Homilies on the Gospel of John

“They say unto the blind man again, What do you say of him, that he has opened your eyes? He said, He is a Prophet. The Jews then did not believe.”

1. We must go over the Scriptures not in a chance way or carelessly, but with all exactness, that we be not entangled. Since even now in this place one might with show of reason question, how, when they had asserted, “This man is not of God, because he keeps not the Sabbath,” they now say to the man, “What do you say of him, that he has opened your eyes?” and not, “What do you say of him, that he has broken the Sabbath?” but put now that which was the ground of the defense, not that of the accusation. What then have we to reply? That these (who speak) are not the men who said, “This man is not of God,” but those who separated themselves from them, who also said, “A man that is a sinner cannot do such miracles.” For desiring to silence their opponents the more, in order that they may not seem to be partisans of Christ, they bring forward the man who had received proof of His power, and question him. Observe now the wisdom of the poor man, he speaks more wisely than them all. First he says, “He is a Prophet”; and shrank not from the judgment of the perverse Jews who spoke against Him and said, “How can this man be of God, not keeping the Sabbath?” but replied to them, “He is a Prophet.”

“And they did not believe that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they had called his parents.”

Observe in how many ways they attempt to obscure and take away the miracle. But this is the nature of truth, by the very means by which it seems to be assailed by men, by these it becomes stronger, it shines by means of that by which it is obscured. For if these things had not taken place, the miracle might have been suspected by the many; but now, as if desiring to lay bare the truth, so do they use all means, and would not have acted otherwise, supposing they had done all in Christ's behalf. For they first attempted to cast Him down by occasion of this mode (of cure), saying, “How opened he your eyes?” that is, “was it by some sorcery?” In another place also, when they had no charge to bring against Him, they endeavored to insult the mode of the cure, saying, “He does not cast out devils save by Beelzebub.” And here again, when they have nothing to say, they betake themselves to the time (of cure), saying, “He breaks the Sabbath”; and again, “He is a sinner.” Yet He asked you, who would slay Him, and who were ready to lay hold of His actions, most plainly, saying, “Which of you convinces Me of sin?”; and no man spoke, nor said “Thou blaspheme because you make yourself without sin.” But if they had had it in their power to say so, they would not have held their peace. For they who because they heard that He was before Abraham would have stoned Him, and said that He was not of God, who boasted that they, murderers as they were, were of God, but who said that One who did such wonders, after that He had wrought a cure, was not of God, because He kept not the Sabbath, if they had had but a shadow of a charge against Him, would never have let it pass. And if they call Him a sinner because He seemed to break the Sabbath, this charge also is shown to be unsound, when those who are ranked with them condemn their great coldness and littleness of soul. Being therefore entangled on every side, they afterwards betake themselves to something else more shameless and impudent. What is that? They “did not believe,” It says, “that he had been blind, and received his sight.” How then did they charge Christ with not keeping the Sabbath? Plainly, as having believed. But why gave ye not heed to the great number of people? To the neighbors who knew him? As I said, falsehood everywhere defeats itself by the very means by which it seems to annoy the truth, and makes the truth to appear more bright. Which was now the case. For that no one might say that his neighbors and those who had seen him did not speak with precision, but guessed from a likeness, they bring forward his parents, by whom they succeeded against their will in proving that what had taken place was real, since the parents best of all knew their own child. When they could not terrify the man himself, but beheld him with all boldness proclaim his Benefactor, they thought to wound the miracle by means of his parents. Observe the malice of their questioning. For what says it? Having placed them in the midst so as to throw them into distress, they apply the questioning with great severity and anger,