Was the Blind Man Really Blind?? John 9:13-23

The Pharisees Investigate the Healing - John 9:13-23

13 They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14 Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man’s eyes was a Sabbath. 15 Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. “He put mud on my eyes,” the man replied, “and I washed, and now I see.” 16 Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided. 17 Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.” 18 They still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man’s parents. 19 “Is this your son?” they asked. “Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?” 20 “We know he is our son,” the parents answered, “and we know he was born blind. 21 But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.” 22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who already had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue. 23 That was why his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.”

Here is where the scene gets almost comical. You will soon see the legalism of the Pharisees in full force. Their first contention with Jesus' miracle of restoring the blind man's sight is the day on which he performed the miracle. Some feel Jesus picked the Sabbath day to do the miracle to confront the Pharisees and their way of thinking. 

“One of the categories of work specifically forbidden on the Sabbath in the tradition interpretation of the law was kneading, and the making of mud or clay with such simple ingredients as earth and saliva was construed as a form of kneading.” (Bruce)

First, they ask the man how he was healed to which he recounts the way in which Jesus healed him by putting mud on his eyes. It is almost a set up for their next comment where they accuse Jesus of not keeping the Sabbath. Because Jesus did not line up with their traditions, they completely dismiss this supernatural act of healing. 

But others who were merely using common sense asked how a "sinner" could do such a wonderful and compassionate deed. Right away this caused division. Oftentimes Jesus causes division not intentionally, but because some people in their refusal to believe can get hostile. 

"The group speaking tentatively in favor of Jesus must have been a small one. We do not hear of them again after this verse, and throughout the rest of the chapter the narrative proceeds a though the other group were the only one to be considered.” (Morris)

They, then turn to the man who was healed. They ask him for his opinion. The man replies he is a prophet at the very least. How else could his words brought him healing if they were not the very words of God? 

"It is a measure of their perplexity and division that they ask the man what he thinks of Jesus. Normally they would not have dreamed of putting a question on a religious issue to such a man.” (Morris)

Amazingly they still do not believe the man, as if he had faked the whole thing. This seems preposterous as the whole town would have known he was blind, and if he was faking it, you would think one person would expose him. So here is the real issue,

"It was easier for the religious leaders to believe that the man was never really blind than to believe that Jesus healed the man." (Guzik)

This is where the story gets funny to me. The confront the parents since they don't believe the son. I love what they answer the Pharisees' questions. 1.) We know this is our son. 2.) We know he was born blind. 3.) We don't know he regained his sight just ask him.

It doesn't get any clearer than this. It is almost as they think the parents are part of the conspiracy. We see later in the passage that part of the reason they put the focus back on their son was their fear of excommunication by the Jewish leaders. They made the connection that if they said their son was healed, and the son said he was healed by Jesus, they were indirectly giving Jesus' Messiah like qualities. They finish by saying, "He is of age ask him." 

Why do you think people try to do almost anything to disprove Jesus and who he claimed to be? What would happen if they were to say that everything Jesus said and did was true? Why do some people accepts miracles, but deny that Jesus is the reason for them? Who are the modern day Pharisees?