of people? It is not a time for such curiosity, he says, but for intense work. I think it is more appropriate to pass by such questions and instead zealously execute God’s commands.

After the resurrection of the living and the dead, when he will say to those placed at his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom, and to those at his left, Depart into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,^[1] then shall be the night when no one can work but only get back what he has previously done. There is a time for working, another for receiving; for the Lord shall render to every one according to his works.^[2] While you live, do something if you are to be doing anything at all. For then that appalling night shall come to envelop the wicked it its folds. But even now every unbeliever, when he dies, is received within that night: there is no work to be done there. In that night was the rich man burning and asking a drop of water from the beggar’s finger.^[3]… Unhappy man! When you were living, that was the time for working. Now you are already in the night in which no one can work.

He calls himself light both because he enlightens the souls of those who believe and because he was about to open the eyes of the one who was blind from birth.

And he brought forth the light from the dust, just as he had done in the beginning, when there was a shadow of the heavens. Darkness was spread out over everything.^[1] He gave a command to the light, and it was born from the darkness. Thus also here, he formed clay from his saliva, and he supplied was what lacking in creation, which was from the beginning, to show that what was lacking in nature was being supplied by his hand.

What is that night in which, when it comes, no one shall be able to work? Hear what the day is, and then you will understand what the night is. But how shall we hear what the day is? Let he himself tell us: As long as I am in this world, I am the light of the world. See, he himself is the day…. The natural day is completed by the circuit of the sun and contains only a few hours. The day of Christ’s presence will last to the end of the world, for he himself has said, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.^[1]

Believe while the light is with you,^[1] he said to others. Why then did Paul call this life night and that other day? He was not opposing Christ but saying the same thing, even if not in those exact words—although the sense is the same. For he also says, The night is far spent, the day is at hand.^[2] He calls the present time night, because of those who sit in darkness or because he compares it with that day that is to come. Christ calls the future night because sin has no power to work there, but Paul calls the present life night because those who continue in wickedness and unbelief are in darkness. Addressing himself then to the faithful, he said, The night is far spent, the day is at hand, since they should enjoy that light. And he calls the old life night. Let us put away, he says, the works of darkness. Do you see that he tells them that it is night? Therefore he says, Let us walk honestly as in the day, that we may enjoy that light. For if this light is so good, consider what that light will be. As much as the sunlight is brighter than the flame of a candle, so much and far more is that light better than this. And signifying this, Christ says that the sun shall be darkened. Because of the excess of that brightness, not even the sun shall be seen.

He healed others by a word…. But the Lord bestowed sight on the one who was blind from birth—not by a word, but by an outward action. He did this neither casually nor simply because this was how it happened. He did it this way in order to show it was the same hand of God here that had also formed man at the beginning. And therefore when his disciples asked him why he had been born blind, whether by his own fault or his parents’, Jesus said, Neither this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God might be manifested in him. The work of God is, after all, the forming of man. He did this by an outward action, as Scripture says, And the Lord took clay from earth, and formed man.^[1] Notice here too how the Lord spit on the earth, and made clay and smeared it on his eyes, showing how the ancient creation was made. He was making clear to those who can understand, that this was the [same] hand of God through which man was formed from clay. For what the creating Word had neglected to form in the womb, this he supplied openly. He did this so that the works of God might be evident in him, and so that we would now seek for no other hand than that through which humanity was formed. Nor should we seek another Father, knowing that the hand of God which formed us in the beginning, and forms in the womb, has in the last times sought us lost ones out. He is gaining his own lost sheep and putting it on his shoulders and joyfully restoring it to the fold of life.

I think this has been said to establish that Christ’s saliva had a quality of healing power. Even though the blind man did not himself ask to receive his sight, yet he will be found praiseworthy in delivering himself to Jesus anointing his eyes with clay and in doing without hesitation what had been enjoined him, without Jesus having even said that he would receive sight…. Let us therefore wash off the clay smeared in our eyes in the water of the pool of him [i.e., Jesus] who has been sent so that after this we may be able to see again. But you will understand by the clay the beginning of the rudiments of the oracles of God, according to which we as babies are fed with milk. But when the childish things are done away with and we eat solid food, we wipe away the clay so that we may return to Jesus as one who sees.

He spat on the ground and made mud out of the saliva and he daubed the mud onto the eyes of the blind man. He wanted to show with the mud that he himself is the one who made Adam from the earth. His statement that I am the one doing this seemed to make his hearer hostile to him. But have shown himself to be the one through this work that he did—this, finally, did not give offense. Therefore, he fashioned eyes in that way rather than simply healing them. And he did not only make the eyes or open them but also graced them with the ability to see. This is positive proof that he had also breathed a soul into Adam. For he would never have seen, even if the eye had been completed, unless that life-giving spirit that breathed into Adam was at work.

In the ground we understand the law, and grace is designated in the saliva. What does the law effect without grace? What does the ground do without the saliva of Christ? What does the law do without grace, except make people still more guilty? Why? Because the law knows how to obey but not how to help; the law can point out sin, but it cannot take sin away from people. Therefore, let the saliva of Christ go down to the ground and gather together the earth. Let he who made the earth remake it, and he who created it reform and recreate it. Likewise, in the saliva is understood the word of God, his real human body on earth. For this reason let the saliva of Christ down in order that the law may be fulfilled. He made clay with the saliva. What is saliva mixed with clay, except the incarnate Word? That blind man presented an image of the whole human race, and, therefore, the saliva was mixed with clay, and the blind man was made to see: the Word became incarnate, and the world was illumined.

And why didn’t he use water instead of saliva for the clay? He was about to send the man to Siloam. In order, therefore, that nothing might be ascribed to the fountain but that you might learn that the power proceeds from his mouth—the same, both formed and opened the man’s eyes—he spat on the ground.… And then, so that you might not think that it was the earth that healed him, he commanded him to wash.

But to heal in his absence, to tell him to go away and wash and to provide the healing only once he has washed—this was the work of someone who wanted to be sure that no one would be ignorant of the miracle that had taken place. For as he commanded the paralytic to take up his bed on the day when it was not lawful to do this—so that each man charging him with the transgression might learn the greatness of the miracle—in the same way he commanded this man who was at a distance from the pool to go there and wash.

As, therefore, we are formed in the womb by the Word, this very same Word also formed sight in the one who had been blind from his birth. In this way, he openly showed who it is who forms us in secret, since now the Word himself had been revealed to the world. It also made known the ancient formation of Adam and how he was made, and through what hand he was formed—indicating the whole [of Adam’s creation] by showing us a part [of it]. For the Lord who formed sight is he who has formed the entire person, and in doing so, carried out the will of the Father. But in respect to that formation in men and women that took place after Adam—when humanity fell into sin—there was a need for the washing of regeneration. This is why the Lord said to the man to whom he had given sight, Go to Siloam and wash. In this way, he provided both his physical reformation and his regeneration which comes through washing. And this is why, when he washed, he came back seeing. He would come to know his creator and humanity would come to know him who has given us life.

Again, I ask you: What is he trying to convey to us by spitting on the ground, mixing his saliva with clay and putting it on the eyes of a blind man, saying, Go and wash yourself in the pool of Siloam (a name that means ‘sent’)? What is the meaning of the Lord’s action in this? Surely one of great significance, since the person whom Jesus touches receives more than just his sight.

In one instant we see both the power of his divinity and the strength of his holiness. As the divine light, he touched this man and enlightened him. As priest, by an action symbolizing baptism he wrought in him his work of redemption. The only reason for his mixing clay with the saliva and smearing it on the eyes of the blind man was to remind you that he who restored the man to health by anointing his eyes with clay is the very one who fashioned the first man out of clay, and that this clay that is our flesh can receive the light of eternal life through the sacrament of baptism.

You, too, should come to Siloam, that is, to him who was sent by the Father, as he says in the Gospel: My teaching is not my own; it comes from him who sent me. Let Christ wash you, and you will then see. Come and be baptized, it is time; come quickly, and you too will be able to say, I went and washed; you will be able to say, I was blind, and now I can see. And, as the blind man said when his eyes began to receive the light, you too can say, The night is almost over and the day is at hand.

For Siloam did not open [the eyes of] the blind man, just as the waters of the Jordan did not purify Naaman,^[1] but rather it was the command [by our Lord] that brought the healing. Also, it is not the waters of our atonement that bring purification; rather, it is the names invoked over it^[2] that produce atonement for us.

After having gone and washed, he encountered grace. And yet his neighbors and those who were with him when he was begging did not all come to the same conclusion about him. There were some who said that he was indeed the blind man, but others, because of the miracle that had happened to him, said it was not him but someone like him. He, however, says that it is him, not because the event itself compelled him to but because he was eager to proclaim before everyone what had happened.

The strangeness of the miracle made people incredulous. The neighbors and those who had seen that he was blind said, Is this now the man who used to sit and beg? What wonderful clemency and condescension of God! With such great kindness he even heals the beggars. In this way he shuts up the mouths of the Jews, because he made, not the great, illustrious and noble, but the poorest and meanest, the objects of his providence. Indeed, he had come for the salvation of all.

Why didn’t he have him wash immediately instead of sending him to Siloam?… For one thing, everyone would probably see him as he was leaving, having the clay spread upon his eyes. The strangeness of this spectacle would most likely focus the attention of everyone on him—both those who knew him and those who did not—everyone would be watching him closely. And, because it is not easy to recognize a blind man who has recovered his sight, Jesus first of all sends him this long distance so that he can be seen by many witnesses. This bizarre spectacle of a man walking with mud on his eyes would make these witnesses even more attentive so that no one could any longer say, This is not he.

Those who could see were clearly being drawn to the blind man, who saw inwardly. The blind man was being drawn secretly to those who could see but who were blind inwardly. He [the blind man] washed away the clay from his eyes and appeared to himself. They washed the blindness from their hearts and gained approval for themselves. When our Lord opened up the eyes of one blind man clearly in that moment, he opened up [the eyes of] many blind people secretly. For that blind man was [surely] blind. He was like a source of profit for our Lord, for by him our Lord acquired many blind people [by healing them] from the blindness of their heart.

He appears still to be ignorant that the Savior is by nature God, for otherwise he would not have spoken of him in such an unworthy way. He probably thought of him as a holy man, forming this opinion from the rumors that were circulating around Jerusalem.

Notice how precise he is. He does not say how the clay was made since he could not see that our Lord spat on the ground. He does not say what he does not know. He did not see Jesus spit on the ground, but he could feel it when he spread the mud on his eyes. And he said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash.’ This too he could mention because he heard it. For he had heard our Lord in conversation with his disciples and so he knew his voice. Even after all this, however, he cannot tell how he was cured. Now if faith is needed in matters that are felt and handled by the senses, how much more in the case of what is invisible?

See how he became a herald of grace. See how he preaches the gospel. See how, once he is endowed with sight, he becomes a witness. That blind man testified, and the ungodly were troubled in their hearts because they did not have in their own hearts what they saw in him.

They were asking him, Where is he? His reply was that he did not know because he had not seen him, since at the time [of the healing] he was blind.

His saliva was thus the key for closed eyes, for with water he healed the eye. From the water [he formed] clay and brought to wholeness what had been lost. When [later] they were spitting at his face,^[1] the blind eyes that had been opened by his saliva would accuse them.

The Evangelist remarks that it was the sabbath in order to expose their real design… which was to accuse him of a departure from the law and thus detract from the miracle.

Here, it is as though the man is saying: I will prove to you that the power of the Healer was not exerted in vain. I will not deny the favor I received, for I now possess what I formerly longed for. I who was blind from birth and afflicted from the womb, having been anointed with clay, am healed, and I see. That is, I do not merely show you my eye opened, concealing the darkness in its depth, but I really see. From now on I am able to look at things that formerly I could only hear about. Look! The bright light of the sun is shining around me. Look! The beauty of strange sights surrounds my eye. A short time ago I scarcely knew what Jerusalem was like. Now I see the temple of God glittering within it, and I behold in its midst the truly venerable altar. And if I stood outside the gate, I could look around on the country of Judea and recognize one thing as a hill and another as a tree. And when the time changes to evening, my eye will no longer fail to notice the beauty of the nighttime sky, the brilliant company of the stars and the golden light of the moon. When I do, I shall be amazed at the skill of him who made them from the greatness and beauty of created things.^[1] I as well as others shall acknowledge the great Creator.

Those [Pharisees] who neither saw nor had yet been anointed^[1] said, This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath. On the contrary, he kept it because he was without sin; to observe the sabbath spiritually is to have no sin. And this is what God admonishes us when he commends the sabbath, saying, You shall do no servile^[2] work.^[3]… Our Lord tells us above what servile work is: Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin.^[4] But these men, who neither could see nor were anointed, observed the sabbath carnally but profaned it spiritually.

The Jews admire the ancient hero Joshua who captured Jericho on the sabbath^[1] and commanded their forefathers to do such things as are customary for conquerors—and Joshua himself by no means observed the proper sabbath rest. Yet, those who admire Joshua persistently attack Christ. Their personal ill will toward Christ prompted them not only to try and take away from him the glory due to God but also to rob him of the honor due to holy people. And speaking inconsiderately through their malice, they pour forth a charge of impiety against him who came to us from the Father and who justifies the world.

Passing over the miracle in silence, they give all the prominence they can to the supposed transgression. They do not charge him with healing on the sabbath day but with not keeping the sabbath. Others replied rather weakly, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such miracles?’ They were impressed by his miracles, but only in a weak and unsettled way. For whereas the fact of whether the sabbath was broken or not might have divided them, they still had no idea yet that he was God. They did not know that it was the Lord of the sabbath who had worked the miracle. Nor did any of them dare to say openly what his sentiments were, but they spoke ambiguously— one, because he thought the fact itself improbable, another, from his love of status. It follows, And there was a division among them. That is, the people were divided first, and then the rulers.

While they were discussing things, they turned to the blind man again, as if they chose him as their arbiter, and they said to him, What do you say about him? It was your eyes he opened. Should we admire him for the work he performed? Or is he a sinner because he violated the sabbath? So about the one who opened your eyes, that is, since he opened your eyes, what do you have to say about him? What is your opinion? The blind man wisely answered the question, saying, He is a prophet, that is, that is the kind of respect I have for him, and it encapsulates what I think of the work he performed. When they saw that the miracle itself already testified to the power of the healer and that the blind man openly revealed the grace he had received and proclaimed the greatness of his helper, they began to doubt whether that man who had been healed was really the blind man or someone else. And so they were obliged to call his parents.

There was a division among them as the day divided between the light and the darkness…. They were looking for a way to denigrate the man and cast him out of their synagogue (although he would be found by Christ). However, he declares openly what he thinks. For he said, He is a prophet. Not yet anointed in heart, he could not confess the Son of God. Nevertheless, he is not wrong in what he says either, for our Lord even says of himself, A prophet is not without honor except in his own country.^[1]

It is the nature of truth to be strengthened by the very snares that are laid against it by people…. Lies defeat themselves by the very means they use against the truth, making it appear even brighter, as is the case now. For the argument that might otherwise have been urged—that is, that the neighbors knew nothing for certain but were guessing on the basis that this man looked like the one who was healed—that whole argument is cut off by the introduction of the parents who could, of course, testify to their own son. The Pharisees, being unable by intimidation to deter the blind man from publicly proclaiming his benefactor, try to nullify the miracle through the parents.

Having brought the parents into the middle of the assembly in order to intimidate them, they angrily begin a fierce interrogation: Is this your son? Notice, they do not say, who was born blind but who you say was born blind.… What kind of a father would say such things about his son if they were not true? Why not say at once, Whom you made blind?… They try two ways of making them deny the miracle by saying, who you say was born blind and then by adding, How then does he now see?

Besides having spoken falsely, they committed another sin by exposing their son to obvious harm. But I think this also has a reason. When the Savior opened the eyes of the blind man, he did not open those of a child but of one full grown so that he might see as a full-grown man. But such was also the case with other blind men who received sight. However, it is true that he being of full age can speak for himself, and especially so when Jesus makes him receive his sight. For he needs no one else to negotiate for him.

The parents reply, We might justly be compelled to speak for him as an infant when he could not speak for himself…; but even though we know he has been blind from birth, we also know that he has been able to speak for some time now.

Thus evil mastered the rulers who not only disabled themselves through unbelief but also through their threatening shut the way of salvation for the rest.

But it was no disadvantage to be put out of the synagogue since the one they cast out, Christ received.

The parents referred the Pharisees to the healed man himself, and so they summon him a second time. They do not openly say now, Deny that Christ has healed you. Instead they conceal their objective under the pretense of religion…. They say, Give God the glory, that is, confess that this man Jesus has had nothing to do with the work.

They tell him to deny what he has received. This is not to give God the glory but rather to blaspheme him.

He says, in effect, I do not want to declare what I do not know; nor can I keep silent or hide what I know. I really do not know whether he is what you say he is. In fact, I did not come to know him as a sinner. I was blind, and through my hope I received sight; I know this first of all. It is up to you to judge whether a sinner can do that, because this is what you assert he is.

He gave a quite prudent answer by moderating his words so that he might not appear to be in disagreement with those who questioned him. Through his silence he nonetheless suggested that [Jesus] could not have done what he did if he really were a sinner.

Do you see how boldly the beggar speaks with the scribes and Pharisees? It shows how strong truth is and how weak falsehood is. Truth, though it grasps only ordinary people, makes them to appear glorious; falsehood, even when it is among the strong, shows them to be weak. What he says is like this: you do not pay attention to my words; therefore, I will no longer speak or answer you when you question me continually to no purpose. You do not want to hear in order to learn but so that you can lay insults over my words.

He was indignant now at the obstinacy of the Jews. Now that he is no longer blind himself, he can no longer tolerate their blindness either.

He reveals his own state of mind that he was not only willing to become, but actually had already become, a disciple.

May such an evil thing be said of us and on our children! In other words, it was an evil thing [to say he was a disciple] from their point of view, but not if you think about the words themselves. They say, But we are disciples of Moses. We know that God spoke to Moses. But we have no idea where this person comes from. But if you [Pharisees] knew that God spoke to Moses, then you should have also known that God preached about our Lord through Moses after hearing what he said, If you had believed Moses, you would have believed me, for he wrote of me. Do you then follow a servant and turn your back on the Lord? But you do not even follow the servant, for he would guide you to the Lord.

He brings in the miracle everywhere as evidence because they could not invalidate it. And he draws his own inferences from it too. First, he says, Whether he is a sinner or not, I do not know. He has no doubt that Jesus was not a sinner. And so, when he has an opportunity, he turns their own words against them and defends Jesus: Now we know that God does not listen to sinners.

But if so important a doctrine were true, that is, that the sinner is not heard by God, it would not have been passed over in silence but would have been spoken by someone deserving to be believed, for example, by the servant [Moses] or one of the prophets. But how, if God did not hear a sinner, were the sinners taught to say, Forgive us our trespasses, as we also forgive our transgressors? Whom then does God hear? He hears those who turn to him in repentance, even if they have not yet ceased from being sinners. If God did not hear sinners, our Savior would not have been eating and drinking with publicans and sinners. But if those needing physicians because they were sick were not being heard, he would not have healed them. Therefore, as if the prayer of those who have sinned but no longer altogether disbelieve attained its object, it is said, If you mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?^[1] But perhaps the blind man is speaking not about any ordinary thing in the prayer of the sinner but of the kind of great works that Jesus was doing. For when God is petitioned concerning those kinds of works by sinners, he does not hear them.

So Jesus must be admired, the blind man says, as one who is superior to human thought. While you do not know where he is from, the accomplished miracle openly proves his power to me. You do not know who he is and would need testimony from others if there had been no clue of his power. But if his miracles show that he is a great man—and you still do not know where he is from or who he is—it is evident, both from the greatness of his miracles and your foolishness, that he is beyond human comprehension. And from these facts it seems clear that he cannot be called a sinner. Certainly God does not fulfill the requests of sinners but listens instead to the voice of those who show honest behavior and faithfully do his will…. Indeed, he healed a man born blind, and we know that this has never been done before, not even by Moses, whom you admire.

He who had just received sight and had been miraculously freed from his old blindness was quicker to perceive truth than those who had been instructed by the law. See how through numerous and wise arguments he demonstrates the utter inferiority of the Pharisees’ opinion.

When the man was already healed and had suffered ejection from the synagogue, the Lord put to him the question, Do you believe on the Son of God? This was to save him from the thought that he had lost everything by being excluded from the synagogue. It gave him the certainty that confession of the true faith had restored him to immortality. When the man, his soul still unenlightened, answered, Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? the Lord’s reply was, You have both seen him, and it is he that speaks with you. For his goal was to remove the ignorance of the man whose sight he had restored and whom he was now enriching with the knowledge of so glorious a faith. Does the Lord demand from this man, as from others who entreated him to heal them, a confession of faith as the price of their recovery? Emphatically not! For the blind man could already see when he was thus addressed. The Lord asked the question in order to receive the answer, Lord, I believe. The faith that spoke in that answer was to receive not sight but life.

Of course God listens to sinners. But the man who said that had not yet washed the face of his heart in Siloam. The sacrament had already taken place in his eyes, but the benefit of grace had not yet been achieved in his heart. When did this blind man wash the face of his heart? When, after he had been thrown outside by the Jews, the Lord brought him inside into himself. You see, he found him and said to him, as we heard, Do you believe in the Son of God? And he answered, Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? He could already see him, certainly, with his eyes, but with his heart? Not yet. Wait for it; he will see in a moment. Jesus answered him, I am, I who am talking to you. Did he hesitate? He washed his face immediately. After all, Siloam was talking to him, which is translated as ‘the One sent.’^[1] Who is the one sent but Christ who frequently asserted, I do the will of my Father, who sent me?^[2] So he himself was Siloam. The man blind in heart approached, heard, believed, worshiped, washed his face and saw.

The blind man, recognizing his voice—remember he had not seen him yet—said, And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him. With good reason he thought that he who had given him sight even though he was beyond hope could also show him the Son of God.

Since he could not yet say I believe but as in ignorance answered, Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him? he was therefore on the borderline, so to speak, between unbelief and belief.

Worship follows faith, and faith is confirmed by power. But if you say that believers also know, they know from what they believe; and vice versa, they believe from what they know. We know God from his power. We, therefore, believe in him who is known, and we worship him who is believed.

The day then was divided between light and darkness…. And this is only right since you, O Lord, are the light, you are the day, you deliver us from darkness. Every soul accepts and understands this. But what is this that follows, And those who see may become blind? Because you have arrived, shall those who saw now be made blind? Hear what comes next, and maybe you will understand. Some of the Pharisees were disturbed by these words and said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ What had moved them were the words And those who see may become blind. Jesus said to them,… ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin,’ that is, if you identified yourselves as blind you would run to the physician…. For I have come to take away sin. But now you say, We see. Therefore your sin remains. Why? Because when you say that you see, you are not looking for a physician, and that is why you will remain in your blindness. Therefore, what he has just said before about coming for those who do not see so that they may see concerns those who acknowledge that they do not see and seek a physician so that they may receive their sight. And those who see may become blind concerns those who think they can see without looking for a physician, and so they remain in their blindness. He calls this act of division judgment, saying, For judgment I came into this world.… He is not referring here to that judgment when he will judge the living and the dead at the end of the world.

What Jesus said elsewhere, namely, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order to save it,^[1] is not contrary to this statement. For there it states the purpose of Jesus’ coming: that all people may be saved. Here he talks about the outcome of his coming. In fact, even though this is his will, that is, to save all people, the unbelievers nonetheless must be absolutely punished because of their choice not to believe. Here he indicates what seems to be the outcome of these events. As is only reasonable, he says, I came to test individuals in order to ascertain who are blind and who are able to see. Now he who was believed to be blind, twice received eyes to see. He received bodily eyes and, to the perfection of his soul, he received saving doctrine. Those [i.e., the Pharisees] who think they see with bodily eyes, who have been entrusted with the teaching of the precepts of the law, appear to be blind, both because they do not accept the truth and because they do not believe the works that they have seen with their own eyes.

That is why, when the Pharisees who were listening to what he was saying, themselves said, We are not blind too, are we? They were obviously like the one who had gone up to the temple and was telling God, I thank you, because I am not like other people, unjust, adulterers, rapacious,^[1] as though to say, I thank you that I am not blind but can see, unlike other people of the same sort as this tax collector. What did those ones say? We are not blind too, are we? And the Lord answered them, If you were blind, you would not have any sin. Now however, because you say ‘We can see,’ your sins remain. He did not say your sin occurs but remains. You see, it was already there; because when you do not confess it, it is not taken away but remains.

In this passage he speaks of two recoveries of sight and of two types of blindness: one sensory and the other spiritual. … But they were intent only on the sensory things and were ashamed only of sensory blindness. And so, in order to show them that it would be better for them to be blind than seeing as they do, he says, If you were blind, you would have no sin,… your punishment would be more tolerable…. But now you say ‘We see,’ but you do not see at all. He shows that what they considered as so great and praiseworthy actually brought them punishment instead. At the same time, he also consoles him who was blind from his birth concerning his former maimed state. And then he speaks concerning their blindness. For he directs his whole speech toward this purpose, that is, so that they cannot say, We did not refuse to come to you because of our blindness, but we turn away and avoid you as a deceiver. And there is also a reason the Evangelist adds, And some of the Pharisees who were with him heard these words. He wants to remind us that those were the very persons who had first withstood Christ and then wished to stone him. For there were some who only followed in appearance and were easily changed to the contrary opinion.