When a man who was born blind was anointed with clay and sent to the pool of Siloam to wash and was healed, he returned to the gate, where he had previously begged, and he gave testimony to those who asked, that he was healed by a man named, Jesus (John 9:6-11). Some of those who questioned him asked for Jesus’ whereabouts, indicating they were probably officers of the Sanhedrin, sent by the Jewish authorities who wanted to arrest Jesus (cp. John 7:32, 45-46). When the man, now healed, couldn’t tell them where Jesus was, they took him to the rulers, some of whom were Pharisees, and there he was interrogated (John 9:12-13).
The text makes a special note, saying the day was a Sabbath, upon which Jesus made clay and healed the man born blind (John 9:14). When we consider what we have studied thus far about Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem, everything of note was done on a particular Sabbath, which was an annual holy day, the Last Great Day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The manner in which the man was interrogated seems to indicate it took place in the Temple precincts, particularly in the courthouse where the Sanhedrin met (cp John 7:32, 45-46).[1] The Pharisees asked the man to repeat for them how he was healed, so the man told them (John 9:15; cp. John 9:10-11).
The Pharisees then declared that Jesus was not a man of God. He couldn’t be a man of God, because he didn’t keep the Sabbath, which by their interpretation and belief in the Oral Law, was broken when Jesus: a) made clay, and b) performed a healing. On the other hand, some of them (viz. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, if they were present), asked: how someone who performed such miracles could not have been sent by God? Therefore, nothing conclusive could be done, because there was division among them (John 9:16).
At this point, they asked the man, whom Jesus healed, what he thought of his healer. However, when he declared Jesus was a prophet, many of the Jewish authorities refused to believe the man had been born blind, as he had testified, until they heard it from his parents. Therefore, the man was removed from the court (cp. John 9:24), and the rulers called his parents to be brought before them (John 9:17-18). When the man’s parents were brought before the court, the rulers asked them about the identity of the man. The parents testified that the man was, indeed, their son, and he had been blind from birth. Nevertheless, how he had received his sight, or who might have healed him, they didn’t know. The parents, therefore, concluded that the court should ask their son, for he was an adult and could speak for himself and reveal to the court how the events transpired that ended in his receiving his sight (John 9:19-21).
Upon questioning the man’s parents, the Jewish authorities found themselves with three types of witnesses to the miracle that had been performed. First, they had the testimony of a Jewish man, who was of age and could appear before the court, to give valid testimony. Secondly, they had the testimony of the neighbors, who sat in the gate with the man, when he begged for his living. Finally, they had the testimony of the man’s parents who told the court that the man had been born blind, but now he sees!
The text, however, implies the parents knew perfectly well how he had gained his sight. It may even be so that they were the ones who took him to the pool of Siloam. Nevertheless, they replied as they did, because they knew that the authorities had declared that anyone, who dared to confess Jesus was the Messiah, would be put out of the synagogues. Such an act meant they would be expelled from Judaism and not recognized as a Jew for at least thirty days, and the judgment could be repeated, if they didn’t repent and agree with their judges. If this didn’t produce the desired effect, they could be excommunicated indefinitely (John 9:22-23).[2]
__________________________________________________________
[1] Only the court could send out officers to arrest someone.
[2] See the Pulpit Commentary on John 9:23.
Smoodock's Blog 