"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 sight19 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.”"
John 9:13-25
These verses underline the fierce controversy that was stirred up by the healing of the man born blind. As on previous occasions, there is a note of great sadness in the passage. All the Pharisees saw was a broken law; they did not see the healed life, manifest as it was before their very eyes. The Sabbath controversy is quite central in the events leading up to our Lord's crucifixion. It is not too much to say that this was one of the main issues that led to the Pharisees' plotting to kill Him. In 16 we have the debate between 'the hawks' and 'the doves' among the Pharisees. The hardliners condemned Jesus out of hand, because He broke the Sabbath law; in the others, common sense militated against hard and bitter prejudice - hence the division. But alas, as is so often the case in such situations, prejudice won the day against common sense. First, the man's parents were tackled, and they in their fear of the religious leaders said they did not know who had healed their son. But they did know. How could they not know? The neighbours had heard his testimony (11); is it conceivable that the man had not also said as much as this to his own parents? But we must not be too hard on them, for that would be to underestimate the strength of the bitter and ugly spirit that possessed the Pharisees and with which they dominated their people. What a commentary on the barrenness of their legalism. Perhaps if they had had some experience of the living and liberating power of Jesus' ministry they would have been more prepared to risk a break with the synagogue. No such inhibition bothered the man himself, however; he stood up boldly to the ruthless harrying of the Pharisees, and confounded them with the artless and unequivocal boldness of his testimony in 25: 'One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I can see'.