Commentary on Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist, Homilies 48–88

Homily 58 (John 9.17-35)

106 SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM Homily 58 (John 9.17-35) 'Again they said to the blind man, "What dost thou say of him who opened thy eyes?" But he said, "He is a prophet." The Jews therefore did not believe.'l The Scriptures must be read, not merely casually or superficially , but with all care, so that one may not be confused. And I say this for even now one might with reason be perplexed at this text as to how it was that, though they had said: 'This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath,' they then said to the man: 'What dost thou say of him who opened thy eyes?' They did not say: 'What do you say of him who has broken the Sabbath,' but now substituted defense for accusation. What, then, is to be said? These were not the ones who stated: 'This man is not from God.' But these were the ones who differed with them and declared: 'A sinner cannot work such signs.' Indeed, in the desire to refute them still more, but also in order that they themselves might not seem to be speaking in Christ's defense, they brought forward the man who had had experience of His power and questioned him. Note, therefore, the wisdom of the poor man, for he spoke more prudently than all these men. At once he declared: 'He is a prophet,' and did not quail before the opinion of the perverse Jews who had contradicted this and said: 'How can He be from God, if He does not keep the Sabbath?' On the contrary, he declared: 'He is a prophet.' 'And they did not believe that he had been blind and had got his sight until they called his parents.' Moreover, notice in how many ways they tried to hide and discredit the miracle. Yet the nature of truth is such that it becomes stronger by the very schemes by which men seem to be undermining it; it becomes resplendent by the means intended to obscure it. For, 1 John 9.17,18. HOMILIES 107 if these efforts to discredit the miracle were not made, its authenticity might have been doubted by many. But as it was, they did everything as if they were trying to reveal the truth. They would not have brought about a different result if they had been actually doing everything in Christ's behalf. Now, I say this for they were trying to cast aspersion on Him because of the method He had used, when they said: 'How did he open your eyes?' that is, 'Was it by some kind of sorcery?' Elsewhere, indeed, when they were unable to indict Him, they tried to discredit the way in which He healed by saying: 'He does not cast out devils except by Beelzebub.'2 And here once again, since they could assert nothing derogatory , they took refuge in the time [as a pretext for accusing Him] and said: 'He breaks the Sabbath,' and again: 'He is a sinner.' Indeed, it was you who were envious and ready to cast aspersion on what was done by Him that He was questioning in very precise terms, when He said: 'Which of you can convict me of sin?'3 Moreover, no one spoke in reply, nor did anyone say: 'You blaspheme when You say that You are without sin.' Yet, if they could have said it, they would not have remained silent. For they attempted to stone Him and said that He was not from God, because they heard that He was before Abraham. On the other hand, they boasted that they themselves-who were murderers-were from God, while they declared that He who worked such signs was not from God, when He healed, because He did not keep the Sabbath. Certainly, if these men had the shadow of a charge against Him, they would not have neglected to mention it. But, if they called Him a sinner because of the fact that He seemed to be breaking the Sabbath, even this charge appeared ineffective, since their very associates remarked its great 2 Matt. 12.24. 3 John 8.46. 108 SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM cold-bloodedness and meanness. Frustrated on all sides, then, they finally arrived at another more shameless and immoderate procedure. What was this? 'They did not believe,' the Evangelist says, 'that he had been...