Homilies on John 57.1–57.2

“Having said these things, Jesus spat on the ground and made clay from the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said [to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of] Siloam.’” Those who intend to reap some fruit from what is read must not pass over even a small part of what is said. For this is why we have been commanded to search the Scriptures: because many things, though easy on the surface, seem to have much meaning hidden in their depth. For see what the present passage is like. “Having said these things,” it says, “he spat on the ground.” What things? “That the glory of God might be made manifest,” and, “I must work the works of him who sent me.” For the evangelist did not remind us of what had been said, and add, “he spat,” without purpose, but to show that he confirmed his word by his works. And why does he not use water but spittle for the clay? He was going to send him to Siloam. So that nothing might be ascribed to the spring, but that you might learn that it was the power that came from his mouth that both formed and opened the eyes, he spat on the ground. The evangelist, at any rate, noting this, said, “And he made clay from the spittle.” Then, so that the achievement might not seem to belong to the earth, he commanded him to wash. Why then did he not do this at once, but sent him to Siloam? So that you might learn the blind man’s faith, and so that the ingratitude of the Jews might be silenced. For it was likely that all would see him going off with the clay smeared on his eyes. By the strangeness of it he would have turned everyone toward him, both those who knew him and those who did not, and they would have paid close attention to him. For since it is not easy to recognize a blind man who has received his sight, he makes many become witnesses first, through the long way, and close observers through the strangeness of the sight, so that, having become more attentive, they could no longer say, “This is he; this is not he.” Besides this, he wishes to establish this too: that he is no stranger to the law and the Old Testament, by sending him to Siloam. Nor could one suspect any longer that Siloam might take the glory; for many had often washed their eyes there and received no such benefit. For there too it was the power of Christ that did everything. That is why the evangelist adds the interpretation for us. For having said, “to Siloam,” he added, “which means Sent,” so that you may learn that there too it was Christ who healed him; as Paul says, “For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.” As, then, Christ was the spiritual rock, so too Siloam was spiritual. And to me the sudden coming of the water seems also to hint at an ineffable mystery for us. What is this? The unexpectedness of his appearing, beyond all hope. But see the blind man’s mind, obedient in everything. For he did not say, “If it is the clay or the spittle that gives eyes, what need have I of Siloam? And if there is need of Siloam, what need of the clay? Why did he anoint me? Why did he command me to wash?” He reasoned none of these things, but was ready for one thing only, to obey the one who commanded in everything, and nothing that was done offended him. And if someone says, “How then did he receive sight when he removed the clay?”, he will hear nothing else from us than that we do not know the manner. And what wonder if we do not know? For neither did the evangelist know, nor the man healed himself; he knows what happened, but cannot grasp the manner. And this is what he said when questioned: “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” But how this happened he cannot say, even if they ask ten thousand times. “The neighbors,” it says, “and those who had seen him before as a beggar, said, ‘Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?’ Others said, ‘It is he.’” For the strangeness of what had happened led them even to unbelief, though so much had been arranged so that they should not disbelieve. And they said, “Is not this the man who used to sit and beg?” [Wonderful is] God’s love for humankind! How far he came down, healing beggars with great kindness, and by this stopping the mouths of the Jews, because he deemed worthy of the same providence not the brilliant, nor the distinguished, nor the rulers only, but also the obscure. For he had come for the salvation of all. And what happened with the paralytic happens with this man too. For neither did that man know who it was who had healed him, nor this one. This happened because of Christ’s withdrawal. For Jesus always withdrew after healing, so that all suspicion might be removed from the signs. For how could those who did not know who he was have done him a favor and helped to stage what was done? For this man was not one of those who went about, but one of those who sat by the doors of the temple. While all were disputing about him, what does he say? “I am he.” He was not ashamed of his former blindness, nor did he fear the anger of the people, nor did he decline to show himself, in order to proclaim his benefactor. “They said to him, ‘How were your eyes opened?’ He said to them, ‘[A] man called Jesus.’” What do you say? Does he do such things? But as yet he knew nothing great about [him].

See how truthful he is. He did not say from what he made [the clay]; for what he does not know he does not say. For he did not see that he spat on the ground; but that he anointed him, he learned by sensation and touch. “And he said to me, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam.’” And to this his hearing testified. And how did he recognize his voice? From his conversation with the disciples. And saying all this, and having received the testimony of the deeds, he cannot tell the manner. And if faith is needed in things perceptible and tangible, much more in things invisible. “They said to him, ‘Where is he?’ He said, ‘I do not know.’” They said this, “Where is he?”, already thirsting for his blood. But see Christ’s freedom from boasting, how he was not present with those he healed; for he did not wish to reap glory. See how the blind man answers everything truthfully. They wished, then, to find Christ so as to bring him to the priests; but since they did not find him, they bring the blind man to the Pharisees, as to people who would question him more severely. That is why the evangelist notes that it was the Sabbath, to show their wicked mind and the reason for which they sought him, as though they had found an opening and were able to discredit the miracle through what seemed a transgression of the law. And this is clear from the fact that, as soon as they saw him, they said nothing else but, “How did he open your eyes?” And see how they speak. They did not say, “How did you receive your sight?” but “How did he open [your eyes]?”, [seeking an occasion] to slander him for his work. But he speaks more briefly, as to people who had heard. For without giving the name, or “He said to me, ‘Go, wash,’” he says at once, “He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” For much slander had already arisen, and they had said, “See what Jesus does on the Sabbath: he anoints with clay.” But consider how the blind man is not disturbed. For when he spoke before those others, being questioned without danger, it was not so great a thing to tell the truth; but what is wonderful now is that, being in greater fear, he neither denies nor says anything contrary to what he said before. What then do the Pharisees say, or rather the others too? [They brought him] expecting that he would deny; but they suffered the opposite of what they wished, and learned more exactly. And this they undergo in the case of all the signs; but we shall show this more clearly in what follows. What then do [some of them, the more reckless,] say? “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” [Others said,] “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” Do you see that they were led upward by the signs? For hear what those who had earlier sent to bring him say now, though not all of them. For being rulers, they fell into unbelief through love of glory. “Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in him, but did not confess him.” The great mass of the people was easily despised, since it contributed nothing great to their synagogue; but the rulers [were more conspicuous, and found it harder to speak boldly]. Some were held fast by love of rule, others by cowardice and fear of the many. That is why he said, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from men?” And they themselves, though seeking to murder him unjustly, said they were of God, but that the one who healed the blind could not be from God, because he did not keep the Sabbath. To this these others answered that a sinner cannot do such signs. Those men, then, maliciously keeping silent about what had happened, brought into the open what seemed a transgression; for they did not say, “He heals on the Sabbath,” but, “He does not keep the Sabbath.” These others again answered weakly; for when they ought to have shown how the Sabbath was not broken, they rely only on the signs; and naturally, for they still thought him a man. For otherwise they could have defended him in another way too, that he was Lord of the Sabbath and had himself made it; but they did not yet have this understanding. None of them, however, dared to say openly what he wished, not as a declaration but as a question, some through lack of boldness, others through love of rule. “So there was a division among them.” This division began first among the people, then later among the rulers too. Some said, “He is a good man”; others, “No, but he leads the crowd astray.” Do you see how the rulers, divided later, were more foolish than the many? But even after being divided again, they showed nothing noble, seeing the Pharisees pressing on them. For if they had separated completely, they would quickly have recognized the truth. For it is possible to be divided well. That is why he himself said, “I have not come to bring peace on the earth, but a sword.” For there is a bad concord, and there is a good discord. For those who built the tower agreed together for their own harm, and these same men again were divided, unwillingly, but for their good. And Korah’s company agreed badly, and therefore were divided well; and Judas agreed with the Jews badly. So it is possible to be divided well, and it is possible to agree badly. That is why he says, “If your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; if your foot, cut it off.” And if we must be cut off from a member badly joined to us, must we not much more be cut off from friends badly united with us? So concord is not good in every case, just as division is not evil in every case. I say this so that we may flee the wicked and pursue the good. For if among our members we cut off what is rotten and incurable, fearing that the rest of the body may receive the same corruption, and we do this not out of contempt for that member but wishing to preserve the rest, how much more must we do this with those who associate with us in wickedness? If we can set them right without being harmed ourselves, we must do everything; but if they [remain incorrigible and harm us, we must cut] them off and cast them away. Often in this way they will gain the more. That is why Paul too exhorted so, saying, “Drive out the wicked person from among you,” and, “So that the one who did this deed may be removed from among you.” For terrible, terrible is the company of the wicked. Plague does not seize so quickly, nor the itch so destroy those who touch those held by the disease, as the wickedness of wicked men. “For bad company corrupts good morals.” And the prophet again: “Go out from their midst, and be separate.” Let no one, then, have a bad friend. For if, when we have bad sons, we publicly disown them, and do not respect nature, nor its laws, nor the necessity that comes from it, much more ought we to flee our associates and acquaintances when they are wicked. For even if we receive no harm from them, we shall at least not be able to escape an evil reputation. For outsiders do not examine our life, but judge us by our company. I give this charge to women and virgins too. “Taking thought,” it says, “for what is good, not only before the Lord but also before men.” Let us do everything, then, so that our neighbor may not be caused to stumble. For a life, however upright, that gives offense to others has lost everything. And how can an upright life give offense? When association with those who are not upright surrounds it with an evil reputation. For when, confident in ourselves, we associate with [the wicked, even if we are not harmed, we offend others]. I say this to men and women and virgins, leaving it to their conscience to know exactly how many evils come from this. I indeed suspect nothing evil, nor perhaps does any other of the more perfect; but the simpler brother is harmed through your perfection. And one must take thought for his weakness too. And even if he is not harmed, the Greek is harmed. And Paul commanded us to give no offense, to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God. I suspect nothing evil about the virgin (for I love virginity, and “love thinks no evil”); I am a passionate lover of this way of life, and cannot even think of anything improper. [But] how shall we persuade those outside? For we must take thought for them too. So let us order our affairs in such a way that not even any unbeliever can find a just handle against us. For as those who show an upright life glorify God, so [those who live otherwise cause him to be blasphemed]. May there be none such among us, but may our works so shine that our Father who is in heaven may be glorified, and that we may enjoy the glory that comes from him; may we all attain it, by the grace and love for humankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, to the ages of ages. Amen.