9 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. ²  And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” ³  Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. ⁴  We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. ⁵  As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” ⁶  Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud ⁷  and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing.

⁸  The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” ⁹  Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” ¹⁰  So they said to him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” ¹¹  He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed and received my sight.” ¹²  They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.”

¹³  They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. ¹⁴  Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. ¹⁵  So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” ¹⁶  Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them. ¹⁷  So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.”

¹⁸  The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight ¹⁹  and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” ²⁰  His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. ²¹  But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” ²²  (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.) ²³  Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

²⁴  So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” ²⁵  He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”²⁶  They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” ²⁷  He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” ²⁸  And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. ²⁹  We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.”³⁰  The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. ³¹  We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.³²  Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. ³³  If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” ³⁴  They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.

³⁵  Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” ³⁶  He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” ³⁷  Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you.” ³⁸  He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. ³⁹  Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” ⁴⁰  Some of the Pharisees near him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” ⁴¹  Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains.

John 9:1–41 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

This Sunday we see the theme of Living Water, as in baptism, continued in this Gospel story. One thing to keep in mind regarding the readings in Lent and what the Church intends, “She is preparing the catechumens to receive that grace of illumination, the sight that they will receive in the washing of the water in the font of Baptism.”[1] “As is well known, today’s Gospel is an extended mystagogy on the sacrament of Baptism”[2]

In the Gospels we have several instances of Jesus healing the blind with specific individuals or as references to him healing the blind. John provides us with this unique instance of one story and the longest regarding this healing. In general, we find that one or more blind people approach Jesus crying out for healing or they are brought to him for healing. Here, the man born blind is first observed by Jesus and then the disciples. The disciples want to enter a theological discussion on who is culpable for the man’s blindness, whether the fault laid with this man or his parents. Jesus cuts this discussion to the quick moving from blame to show “that the works of God might be displayed in him.” The work Jesus is about to do, he includes us in that we “must work the works of him who sent me.” He proceeds directly to take dirt and his saliva to make mud and to anoint the man’s eyes to heal him.

I see this partly as a reminder for us when we see those who are suffering from material or spiritual evils, to look past causes and who to blame for their condition. To instead act and do what we can do through God’s grace given to us. The causes are not unimportant and there is time and place to reflect on them and to act to rectify them, but the individual is not to be treated as something abstract, but as a person in the image and likeness of God.

We have another instance of Jesus using his saliva to heal a blind man, such as the man at Bethsaida in Mark 8:22. In this story, this is a much deeper level in Jesus’ sacramental application of this miracle. It seems so odd to us he would mix dirt with his saliva to heal him.

Dr. John Bergsma’s opinion on one aspect of this is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“where man is described as being “kneaded from dust … he is so much spit … mere knipped-off clay” (cf. 1 QS 11:21; 1QHa 20:35; 4Q264 1 9). I think this reflects an ancient Jewish understanding of the creation story in which God spat on the ground and formed Adam’s body from the resultant clay/mud.”[3]

Dr. Brant Pitre expands on this:

Well you wont’t be surprised to realize that it really lies in the Old Testament, it lies in the Jewish roots of Jesus’s action here. Because in first century Judaism—this is really interesting—there was a tradition going all the way back—the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to this—that when God made Adam from the dust of the ground he used spittle. That he used spit. Because if you try to make something from dust, you can’t do it. You can’t mold a statue of dust. You have to have some liquid in order to hold the dirt together. So the Jews had this tradition that when God made Adam, he made him from spit and clay. He made him from his own spit, and the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have a line that said that Adam, or man, was made from “spat saliva, molded clay.” So think about that for a second. If in Jewish tradition God makes Adam from spit and dust from the clay, what is Jesus doing here?[4]

Jesus is further revealing himself as not just a prophet granted to perform miracles.

Jesus is acting like God acted in the Old Testament. In other words, he is performing an act of a new creation. Just as Adam was given his body from the clay, so Jesus now gives the man born blind sight. He gives him, in a sense, new eyes from the clay and his own spittle. So this is like a divine action for Jesus to spit on the ground and make clay and give this man sight.[5]

Jesus instructs the man to “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” and John amplifies that Siloam means ‘sent.’ This Recalls the miracle of Elisha in 2 Kings 5:10–14 where Naaman the Syrian is instructed to “go and wash” in the Jordan River to cure his leprosy. “The editorial comment that Siloam means Sent suggests that the pool is a symbol of Jesus, the source of living water (4:10) and the One sent by his Father (9:4; 12:44). Its contents are symbolic of the Spirit, who is the living water poured out by Christ (7:38–39) and the One who is sent by the Father and the Son (14:26; 15:26).”[6]

The reference to Siloam also intones deeper waters (pun always intended) as to the significance, which John Bergsma brings out:

New creation themes are present elsewhere. After anointing his eyes, Jesus sends the man to the Pool of Siloam to wash. The pool of Siloam collected the waters of the Gihon, the spring that provided water for Jerusalem. It was named the Gihon after one of the rivers of Eden (Gen 2:13) because the Jews saw Jerusalem as a kind of new Eden. So, mystically, the waters of Siloam were Edenic or creational waters. The man is being made new.[7]

St. Ambrose reflects on the significance of this healing:

In one instant, we see the power of Jesus’ divinity and the strength of his holiness. As the divine light, he touched this man and enlightened him; as priest, by an action symbolizing baptism, he wrought in him his work of redemption. The only reason for Jesus mixing clay with the spittle and smearing it on the eyes of the man born blind was to remind you that he who restored the man to health by anointing his eyes with clay is the very one who fashioned the first man out of clay. And that this clay is our flesh that can receive the light of eternal life through the sacrament of baptism. You too should come to Siloam. Let Christ wash you and then you will see. Come and be baptized; it is time. Come quickly and you too will be able to say, “I was blind and now I see.”[8]

St. John goes on describing the reaction of those confronted with this miracle. Much of the reactions is as skepticism rooted in a bias against Jesus. A small part of this skepticism was whether this was the same man or whether he had actually been blind from birth—a miracle never previously observed in the Old Testament. Most of the skepticism was not formed from observation, but a rejection by the Pharisees that Jesus could be the Messiah. They are more concentrated on Jesus performing a miracle on the Sabbath, then that a miracle was performed. Among the Pharisees, there were different opinions, with some seeing this as a true sign, but unable to take the next step in its meaning. When presented with a truth that goes against our expectations, we dampen its importance because it goes against an acceptable position within our group identity. The blind man’s parents were afraid to be truthful when questioned by the Pharisees.

By shifting the focus back to their son, his parents put him in jeopardy in order to protect themselves. They act out of fear and self-interest. Throughout John 9, the formerly blind man is the only one who testifies in Jesus’ defense. By explaining the parents’ motivation, John sets up a contrast between the parents’ fearfulness and their son’s courage.[9]

There are many obvious intended parallels between the physical blindness of the man and the spiritual blindness of those who witnessed the effects of this miracle.

Dr. Peter Kreeft reflects in his commentary.

…the obvious point, of the story: that we are all born blind, that is, not in union with God, who is the source of all light, both physical and spiritual; and that we all need to be healed from this spiritual blindness; and that only Christ can heal us and restore us to the light, that is, to the truth, especially the truth about God, the amazing truth that God is love.[10]

…if you were really only blind and ignorant like this blind man, and if you knew you were blind and ignorant, if your minds were in the dark but your hearts were open to the light, then you would not be guilty of pride. Ignorance is not a sin; pride is. But because you insist that you already see, that you are supremely wise, you are fools. You refuse to admit that you might be wrong. Because your hearts are closed, therefore your minds are closed too, and therefore you are blind. That’s a very serious sin. You are deliberately closing your eyes to the truth in your pride and arrogance.[11]

One aspect I find most interesting is the reaction of the man born blind himself. He is not the one to approach Jesus. Jesus directly approaches him. We do not know his initial reaction to Jesus’ approach, but the story shows his shift of attitude from not knowing who Jesus is to worshiping him. We can imagine that throughout this man’s life that he had pursued healing, or that some came to him claiming they could perform a healing for him. The women who had bleeding for 12 years complained of the doctors who tried to heal her and this man might have experienced the same. Still, he receives the sacramental treatment Jesus gives him and is obedient in going to the pool of Siloam to wash. As he is later questioned and then questioned again he reflects on more regarding who Jesus is. The Pharisees’ very questions lead him to see their blindness and the inconsistencies of their argument to a dawning faith as to Jesus being a prophet. When Jesus than questions him “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”, he is willing to take on authority that Jesus is the Son of Man and what the implications mean and was moved to belief and worship.

Sources

Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
The Gospel of John (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)
Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, The Fourth Sunday of Lent (Year A)  ↩
2. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, The Fourth Sunday of Lent  ↩
3. ibid  ↩
4. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, The Fourth Sunday of Lent (Year A)  ↩
5. ibid  ↩
6. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
7. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, The Fourth Sunday of Lent  ↩
8. St. Ambrose, Letter 80, 1–5: PL 16,1326  ↩
9. Francis Martin, William M. Wright IV, The Gospel of John (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)  ↩
10. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A, The Fourth Sunday of Lent  ↩
11. ibid  ↩

John 4:5–42

⁵  So he came to a town of Samaria called Sychar, near the field that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. ⁶  Jacob’s well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.

⁷  A woman from Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” ⁸  (For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.) ⁹  The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) ¹⁰  Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” ¹¹  The woman said to him, “Sir, you have nothing to draw water with, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? ¹²  Are you greater than our father Jacob? He gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did his sons and his livestock.” ¹³  Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, ¹⁴  but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”¹⁵  The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”

¹⁶  Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”¹⁷  The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; ¹⁸  for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.” ¹⁹  The woman said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet. ²⁰  Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.” ²¹  Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. ²²  You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. ²³  But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. ²⁴  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” ²⁵  The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” ²⁶  Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.”

²⁷  Just then his disciples came back. They marveled that he was talking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you seek?” or, “Why are you talking with her?” ²⁸  So the woman left her water jar and went away into town and said to the people, ²⁹  “Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?”³⁰  They went out of the town and were coming to him.

³¹  Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, saying, “Rabbi, eat.”³²  But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” ³³  So the disciples said to one another, “Has anyone brought him something to eat?” ³⁴  Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work.³⁵  Do you not say, ‘There are yet four months, then comes the harvest’? Look, I tell you, lift up your eyes, and see that the fields are white for harvest. ³⁶  Already the one who reaps is receiving wages and gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. ³⁷  For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ ³⁸  I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

³⁹  Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.” ⁴⁰  So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days. ⁴¹  And many more believed because of his word. ⁴²  They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

John 4:5–42 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

Jesus is wearied from his journey and stops off at Jacob’s well in a town in Samaria and sits beside it. This well is very near the tomb of Joseph and the “well is very deep, exceeding a depth of one hundred feet, and the water is cool and delicious even to this day.”[1] While Jesus is wearied, his intent in not primarily to refresh himself with water from the well, but ultimately to refresh everyone from a well of living water. Jesus’ examples remind us that when exhausted, while we must attend to our physical needs, to never forget those around us and the mission we are ordered to.

There are some obvious themes here in this Gospel and the other reading for today, but also some deeper ones from a Jewish context.

Peter Kreeft mentions one theme:

Water is mentioned in three of the four Scripture passages in the Mass today: first, the Old Testament passage from Exodus about the water that flowed out of the rock that Moses struck at Massah and Meribah, and second, the mention of that event in the Psalm, and third, the Gospel reading about Jesus and the woman at the well.[2]

John Bergsma mentions a more hidden one connected to water in the reading from Romans:

St. Paul here speaks of being “justified by faith.” We know that justification is a fruit of Baptism (1 Pet 3:21). But for Baptism to be effective, it must be received in faith. Lack of faith can impede the subjective effects of the sacrament. Justification is by faith though not by faith alone. St. Paul goes on to allude to baptism again: “Hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”[3]

The other major theme is full of nuptial images, and that Jesus is the divine bridegroom.

This story is so full of nuptial images, it is difficult to explore them all. First, there is the very fact that Jesus meets this woman at a well. This happens three times in the Old Testament—it is how the Patriarchs met their wives. Think of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24— although this betrothal was by a proxy); Jacob and Rachel (Gen 29); and Moses and Zipporah (Exod 2). Conditioned by the Old Testament narratives, we actually expect a woman to show up as soon as Jesus sits down by the well, and so she does! … Interestingly, the only other place in the Gospel of John where Jesus will request a drink is from the Cross[4]

Brant Pitre develops this theme.

The reason John tells this story is because he recognizes that in it the woman at the well is like a bride and that Jesus is the divine bridegroom and that he has come into the world not to marry this individual woman in a natural marriage, but to enter into a supernatural marriage, a relationship as Savior between himself, and not just her as an individual, but with all the people of the world. So this woman, the Samaritan woman, is a kind of image of the Church, St. Augustine said, because she’s not just Israelite, she’s also pagan, so she kind of represents all of humanity in herself, both the Jews and the Gentiles, both the Israelites and the pagans, who are waiting for a savior to come and to save them. From what? To save them from their sin. To save them from their brokenness. To save them from their past. To save them from their adultery, because what did Israel do? They took all these false gods, they entered into relationships of spiritual adultery with all the false gods of the Canaanites and of the other peoples of the land.[5]

He fully develops this theme in his book “Jesus the Bridegroom: The Greatest Love Story Ever Told”

CCC 1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath[6] which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant.,[7] [8]

When a woman from Samaria comes to draw water from the well, it surprised her when Jesus asks her to draw him water. “The Samaritan woman probably recognized that Jesus was Judean by his distinctive Jewish traditional clothing and his accent…”[9] “Centuries of animosity between Jews and Samaritans loom in the background of this episode”[10], and she would not have expected that Jesus would talk to her for multiple reasons beyond the cultural bias. St. John references the time as being noon and this would not be the normal hour that women would come to the well to draw water. “This is a woman with a checkered personal history, which is no doubt why she is coming to the well at noon, to avoid the other women in the town who came at the usual times of dawn and dusk.”[11]

As Jesus asks her to draw water for him, he also draws her into a deeper conversation, moving from physical to spiritual nourishment. There is a parallel between how this woman understands what Jesus says and the Apostles. That the first understanding is the more literal and not the more mystical intent of Jesus’ words. Jesus explains further, and she is still clinging to the lower interpretation. She thought if she was provided this living water and would not be thirsty again, she wouldn’t have to make this trek to the well when nobody is there. This is quite understandable since in our own lives we often diminish Jesus’ promises to us to a more material realm.

Jesus asks her to “Go, call your husband, and come here.” When she answers, she does not equivocate and answers Jesus with the truth, as she sees it, that she has no husband. Her discernment regarding who Jesus is, is also deepening. Jesus lauds her answer by replying “… for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

the woman’s five husbands symbolize the pagan gods of five nations mentioned in 2 Kings 17. Jesus thirsts not only for water but, more important, for a permanent union between the Samaritans and the Father.[12]

The woman’s personal life parallels the historical experience of the Samaritan people. According to 2 Kings 17:24–31, the five foreign tribes who intermarried with the northern Israelites (Samaritans) introduced five male deities into their religion. These idols were individually addressed as Baal, a Hebrew word meaning “lord” or “husband”. The prophets denounced Israel for serving these gods, calling such worship infidelity to its true covenant spouse, Yahweh. Hope was kept alive, however, that God would show mercy to these Israelites and become their everlasting husband in the bonds of a New Covenant (Hos 2:16–20). This day has dawned in the ministry of Jesus, the divine bridegroom (3:29), who has come to save the Samaritans from a lifetime of struggles with five pagan “husbands”.[13]

Since the Samaritan women replied truthfully, she could also receive more, but she was also still at the level of concentrating on the doctrinal disagreements between the Jewish and Samaritan people.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible has this note on the term living water introduced in verse 4:10.[14]

An expression with two levels of meaning. The woman takes it to mean “flowing” water, i.e., a preferable alternative to stagnant well water (4:11–12). Jesus, however, is speaking of the life and vitality of the Spirit (7:38–39; CCC 728, 2560).

Several prophetic texts depict the blessings of the Lord as life-giving “water” (Is 12:3; 44:3; Ezek 47:1–12; Zech 14:8). See note on Jn 3:5.

Christian tradition associates living water with baptismal waters, which lead us to “eternal life” (4:14). Paul, in fact, describes Baptism in terms of drinking from the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; CCC 694).

Samaritan belief was an admixture of Jewish faith and pagan idolatry. They accepted only the Pentateuch. Samaritan belief likely was varied, with different ideas about a messiah as a prophet as taken from the Pentateuch. She reveals her belief in a coming messiah who will be an anointed one and Jesus more fully reveals himself to her, saying “I who speak to you am he.”

At this prominent moment, the disciples return and were scandalized that Jesus was talking to a woman alone at the well, although they kept this thought to themselves. This woman’s conversion to belief in Jesus is sudden and in her haste to evangelize her fellow Samaritans, she leaves her water jar at the well.

Returning to Peter Kreeft’s commentary:

The other point in the story that I want to mention is about the jar or bucket that held the water. Those jars were much more important, and much more expensive, in ancient Israel than in today’s society. If you didn’t have a bucket you couldn’t draw water, and if you didn’t get water, you died. Yet this woman, this very worldly and practical woman, when she met Jesus, completely forgot her jar and left it at the well where Jesus was when she ran off to tell everyone in town that the Messiah had come. Jesus had taught her the lesson that the spiritual water that he gives is more important than the physical water that Jacob’s well gave, just as the soul is more important than the body.[15]

She becomes a witness to Jesus sharing what she had experienced, and that Jesus knew her and all that she ever did. Her testimony must have been rather amazing since she could convince people, despite her low state, in the order of their society. That they looked beyond this and did not dismiss her words, but were prompted to investigate what she said themselves. When they later returned, “They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

“Modern man listens more willingly to witnesses than to teachers, and if he does listen to teachers, it is because they are witnesses,”[16]

In verses 4:31–38, the disciples show their own obtuseness in not recognizing the food the Jesus truly hungers for, “The Father’s will is always the driving force behind Jesus’ mission (5:19; 6:38; 12:49; 14:10; etc.).” [17]

Sources

• St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary for Individuals and Groups: Ray, Stephen K.
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Jesus and the Samaritan Woman – Israel Study Center
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• The Gospel of John (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)
• St. Pope Paul VI put it in 1975
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. St. John’s Gospel: A Bible Study Guide and Commentary for Individuals and Groups. Steve Ray, 2002  ↩
2. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A, Third Sunday of Lent  ↩
3. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, Third Sunday of Lent  ↩
4. ibid  ↩
5. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, Third Sunday of Lent, Year A  ↩
6. Cf. Eph 5:26–27.  ↩
7. Cf. DS 1800; CIC, can. 1055 § 2.  ↩
8. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference, Paragraph 1617  ↩
9. Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman  ↩
10. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
11. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, Third Sunday of Lent  ↩
12. Francis Martin, William M. Wright IV, The Gospel of John (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)  ↩
13. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
14. ibid  ↩
15. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A, Third Sunday of Lent  ↩
16. Evangelii Nuntiandi, December 8, 1975, St. Pope Paul VI  ↩
17. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament, Verse 4:34  ↩

17 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves.²  And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. ³  And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. ⁴  And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” ⁵  He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” ⁶  When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified.⁷  But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” ⁸  And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.

⁹  And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”

Matthew 17:1–9 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

This passage references that this event occurred eight days after the previous passage in In Matthew 15:28 “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”, the parallel passage shows six days. This discrepancy is something some Church Fathers reconcile, but what is important here is how the promise about some of them seeing the kingdom of God is unlocked. Peter, John, and James saw this revealed in the Transfiguration. Each of the Synoptic Gospels provides this time cue to help us connect the dots.

From St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew:

But why is it stated here, After six days, and in Luke (9, 28) it is stated, “After eight days”? It is apparent that Luke numbers the day on which He spoke these words, and also the day of the transfiguration; but Matthew numbers only the intermediate days; for that reason, when the first and the last days have been subtracted, there remain but six days. By six days are signified the six Ages, after which we hope to arrive at the glory to come. Likewise, in six days, the Lord finished His works; and so, the Lord chose to show Himself after six days, because, unless we are raised up to God above all the creatures that the Lord created, we cannot reach the kingdom of God.[1]

There is a lot to digest regarding trying to understand the transfiguration at just the surface layer and, more so, the spiritual depths.

Dr. John Bergsma gives a tight summary of how the Fathers viewed this:

As the Fathers long recognized, the Transfiguration is a foretaste or glimpse of the glory of Christ in his resurrected state. The sight of his glory is given to Peter, James, and John to encourage them to persevere through the difficult times that lay in front of them before they witness Christ’s Resurrection. For us now hearing this Gospel proclaimed at Mass, it is meant to encourage us to persevere not only in Lenten mortification and asceticism until we sacramentally experience Christ’s triumph at Easter, but more broadly in embracing the sufferings of the Christian life until our lowly bodies become like his glorious body (Phil 3:21).[2]

One question I have heard asked multiple times is how did Peter, James, and John know this was Moses and Elijah? My guess would be that Elijah’s clothing and appearance was rather well-known, which is why they recognized John the Baptist as coming in the manner of Elijah. I would also surmise that once they recognized Elijah, it would not take too much effort for them to determine the other figure was Moses. The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture points out “both figures were associated with Jewish eschatological hopes, for the Old Testament proclaimed the return of Elijah (Mal 3:23–25) and the coming of a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19).”[3] These were two important and dominant figures in salvation history and expected their return in some manner.

There is also a good deal of speculation regarding why Jesus revealed this to Peter, James, and John only? That only they were led up the mountain and witness this overshadowing by the cloud of God’s glory, this theophany. There are many possibilities here regarding God’s wisdom in doing this. Still, we can scratch the surface with some conjecture. For example, I like this take from St. Thomas Aquinas, “And why did He take only three disciples? It was to signify that no one can reach God’s kingdom except in the faith of the Trinity.”[4]

Turning to a Doctor of the Church, St. John of Damascus:

Matthew and Mark indeed say that the transfiguration took place on the sixth day after the promise made to the disciples, but Luke on the eighth. But there is no disagreement in these testimonies, but they who make the number six, taking off a day at each end, that is, the first and the last, the day on which He makes the promise, and that on which He fulfilled it, have reckoned only the intervening ones, but He who makes the number eight, has counted in each of the two days above mentioned. But why were not all called, but only some, to behold the sight? There was only one indeed who was unworthy to see the divinity, namely Judas, according to the word of Isaiah, Let the wicked be taken away, that he should not behold the glory of God. (Isai. 26:10 LXX.) If then he alone had been sent away, he might have, as it were from envy, been provoked to greater wickedness. Henceforward He takes away from the traitor every pretext for his treachery, seeing that He left below the rest of the company of the Apostles. But He took with Him three, that in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word should be established. He took Peter, indeed, because He wished to shew him that the witness he had borne to Him was confirmed by the witness of the Father, and that he was as it were to preside over the whole Church. He took with Him James, who was to be the first of all the disciples to die for Christ; but He took John as the clearest singer of the sacred doctrine, that having seen the glory of the Son, which submits not to time, he might sound forth, In the beginning was the Word. (John 1:1.) [5]

There are other intriguing reasons that display the depth of parallelism that the Holy Spirit breathes into sacred scripture.

Dr. Brant Pitre brings up this example:

but he brings up Peter and then James and John who were also brothers just like Nadab and Abihu. Why does he bring these three up? Because he’s preparing them for an experience like Moses had. When Moses went up the mountain to meet God, he brought Aaron, Nadab and Abihu; Jesus brings Peter, James and John up the mountain for the same reason.[6]

Jesus is transfigured in his glory “and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light,” Peter has his typical reaction of engaging tongue before engaging his brain. As Mark 9:6 says regarding Peter’s reaction, “For he did not know what to say.” This is a lesson for all of us. How often when we have a partial glimpse of God’s glory and his action in our life that our first response is not well-considered? I can certainly think of all of my superficial responses when I have encountered this in my life. We have a tendency to want to condense mystery into a soundbite. To transform it into bullet points, we could present. It is good for us to draw this in and to make sense of it. To make initial conclusions, but to take the time to realize how little of the picture we see and instead to draw this out in contemplation in awe and wonder. Sometimes in the face of recognizing God’s glory, our proper response is to do as these apostles did, “they fell on their faces and were terrified.” It is an act of love and humility to be overwhelmed by God’s glory, we were made for his glory, to recognize our own sinfulness, and how much we want to please God by repenting of this.

One benefit of the Lenten season is taking stock of the barnacles and accretions we have accumulated and allowed to take hold on us. To fall on our face so that ultimately we can see the face of God. That terror at our own sins is rectified when we do as God the Father says here regarding to Jesus, “listen to him.” Jesus approaches the apostles who have prostrated themselves by saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” We properly pursued holiness with humility along with the recognition that Jesus has called us to sonship, that he has called us friends. We should be filled with gratitude and thankfulness for what he has done in our lives and the grace he is giving us to be more like him. As St. Paul writes, “that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)”

“And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only.”

This event was overwhelming for Peter, James, and John. Seeing Jesus transfigured along with the appearances of Moses and Elijah would have been pointing them to fulfillment of the Kingdom of God and all the eschatological aspects this entailed. Was all this culminating in the end of the world? We all see signs in the ages in which we live. What do all these world events portend? Jesus lifts these fears when we fix our eyes on him and see “Jesus only.”

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:[7]

555 For a moment Jesus discloses his divine glory, confirming Peter’s confession. He also reveals that he will have to go by the way of the cross at Jerusalem in order to “enter into his glory.”[8] Moses and Elijah had seen God’s glory on the Mountain; the Law and the Prophets had announced the Messiah’s sufferings.[9] Christ’s Passion is the will of the Father: the Son acts as God’s servant;[10] the cloud indicates the presence of the Holy Spirit. “The whole Trinity appeared: the Father in the voice; the Son in the man; the Spirit in the shining cloud.”[11] (2576, 2583; 257)

You were transfigured on the mountain, and your disciples, as much as they were capable of it, beheld your glory, O Christ our God, so that when they should see you crucified they would understand that your Passion was voluntary, and proclaim to the world that you truly are the splendor of the Father. [12]

One final thought regarding the transfiguration brought out by the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture.

The transfiguration scene serves as “a twin of sorts” to the execution narrative in 27:32–54. Davies and Allison beautifully note the parallels. “In the one, a private epiphany, an exalted Jesus, with garments glistening, stands on a high mountain and is flanked by two religious giants from the past. All is light. In the other, a public spectacle, a humiliated Jesus, whose clothes have been torn from him and divided, is lifted upon a cross and flanked by two common, convicted criminals. All is darkness. We have here a pictorial antithetical parallelism, a diptych in which the two plates have similar lines but different colors.” The parallel scenes highlight the horror of Good Friday and the splendor of Jesus’ love for us. It is no ordinary man that will be crucified on Calvary, but the beloved Son of God revealed in glory at the transfiguration. This same glorified Son will freely submit himself to utter humiliation in order to redeem the human family (see Phil 2:5–11).[13]

Sources

• St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A – John Bergsma
• The Gospel of Matthew (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture)
• Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 3: St. Luke – Verbum
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
2. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year A, John Bergsma, 2nd Sunday of Lent, Year A  ↩
3. The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Edward Sri and Curtis Mitch  ↩
4. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
5. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke, St. John Damascene, Presbyter of Damascus, A.D. 730 (Orat. de Trans fig. §. 8.)  ↩
6. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 2nd Sunday in Lent (Year A)  ↩
7. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference.  ↩
8. Lk 24:26.  ↩
9. Cf. Lk 24:27.  ↩
10. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 45, 4, ad 2.  ↩
11. Byzantine Liturgy, Feast of the Transfiguration, Kontakion.  ↩
12. Cf. Isa 42:1.  ↩
13. The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Edward Sri and Curtis Mitch  ↩

Matthew 4:1–11

⁴  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. ²  And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. ³  And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.”⁴  But he answered, “It is written,

“‘Man shall not live by bread alone,
    but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

⁵  Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple ⁶  and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written,

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

and

“‘On their hands they will bear you up,
    lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

⁷  Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” ⁸  Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. ⁹  And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” ¹⁰  Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,

“‘You shall worship the Lord your God
    and him only shall you serve.’”

¹¹  Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him

Matthew 4.1–11 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

As we enter the first Sunday of Lent, the lectionary pairs the Gospel with the First Reading to set the scene and to prepare us.

The only way the Gospel writers could possibly have learned about Christ’s three temptations in the wilderness was from Christ himself. They were not there. He was alone. So this story is right from the lips of Jesus Christ, not from human witnesses and interpreters.[1]

One of the first questions people intuitively ask about event recorded in the synoptic Gospels is the devil’s knowledge of who Jesus is? Jimmy Akin in his commentary on the parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke responds:

It could be that the devil is trying to put pressure on Jesus out of sheer spite, without hoping to actually corrupt him. On the other hand, the devil may have the irrational arrogance to think that he could corrupt the infinitely holy Son of God.

Or it could be something else: The Greek verb used here (peirazō) means not only tempt but also test. The devil can be seen as testing Jesus—putting pressure on Jesus to see whether it is possible to get him to give in to sin.

Why would he do that? If the devil knows that it is impossible to get the Son of God to sin then, presumably, he would be doing it to find out if Jesus is the Son of God. By passing the test, Jesus shows that he is.[2]

The Catechism[3] points out:

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning,” who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries—of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature—to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.”

Jimmy also replied to this question on a recent episode of Catholic Answers Live where he also notes that the even if the devil knew he was the Christ, he could have just been being malicious.

The Gospel writer presents this event with the imagery of “a new Exodus with Jesus as the new Israel.”[4]

Dr. Brant Pitre ties together our first reading from Genesis with the three temptations presented here:

So that’s the threefold lust: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. Well what do those mean? So if you correlate these three with the three temptations of Adam and Eve, you can see that they go together. The lust of the flesh is the disordered desire for pleasure, so like when Eve sees the fruit, she saw that it was “good for food.” That’s the lust of the flesh, her desire to eat of that fruit even though it had been forbidden, so the desire for the pleasure of eating. Second, the lust of the eyes, goes back to Eve seeing the fruit, that it wasn’t just good for fruit, but that it was a “delight to the eyes.” In other words, it was beautiful, it was some good-looking fruit. So she saw it and even though it didn’t belong to her, she wanted to possess it. So the lust of the flesh is the disordered desire for pleasure and the lust of the eyes is a disordered desire to possess things that don’t belong to us. And then finally, the pride of life, St. John describes, goes back to the third reason. Eve took of the fruit because it was “desirable to make one wise.” What does that mean? In other words, to make one wise like God. Because what the devil said to her was “you will not die when you eat of it, the day you eat of it you will become like God,” or in the Hebrew literally like Elohim (plural), you will become like gods. So there’s a temptation there to be like God but apart from God. So this is what we call the sin of pride or vanity. So those are the three temptations: pleasure, possessions and pride or vanity. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.[5]

St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Matthew notes the difference in ordering of the three temptations/testings.

“… according to Augustine: for everything which is narrated here is also narrated in Luke nor is it related in Luke either that this was the first or the second temptation. But Rabanus says that Luke observes the order of history; and thus he ordered the account according to which it happened. On the other hand, Matthew followed the nature of the temptations, because after the temptation of gluttony and of vainglory follows the temptation of ambition: for thus was Adam tempted…”[6]

There is so much that you can take from the devil’s questions and Jesus replies, but I found this an interesting irony, as presented by Dr. Brant Pitre:

This is a really interesting temptation because in it, the devil quotes Scripture also. We have seen that Jesus is quoting Scripture, so the devil gets into the game and he quotes Psalm 91, which does in fact say that “God will give his angels charge of you and they will bear you up less you strike your foot against a stone.” But what is interesting about this Psalm in a first century Jewish context, is that the Psalm was also the Psalm of exorcism. So in other words, Psalm 91 was the Psalm that Jewish exorcists would sing when they were casting out demons. They used this Psalm to cast out the devil. So it is kind of funny. I like to tell my students sometimes that “the devil knew this Psalm really well,” he had heard it before in other words. So he takes a couple of the verses out of context and then he throws them back at Jesus.
… So is this a real temptation? Well I think yes because what the devil is basically doing is trying to tell Jesus to commit the sin of pride. In other words, he’s trying to say “if you’re really the son of God then why don’t you just prove it.”[7]

He also notes an important conclusion to this testing and one that is good to dwell on.

The triumph of Jesus in the wilderness is much more than a personal victory. It is also a triumph for the people of God. In part, this is because Jesus overcomes temptation with his human will. He could have vanquished the tempter with his divine might, but this was not his chosen approach. Instead, Jesus faced his trial in a human way, in full solidarity with humanity. He never ceased to be the Son of God, and yet he won the battle as a man.[8]

Dr. Peter Kreeft concurs in this when he wrote:

Jesus was fully human, like us in every way except sin. Therefore, he was tempted, really tempted, because he had a completely human nature. Adam and Eve were tempted even before they had any sin, when they were completely holy and completely innocent. So was the perfect and innocent Jesus. Adam and Eve gave in; Jesus did not.[9]

This example from Jesus is one for us to draw upon in our lives. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible summarizes this aspect.

Morally (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Matt. 8): Jesus’ victory sets an example for Christian obedience. Earthly life is a wilderness trial for God’s people en route to the land of heaven. Through this probationary period, God wills the faithful to overcome temptations from the world, the flesh, and the devil. Triumph is possible through penance and obedience to God’s word. Rather than earthly bread and power, the faithful must desire the food of God’s will and the humility of Christ (11:29; Jn 4:34). The battle successfully won merits heavenly comfort in the company of angels (4:11). The Church annually reminds us of this life-long vocation during the 40 days of Lent (CCC 540, 2849).[10]

One last point on these temptations regarding Jesus. Returning to St. Thomas Aquinas’s commentary, where he references St. Gregory the Great.

Gregory says that there are three stages of temptation, namely, by suggestion, pleasure and consent. The first is from without, and can be without sin; the second is from within, in which it begins to be a sin, and which indeed is completed by consent. The first stage could have been in Christ, but not the others.[11]

Returning to Dr. Brant Pitre:

In the end, Jesus has proven himself the loyal Son of God. Neither the pangs of hunger nor the prospect of worldwide kingship have been able to bend his will away from the Father’s. In a final scene, we are told that angels from heaven came and ministered to him. Most likely this means that Jesus was fed by the angels, much as Elijah was in the Old Testament (1 Kings 19:4–7).[12]

I love this paragraph from the Catechism on the role of Angels in Jesus’ life. To reflect on the role of our Guardian Angel in our own life.

333 From the Incarnation to the Ascension, the life of the Word incarnate is surrounded by the adoration and service of angels. When God “brings the firstborn into the world, he says: ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’” Their song of praise at the birth of Christ has not ceased resounding in the Church’s praise: “Glory to God in the highest!” They protect Jesus in his infancy, serve him in the desert, strengthen him in his agony in the garden, when he could have been saved by them from the hands of his enemies as Israel had been. Again, it is the angels who “evangelize” by proclaiming the Good News of Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection. They will be present at Christ’s return, which they will announce, to serve at his judgment.[13]

Sources

• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A
• Jimmy Akin’s Studies on Mark (3 vols.) – Verbum
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition
• St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
• The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible꞉ The New Testament
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A, # FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT  ↩
2. Jimmy Akin. (2014). Mark, A Commentary.  ↩
3. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference. Paragraphs 394, 395.  ↩
4. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 1st Sunday in Lent (Year A)  ↩
5. ibid  ↩
6. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
7. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 1st Sunday in Lent (Year A)  ↩
8. ibid  ↩
9. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Cycle A, # FIRST SUNDAY OF LENT  ↩
10. Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament  ↩
11. Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew, Dolorosa Press  ↩
12. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, 1st Sunday in Lent (Year A)  ↩
13. Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed). United States Catholic Conference. Paragraph 333.  ↩