But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
Read Chapter 9
Alcuin of York
AD 804
The Evangelist shows that it wasnot from ignorance, but feat, that they gave this answer.
I.e. had been blind, and now saw.
As if to say, We might justly be compelled to speak for an infant, that could not speak for itself: but he, though blind from his birth, has been always able to speak.
It was no disadvantage to be put out of the synagogue: whom they cast out, Christ took in.
But the Jews did not believe, &c. They hoped to elicit something from them to refute either the blind man or Christ, "by finding that he was not born blind," says S. Chrysostom, or was not quite blind but dim-sighed, or that he regained his sight by magic, and not by the miracle wrought by Christ. "They sought," says S. Augustine, "how they might accuse him, that they might cast him out of the synagogue," as they shortly afterwards did. Theophylact states that this was their dilemma. It is either false that your son now sees, or that he was blind at first. But it is admitted that he sees, it was therefore false that he was, as he says, previously blind. His parents reply cautiously. They knew him to be their Song of Solomon , and that he was born blind. But how he gained his sight they knew not. They speak with prudence so as not to deny the truth, nor yet incur the peril of excommunication. And hence they say, "He is of age," meaning, says S. Augustine, "we should justly be compelled ...
The envy against the Healer which is hot within them does not allow them to believe what is acknowledged by all; and, swayed by the frenzy of madness, they of course care little for the discovery of truth, and speak falsely against Christ. First they applied pressure to the man himself, and now they are seen to be no less rashly distressing his parents, but with the very opposite result to that which they intended. They propose a most superfluous question to the man's parents, and they seem to me, in their unbounded folly, to dishonour the very law which they so venerated and so extravagantly upheld. For the neighbours, as it is written, brought him that aforetime was blind, and setting him face to face with those who were asking these questions, they reported most clearly that he had been born blind, and bore witness that now he had received sight. Thus, whereas the law distinctly says that every matter is established by the mouth of two or three witnesses, they set aside the testimon...
The Pharisees being unable, by intimidation, to deter the blind man from publicly proclaiming his Benefactor, try to nullify the miracle through the parents. But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they had called the parents of him that had received his sight.
But it is the nature of truth, to be strengthened by the very snares that are laid against it. A lie is its own antagonist, and by its attempts to injure the truth, sets it off to greater advantage: as is the case now. For the argument which might otherwise have been urged, that the neighbors knew nothing for certain, but spoke from a mere resemblance, is cutoff by introduction of the parents, who could of course testify to their own son. Having brought these before the assembly, they interrogate them with great sharpness, saying, Is this your son, (they say not, who was born blind, but) who you say was born blind? Say. Why what father is there, that would say such thing...
Either, say they, it is not true that he now sees, or it is untrue that he was blind before: but it is evident that he now sees; therefore it is not true that he was born blind.
For they were fainthearted; not like their son, that intrepid witness to the truth, the eyes of whose understanding had been enlightened by God.
