John 9:2Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He looked at him so intently that He drew the disciples' attention. This gave them occasion for the question.

Seeing how intently He looked, they asked Him, saying: "Who sinned, this man or his parents?"

A strange question! How could he sin before birth? Or how could he be punished for his parents' sins?

How, then, did they come to such a question?

Earlier, after healing the paralytic, Christ had said: "Behold, you are well; sin no more" (Jn 5:14).

Remembering that the man had been paralyzed because of sins, they say: Let that man have been paralyzed because of sins. But what will You say about this man?

Did he sin? This cannot be said, because he was blind from birth.

Or did his parents sin? This too is impossible, because a son is not punished for his father.

The disciples, noticing His attention to the blind man, ask: "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

This question seems strange. How could he have sinned before his birth?

The Apostles probably did not share the pagan superstition that the soul lives in another world before its union with the body and descends into the body as punishment for sin.

Being fishermen, they could not have heard anything of this sort, for such thoughts belonged to the philosophers.

Thus the question seems irrational, but not to one who is attentive. Know this.

The Apostles had heard Christ say to the paralytic: "Behold, you are well; sin no more, lest something worse happen to you" (Jn 5:14).

The disciples, inquisitive in good matters and very wise, were moved, not without divine inspiration, to desire to know this. They inquire beneficially, preparing from it a benefit not so much for themselves as for us. We receive no small profit when we hear here the true judgment from the All-knowing One. Besides this, we use it as a point of departure from the abomination of empty teachings. Such teachings existed not only among the Jews. Some who became excessively proud of their knowledge of the God-inspired Scriptures, and seemed to belong to the Christians, dared to pass off as truth what was rather the product of their own ingenuity and wishes. They were not afraid to mix Greek error with the doctrines of the Church. The unhappy Jews murmured greatly that they were supposedly bearing punishment for the impieties of their forefathers. They claimed that God without cause laid the sins of the fathers upon them. They mocked this as an utterly unjust judgment and even said it like a proverb: "The fathers ate unripe grapes, and the children's teeth were set on edge" (Ezek 18:2). These others, suffering from an ignorance close and akin to that of the Jews just mentioned, assert that the souls of men were created and existed before the creation of bodies. Having voluntarily fallen into sin, and that before their bodies, they are then united to bodies and receive existence in the flesh as a punishment. But with one brief word Christ destroyed the folly of both, affirming that neither the blind man nor his parents sinned. He overthrows the teaching of the Jews by saying that the man was born blind not because of any sin, neither his own nor ancestral, nor even his father's or mother's. He also crushes the empty chatter of those who say that souls sin before the body. Such people may very rightly be asked: how does Christ say that neither the blind man nor his parents sinned, although we cannot think them altogether pure of sin? As human beings, they undoubtedly fall naturally, indeed necessarily, into transgressions. Therefore the question is this: what time does Christ determine, in which His word must be true for us, that "neither he sinned nor his parents"? Plainly He speaks of the time before the man's birth, when, since they did not yet exist, they did not sin. We had a long discussion at the beginning of the Gospel concerning such empty talkers, who mistakenly regard as truth the opinion that souls sinned before bodies and therefore became incarnate and passed into this earthly region. This was when we expounded and explained the words: "He was the true Light, which enlightens every man coming into the world" (Jn 1:9). It would be superfluous for us now to enter again into discussion of this. But it is necessary to say how the Jews happened to come to such an opinion and supposition. We must clearly show that, being unable to understand the divine word, they departed from sound sense. Once Israel was making the tabernacle in the wilderness, and God called Moses the sacred teacher to Himself on Mount Sinai. Since he was there with God for a very long time, namely forty days, he began to seem slow to the people. Then they rose up against Aaron alone and, through faintheartedness, were carried away by the Egyptian false worship. They cried out: "Make us gods who shall go before us, for this Moses, the man who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him" (Ex 32:1). What followed after this, I think, should be briefly stated. "They made a calf," as it is written (Acts 7:41), and God was justly angered by this. He even threatened to destroy the whole assembly of the people. Then Moses approached Him in intercession and by prolonged prayer asked for mercy. The Creator of all inclined toward forgiveness. He decided that, although He would not punish the people, neither would He go with them into the land of promise. Rather, He would send His Angel with them as a kind of guide. Moses was grieved at this. From God's unwillingness to go with the people, he reasoned quite correctly that divine wrath had not yet fully ceased. So he again earnestly begged the Lord to go with them. He knew that the guidance of an Angel alone would not be sufficient for the Israelites. Or perhaps he feared for the weakness of the people. For this reason he declined the holy Angels who hate evil and entreated the good and man-loving King and Lord of all to be present Himself among those so easily inclined to transgressions. He knew that not once, but very often, the Lord would show them condescension and grant mercy for their transgressions. God also consented to this. Then Moses, for clear assurance and proof that full forgiveness had been given, began to ask a sign from Him, namely to see Him. "If I have found grace in Thy sight," he says, "show me Thyself, that I may clearly see Thee, since I have found grace in Thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation is Thy people" (Ex 33:13). God did this also, so far as it was accessible, assuring His servant in all things. He assured him both that He had forgiven the people's sin and that He would go with them into the land of promise. Then, as though placing a crown upon His promises, He commands him to hew two other tablets, plainly in place of the former ones that had been broken. He did this so that He might again inscribe the Law for him, providing in this also no small proof of His mercy toward them. When Moses had prepared for this, "the Lord descended in the cloud," as it is written (Ex 34:5-7), "and stood with him there, and called upon the name of the Lord. And the Lord passed before his face and cried: The Lord God, compassionate and merciful, long-suffering, abundant in mercy and true, keeping righteousness, showing mercy to thousands, taking away sins, iniquities, and unrighteousness. He will not cleanse the guilty, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children and upon the children's children, to the third and fourth generation." The speech here is entirely clear. I shall return to the question set at the beginning. God affirms that He has meekness befitting God and a certain incomparable love for mankind. We consider this His speech and not that of someone else, not even of wise Moses, as some think, offering prayers of thanksgiving for the people. That the Master of all Himself says this about Himself, no one other than blessed Moses himself will assure us in the book of Numbers. There Israel again insulted God by untimely cowardice, when some began to slander the land of promise. These were the ones whom Moses had sent at the Lord's command to inspect it. As soon as they returned from the land of the foreigners, they came again to the people and began to speak bitter words about it. They asserted that it was so wild and savage a country that it could destroy those who settled in it. By this they led their hearers into such despair that they poured out tears and wanted to return to Egyptian labors. "Let us appoint leaders," they said, "and go to Egypt" (Num 14:4). When God threatened to destroy them, Moses again began to entreat Him. He came before God as though reminding Him of the promise He had given, saying: "And now, let Thy power be exalted, O Lord, according to what Thou didst speak, saying: The Lord is long-suffering, abundant in mercy, true, taking away iniquities, unrighteousness, and sins. And by cleansing He will not cleanse the guilty, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation. Forgive the sin of Thy people according to Thy great mercy, as Thou hast been merciful to them from Egypt until now" (Num 14:17-19). Thus it appears that the God who is over all Himself bears witness to His love for mankind and His extreme long-suffering. But we must now clarify the cause of the Jews' false opinion, namely that our good God is supposedly resentful and heavy in wrath. I certainly do not think that they have any occasion to accuse the divine Scriptures of lacking complete perfection. Rather, it is solely to their own ignorance that they owe the thought that God truly visits the sins of parents upon children. They think divine wrath, by its duration, extends even to the third and fourth generation and unjustly punishes those who have committed no sin for what others are accused of. On the contrary, if anyone among them were wise, should he not reason properly in this way: the Fountain of righteousness and of our moral life cannot do unrighteousness. Men impose legally determined punishments on lawbreakers, but do not touch their descendants, unless those descendants are shown to be accomplices and participants in the crimes. How then could He who appointed for us the laws of all righteousness become an admirer of things that are utterly condemned even among us? Further, besides this, we must also consider the following. Through Moses He established many laws and appointed various punishments for those who live impiously. Nowhere does He appear to decree that the descendants of sinners be punished together with them. He appointed punishments only for transgressors and those guilty before the Law. Therefore it is impious to think in the Jewish manner. The wise man must always keep in view the properties of the divine Nature and everywhere preserve what befits the royal Nature ruling over all. Thus we must quite rightly think that the God of all, displaying as it were His own mercy and wishing to inspire reverence for His extreme love for mankind, cries out: "The Lord is long-suffering and abundant in mercy, true, taking away iniquities and sins" (Num 14:18). He would not wish to be regarded as so resentful that He extends His wrath even to the fourth generation. How then will He be long-suffering and abundant in mercy? Or how does He take away sins and iniquities, if He is not content with proportionate punishment on the head of the transgressor, but extends it beyond the third generation and, like a whirlwind, attacks the innocent? Therefore it is altogether incredible and borders on extreme foolishness to think that God testifies to the simultaneous presence in Himself not only of love for mankind and mercy, but also of such prolonged and irrational wrath. Besides this, those who think in the Jewish way must suppose something else as well, namely that God does not know the proper time for each thing. If He promises to be long-suffering and proves so ready to defer His wrath, why does He still add: "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation"? To do this would mean nothing other than wishing to frighten those who receive from Him remission of transgressions. They would have no hope left if He is so resentful and holds His just wrath for so long because of the insult they offered Him. Tell me, what then will the sacred teacher Moses himself appear to be before us? Will he not appear to be committing a most irrational act if, when Israel had insulted God and was about to be punished, he approached with prayer and asked God for forgiveness and love for mankind? Would he not be speaking untimely to God if he said: because Thou art usually such as to repay the sins of fathers upon the children of children? This would rather encourage wrath than call for mercy. It would ask for resentment, not long-suffering. But through these words, in my opinion, he thought to entreat God and to remind Him, as it were, of what He Himself proclaimed when declaring His inherent goodness. That He is long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and that it belongs to Him to take away sins and iniquities, is what is revealed from these words. They only seem to indicate severity. Therefore, I think we must now say how these words of God should be understood. "The Lord," he says, "is long-suffering and abundant in mercy, taking away iniquities and sins" (Ex 34:6-7).

Why did the Lord say, "Neither he nor his parents sinned," unless He was answering the question of why the man had been born blind?

His parents were sinners, but the fact that he was born blind did not occur because of that sin.

Therefore, if he was not born blind because of his parents' sin, why was he born blind? Hear the Teacher: "It was so that the works of God might be manifested in him."

Now, for the sake of certain questions concerning this passage, let us touch rather on the Lord's words and the content of the whole passage than interpret them fully.

"As He passed by, He saw a man blind," not blind for some particular reason, but "from birth."

They asked not because they necessarily assumed one or the other, like foolish Jews. To sin before birth is impossible, and to suffer punishment for one’s parents is unjust. Rather, the purpose of their words was this: the paralytic was ill because of his own sins, as we learned then. What then will You say about this man? “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” We are completely perplexed and can say neither one nor the other.

Therefore the disciples, feeling pity for his suffering and looking at a man who had not tasted the highest sweetness of the sight of light, asked with vain curiosity about the cause of the affliction.

They asked the Lord, not very skillfully, whether he had been born into the world this way by his own fault or because of his parents' sins.

In either case the question contains something worthy of blame. He would not have been condemned for his parents, since he was guilty of nothing.

God does not punish one person for another. Compare Ezek 18:20: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."

The Apostles, as disciples of wisdom and lovers of truth, saw that the Savior was looking intently at the blind man and, as it were, inviting them to ask a question.

They set before Him two well-known teachings, the investigation of which had occupied men.

The Greeks maintained that the soul had sinned and, as punishment for this, was sent into the body.

The Jews acknowledged that the sins of the ancestors pass to their descendants, according to what is written: "the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation" (Deut 5:9).

Therefore the disciples said to the Lord, as to One who knows all things before birth: "Who sinned, this man, as the Greeks say, or his parents, as the Jews say, that he was born blind?"

One stroke is that by which a sinner is struck in order to be punished without fail. Another is that by which a sinner is struck in order to be corrected. A third is that by which someone is sometimes punished, not to correct the past, but to prevent the future. There is another, chiefly used, by which neither past guilt is corrected nor future guilt restrained. Rather, when unexpected salvation follows the stroke, the saving virtue is loved more fervently after reflection.

"Teacher!" they ask. "Who sinned, this man," that is, the blind man, "or his parents, that he was born blind?"

This question is difficult to understand. For if this blind man was born blind from his mother's womb, when did he sin, so that he should be born blind as punishment for his sin?

When he had not been born, he did not yet exist. Therefore he could not have sinned.

And this, "or his parents?" also seems inconsistent with apostolic words.

For they themselves had been taught by divine Scripture that God punishes no one for the sin of his parents, but each one for his own transgressions.

It is said: "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek 18:4).

The healing of the man born blind.

As He was leaving the temple, Jesus saw a blind man asking alms. The Apostles asked Jesus: "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

The Apostles, like most Jews, believed that all the most serious misfortunes happen to people only as punishment for particular sins.

They believed this not only concerning people's own sins, but also concerning the sins of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents.

Such a belief was based on the law of Moses, which said that God punishes children for the guilt of the fathers to the third and fourth generation (Ex 20:5).

It was also based on the teaching of the rabbis, who maintained that a child can sin even in the mother's womb.

"Who sinned, this man or his parents?" The impulse for the disciples' question may have been the special attention with which, as they noticed, the Lord looked at the man born blind on this occasion.

Without doubt, the Lord revealed to His disciples on various occasions the connection between sin and human sicknesses (cf. Jn 5:6, 14). What, then, was the connection between sin and illness in relation to this man born blind?

That special misfortunes are consequences, or more precisely divine punishments, for particular sins was evidently a common or very widespread opinion.

The opinion is certainly just, but it cannot necessarily be applied to every case, as the Lord Himself indicated twice (Lk 13:1-3, 4-5).

"Rabbi! Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" the disciples asked.

The question was stirred by the observation that physical misfortunes, especially illnesses, are often the fruit of a sinful life.

Both experience and Scripture, Ex 20:5; 34:6; Deut 28:18, say that the sins of parents are punished in their children.

But if the blind man's blindness was the work of the blind man himself during the years of his free activity, why did he endure the misfortune from birth?

Was the sin foreseen? Was the inclination toward sin, from the beginning of the development of his life, restrained by blindness?

That he was blind from birth compels the disciples to ask. It is impossible that he sinned before birth, so they ask about his parents’ sin. They knew that the sufferings of children grieve their parents. But the Lord says that the blindness came not from anyone’s sin, but for the glory of God. This glory is manifested through the knowledge of God’s power, by the sight that appeared miraculously.