Michael's Abbey Bible Study - Gospel of John Chapter 9

1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. This occurs after Jesus left the temple when the Jewish leaders were ready to stone Him because He said He was God. How much after we don't know. It could be the same day, the next day, or a number of days later.
Jesus sees a man born blind. There must have been something about the man's appearance that made it clear he had been born blind as it wasn't just Jesus that knew it. Jesus' notice drew the attention of His disciples to the man.
2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" The disciples wrongly thought the only possible explanation for this man to have been born blind was punishment for someone's sin. This was based on an incorrect view of the world, mixing up temporal and eternal things, a wrong interpretation of scripture taking things out of context, and a fundamentally flawed view of God. But this was taught by the Pharisees, and by mistaken pastors today. Jesus taught against this.
In Luke 13:1-5 some people questioned Jesus about some Galileans who had come to Jerusalem to sacrifice who Pilate had killed as to how they had sinned against God to deserve that. Jesus emphatically stated that no, they were not any worse sinners than the other Galileans. And he brought up a recent tragedy where the tower of Siloam fell and killed 18 people and repeated the same point. What Jesus was saying was death in this life happens regardless of sin. All have sinned and need to repent. But the death connected to sin in scripture is the second death, the spiritual death that awaits those who do not repent.
This wrong view of why bad things happen in this life is still taught today by prosperity preachers, hyper-charismatics, and people whose theology has become weird and anti-biblical. In reality, very sinful people have very prosperous lives. Satan protects these people so as to mislead them and their followers, whether they are celebrities or religious leaders. And often those who follow God have trials. The wrong view that things we perceive as "bad" are a punishment for sin is based at least partly on a misunderstanding about God and a misunderstanding of Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, and others in the Pentateuch.
For example, Exodus 20:5 only supports this wrong view if it's taken out of context. This is the primary verse where people get the unbiblical idea of "generational curses". Generational curses as people use the term are not biblical. While verse 5 contains text about the iniquity being visited to the third and fourth generation of those who hate God, verse 6 states that God shows lovingkindness to those who love Him and keep His commandments. The clear implication is that the hatred of God is what is passed on to the succeeding generations. And thus, they deserve the same consequences. And those that turn away from that and choose to love God and follow His commandments pull themselves out of it. There is no scripture anywhere that says anything like God puts a "generational curse" on a family that Godly people have to do something extra to remove. There is no special spiritual curse from God. It is only the natural consequence of the example from parent to child of a sinful and anti-God lifestyle.
Ezekiel 18:19-20 Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
This could not be more clearly put. The son and father are only responsible for their own sin. And verse 22 makes it clear that even the rebellious sinning father would be forgiven all his transgressions if he turns back to God.
The proper understanding of these verses is that it is referring to natural earthly consequences of sin rather than direct punishment from God. As Galatians 6:7 states, we reap what we sow. And sowing evil brings calamity that has lasting effects. The movie Hillbilly Elegy illustrates this as the son is doing his best to live right and achieve in life, but is still dragged down by his mother's drug addicted life. The consequences of her sin still have an effect on her kids and grandkids that they have to overcome. But this is not a curse inflicted by God, just the natural consequences of sinful behavior that a just God allows. Ironically, those teaching this false doctrine of "generational curses" are themselves passing on a burden to weigh people down for no reason. People who teach this show they are poor biblical scholars and all of their teachings should be viewed with skepticism.
3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. Jesus tells the disciples they are wrong. This man's blindness is not because of sin, but so that the works of God can be demonstrated in the man. In verses 6-7 Jesus heals the man. Therefore at least
part of the works Jesus was referring to here is the opportunity for Him to perform this miracle. This is does not mean that every affliction is for the purpose of God performing a miracle. That is just one possible reason.
James 1:2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.
Thus some "bad" things are for our benefit, making us better Christians. But again, that is only another possible reason. What all this really means is that the reasons for our circumstances are beyond our knowledge. God's reasons are not known to us, and cannot be known to us unless He reveals them. But we can be sure they are good because His nature is good and doing evil is not in Him.
4 We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5 While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." When using a day and night analogy for the grand scheme of things, this time before eschaton, the end times, is always referred to as night, and the time after as the day. As this reverses that, it does not follow that this is referring to an age but is referring to a much shorter and closer period of time like a lifetime. Thus any who try to use this as a prooftext of dispensationalism are misusing it and reading into it what is not there. The reality is there is nothing in scripture that says there will be an end to the spiritual gifts and miracles before eschaton without reading into scripture what isn’t there. Although the behavior of most churches in western society and the people in them could easily make one think the gift of discernment has ended. In the narrative of scripture miracles are relatively rare considering the huge time span covered. But there are certain periods of time where there are a large clusters of miracles that seem to be to give evidence that something is from God, such as the first covenant, the law of Moses, the coming of the Messiah and the new covenant, and the scriptures from the apostles. One thing about miracles in scripture that is clear is that they are true and complete. There is never any time when someone is told to say they have been miraculously healed when it hasn't happened ever, let alone for some bizarre doctrine that requires someone to lie or deny reality in order to get a miracle.
This analogy of day and night here is referring to lifetimes, in particular Jesus as His time was coming to give Himself up to be the perfect sacrifice. He made it clear that he was referring to His life incarnate in verse 5. But these verses also apply to the apostles and to us. It is only within our life here on earth that we can make a difference for the kingdom. Once we pass away our time is up and we will face judgement for what we accomplished. Jesus was the light of the world while He walked the earth as God incarnate. After He left the torch was passed to us, and now we are the light of the world as Jesus said in Matthew 5:14-16.
6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing. Jesus healed the man's blindness. Jesus spits in the dirt, makes mud, applies to the man's eyes, (specifically his eyelids,) and tells him to wash in the pool of Siloam. After that the man was healed. The man didn't ask for it. Jesus didn't ask the man anything at all, nor did He identify who He was, or anything else. In Matthew 9:27-30 the blind men knew who Jesus was, asked, and Jesus healed them using only words. In Matthew 20:29-34 Jesus asked what the blind men wanted, and when they asked to see He touched their eyes and healed them. I think that Jesus deliberately changed the way he healed because we are so easily misled. We try to reduce things to a formula, then we focus on the formula instead of God. Look at baptism. Some denominations make people go through classes first. Some require the person prove they are saved in some way. Some require a statement of faith at baptism. Others require a testimony statement at baptism, often heavily edited by pastors to fit a specific formula. You'll see them read off a card and it's so formulaic it comes across as inauthentic and fake, not to mention it sounds like all the others despite people having a different experience. And when you know the person well and realize that's not how they talk and the confession or "testimony" is heavily exaggerated it tends to make people question the church and even God. These are all churches that value formula over God. In scriptures such as Acts 2:38-41, 8:26-40, 9:1-18, 16:15, and 16:33 people accept Jesus and are baptized almost immediately. There is no formula. It's more like, here's some water so let's do this. Formulas take the focus off God and onto the works of man.
8 Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?" Miracles are uncommon, even when Jesus walked the earth. So when one happens it's easy to disbelieve our own eyes. These neighbors had seen and known this man for years. They knew his face. Yet they could not reconcile this with him being able to see.
9 Others were saying, "This is he," still others were saying, "No, but he is like him." He kept saying, "I am the one." Some were sure it was the same man. Others tried to come up with an explanation that made sense to them, like it's just someone who looks like the blind beggar, but isn't. Their rationalization was a way of denying the truth they couldn't or didn't want to deal with. To all the man kept saying that he was the one they remember. Their eyes, his words, and the absence of a blind man who looked like him weren't enough. Some people choose to be wrong rather than accept the evidence in front of them.
10 So they were saying to him, "How then were your eyes opened?" It seems those who thought it was him asked how this happened. Those who could accept what happened would want an explanation. Those who disbelieved their own eyes would also listen, likely with mixed expectations for the answer.
11 He answered, "The man who is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me, 'Go to Siloam and wash'; so I went away and washed, and I received sight." The formerly blind man recounts what happened, and identifies the one responsible as the one called Jesus. Jesus may have told the man His name and it wasn't recorded in the previous verses. But it is just as likely he heard a disciple or someone else call Him by His name. Jesus was not an uncommon name. Yehoshua in Hebrew is translated as Joshua in the Old Testament, Jesus in the New Testament as the name is Iesous in Greek. As Joshua who led his people into the promised land is a typology of Jesus who leads His people to Heaven, it is appropriate that they have the same name.
12 They said to him, "Where is He?" He *said, "I do not know." It would be natural to want to know someone who can heal the blind for those who were able to accept it. For those who couldn't accept it, they would also want to find the man to accuse him of wrong. But Jesus and His disciples didn't wait around to see the results in person.
13 They *brought to the Pharisees the man who was formerly blind. This verse doesn't identify who "they" were that brought the formerly blind man to the Pharisees. But it was almost certainly the ones who could not accept the evidence in front of them. These would seek to discredit the healer. And the next verse gives the reason why the Pharisees were the perfect choice for that.
14 Now it was a Sabbath on the day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. This verse identifies that this was the same day the miracle was performed, and that the day was the Sabbath. It was common knowledge that the Pharisees were seeking the man who healed the blind man by the pool named Bethesda on the Sabbath and wanted to kill that man for blasphemy. Thus it is likely that those who had a negative reaction to this circumstance were the ones who brought the formerly blind man to the Pharisees.
15 Then the Pharisees also were asking him again how he received his sight. And he said to them, "He applied clay to my eyes, and I washed, and I see." It is actually a good thing that the Pharisees ask to hear the testimony from the man himself. That is following the law. It is likely many others wanted to hear it as well, and the formerly blind man had told the story over and over.
16 Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath." But others were saying, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And there was a division among them. The Pharisees were divided regarding the testimony of the formerly blind man. It is almost certain that those that brought him to the Pharisees testified that he had been blind from birth.
The split tells us that the Pharisees were not entirely the monolithic monster they are often made out to be. Some were all about themselves, the power, position, and recognition of the position. Among these self-centered Pharisees were those liked to tell others what to do. (We all know people like that.) And there were some who loved their own reasoning and thoughts, putting them above scripture. But then there were another group who were trying to learn and obey the law and to know God, such as Nicodemus. Unfortunately, those Pharisees trying to do right were in a toxic culture that put man's reasoning and doctrine above God's word and law, even while claiming to revere God's word. This is why they kept their belief to themselves, and just went along with the bad Pharisees. Today a minority of toxic people with bad intentions but loud voices can get someone cancelled for speaking the truth and/or correcting error in our churches.
17 So they *said to the blind man again, "What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?" And he said, "He is a prophet." Inquiring of the man who experienced the miracle was the right thing to do. As he directly interacted with Jesus, it is logical to ask what his impression was. By saying that Jesus was a prophet the man was saying that he thought Jesus was from God. It doesn't appear that the man was afraid of saying what he thought, although that is most likely the case considering the pronouncement in verse 22. Nor does scripture say if he thought Jesus was the Messiah. He may have thought Jesus was the Messiah, but he could only testify of what he was sure of. Mosaic law had severe penalties for false testimony.
18 The Jews then did not believe it of him, that he had been blind and had received sight, until they called the parents of the very one who had received his sight, 19 and questioned them, saying, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?" The Jews usually refers to the Jewish leaders in the Gospel of John, just like today we would say the Norwegians are sending aid when it is really just the government not the people themselves. However, in this instance it refers to the Pharisees who believed Jesus was not from God because He violated their unscriptural Sabbath rules. And these were seeking any way to justify their side of the argument to others. They did not need to justify it to themselves as they were sure they were right and no evidence or reasoning would be accepted no matter how right or good it was.
To seek confirmation from the parents that this man actually was born blind would be a good thing for someone actually seeking the truth. Unfortunately, that is not the case for these Pharisees as they were seeking to prove their doctrines correct rather than find the truth.
20 His parents answered them and said, "We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind; These Pharisees were conducting an inquiry as if they were the magistrates, which they were not in reality. Therefore and ironically for those claiming to be the best keepers of the law, their actions were unlawful. However, in practice their prosecution and persecution of those they found to be breaking the law was accepted. And their actions were supported by the temple officers. Of course, we know they were not upholding the law but were upholding the doctrines of their sect.
Thus the parents response was made as if they were speaking to a judicial court. They identified the man as their son and confirmed that he had been blind from birth.
21 but how he now sees, we do not know; or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him; he is of age, he will speak for himself." Based on verse 22, it seems the parents did know it was Jesus that healed their son, and that some were saying He was the Messiah. Whether they believed that or not isn't stated. But they didn't say anything other than the facts that were commonly known.
22 His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone confessed Him to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue. Again, the Jews here are the Jewish leaders who were opposed to Jesus. That the parents were afraid of these Pharisees was understandable. To be put out of the temple and synagogue for a temporary period of time was prescribed by the law of Moses for various things that made a person ceremonially unclean. But that is not what is meant here. This was a permanent banning, essentially separating a person from worship of God and atonement sacrifices. Later, sometime before the end of the first century, this became a formal excommunication with the pronouncement of a curse upon the offender. Justin Martyr records this being done to Christians. But at this time in the gospel of John it is almost certainly a new and non-standard thing. Regardless, this was intended to make it impossible for soul to be reconciled to God for the person it was done to.
23 For this reason his parents said, "He is of age; ask him." Considering what was a stake in their eyes, it is no wonder the parents avoided making a statement at all regarding Jesus. That they confirmed the miracle by testifying that their son was born blind despite the open hostility of the Pharisees would seem to count in their favor. On the other hand, the penalty for giving false witness under the law was to get the punishment the falsely accused would have been given. So it is likely they were going to only speak the truth, but as little as they were allowed to do.
24 So a 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." Give glory to God was a phrase calling for a person to speak the truth in a Jewish legal proceeding, a little like how we are sworn in before giving testimony in a trial. However, this is more like a direction to the witness that invokes the judgement of God for lying.
Immediately after calling for honesty, the Pharisees dishonestly suborn perjury from the man. In plain English, they criminally fed the testimony they wanted to hear to the formerly blind man, and it was itself a lie. Jesus did not sin, but only acted contrary to the unscriptural doctrines of the Pharisees.
25 He then answered, "Whether He is a sinner, I do not know; one thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." Here the formerly blind man is behaving in accordance with the law in that he does not testify to things he does not know. He only testifies what he knows and is the truth.
It is ironic that the layman follows the law while the professional lawyers violate the same part of the law by making statements of things they cannot know. The problem is that they held their own reasoning above scripture. Unfortunately, many Christians, church leaders, and even entire denominations are doing this exact same thing today, and with the same result. This always leads to sin. They are putting themselves in opposition to God. And no one will ever win that.
26 So they said to him, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?" When confronted with facts, those in the wrong will try to change the focus to something they think they can win at. It is very likely that they thought by fishing for more details they could find some pretext to say it was actually an act of evil, such as finding some false parallel to pagan religion. People do this today. For example, some claim that the origin of Christmas trees are from pagan worship practices without any evidence whatsoever. They never make the connection from pagans bringing palm fronds inside their homes over 3000 years ago to the 14th century German practice of bringing in an evergreen tree. And the reason they don't is because there is no connection whatsoever. There is no tradition handed down between them in any way, shape or form. They are utterly disconnected. It is modern day Pharisaism making false connections and labeling innocent things a sin. Although in form it more closely resembles modern witchcraft or Wicca in that they claim it is true simply because they spoke it. Whereas the Pharisees at least had their philosophical tradition to refer to, even if it was in error.
27 He answered them, "I told you already and you did not listen; why do you want to hear it again? You do not want to become His disciples too, do you?" The formerly blind man showed wisdom in discerning this was a witch-hunt. And he seems to see that these Pharisees are not on the side of God. Instead of repeating his testimony, he rebuffs their fishing expedition. He pokes at their hypocrisy with his own question of whether they also want to become disciples of Jesus. "Also" could be referring to in addition to the other disciples out there, but it implies that the formerly blind man is now a disciple himself.
28 They reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. The Pharisees did not take his humorous jab well. Eloidoresan in Hebrew is to revile or abuse. In other words, the Pharisees were jeering at him. They called him a disciple of Jesus as an insult and accusation.
Ironically, if they really were disciples of Moses as they claimed, they would have become disciples of Jesus. But the reality was they were disciples of their own anti-scriptural sect and falsely used the name of Moses for it. It's like today when people will falsely call out someone's behavior or words as being unchristian when it is exactly like something Jesus or Paul would do. Their picture of what constitutes a Christian is a fiction in their own head. They would call out the real Jesus for not being Christ-like.
29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where He is from." That God spoke to Moses was fact. But that they didn't know where Jesus was from was by their own choice. Simple reasoning should have been enough to know Jesus was God based on the miracles alone. Real understanding of scripture would have made it even more plain. But they put their own reasoning and philosophy above scripture and real evidence. So they misled themselves. This is something we all do too. Thus if we are to find the truth we must be ready to discard our own errors and accept the correction of scripture.
30 The man answered and said to them, "Well, here is an amazing thing, that you do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. The formerly blind man's reply was an indictment of the Pharisee's faith and understanding. In other words, since Jesus performed this miracle, it was amazing that they did not know where He was from. From that evidence alone it was obvious to anyone not blinded by their own prejudices.
31 We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him. This isn't a single quote but a compilation of scripture from Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah. To be clear, we are all sinners. The contrast is not between the imperfect and perfect but between those who follow God and those who choose a path of sin, which by definition is anything other than choosing to follow God. Choosing to follow the doctrines of man instead of the doctrines of God puts one on the wrong side. It is a question of who we put on the throne of our lives. These Pharisees put their own reasoning and philosophy over scripture and God.
Proverbs 15:29 The LORD is far from the wicked, but He hears the prayer of the righteous.
32 Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. This was the trump card. Something that has never happened ever to anyone in history should have made it beyond clear the origin of this miracle.
33 If this man were not from God, He could do nothing." This was obviously from God. But people who are close minded to anything outside the teachings of their sect, denomination, or church will keep themselves from seeing the obvious. To these Pharisees, that Jesus performed a healing miracle on the Sabbath violated the rules of their sect. Therefore to them it was a sin. Never mind that it was not against the law of Moses. Never mind it was an unheard of and powerful miracle. Never mind this was a rule their sect has just made up out of their own reasoning. Never mind that God was incarnate and right there with them. They just "knew" they were right, and no amount of reality would change their minds. If you get nothing else from this Bible study, heed this warning. We are all in error about something. Every church is in error about something. We must never, ever put anything above scripture. Not our own reasoning, not our church's teaching, not someone we don't even know on social media, nothing is above scripture. Scripture was given to us by God to keep us from falling into error, especially those that lead us away from God.
34 They answered him, "You were born entirely in sins, and are you teaching us?" So they put him out. Technically, everyone is born entirely in sin as we are all born with a sin nature. So this would seem to be a self-refutation. However, the Pharisees were asserting that his blindness from birth was a punishment for sin. This was an error that Jesus refuted in verse 2. But as these Pharisees put their own reasoning and doctrine over everything else, they would not accept the correction despite it coming from God Himself.
That they put the man out means he was prohibited from entering the temple. This meant he could not participate in Judaism, make sacrifices, and so on. Essentially, this was an informal excommunication. This also meant he could not participate at the synagogues outside Jerusalem either.
What is interesting is they did not prosecute the man for giving false testimony. Either they didn't think he had done so, didn't think they could prove it, or they were afraid such a proceeding would go against them. Perhaps they were aware that it would go against them if it was done fairly. The same law cuts both ways. Falsely seeking to get the formerly blind man punished for false testimony meant they would receive the punishment they were trying to inflict on him. So they went outside the law to put him out of the temple without a trial.
35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" To be excluded from the temple was to be prevented from following Judaism, and even being excluded from being an Israelite. Even though the formerly blind man knew he was in the right and the Pharisees were in the wrong, it must have been devastating to him. Thus Jesus came to both comfort and confirm the man's faith.
Son of Man is a title for the Messiah in the prophecies of Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 80:17. In other words, Jesus was asking the man if he believed in the Messiah.
36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" The man got the inference from Jesus' wording that the Messiah had come. That Jesus was the promised Messiah, the Christ, was almost certainly in his mind. But he may have wanted to avoid falling into error from his own reasoning like the Pharisees he had recently dealt with. Regardless of why, he had the wisdom to ask the greatest miracle worker ever known while he was right in front of him and seek confirmation instead of assuming he was right.
37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." While using poetic language, Jesus clearly tells the man that He is the Christ.
38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him. The man formally stated his belief and worshiped Jesus.
Jesus didn't stop him from worshiping. One of the lamer arguments from Muslim apologists is that Jesus was not God because no where in the Bible does Jesus say "I am God, worship me." Islam denies that Jesus was God, and even denies the crucifixion and resurrection. Those exact words in that exact phrasing do not appear. But even on its own merit this is an argument from silence, which is a tactic of false teachers and prophets who know they have no real argument. It's no better than saying Jesus was God because he never said "I am not God, don't worship me." And that is also not in scripture, and also not a good argument. However, there are multiple places where Jesus is worshiped and He accepts it. And there are even more places where He does claim to be God, usually followed by Jews wanting to stone him for blasphemy. Not to mention the places where people declare Him to be God and Jesus does not correct them, He accepts their statement. Scripture is clear that Jesus was God incarnate and should be worshipped.
The original text of the Bible did not have chapter and verses divisions. The chapter divisions were added in the early 1200's. The verse divisions were added in 1448 and the mid 1500's. While adding these divisions is very useful as it makes it much easier to refer to a passage, there is no reason to think that these additions were inspired by the Holy Spirit. And there are dozens of reasons to think these were man's choices that could have been done better. It appears that this chapter division would have been better placed before verse 39 rather than after verse 41. The formerly blind man is gone, and the private conversation and worship ended. And the Pharisees are once again present among the crowd listening to Jesus.
39 And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind." To this audience Jesus states what appears on the surface to be a riddle. However, the statement is consistent with His teaching throughout His ministry. In 3:19 he also taught that he came into the world for judgement, and that men loved the darkness because they were doing evil. The statements of this verse refer to the judgement that the truth brings exposing the good and the bad. While Jesus literally gave sight to the blind, this is referring to how He opened the eyes of those who were willing to listen to the truth. Those who did not study the law were taught what it really means and its purpose. And those who could see, such as those who studied the law as their vocation, were blinded as they did not want to hear that their deeds and thoughts were actually evil.
40 Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?" Some of the Pharisees recognized, at least in part, that the meaning of Jesus was referring to what people knew. So they asked this question. It seems they thought their view of themselves would be confirmed as being the experts knowledgable in the law who follow it the best.
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains. Jesus responds with similar statement that could be taken as a riddle. But even to those who didn't understand, it was clear that Jesus was saying the Pharisees were in sin.
Essentially Jesus was saying that if they were ignorant instead of being scholars of the law, the lawyers of that time and place, then they could not be blamed for missing the signs and fulfillment of prophecies occurring right in front of them. But since they claimed to be experts and arbitrators of the law and writings they had no excuse. Their own claims convicted them. They were fully informed and therefore their failure was both a choice and a sin.

Scripture quotations taken from the NASB © The Lockman Foundation.

If you have a question, you can find the email address to write to on the FAQ Page under the Questions FAQ.

John 8   -   Gospel of John   -   John 10

Bible Study Page   -   Michael's Abbey