‘Some therefore 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 division among them.'
The result of their questioning was that many of them concluded that Jesus was not ‘of God'. They said confidently, ‘This man is not from God.' (Contrast Nicodemus' words, ‘we know that you are a teacher come from God'). And why did they do this? Because in their view He did not properly observe the Sabbath. It reveals that none are as blind as those who will not see. Here was this great miracle of healing by what could only be the power of God and yet they could assert that He was not from God merely because He had broken their interpretation of the Sabbath laws. What should, of course, have happened was that they recognised that perhaps their laws needed a slight revision. But the real reason for their judgment was in fact that they resented Jesus Who was taking glory away from them. That overrode all their common sense.
Strangely if the blind man had come to them before he had allowed Jesus to touch him he would have known that he could not be healed, and then this would not have happened. He would still have been in darkness and they would have been satisfied. What upset them was that a miracle had been wrought outside their own strict conditions. But clearly they could not blame God, and so illogically they blamed Jesus.
But not all were the same. Surely, said some, someone who could do such things must be pleasing to God? He could not be ‘a sinner'.
‘Who is a sinner.' By a sinner they did not mean someone who committed grave sins but someone who did not keep himself in a state of acceptability to God through obedience to Moses as regulated by the teaching of the Rabbis.
This argument was conclusive and irrefutable by application of their own teaching. But that was a question the others would not face. They were so bound and blinded by their religious tradition and by their hatred of Jesus that they ignored the wonderful work of God and concentrated their mind on His failure to keep the Sabbath in accordance with their rules.
‘There was division among them.' The division brings out that there were a number of Pharisees who were honestly prepared at least to consider the evidence. This was on top of those who had actually believed in Him.
So as they could obtain no unanimity they called the man in again. This would now be an official examination of the case. It was an official preliminary tribunal which would examine the case and determine any penalties.
‘Therefore he then delivered Jesus to them to be crucified.'
The trial was over, the verdict had been given, and Pilate probably thought he would escape with a few days of bad conscience, while the Chief Priests no doubt believed that another problem was satisfactorily out of the way. Jesus was handed over to the crucifying party. They could now go back and finish off their Passover meal in peace, still ‘undefiled', or so they foolishly believed. And the future would go on as normal.
But from the eternal point of view this was the moment when the Lamb was handed over to be sacrificed. He had been examined and found to be without fault. Now He would be offered up to God as a whole offering, as a Passover sacrifice, as a guilt offering (Isaiah 53:10).
‘To them'. To His accusers in principle, to the Roman soldiers in fact. Then He would be scourged again as a matter of course (Mark 15:15) before being led off to crucifixion. Everyone was satisfied. Things could now go on as normal.