Why did the Pharisees question the man healed by Jesus in John 9:13? Pharisees’ Interrogation Of The Man Born Blind (John 9:13) Canonical Text “They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened his eyes was a Sabbath.” (John 9:13-14) Narrative Setting The healing forms the sixth of eight “signs” in John, each intended to demonstrate Jesus’ messianic identity (John 20:30-31). The miracle occurred at the Pool of Siloam, an identified Second-Temple-period site uncovered in 2004, reinforcing the topographical precision of the Fourth Gospel. Who Were the Pharisees? A rigorously observant lay movement dating to the Hasmonean era, the Pharisees prized (1) exact Torah observance, (2) the “tradition of the elders,” and (3) informal policing of doctrinal purity among the populace (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6). They operated local beth-din (judicial councils) whose investigative protocols are echoed throughout John 9. Immediate Legal Prompt: Alleged Sabbath Violation 1. Sabbath law—“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8-11)—prohibited kneading and anointing. Jesus mixed clay (kneading) and spread it on the man’s eyes (anointing), acts codified as work in later m. Shabbat 7:2. 2. The Pharisees therefore initiated a fact-finding hearing (John 9:15-16). Mosaic precedent required inquiry when a possible breach threatened covenant fidelity (Deuteronomy 13:14). Due-Process Motive: Establishing Testimony Two or three witnesses were necessary to decide any matter (Deuteronomy 19:15). The healed man’s parents were likewise summoned (John 9:18-23) to authenticate identity and verify congenital blindness. Political Motive: Guarding Authority and Social Order John records that anyone confessing Jesus as Messiah would be “put out of the synagogue” (John 9:22). Expulsion—attested in later tannaitic sources as nidduy—preserved communal cohesion by isolating perceived apostasy. Interrogation created a legal basis for such censure. Theological Motive: Preserving Monotheistic Purity The healed man’s testimony (“He is a prophet,” v.17; “Lord, I believe,” v.38) threatened the Pharisees’ commitment to a strictly unitarian reading of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). Questioning aimed to expose Jesus as sinner (“This Man is not from God,” v.16) and suppress burgeoning Christology. Spiritual Motive: Manifesting Blindness Versus Sight John’s thematic contrast—physical sight granted, spiritual sight withheld—culminates in Jesus’ verdict: “For judgment I have come… that those who see may become blind” (John 9:39). The Pharisees’ interrogation, though intended to judge Jesus, ultimately revealed their own culpable unbelief. Archaeological & Textual Corroboration • Pool of Siloam excavations verify Johannine locality and Herodian-period waterworks. • 1QIs-a (Great Isaiah Scroll, ca. 125 BC) preserves Isaiah 35:5 virtually identical to the Masoretic Text, confirming the prophecy in circulation prior to Jesus. • Papyrus 66 (𝔓66, c. AD 175) and Papyrus 75 (𝔓75, c. AD 175-225) both transmit John 9 with negligible variation, demonstrating early, stable textual tradition. Pastoral Application Believers facing institutional pressure can draw courage from the healed man’s escalating confession (John 9:11, 17, 27, 33, 38). His progression models faithful witness in adversarial settings, undergirded by the certainty that the same Lord who opened his eyes is risen and reigns. Summary The Pharisees questioned the man (John 9:13) to investigate an alleged Sabbath breach, authenticate the miracle, dismantle Jesus’ messianic claim, preserve ecclesial authority, and maintain theological boundaries. Their inquiry, however, ended in self-indictment, while the once-blind man gained both physical sight and saving faith—highlighting the triumph of divine revelation over human skepticism. |
    |