John 9:16-20
John 9:16 (KJB)
Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
Division - Split, schism, or dissension
Now the Pharisees begin to argue amongst themselves. One group was of the opinion that Jesus could not be a man of God because He did not keep the Sabbath. Their idea of keeping the Sabbath was their own interpretation by means of the addition of many rules and regulations which were appended to the law. This group did not believe that a person could do anything on the Sabbath or else it would violate the law. They failed to see that even the law made provision for doing limited necessary work on the Sabbath.
(Luke 13:14-15 KJV) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. {15} The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?
In a separate instance Jesus had healed the woman who had an infirmity for eighteen years and the ruler of the Synagogue was livid that Jesus did it on the Sabbath. Jesus then reminds him that if you have animals, they must be watered and fed seven days a week and Jesus is telling them that if the animals can be attended to on the Sabbath, then people with needs should also be attended to whenever the need arises and that includes the Sabbath.
Then there was the second group of Pharisees who looked at this in a more objective manner. The first group stated that He was a sinner and not of God but the other group then asks a serious question, if He is a sinner, then how could He do such miracles? The second group seemed to be more inclined to desire truth about the matter by asking the right questions. Nevertheless, there was dissension among them concerning this miracle. Isnít it amazing that they just could not rejoice with this man, instead they had to try and over-analyze the miracle. This is what happens when you mix education with faith, bake it in your mind, and then you have a cake of doubt.
John 9:17 (KJB)
They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.
Since there was dissension among the Pharisees and it may have started to become an embarrassing scene in front of those who were present and especially the man who was healed. So they turned to him and asked his opinion as to what he knew of the man that opened his eyes. As far as the healed man could tell, Jesus was a prophet because they had the authority of God and were able to perform miracles such as Elijah and Elisha. It is obvious that the man would have been illiterate because reading would have been impossible but maybe someone read to him and he knew of the power of the true prophets of God and that is probably why he called Jesus a prophet. Actually Jesus was the prophet prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:15. (Deu 18:15 KJV) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; The man was on his way to believing the full truth about Jesus that He was Prophet, Priest, and King.
John 9:18 (KJB)
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.
They asked him his opinion as to who opened his eyes in the previous verse and when he stated that He was a prophet, the Jews then tried to change their approach to the whole matter. They did not focus on the fact that the man was healed and that he thought it was a prophet who healed him, now they have begun to question as to whether the man was truly blind to begin with. In other words, if you cannot kill the message, kill the messenger. Isnít that the same scenario in the churches today that are ruled by the education and philosophy gods? Bring in the pure Gospel and you will be asked to leave. So now that they were trying to impugn the miracle and they disbelieved that he was blind, they now bring in his parents to confirm whether he is telling the truth or not. Truth never fears examination but examination may fear truth!
John 9:19 (KJB)
And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?
Now they begin to question the parents so they asked them three questions. Is this your son? Are you claiming he was born blind? How does he see now? These parents would not be able to answer the third question because they were not present when the miracle happened. One way to cast doubt on a story is to ask a question of a person who cannot answer that question. When they cannot answer it, it then begins to cast doubts and then the accusers can remake the case in their own way.
John 9:20 (KJB)
His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:
The parents confirmed the first two questions that they know definitely that it was their son and that he was born blind. This may be the first time his parents have seen him since the miracle because the people took him right from the place where the miracle happened to the temple to see the Pharisees. So the parents may have been totally surprised by the events which had happened to their son.