Sunday of the Blind Man

The holy Apostle Andronicus and his fellow-laborer Junia were kinsmen of the Apostle Paul, and were numbered among the Seventy whom the Lord sent out before His face. Paul himself remembers them with affection, writing to the Church in Rome: “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me” (Rom. 16:7). Both this verse and the Service to them confess that they suffered for Christ as confessors and as martyrs.

Andronicus was consecrated Bishop of Pannonia, but the Spirit did not confine him to the borders of his diocese. With Junia at his side, he traveled to lands far from Pannonia, preaching to pagans, closing the temples of idols, and raising churches of Christ in their place. The Church remembers them together—not as the famous and the forgotten, but as the apostle and the apostle, a man and a woman, both labouring in the Gospel, both “of note among the apostles.”

In the fifth century, in the reign of the emperors Arcadius and Honorius, their relics were uncovered together with the relics of many martyrs at the Gate of Eugenius in Constantinople. There they had lain, anonymous and waiting; the Lord revealed them in the appointed season. Their commemoration sits well beside this Sunday’s Gospel: the man born blind, healed by Christ and cast out by the Pharisees, became Christ’s confessor in the streets of Jerusalem. Andronicus and Junia carried that same confession to Pannonia and beyond.

Two brothers of the noble Apsarades family of Ioannina, both raised from childhood in piety and letters. In the year 1495 they renounced the world and took the monastic habit; for a time they sought instruction from the deposed Patriarch Niphon II at the Monastery of Dionysiou on the Holy Mountain. In 1511 they left Ioannina for Meteora—the great rock-spires of Thessaly already dotted, by that century, with monasteries clinging to their peaks.

With the blessing of Metropolitan Bessarion of Larissa and the abbot of the Great Meteoron, the brothers settled on the desolate pillar known as Varlaam in October of 1517. The rock was uninhabited; an earlier hermit named Varlaam had lived there in the fourteenth century, but his small dwelling had long since fallen to ruin. Theophanes and Nectarios spent twenty-two years hoisting timber, stone, and lime up the sheer cliff in nets. When the building of the great church of All Saints began in 1542, the work itself was completed in only twenty days—but the materials had been twenty-two years in arriving. The church was consecrated on May 17, 1544, and that day became the brothers’ feast.

Saint Nectarios reposed in peace on April 7, 1550. Saint Theophanes followed him soon after. Their relics rest still at Varlaam—the right hand of Nectarios and the left hand of Theophanes, with the skin incorrupt—silent witnesses to the slow obedience by which the kingdom of God is built. On a Sunday when the Gospel celebrates the man who washed and saw, the Church remembers two brothers who hoisted and built. Both kinds of labor end at the throne.

Nicholas Basdanis was born in Metsovo in Epirus to poor but devout Orthodox parents. As a young man he went to Trikkala in Thessaly and was apprenticed to a Muslim baker. The household pressed him, day after day, to deny Christ and embrace Islam; finally, his resolve broken, he yielded. The conscience the Holy Spirit had planted in him would not be silenced. He fled back to Metsovo, made his confession, and returned to the Church.

But his heart accused him still. He believed there was only one way to atone for the denial of Christ: to confess Him publicly, before those whom he had once joined, and to die for the confession. He set out for Trikkala, presented himself before the local authority, and named himself a Christian. Sentence was passed: he was to be burned alive in the central square. On May 17, 1617, the New Martyr Nicholas was led to the fire and gave up his soul to Christ. A year later, on the night of May 17, 1618, a Christian named Melandros saw a strange light shining from the wall of a house he had bought in the town. In the morning, opening the wall, he found the martyr’s skull—the Lord glorifying His confessor exactly one year after he had been received into glory.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate formally numbered Saint Nicholas the Younger among the saints of the Universal Church on November 28, 1988. His witness rhymes, with painful directness, with the Gospel of this Sunday: the man born blind, given the gift of sight by Christ, refused to retract his testimony under pressure and was cast out. Nicholas, having retracted under pressure, sought out the very fire that would let him confess again.

Theodotos was a married man, an innkeeper in Ancyra of Galatia, during the persecutions under Diocletian and his prefect Theoteknos. When the churches of the city were destroyed and Christians scattered, Theodotos turned his inn into a sanctuary: there the Liturgy was celebrated in secret, and from there he went out, in the dangerous quiet of the nights, to ransom the bodies of the martyrs from soldiers and to bury them with honor.

Among those put on trial were seven virgins consecrated to God from their youth: Tecusa (the aunt of Saint Theodotos), Alexandra, Phaine, Claudia, Euphrasia, Matrona, and Julia. They confessed Christ before the prefect and were tortured. When they would not yield, the prefect gave them over to be defiled by godless youths; the saints called upon Christ and the youths were rendered powerless. The prefect then ordered each one to be tied to a heavy stone and drowned in the lake of Ancyra. That same night, Saint Tecusa appeared in a dream to her nephew Theodotos and asked him to recover their bodies. Taking with him his friend Polychronius and a small band of Christians, he went out by night, found the seven bodies in the lake, and gave them Christian burial.

For this act of love he was himself arrested, tortured, and beheaded. His head, by the providence of God, was carried back to his village by a relic-bearing donkey that refused all other paths. The account of the martyrdom of the Eight was set down by Nilus, a contemporary of the saint, who lived in Ancyra during the persecution and witnessed what he wrote. Their commemoration on this day links the Sunday’s Gospel—the Lord of the Temple found him—to the long line of those who, cast out for the truth, found themselves received into the company of Christ.

Athanasios the New labored as Archbishop of Christianopolis in the Peloponnese in the late seventeenth century, in a time when the Greek Christian people lived under heavy yoke. He is remembered for the gift of healing that flowed from him, and for the wonders God worked through his prayer. The Church’s troparion to him is the one she sings for many faithful hierarchs: “In truth you were revealed to your flock as a rule of faith, an image of humility and a teacher of abstinence; your humility exalted you; your poverty enriched you.”

In April and May of 1876, Bulgarian Christians rose against three centuries of Ottoman rule in what is now remembered as the April Uprising. The reprisal of the bashi-bazouk irregulars fell hardest on the mountain town of Batak in southern Bulgaria. Between four and five thousand of the town’s inhabitants—men, women, children, and the aged—fled to the Church of Saint Nedelya (Holy Sunday), the only sanctuary they had. The Ottoman forces set the church on fire and slaughtered those who fled from it. The blood is said to have reached the height of the church wall, where the marks remain to this day. Across Bulgaria as a whole, an estimated thirty thousand Christians were killed in the same weeks.

On April 3, 2011, after a hundred and thirty-five years, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church formally glorified the victims of Batak and Novo Selo as saints. They were the first Bulgarians to be canonized in forty-six years, and the Church appointed their commemoration on May 17—the day on which the bulk of the slaughter at Batak took place. They stand, on this Sunday’s calendar, as recent confessors of the same Christ whom the blind man worshipped in John 9:38—and as a reminder that cast out for the truth is not only a phrase from Chrysostom but a living memory of the body of Christ.

• “Behold this miracle, the like of which has never been seen: others have restored the sight of blind men, but never of a man born blind. It is clear that Christ performed this miracle as God Who is before Abraham.”—Theophylact of Ochrid
• “By using the clay, the Lord showed that it was He Who formed Adam out of clay. … He did not merely fashion the eyes, or open them, but gave them vision. This proves that it was He Who breathed the soul into Adam.”—Theophylact of Ochrid
• “The affliction was to the blind man’s benefit, and through his healing he came to know the true Sun of Righteousness.”—Theophylact of Ochrid
• “Wonderful clemency and condescension of God! Even the beggars He heals with so great considerateness. … He came for the salvation of all.”—St. John Chrysostom
• “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.”—St. John Chrysostom
• “Do you see the bold-speaking of a beggar towards Scribes and Pharisees? So strong is truth, so weak is falsehood. Truth, though she take hold but of ordinary men, makes them to appear glorious; the other, even though it be with the strong, shows them weak.”—St. John Chrysostom
• “The Jews cast him out from the Temple, and the Lord of the Temple found him; he was separated from that pestilent company, and met with the Fountain of salvation; he was dishonored by those who dishonored Christ, and was honored by the Lord of Angels. Such are the prizes of truth.”—St. John Chrysostom
• “Cast out of the temple, he was at once found by the master of the temple.”—Theophylact of Ochrid
• “He worshipped Him as God, although beholding Him in the flesh without the glory which is really God-befitting. But having had his heart illumined by Christ’s indwelling power and authority, he advances to wise and good thoughts by fair reasoning, and beholds the beauty of His Divine and Ineffable Nature.”—St. Cyril of Alexandria
• “Those who suffer for the truth’s sake, and confession of Christ, come to greatest honor. … The people have cast reproaches on Me, but I care not for them; one thing only I care for, that you may believe.”—St. John Chrysostom

”Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—While the Jews were raging against Him and now essaying to wound Him with stones, forthwith He goes forth of the temple that is among them, and takes Him away from the unholiness of His pursuers. And in passing by, straightway He seeth one blind from his birth, and setteth him as a token, and that most clear, that He will remove from the abominable behaviour of the Jews, and will leave the multitude of the God-opposers, and will rather visit the Gentiles. He likens them to the blind from his birth by reason of their having been made in error and that they are from their first age as it were bereft of the true knowledge of God.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—The Jews having rejected Christ’s words, because of their depth, He went out of the temple, and healed the blind man; that His absence might appease their fury, and the miracle soften their hard hearts, and convince their unbelief. It is to be remarked here that, on going out of the temple, He betook Himself intently to this manifestation of His power. He first saw the blind man, not the blind man Him: and so intently did He fix His eye upon him, that His disciples were struck.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—The Lord leaves the temple in order to dampen the anger of the Jews a little, and turns to the healing of the blind man. By this miracle He attempts to soften their stubborn disbelief, though they derived no benefit from it; at the same time, He shows them that He did not speak idly or boastfully when He said, Before Abraham was, I am (Jn. 8:58). Behold this miracle, the like of which has never been seen: others have restored the sight of blind men, but never of a man born blind. It is clear that Christ performed this miracle as God Who is before Abraham. To prove this to the Jews, He intentionally approached the blind man, and not vice-versa.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+202)—They also maintain that the Saviour exhibited an emblem of this mystery in the case of that man who was blind from his birth.

The Apostolic Constitutions (c. +375)—He that supplied a defective part to him that was born blind from clay and spittle…

”And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’”

St. Clement of Rome (+99)—In regard to the man who was blind from his birth, and recovered his sight, if this man sinned, or his parents, that he should be born blind, He answered, “Neither did he sin at all, nor his parents, but that the power of God might be made manifest through him in healing the sins of ignorance.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—That not from sins of the soul prior to birth do bodily sufferings befall any, nor yet does God bring the sins of their fathers upon any, punishing those who have nothing sinned, but brings righteous doom upon all. Being desirous (and not without good reason) that the mystery should be explained, the most wise disciples were urged to ask instruction on the subject. We are benefited greatly both by hearing the true explanation of these things from the Omniscient, and in addition also by being warned off from the abomination of effete doctrines. These errors not only used to exist among the Jews, but are also advocated now by some who are insufferably conceited in their knowledge of inspired Scripture and seem to pass for Christians.

”Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.’”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—This He says not as acquitting them of sins, for He says not simply, “Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents,” but adds, “that he should have been born blind—but that the Son of God should be glorified in him.” For both this man has sinned and his parents, but his blindness proceeds not from that. And this He said, not signifying that though this man indeed was not in such case, yet that others had been made blind from such a cause—the sins of their parents—since it cannot be that when one sins another should be punished. For if we allow this, we must also allow that he sinned before his birth.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—Now another perplexity arises. One might ask, “How could Christ say this? Was it not unjust to deprive this man of his sight so that the works of God should be made manifest in him? Could not these works have been revealed some other way?” We would answer, “How have you been treated unjustly, O man?” “I have been robbed of light,” he replies. “But what harm did you suffer by being deprived of material light? Now you have received not only physical vision, but that incomparable blessing—the enlightenment of the eyes of your soul.” Thus the affliction was to the blind man’s benefit, and through his healing he came to know the true Sun of Righteousness.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+202)—When His disciples asked Him for what cause the man had been born blind, whether for his own or his parents’ fault, He replied, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

”I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Here again in these words, plainly and reasonably, He rebukes the disciples, as if they had done something they ought not. “Why do ye ask,” says He, “things touching which it is good to be silent? Or why, leaving that which suits the time, do ye hasten to learn things beyond the capacity of man? It is not a time for such curiosity, but for work and intense zeal.” When the Lord numbers Himself with those who are sent, and enrols Himself among those who ought to work, in no way does He make Himself really one of us, or say that He Himself is subject as we are by a certain servile necessity to the will of a commander; but He uses a common habit of speech.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—That is, “I must manifest Myself, and do the things which may show that I do the same things with the Father; not things similar, but the same.” Who then after this will face Him, when he sees that He has the same power with the Father? For not only did He form or open eyes, but gave also the gift of sight, which is a proof that He also breathed in the soul.

”As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Shall we then think that Christ is now not at all in the world, or do we believe that He, having ascended to heaven after His restoration to life from the dead, no longer dwells among those in this present life? And yet being very God, He fills and tends not only the heavens and what is beyond the firmament, but also the world which we inhabit. Just as while He associated in the flesh with men, He was not absent from heaven, so if we think rightly we shall hold the opinion that even though He is out of the world as regards the flesh, His Divine and ineffable Nature is yet no less present among those who dwell in the world.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—As also He said to others, Believe while the light is with you (Jn. 12:36). Wherefore then did Paul call this life night and that other day? Not opposing Christ, but saying the same thing, if not in words yet in sense; for he also says, The night is far spent, the day is at hand (Rom. 13:12). The present time he calls night, because of those who sit in darkness, or because he compares it with that day which is to come. Christ calls the future night, because there sin has no power to work; but Paul calls the present life night, because they are in darkness who continue in wickedness and unbelief.

”When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Accepting the cure wrought upon this blind man as a type of the calling of the Gentiles, we will tell the meaning of the mystery, summing it up in few words. First then because it was merely in passing, and after leaving the Jewish temple, that He saw the blind man; and again from this circumstance also, that without intreaty and no man soliciting Him, but rather of His own accord and from a spontaneous inclination, the Saviour came to a determination to heal the man—hence we shall profitably look upon the miracle as symbolical. It shows that as no intreaty has been made by the multitude of the Gentiles, for they were all in error, God, being indeed in His nature good, of His own will has come forward to shew mercy unto them.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Those who intend to gain any advantage from what they read must not pass by even any small portion of the words; and on this account we are bidden to search the Scriptures, because most of the words, although at first sight easy, appear to have in their depth much hidden meaning. For observe of what sort is the present case. Having said these words, it says, He spat on the ground. What words? “That the glory of God should be made manifest, and that, I must work the works of Him that sent Me.”

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—When He had thus spoken, Jesus did not stop with words, but at once added the deed: He spat on the ground, and having made clay, He anointed the eyes of the blind man. By using the clay, the Lord showed that it was He Who formed Adam out of clay. Earlier He announced, in so many words, “I am He Who formed Adam,” offending His listeners; now He demonstrates with an irrefutable deed the truth of that proclamation. Jesus created eyes for the blind man out of clay, just as He had done for Adam. He did not merely fashion the eyes, or open them, but gave them vision. This proves that it was He Who breathed the soul into Adam.

”And He said to him, ‘Go, wash in the pool of Siloam’ (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing.”

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (+202)—And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration…

”Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, ‘Is not this he who sat and begged?’”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—The suddenness of the miracle made men incredulous. The neighbors and they who had seen him that he was blind, said, “Is not this he that sat and begged?” Wonderful clemency and condescension of God! Even the beggars He heals with so great considerateness: thus stopping the mouths of the Jews; in that He made not the great, illustrious, and noble, but the poorest and meanest, the objects of His providence. Indeed He had come for the salvation of all. … For He came for the salvation of all. And what happened in the case of the paralytic, happened also with this man, for neither did the one or the other know who it was that healed him.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—Staggered by this extraordinary miracle, the neighbors still did not believe. Yet the blind man’s arriving at the Pool of Siloam, his eyes smeared with mud, was ordained by the Lord for the express purpose of drawing the attention of many onlookers, who later would be unable to deny that they knew the man. But they disbelieved nevertheless. The Evangelist does not simply remark in passing that the man was a beggar: he does so to show that the Lord’s love for mankind was so inexpressibly great that He condescended to help the most abject of men. With tender solicitude He healed beggars, teaching us to care for the least of our brethren. Unashamed of his former affliction, unafraid of the crowd, the blind man boldly confesses, “I am he,” and proclaims his benefactor: “A man that is called Jesus….”

”Some said, ‘This is he.’ Others said, ‘He is like him.’ He said, ‘I am he.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Hard indeed to be believed are such surpassing wonders. … Hence, I think, the unbelief of some who had previously known the blind man haunting the cross-roads, and who were astonished afterwards when they beheld him unexpectedly able to discern objects with clear vision. And they are divided, from uncertainty regarding the event, and some who consider more carefully the greatness of the deed say that it is not the same man, but one remarkably like him whom they had known. For indeed it really is not strange that this opinion should be expressed by some, who by rejecting the truth were compelled through the greatness of the miracle to adopt an involuntary falsehood.

”Therefore they said to him, ‘How were your eyes opened?’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—With difficulty they consent to believe that he was the same man whom they had known aforetime, and abandoning their hesitation on this point, they ask how he had got rid of his blindness. … This thou mayest accept as a beautiful type of the converts from among the Gentiles becoming teachers to the people of Israel, after escaping from their former blindness and receiving the illumination which comes from Our Saviour Christ through the Spirit.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—What do you say? Does a man work such deeds? As yet he knew nothing great concerning Him. “A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes.” Observe how truthful he is.

”He answered and said, ‘A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, “Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.” So I went and washed, and I received sight.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—He appears still to be ignorant that the Saviour is by nature God, for otherwise he would not have spoken of Him so unworthily. He probably thought of Him and esteemed Him as a holy Man, forming this opinion perhaps from the somewhat indistinct rumour concerning Him that went about all Jerusalem. Moreover we may observe that those afflicted of body and struggling with abject poverty never feel overmuch zeal in occupying themselves about making acquaintance, their unmitigated poverty exhausting as it were their mental faculties. Therefore he speaks of Him merely as a Man, and describes the manner of the healing.

”Then they said to him, ‘Where is He?’ He said, ‘I do not know.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Not from devout feelings do they inquire for Jesus, nor are they moved to inquire where and with whom He was uttering discourses, so that they might go and seek some profit from His doings; but being blinded in the eyes of their understanding, even much worse than he had formerly been in those of his body, they are inflamed with most unjust anger, and rage like untamable beasts.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—They said, “Where is He?” having already murderous intentions against Him. But observe the modesty of Christ, how He continued not with those who were healed; because He neither desired to reap glory, nor to draw a multitude, nor to make a show of Himself. Observe too how truthfully the blind man makes all his answers.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—After the Lord had healed or worked some other miracle, He would withdraw from that place to avoid ostentation. This is why the Jews ask the blind man, “Where is He?” He answers, “I know not,” for he is always truthful. They brought him to the Pharisees for closer and harsher questioning. The Evangelist emphasizes that it was the Sabbath day in order to reveal their evil intent as they grasp for allegations to make against Christ. By accusing the Lord of breaking the Sabbath, they hoped to divert attention from the miracle.

”They brought him who formerly was blind to the Pharisees.”

Cornelius a Lapide (+1637) (Western source—included only because no Eastern commentary was available for this verse on the Catena)—They brought him to the Pharisees, that they might examine the matter. This was done by the purpose of God, that the miracle might be fully attested and made widely known, so that the Pharisees could not deny it. … “They bring him to the Pharisees, as being judges, and therefore assembled in their house of judgment.” This house seems to have been a synagogue, close to the temple; for a question of religion and belief was at stake. It was the Sabbath day.

”Now it was a Sabbath when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—They bring the man to the rulers, not that they might learn what had been done to him, and admire it; for it was not likely that men travailing with extreme envy against our Saviour Christ could ever be pleased by any such thing; but that they might publicly convict Jesus, as they thought, of a transgression of the law, and accuse Him of being a wrong-doer in having made clay on the sabbath. For rejecting the idea of the miracle because of its incredibility, they lay hold of the deed as a transgression, and for a proof of what had been done they exhibit the man upon whom He had dared to perform the miracle.

”Then the Pharisees also asked him again how he had received his sight. He said to them, ‘He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—He said unto them, “He put clay upon mine eyes and I washed, and do see.” They receive eagerly, as if it were a sort of food for their envy, his confession of the marvel, and gladly seize upon the excuse for their rage against Jesus. For the man who had been blind relates everything on this occasion very simply, and speaks very abruptly, in brief expressions praising as it were his Physician. … “I know that I am speaking to a malicious audience, but nevertheless I will not on that account conceal the truth.”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Observe, I pray you, how the blind man is not disturbed. When being questioned he spoke in the presence of those others without danger, it was no such great thing to tell the truth, but the wonder is, that now when he is placed in a situation of greater fear, he neither denies nor contradicts what he had said before.

”Therefore some of the Pharisees said, ‘This Man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.’ Others said, ‘How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?’ And there was a division among them.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Even these still think too meanly, speaking and reckoning as of a mere man; only, being convinced by the marvellous deed, they give the palm to Christ rather than to the law. … For it is manifest and acknowledged beyond question, that to those who neglect the Divine law, and set at nought precepts ratified from on high, God would never give the power to achieve anything wonderful. … Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath.” In their folly they say He is not from God, Who has the power to work the works of God; and although they see the Son crowned with an equal measure of glory with the Almighty Father, they are not ashamed unreasonably to cast upon Him the blame of impiety.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Do you see that they were led up by the miracles? … And these who were seeking to kill Him unjustly said that they were of God, but that He who healed the blind could not be of God, because He kept not the Sabbath; to which the others objected, that a sinner could not do such miracles.

”They said to the blind man again, ‘What do you say about Him because He opened your eyes?’ He said, ‘He is a prophet.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—And he said, “He is a prophet.” They receive a sharp arrow into their hearts, who do not admit fair and just reasoning, and are eager to seek that only which gratifies their malice. … For the man who had been healed, judging very rightly, agrees with the opinion of the other party. … And he upon whom the marvel has been wrought, all but pursuing the same track of argument, declares Jesus to be a prophet, not yet having accurately learned Who He is in truth, but adopting a notion current among the Jews.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—Which of the two groups of Pharisees asked the blind man, “What sayest thou of Him?” The one inclined to judge Christ fairly. Having posed the question, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” they now bring forward the beneficiary of the Lord’s power, in defense of Christ and as a living refutation of the Lord’s slanderers. This faction of the Pharisees did not demand, “What do you have to say about that lawbreaker who dared to make clay on the Sabbath?” Instead, they speak kindly to the blind man, even mentioning the miracle. They admit that “He hath opened thine eyes,” as if to encourage him to speak openly on Christ’s behalf.

”But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind and received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight.”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—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. … 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?”

”And they asked them, saying, ‘Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?’”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—As if they were acting deceitfully, and plotting on behalf of Christ. O you accursed, utterly accursed! What father would choose to invent such falsehoods against his child? For they almost say, “Whom you have made out blind, and not only so, but have spread abroad the report everywhere. How then does he now see?”

”His parents answered them and said, ‘We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—They acknowledge as true that which was in no wise doubtful and for which it was hardly likely they would suffer anything disagreeable; for they say that they recognise their own offspring, and do not deny what really was the case at his birth, but distinctly affirm that he was born with the affliction. Nevertheless they shrink from relating the miracle, leaving the nature of the deed to speak for itself. … Fear of danger is certainly a powerful motive to turn men aside from what it befits them to do.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—The Pharisees had put three questions to the parents of the blind man: “Is he your son? Was he born blind? And how did he gain his sight?” To the first two they assert: “He is our son, and he was born blind.” Concerning how he was healed they are silent, because they do not know. Without doubt this took place for the greater confirmation of the truth; for the man who received the benefit of the miracle, and was the most credible of all the witnesses, said exactly the same. … These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews. They were still weak in faith and more faint-hearted than their son, who proved to be a steadfast witness to the truth.

”but by what means he now sees we do not know, or who opened his eyes we do not know. He is of age; ask him. He will speak for himself.”

No Eastern patristic commentary available for this verse.

”His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that He was Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Well and fitly does our Lord Jesus the Christ utter this woe at the heads of the Pharisees: Woe unto you lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. For behold! besides the unwillingness of any one of them to teach the doctrine of the presence of the Christ among them, they both terrify with cruel fear those who could perceive Him by the brilliance of His actions, and, by imposing a severe compulsion in their savageness, hinder any member of their company who seemed disposed to do so from acknowledging His miracles.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Observe how the Evangelist again brings forward their opinion and thoughts. … When therefore the parents referred them to him that had been healed, they called him again the second time, and did not say openly and shamelessly, “Deny that Christ healed you,” but would fain effect this under a pretense of piety.

”Therefore his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him.’”

No Eastern patristic commentary available for this verse.

”So they again called the man who was blind, and said to him, ‘Give God the glory! We know that this Man is a sinner.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Being unable to stop the man from speaking well of Christ, they attempt to attain a similar end by another method, and proceed to entice him in a sort of coaxing way to fulfil their private aim. Trying by many arguments to make him forget Christ altogether, and not even mention Him as a Physician, they say most craftily that he ought to ascribe glory to God on account of the marvellous deed, thus pretending piety. Nevertheless they bid him agree with and believe themselves, even when they maintain the highest impiety possible by saying that He is a sinner, Who came to destroy sin.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—They do not openly say now, “Deny that Christ has healed you,” but conceal their object under the pretense of religion: “Give God the praise”—i.e., confess that this man has had nothing to do with the work. Why then did you not convict Him, when He said above, Which of you convinceth Me of sin? (Jn. 8:46). But how comes this, “whether He be a sinner, I know not,” from one who had said, “He is a Prophet”?

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—At the parents’ suggestion, the insolent Pharisees had the blind man brought to them again, not for further questioning, but to intimidate him into denying his Healer. Their words, “Give God the glory,” mean, “Confess that Jesus did nothing to you—by not attributing anything good to Jesus, you give glory to God.” “We know,” they say, “that this man is a sinner.” Why, then, O Pharisees, did you not accuse Him when He challenged you, Which of you convinceth Me of sin (Jn. 8:46)? But the blind man answers them, “Whether He be a sinner or no, I know not”; that is, “It is not mine to decide this now, nor even to consider it. Of one thing I am certain: He did work a miracle for me.”

”He answered and said, ‘Whether He is a sinner or not I do not know. One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—The benefit which the man formerly blind had received from Christ appears to have been twofold: his understanding was in some way enlightened at the same time as his bodily eyes, and as he possesses the light of the physical sun in his fleshly eyes, so the intellectual beam, I mean the illumination by the Spirit, takes up its abode within him, and he receives it into his heart. … “Though compelled against my will to acquiesce in what is wrong, I will yet make plain by what I say my admiration for Him.”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Surely the blind man was not terrified? That be far from him. How then does he who said, “He is a Prophet” (Jn. 9:17), now say, “Whether he be a sinner, I know not”? He said so, not as being in such a state of mind, nor as having persuaded himself of this thing, but desiring to clear Him from their charges by the testimony of the fact, not by his own declaration, and to make the defense credible, when the testimony of the good deed done should decide the matter against them.

”Then they said to him again, ‘What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—They again resort to questioning, and inquire about the manner of the Divine sign; not doing this out of good feeling or a laudable curiosity, but placing and reckoning the speaking well of Christ by any living being as baser than any villainy and worse than any wickedness, they stir up all these matters afresh; thinking perhaps that the man would no more repeat the same words, but would vary his account of the event, and say something inconsistent with his former answers, so that they might lay hold of the contradiction and denounce him as an impostor and a liar.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Having conquered and cast them down, he no longer speaks to them submissively. As long as the matter needed enquiry and arguments he spoke guardedly, while he supplied the proof; but when he had conquered and gained a splendid victory, he then takes courage, and tramples upon them.

”He answered them, ‘I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—“Would ye also become His disciples?” He has now confessed distinctly, and without any evasion, that he has been made a disciple, if not by argument yet in consequence of the marvellous deed; and has become a believer, accepting his miraculous sight in the place of instruction. … He affirms unhesitatingly and often his account of the marvellous deed, if they had only considered his narrative really as instruction.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Do you see the bold-speaking of a beggar towards Scribes and Pharisees? So strong is truth, so weak is falsehood. Truth, though she take hold but of ordinary men, makes them to appear glorious; the other, even though it be with the strong, shows them weak. What he says is of this kind: “You give no heed to my words, therefore I will no longer speak or answer you continually, who question me to no purpose, and who do not desire to hear in order to learn, but that you may insult over my words.”

”Then they reviled him and said, ‘You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—We almost see the Evangelist smile as he says this. For he beholds those whose lot it was to hold sacred offices degraded in mental stupor so far as to make an object of reviling that which was so excellent, namely discipleship under Christ. … They attach no value to His sacred words, and think that one who is being instructed by Him is worthy of blame even on that account alone; and holding so far true opinions even against themselves, they speak of the Christ as the blind man’s teacher, and Moses as their own. For in very truth the Gentiles were illuminated by Christ through the Evangelical teaching, and Israel died in the types given by Moses.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—But this cannot be. You are neither Moses’ nor this Man’s; for were ye Moses’, you would become this Man’s also. Wherefore Christ before said unto them, because they were continually betaking themselves to these speeches, Had ye believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me (Jn. 5:46).

”We know that God spoke to Moses; as for this fellow, we do not know where He is from.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Boldly do they speak again, armed with that folly which is so familiar and dear to them; and in undiminished shamelessness they once more boastfully exclaim, “We know.” When they add, “that God hath spoken unto Moses,” thereby recognising that he deserved great honour, they in another way again insult him, seeing that they take no account of his precepts. For they ignorantly condemn One Whom as yet they know not, or rather they dishonour Him in spite of what they have learnt concerning Him.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—By whose word, whose report? “That of our forefathers,” says one. Is not He then more to be believed than your forefathers, who confirms by miracles that He came from God, and that He speaks things from above? They said not, “We have heard that God spoke to Moses,” but, “We know.” Do ye affirm, O Jews, what you have by hearing, as knowing it, but deem what you have by sight as less certain than what you have by hearing? Yet the one ye saw not, but heard, the other ye did not hear, but saw.

”The man answered and said to them, ‘Why, this is a marvelous thing, that you do not know where He is from; yet He has opened my eyes!’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—“I am astonished, and very justly, that you say you do not know One Who is borne witness to by such holiness and by the Divine power shewn in His actions; yet you are thought to incessantly give attention to God’s teaching, you administer the law, you make the verbal study of the sacred Words your great delight, you possess the chief power among the people and especially may be expected to know who are good teachers.”

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—That a Man, who is not one of the distinguished or noble or illustrious among you, can do such things; so that it is in every way clear that He is God, needing no human aid.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—“You Jews reject the One Who healed me,” he says, “because you know not from whence He is. But the very fact that He is not among those you deem illustrious makes it even more remarkable that He can do such things. Clearly, He has some greater power and needs no help from man.” Then the blind man answers those who had said earlier, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles (v. 16), turning their own words against them.

”Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—He maintains, and surely there are good grounds for so thinking, that the God Who loves justice and virtue never hears those who love sin; and laying this down as indisputable and universally acknowledged, he introduces as a contrast the opposite statement as true, and as gainsaid in no quarter—I mean of course that everywhere and always the Lord of all listens to such as are habitually pious.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Since they had been the first to say, “How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?” (Jn. 9:16), he now brings forward even their judgment, reminding them of their own words. This opinion, says he, is common to me and you. Stand fast now to it. And observe, I pray you, his wisdom. He turns about the miracle in every way, because they could not do away with it, and from it he draws his inferences.

”Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Pained as it seems very keenly, and grieving as we may say over their revilings against Christ … he is eager to speak on behalf of his Master; hence he draws a sort of comparison between the achievements of Moses and the brilliant deeds of Our Saviour. … Whereas a very ancient prophecy foretells and declares thus concerning the coming of Christ: Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and no one ever before caused astonishment by having done any such deed; now it has been fulfilled by Him and Him only.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—If now ye acknowledge that God hears not sinners, and this Person has wrought a miracle, and such a miracle as no man ever wrought, it is clear that He has surpassed all things in virtue, and that His power is greater than belongs to man.

”If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—He who had just received sight and been miraculously freed from his old blindness, was quicker to perceive truth than they who had been instructed by the law. … For when they absurdly said of Christ, “As for this Man we know not whence He is,” he in reply severely rebukes them for their unfairness of thought, when they deny all knowledge of One Who worked such wonders; it being evident to all that one who was not from God would be unable to do any of those deeds which are only accomplished by Divine energy.

”They answered and said to him, ‘You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?’ And they cast him out.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Hard of acceptation to most people are the wounds of refutation, and the consequent correction of error. They are certainly welcome and sweet to the wise, since they convey much profit, and have an improving tendency, although they may carry with them a painful sting. But to those who love sin they are bitter. … Just as they who fall overboard from a ship, and, being caught by the current of a river, are not strong enough to resist it … so these men, overcome by the tyranny of their own pleasures, allow those pleasures to rush on unbridled, and decline to offer any resistance whatever.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—As long as they expected that he would deny Christ, they deemed him trustworthy, calling upon him once and a second time. If you deemed him not trustworthy, why did ye call and question him a second time? But when he spoke the truth, unabashed, then, when they ought most to have admired, they condemned him. … They who for the sake of the truth and the confession of Christ suffer anything terrible and are insulted, these are especially honored. … As fell out in the case of the blind man. The Jews cast him out from the Temple, and the Lord of the Temple found him; he was separated from that pestilent company, and met with the Fountain of salvation; he was dishonored by those who dishonored Christ, and was honored by the Lord of Angels. Such are the prizes of truth.

Theophylact of Ochrid (+1107)—As long as they still had hope the blind man would say something of use to them, the Pharisees called on him and questioned him more than once. But when they realized by his answers that he did not think as they did, but took the side of truth, they despised and rejected him as one born in sins. Quite foolishly do they refer to his blindness, thinking that he had been condemned before he was born and was punished with blindness at birth. … These sons of falsehood expelled from the temple the confessor of truth, but it was to his benefit. Cast out of the temple, he was at once found by the master of the temple.

”Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, ‘Do you believe in the Son of God?’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—The man who had been blind has been cast out by the Pharisees, but after no long interval of time Christ seeks him, and finding him, initiates him in mysteries. Therefore this also shall be a sign to us that God keeps in mind those who are willing to speak on His behalf and who do not shrink from peril through faith in Him. For thou hearest how, making Himself manifest as though to give a good recompense, He hastens to implant in him the highest perfection of the doctrines of the faith.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—Those who suffer for the truth’s sake, and confession of Christ, come to greatest honor; as we see in the instance of the blind man. For the Jews cast him out of the temple, and the Lord of the temple found him; and received him as the judge doth the wrestler after his labors, and crowned him. … He asks him not in ignorance, but wishing to reveal Himself to him, and to show that He appreciated his faith; as if He said, “The people have cast reproaches on Me, but I care not for them; one thing only I care for, that you may believe. Better is he that does the will of God, than ten thousand of the wicked.”

”He answered and said, ‘Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—The soul furnished with sound reason, diligently seeking the word of truth with the eyes of the understanding free, without embarrassment makes straight for it like a ship going into port, and obtains its advantages by a chase without fatigue. … For when he had already by many arguments and reasonings admired the mystery concerning Christ, and moreover had been struck with astonishment at His unspeakable might, which had been experienced not by any other but by himself in himself, he is found thus ready to believe and without delay proceeds to do so.

”And Jesus said to him, ‘You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.’”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Being asked upon whom it was proper to believe, Jesus points to Himself, and not simply by saying “It is I,” but by saying that the Person Whom the other was looking at and by Whom he was being addressed, was the Son of God; in every way consulting beforehand our advantage, and in divers manners constructing aids towards a faith both free from error and unperverted, lest while thinking ourselves pious we might fall into the meshes of the net of the devil, by foolishly turning aside from the truth of the mystery.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—He said not, “I am He,” but as yet in an intermediate and reserved manner, “You have both seen Him.” This was still uncertain; therefore He adds more clearly, “It is He that talks with you.”

”Then he said, ‘Lord, I believe!’ And he worshiped Him.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria (+444)—Quick to make a confession, I mean as regards his faith, and warm in shewing piety, is the man who had been blind. For when he knew that the One present with him and visible to his eyes was truly the Only-Begotten Son, he worshipped Him as God, although beholding Him in the flesh without the glory which is really God-befitting. But having had his heart illumined by Christ’s indwelling power and authority, he advances to wise and good thoughts by fair reasoning, and beholds the beauty of His Divine and Ineffable Nature; for he would not have worshipped Him as God unless he believed Him to be God, having been prepared and led thus to think by what had happened unto himself, even the miraculously accomplished marvellous deed.

St. John Chrysostom (+407)—He said not, “I am He that healed you, that bade you, Go, wash in Siloam”; but keeping silence on all these points, He says, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” And then the man, showing his great earnestness, straightway worshipped—which few of those who were healed had done; as, for instance, the lepers, and some others; by this act declaring His divine power. For that no one might think that what had been said by him was a mere expression, he added also the deed.

Source: Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book VI (on John 9) Cyril’s full treatment, summarized in the patristic commentary above, is among the most theologically ambitious of all patristic readings of John 9. Cyril takes the passage as a symbolic narrative of the calling of the Gentiles: Christ leaves the Temple of Israel, passes by—without intreaty—and seeks out the blind man, “made in error from his first age,” and gives him sight. The clay He fashions from spit and dust echoes the creation of Adam; the wash in Siloam (“Sent”) is a wash in Christ Himself. Cyril is also the strongest voice against the false anthropology that the man’s blindness must be retribution for some prior sin of his or his parents’.

Source: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies 56–59 Chrysostom’s four homilies on this Gospel are still the single most usable patristic resource for a preacher. They are pastoral, observational, and quotable. He returns repeatedly to one theme: the truth-bearing courage of the man healed. The blind beggar is, for Chrysostom, a model of confession under pressure—calmly, plainly, repeatedly testifying to what he himself has experienced, while the rulers’ rage rises around him. The famous line—“Cast out of the temple, he was at once found by the master of the temple”—has its origin in Chrysostom and is repeated by Theophylact.

Source: The Explanation of the Holy Gospel according to John (Chrysostom Press translation) Theophylact’s eleventh-century commentary depends on Chrysostom but is shorter, plainer, and easier to read aloud from. His central note is that Christ’s making of clay is a re-enactment of Genesis: “He did not merely fashion the eyes, or open them, but gave them vision. This proves that it was He Who breathed the soul into Adam.” Theophylact is also the first to read the man’s growing confession as a staircase—a man, a prophet, one of God, the Son of God, Lord—every rung climbed under hostile interrogation. This reading has become the standard pastoral approach in Orthodox preaching today.

Source: Homily on the Man Born Blind A short fourth-century homily, accessible in English translation. Asterius emphasizes the public, witness-bearing character of the healing: it happens in the streets, in the synagogue, in the courtroom, with no opportunity for the man to retreat into private piety. The man is required to confess Christ in public—and he does so even before he knows Whom he is confessing.

Source: On the Spiritual Blindness of Sin A pastoral catechetical treatment of the passage’s allegorical sense. Tikhon takes the man’s outward blindness as a figure of every soul wounded by sin, unable to see God, dignity, neighbor, or self. Sight is restored not by sight-restoring exercise but by a foreign Hand reaching down with clay. Useful as a bridge to Confession and the Eucharist.

Source: Thoughts for Each Day of the Year—entry for the Sunday of the Blind Man Theophan’s nineteenth-century daily reflection on this Gospel pulls the homiletic spotlight to verse 31: if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth His will, him He heareth. This becomes for Theophan a window into the prayer life: the proof that one is truly worshipping is whether the prayers are heard. The man’s “Lord, I believe” is then heard prayer in the deepest sense—the heart’s first true prosynesis.

Source: On Conceit and Humble-Mindedness: A Sermon for the Sunday of the Blind Man Brianchaninov reads the Pharisees’ “you were completely born in sins” as the cardinal sin of religious conceit. The blind man’s beggar-humility is contrasted with the Pharisees’ learned arrogance—and the same Christ who opens physical eyes is the One who opens the eyes of the humble alone. The sermon has bite; quote it sparingly but well.

Source: Homily for the Sunday of the Blind Man Short, devotional, and warm. Kronstadt addresses the parishioner directly: “Do you, too, believe in the Son of God?”—and treats the question Christ asks in v. 35 as the central question of every Christian life.

Source: Homily on the Paralytic, the Samaritan Woman and the Man Born Blind St. John reads the three Paschal-cycle Gospels as a single sequence: standing healed, drinking the living water, seeing the Light. He locates this in the experience of the newly-baptized.

Source: Three homilies on the Sunday of the Blind Man, preserved in his Pentecostarion sermons. St. Luke, himself a physician who restored sight to many through surgery before he was bishop, preaches with unusual technical sympathy for the miracle. He is also the most blunt of the modern Russian fathers on the willful blindness of unbelief.

Christ identifies Himself: “I am the light of the world” (v. 5). The Eastern Fathers do not allegorize this loosely—they tie it tightly to verse 4: “I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work.” Christ is the Light, and His visible presence in the world is the day. The Sunday of the Blind Man stands four days before Ascension. After Thursday, the Lord ascends; the form of His presence in the world changes. The Church gives us this Gospel one Sunday before it sings: “having ascended in glory from the Mount of Olives, and confirmed Thine apostles by the promise of the Holy Spirit.” The blind man’s vision is the Church’s vision: we see Christ now by faith and through the Spirit, no longer (yet) face-to-face. The Sunday teaches the eyes of the soul to look for Him exactly where He has gone.

Christ does not flinch at the disciples’ question—the oldest question—but He also refuses both available answers. “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him” (v. 3). Chrysostom is at pains to note that Christ is not exempting either party from sin in general—He is denying that this affliction is the wage of any particular sin. The Fathers from Clement of Rome forward use this verse to dismantle two falsehoods at once: the pre-existence of souls (an ancient pagan and gnostic theory that crept back into Origenist circles), and the simple retributive theology of suffering that the disciples seem to assume. The works of God to be revealed in him are larger than retribution; they are the renovation of a creation that has been blind from birth.

The most distinctively Eastern reading of this miracle is the typological one: Christ makes clay and anoints the eyes. Theophylact says it plainly: “By using the clay, the Lord showed that it was He Who formed Adam out of clay. … This proves that it was He Who breathed the soul into Adam.” The miracle is not merely a healing but a fresh act of creation. The Genesis 2 imagery is unmistakable, and the Fathers see in it Christ’s quiet, deliberate signature on the Gospel: I am the One who made man. For preaching, this opens a door to creation theology that the lectionary rarely opens elsewhere in the Pascha cycle.

John’s Gospel pauses in mid-narration to translate the Hebrew name: Shiloah, “Sent.” Christ has named Himself “the Sent One” five times already in John’s Gospel by this point. The blind man is sent to the water, and the water is named for the One who sends. Patristically and liturgically the Pool of Siloam is read as a baptismal image, and the man’s washing as the seal of the catechumen. The Fathers do not so much push the reading as let it sit there; the baptismal music of Pascha plays around it. Preaching can do the same.

The most homiletically usable observation in the entire passage is the staircase of the man’s confession. He is asked four times who Christ is. Each time he answers with growing clarity:

• v. 11: “A Man called Jesus”
• v. 17: “He is a prophet”
• v. 33: “If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing”
• v. 36: “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
• v. 38: “Lord, I believe!”

Theophylact, Chrysostom, and Cyril all noticed it. The man’s physical sight is given instantly at v. 7. His spiritual sight grows under interrogation. The Pharisees, attempting to destroy his faith, in fact construct it—every cross-examination forces him to articulate Christ more clearly. The man leaves the synagogue knowing more than he did when he was thrown out. A homily can rest on this single observation alone.

The Pharisees’ excommunication of the man (v. 34) is the hinge of the chapter. He is cast out of the Temple—and at that moment Christ finds him (v. 35). Chrysostom states the principle bluntly: those who suffer dishonor for Christ are honored by the Lord of Angels. The Sunday of the Blind Man is, among other things, the Church’s quiet promise to her own confessors: when you are cast out for the Name, you are not lost; you are found.

”I come to You, O Christ, blind from birth in my spiritual eyes / and I call to You in repentance: / You are the most radiant light of those in darkness!” The kontakion places the worshipper inside the Gospel narrative—every parishioner is the man at the roadside, and every Liturgy is the moment of being found.

”Let us, the faithful, praise and worship the Word, co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit, born for our salvation from the Virgin; for He willed to be lifted up on the Cross in the flesh, to endure death, and to raise the dead by His glorious Resurrection.” The Sunday is still a Resurrection Sunday. The Paschal greeting is still in the air. Tone 5 is the resurrectional tone—its setting in the Octoechos is reserved for the Sunday remembrance of Christ’s victory over death.

O Bestower of light, Who art Light coming forth from Light, Thou givest eyes to the man blind from birth, O Word. The poet of the Pentecostarion is careful: Light from Light. The healing of the blind man becomes, in two lines, a doxology of the Nicene Creed.

”Holy Apostle Andronicus, / entreat the merciful God / to grant our souls forgiveness of transgressions.”

”Let us praise the apostle of Christ, Andronicus, / the all-radiant star who illumined the nations with the light of the knowledge of God. / Together with him we praise all-wise Junia, / who shone with righteousness. / To them let us cry out: / ‘Unceasingly pray to Christ God for us all.’” “All-radiant star who illumined the nations with the light of the knowledge of God”—note the language of light returning. The apostles continue the work Christ began on this Sunday’s roadside.

”Passing by from the Temple, the Lord found a man blind from his mother’s womb, and having mercy on him, anointed his eyes with clay, and said: Go, wash in Siloam. The man, having washed, received his sight, glorifying God.” Many vesperal stichera echo this pattern: the man is found. The verb is liturgically central.

This Sunday is the last Sunday of Pascha proper. On Wednesday evening, the Paschal Liturgy is celebrated in full one final time before the Ascension. Worth noting in a homily, perhaps with the closing line: “The day is far spent.”