John 9:16Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Since they were rulers, they fell into unbelief through love of honor. Nevertheless, many even of the rulers believed in Him, though they did not express it openly. The common people were despised, because they had no great importance in their assembly. But the rulers, being more prominent men, found it much harder to speak openly. Some were restrained by love of power, others by timidity and fear before the crowd. For this reason Christ said, "How can you believe, who receive glory from one another?" (Jn 5:44).

These men said of themselves that they were from God, though they were seeking an unjust murder. But of Him who heals the blind they say that He cannot be from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath. Others answered that a sinner cannot do such signs. Thus the first, with evil intent, passed over the marvelous event in silence and put forward the supposed violation of the law. They did not say, He heals on the Sabbath, but, He does not keep the Sabbath.

Yet the latter, for their part, answered weakly. Though they should have shown that the Sabbath was not being violated, they appealed only to the signs. This is natural, because they still regarded Him as a man. Otherwise they could have said in His defense that He is Lord of the Sabbath, and that He Himself established it. But they did not yet have such a conception of Him.

Nevertheless, none of them dared to say directly what he wished. They spoke irresolutely and with hesitation, some from lack of courage, others from love of power. "And there was a division among them." This division began earlier among the people, and afterward passed to the rulers. "Some said that He is good; others said, No, but He deceives the people" (Jn 7:12).

Do you see that the rulers were more senseless than the people, and were divided among themselves only after the people? Yet even when divided, they showed no firmness, seeing the insistence of the Pharisees. If they had separated completely, they would soon have known the truth. Even division can be good. For this reason Christ said, "I did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" (Mt 10:34).

There is agreement that is evil, and there is disagreement that is good. Those who built the tower were in agreement to their own harm, and again, though unwillingly, they were divided for their own benefit. The companions of Korah did not agree with one another for good, and therefore they were divided for good. Judas also agreed with the Jews, but not for good.

Therefore disagreement can be good, and agreement can be evil. For this reason Christ says, "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out; if your foot, cut it off" (Mt 18:9, 8). If a member joined to us must be cut off when it harms us, how much more must we withdraw from friends when union with them does not lead to good? Thus agreement is not always good, just as disagreement is not always evil.

I say this so that we may avoid evil people and seek the good. If we cut off rotten and incurable members, fearing that the whole body will be infected with the same disease, and do this not from contempt for them but from a desire to preserve the other parts of the body, how much more must we act this way toward people whose company is harmful to us. If we can correct them and suffer no harm ourselves, we must make every effort. But if they will not be corrected, and we suffer harm, then it is necessary to reject and cast them away. From this they themselves often receive much greater benefit.

For this reason Paul urged in this way: "Put away the evil person from among you," and, "Let the one who has done this deed be removed from among you" (1 Cor 5:13, 2). Association with evil people is destructive, truly destructive. Infection and scab do not so quickly cling and destroy those who suffer from them as the evil habits of corrupt men. "Evil company corrupts good morals" (1 Cor 15:33). The prophet also says, "Flee from the midst of them and depart" (Jer 51:6).

Let no one have a corrupt friend. If we reject even corrupt children, and pay no regard to nature, its laws, or its bonds, much more must we flee corrupt friends and acquaintances. Even if we receive no harm from them, we will still be unable to avoid an evil reputation. Outsiders do not examine our life closely, but judge us by our company.

I command this also to wives and virgins. It is written, "Take thought for what is good," not only before God, but also "before men" (Rom 12:17). Let us therefore make every effort not to cause our neighbor to stumble. Even if our life is most righteous, if it becomes a stumbling block for others, it loses all its value.

How is it possible for a righteous life to cause stumbling? This happens when association with other people brings an evil reputation upon it. When, trusting in ourselves, we associate with corrupt people, then even if we ourselves suffer no harm, we cause others to stumble. I say this to men, women, and virgins, leaving it to their conscience to know precisely how many evils are born from this.

Let me not suspect anything evil, nor any other of the more perfect. Yet the simpler brother suffers harm from your perfection. One must pay attention to his weakness also. But if he does not suffer harm, the pagan will. Paul commanded, "Give no offense, either to Jews or Greeks or to the Church of God" (1 Cor 10:32).

I suspect nothing evil of a virgin, because I love virginity, and love thinks no evil. I greatly love this manner of life, and I cannot think anything bad of it. But how shall we persuade outsiders? We must care for them also. Let us therefore conduct ourselves so that no one, not even among unbelievers, can find a just occasion to reproach us.

As those who live righteously glorify God, so, on the contrary, those who live badly give occasion for blasphemy against Him. But may God forbid that there be such people among us. May our works shine in such a way that our Father who is in heaven may be glorified. May we be able to enjoy His glory. May we all be counted worthy of it, by the grace and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through Him and with Him, to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

Listen to what they say: "How can a sinful man do such signs?" Do you see how weakly they object?

Consider also the cunning of the slanderers. They do not say that He is not from God because He heals on the Sabbath, but because He does not keep the Sabbath.

They continually set before view not the benefaction, but the violation of the day.

Notice also that the rulers are slower toward good than the people. The people had already been divided in opinion, and not all spoke against Christ.

Only after the people did the rulers arrive at this praiseworthy division. For sometimes division too is good, as the Lord says, "I came to bring a sword upon the earth" (Mt 10:34).

That means, without doubt, disagreement for the sake of good and piety.

Yet they themselves untie an ox from the manger and lead it to water, Lk 13:15. If a sheep falls into a pit, as it is written, they pull it out with great zeal, Mt 12:11. They strain out the gnat, according to the Savior’s word, Mt 23:24.

This was very customary among them. Therefore, having quite irrationally and irrevocably refused to recognize the Wonderworker in Christ, and not wishing finally to learn from His deed who He is, they demean Him because of the Sabbath.

As though all the works of virtue among them consisted in Sabbath rest alone, they wholly deprive Him of nearness to God, saying that He is not from God.

On the contrary, they ought to have acknowledged that the Master of His own laws was already present. They ought to have acknowledged that it is pleasing and dear to God to do good even on the Sabbath, and not to leave without hope one who asks for mercy.

“Others said: How can a sinful man do such signs? And there was a division among them.” These too still think meanly of Him, speaking and reasoning about Him as a mere man.

Nevertheless, under the influence of the miracle, they give Christ precedence over the law. From the divine sign they already present proof of the fuller meaning of the Sabbath, and show themselves to be far more just judges.

Indeed, to free entirely from accusation of transgression and to count free from sin Him who did not refuse to do on the Sabbath what was fitting: does this not contradict their ordinances concerning the Sabbath?

By a necessary conclusion, as it seems, and one with great foundation, they come to this thought and say this. It is obvious and wholly indisputable that God would never give power to do anything wondrous to those who despise the divine law and count the ordinances from above as nothing.

But, as the Jews think, He gave this power to Christ, though He violated the law concerning the Sabbath. Can there be any doubt, then, that doing something on the Sabbath does not lead to sin, or that doing good works is much higher than abstaining from works during it?

For the Levites also, as the Savior Himself again says in one place, are permitted to perform sacred service on the Sabbath, Mt 12:5. They remain unpunished for this occupation. On the contrary, avoiding the work would not go unpunished.

Who would accuse them because they offer oxen in sacrifice on the Sabbath, or perform other kinds of sacrifices? Rather, they should be accused if they did not do what was necessary and required by the service under the Law.

If, then, sacrifices under the Law dedicated for someone’s salvation were unhindered as they ascended to the divine altar even on the Sabbath, how much more fitting was it that works of divine grace be performed for man, for whose sake a miracle ought to be approved even on the Sabbath?

Therefore, arriving at the right conclusion by sound reasoning, some of the Jews marvel at the glory of the Savior. They do so only after barely removing from the eyes of their mind the blindness of ignorance which belongs to the Gentiles.

They do not yet marvel as they ought. For although they speak of Him more lowly than they should, they separate themselves from those who lightly condemned Him.

Some, impiously yielding to envy and not to sound judgment, turn into lawlessness what does not deserve accusation at all. Others, looking rightly at the substance of the matter, condemn the madness of the former.

Yet it seems that those who said, “How can a sinful man do such signs?” intended something else as well. They strive, so to speak, to defend the whole choir of the saints.

For if, they say, we allow that those accustomed to sin can shine with deeds surpassing word and reason, and themselves be wonderworkers, then what obstacle will remain for slanderers? They could accuse the choir of the prophets, or even attack blessed Moses himself.

They could count so honorable a prophet as nothing, though the best of all virtues have been testified of him. Therefore, for Christ’s sake, they also defend the glory of the fathers, taking what was said about Him as a pretext, as it were, for love toward them.

When would anyone not praise the doer of good, or at what time should virtue not exist? Yet, though they honored that ancient Jesus who took Jericho on the Sabbath, and commanded their fathers to do all that victors customarily do, they attack Christ.

That ancient Jesus in this way assigned no importance to Sabbath rest. But in their evil-mindedness, they strive not only to deprive Christ of divine glory, but they do not even assign to Him the honor fitting to the saints.

Able through their envy to do only empty talking, they accuse of impiety Him who justifies the world, and who for this came to us from the Father.

Rather, He, being without sin, kept it. For the Sabbath in the spiritual sense is to have no sin.

Finally, brethren, when God commanded the Sabbath, He proclaimed, "You shall do no servile work" (cf. Lev 23:8).

These are the words of God Who commanded the Sabbath: "You shall do no servile work."

Recall from the earlier readings what servile work is, and hear the Lord: "Everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin" (Jn 8:34).

But those who could not see and were not anointed, as I said, observed the Sabbath bodily and defiled it spiritually.

Others said, "How can a sinful man do such signs?" Behold, they are not anointed. "And there was a division among them." The day separated light from darkness.

This was too painful for their learned egotism. Therefore, at all costs, they had to refute the credibility of the great miracle, even if this required trampling on conscience and every law of logic.

This was precisely the aim set by that "learned commission" of scribes and Pharisees which had to examine the matter.

When the former blind man, in answer to the Pharisees' question, told them how everything had happened, a bitter dispute arose among them.

Some of them insistently affirmed, "This Man, Jesus, is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath."

But others answered them, "How can a sinful man do such signs?"

The obviousness of the miracle was so irresistible that, at first, even the scribes themselves had no doubt about it.

Thus they acknowledged the reality of the miracle performed by the Lord, and from this concluded His holiness. Together with this, they denied that His action had offended the Sabbath.

In this healing, they rightly thought, one sees either the divine action of the Wonderworker or divine cooperation with Him.

A sinner, a violator of the law, cannot make use of God's cooperation and help. Therefore, in the act under consideration there is no violation of the Sabbath law.

Moreover, the One Who performed such a miracle cannot be a sinner, but is undoubtedly a messenger of God.

Taking into account how many other miracles Jesus had performed, they came to the conviction that Jesus was the true Messiah.

"What do you say about Him?" the prejudiced asked the blind man. "He is a prophet," he answered.

Without fear, and with a free soul, he reveals the conviction of simple, sound reason.

He is a prophet, he said. He is a man sent by God, because only with the power of God can such a deed be done as the healing of a man born blind.