John 9:13-17 13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had once been blind. 14Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. 15Therefore, 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.” 16Then some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God because he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How is a sinful man able to do such signs?” And there was a division among them. 17So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.”
The subject of verse 13 appears to be the neighbors from verse 8. Their motive is unclear. Verse 14 suggests that they were concerned about his healing being done on the Sabbath. They seemed more interested in appearance and legalism than celebrating with the man that he could see again. They should have hosted a feast on his behalf rather than take him to the rulekeepers for interrogation. The conflict in the story comes in verse 15. The Pharisees represent those who do not accept Jesus and put rules and traditions ahead of human need. The rest of the story develops this conflict as the tension in John’s Gospel continues to grow.
The Pharisees wanted to hear from the man himself how he was healed. His response to them is simple and to the point and a summary of the three key actions. Their response focused a very narrow interpretation of the fourth commandment. They interpreted what Jesus had done as violating the Sabbath. What exactly he did to break the Sabbath is not stated. It could have been the making of the mud which could be interpreted as a form of kneading like bread, or it could have been the idea of healing someone on the Sabbath. The Pharisees were divided in their reaction to the situation. Some could not reconcile the idea that someone from God would violate the Sabbath. Their problem was because of their legalistic interpretation of the Sabbath. If the ability to heal someone like this was not good enough to be a person from God, what were they looking for? The other group recognized that only divine power could heal a person. How could someone obviously doing a miracle also have sin in his life? Both groups should have been in awe at even the possibility of such a feat. People born blind do not gain sight, not even with modern medicine.
It is funny that the Pharisees turn to the formerly blind man to settle the argument between themselves. They could not settle the argument or come to a consensus. If they could not agree on their judgment of Jesus, they could cast blame on the man who was healed. The man was going to have to make a choice between the social pressure of the Pharisees, who represented the power of the law, or Jesus, who represented the new life the man could live. The man’s response indicates he recognized something special about Jesus but only that he was a prophet. That man was not concerned about regulations about the Sabbath but about his healing. He knew Jesus was from God, but at this point in the story, goes no further than that assumption. He saw more in Jesus than the Pharisees. The fundamental question is once again implied behind the story: What will we say about Jesus? Is he a prophet or more than even this?
For older posts, click here.
