Symbolical, also, were these means. Sight was restored by cla y, made out of the
ground with the spittle of Him, Whose breath had at the first breathed life into clay; and
this was then washed away in the Pool of Siloam, from whose waters had been drawn
on the Feast of Tabernacles that which symbolised the forthpouri ng of the new life by
the Spirit. Lastly, if it be asked why such miracle should have been wrought on one who
had not previous faith, who does not even seem to have known about the Christ, we
can only repeat, that the man himself was intended to be a symbo l, 'that the works of
God should be made manifest in him.'
18. See Book III. ch. xxxiv. p. 48.
19. The etymological correctness of the rendering Siloam by 'Sent' is no longer called in
question. As to the spring Siloam, see ch. vii. of this Book.
20. St. John ix. 11.
And so, what the Pharisees had sought in vain, was freely vouch-safed whe n there was
need for it. With inimitable simplicity, itself evidence that no legend is told, the man's
obedience and healing are recorded. We judge, that his first impulse when healed must
have been to seek for Jesus, naturally, where he had first met Him. On his way,
probably past his own house to tell his parents, and again on the spot where he had so
long sat begging, all who had known him must have noticed the great change that had
passed over him. So marvellous, indeed, did it appear, that, while part of the crowd that
gathered would, of course, acknowledge his identity, others would say: 'No, but he is
like him;' in their suspiciousness looking for some imposture. For there can be little
doubt, that on his way he must have learned more about Jesus than merely His
Name,21 and in turn have communicated to his informants the story of his healing.
Similarly, the formal question now put to him by the Jews was as much, if not more, a
preparatory inquisition than the outcome of a wish to learn the circumstances of his
healing. And so we notice in his answer the cautious desire not to say anything that
could incriminate his Benefactor. He tells the facts truthfully, plainly; he accentuates by
what means he had 'recovered,'22 not received, sight; but otherwise gives no clue by
which either to discover or to incriminate Jesus.23
21. ver. 11.
22. This is the proper rendering. The organs of sight existed, but could not be used.
23. ver. 12.
Presently they bring him to the Pharisees, not to take notice of his heali ng, but to found
on it a charge against Christ. Such must have been their motive, since it was universally
known that the leaders of the people had, of course informally, agreed to take the
strictest measures, not only against the Christ, but against any o ne who professed to be
His disciple.24 The ground on which the present charge against Jesus would rest was
plain: the healing involved a manifold breach of the Sabbath-Law. The first of these was
that He had made clay.25 Next, it would be a question whethe r any remedy might be
applied on the holy day. Such could only be done in diseases of the internal organs