John Chapter 9 verse 16 Holy Bible

ASV John 9:16

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, This man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such signs? And there was division among them.
read chapter 9 in ASV

BBE John 9:16

Then some of the Pharisees said, That man has not come from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath. Others said, How is it possible for a sinner to do such signs? So there was a division among them.
read chapter 9 in BBE

DARBY John 9:16

Some of the Pharisees therefore said, This man is not of God, for he does not keep the sabbath. Others said, How can a sinful man perform such signs? And there was a division among them.
read chapter 9 in DARBY

KJV John 9:16

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.
read chapter 9 in KJV

WBT John 9:16


read chapter 9 in WBT

WEB John 9:16

Some therefore of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, because he doesn't keep the Sabbath." Others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" There was division among them.
read chapter 9 in WEB

YLT John 9:16

Of the Pharisees, therefore, certain said, `This man is not from God, because the sabbath he doth not keep;' others said, `How is a man -- a sinful one -- able to do such signs?' and there was a division among them.
read chapter 9 in YLT

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 16 ? indicates, as the evangelist so often does elsewhere (John 7:43; John 10:19), that the words and works of Christ produce opposite effects on different classes. Certain individuals of the Pharisees therefore said among themselves, This Man - referring to Christ, then uppermost in their minds and in their machinations - This Man is not from God, because he keepeth not the sabbath. The form of the sentence is peculiarly contemptuous, the word "man" being thrown very emphatically to the end of the sentence. This, in their opinion, is another offence against the Law, after serious warning. The previous controversy (John 5.) had produced no effect upon Jesus. He continued, in their opinion, to invalidate all his claims by violating the sabbath laws, which they had brought to the highest point of perfection. Renan and others insist on Christ's repeated violation of the sabbath; but the fact is that the Lord sustained the highest meaning of the sabbath, though he resolutely repudiated the inhuman glosses and manifest absurdities of the traditionary customs and rabbinical rules. Jesus could not be, they thought (or argued), "from God," invested with his authority, or doing his works, so tong as he would not take their view of the sabbath. This Jesus is making obstinate assault upon their prejudices. On seven distinct occasions the Lord chose to heal on the sabbath, and thus to set the restrictions of august rabbis at defiance. But even in the great Sanhedrin, in the highest council of the nation, sat men of the character of Joseph, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel, who would get some idea of the Divine commission of Jesus from the simple fact of the miracles. In this smaller court the opponents of Christ ignore and doubt the miracle itself, on account of the unsabbatic heresy, while a few are convinced that signs of this kind (and probably they had many in their minds) were in themselves proof of Divine co-operation and approval. But others said, How can a man that is a sinner (on your hypothesis) do such signs? "As far as they go, these miracles are demonstrative proof that at least God must be with him, as he has said, and they make it extremely doubtful whether he can be a bad man after all - can have verily broken the Divine Law." Such a speech as this from Pharisees is an emphatic proof of the profound effect produced by Jesus upon the life of the nation. It stands in close association with the remarkable statement of Nicodemus (John 3:2), "We know that no man can do these miracles (signs) which thou art doing, except God be with him." Jesus and rabbinism are here face to face. Either he is from God and they are actually making the Law of God void and vapid by their traditions, or they and their code are from God and he, having broken with them, has broken with God, and the miracle will turn out to he magic or falsehood, collusion or worse. Thus a solemn crisis of profound importance occurs. And there was a division (σχίσμα, cutting into two parties) amongst them. These opposite effects and conclusions are the confirmation of the words of the prologue (John 1:4, 5, 11, 12), and they further triumphantly refute the charge that the author of the Gospel was actuated by an untiring hostility to the kingdom and polity of the ancient Israel.

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(16) This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day.--See Note on John 9:14, and reference there. Here the truth of the miracle is granted, but it is urged that the power by which it is wrought cannot be of God, because it was exercised on the Sabbath day. The inference is, that it was done by the influence of the power of evil.Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?--This question is asked by the better party among the Pharisees, represented, as we know, by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea, and perhaps by Gamaliel. They see the inference implied in the earlier question, and appeal to the nature of the miracles wrought. Works of mercy, and love, and power, were not the product of a life of sin, or of communion with the powers of darkness. We find evidence of this better spirit among the Pharisees before, in the question of Nicodemus (John 7:51). It has now extended to others. The teaching on the earlier work on the Sabbath (John 5) has led some among them, at least, to look with allowance upon this.And there was a division among them.--Comp. Note on John 7:43.