Ἔλεγον οὖν ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων τινές· οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ. ἄλλοι ἔλεγον· πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς τοιαῦτα σημεῖα ποιεῖν; καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς. (John 9:16)
This verse falls in the heart of the healing of the man born blind. After Jesus opens the man’s eyes on the Sabbath, the Pharisees are forced to grapple with how to interpret this act. The syntax captures not only the words of their dispute but also the fracture that arises among them. To ensure this study avoids superficial treatment, we will examine each grammatical component—speech verbs, causal clauses, rhetorical questions, and narrative summary—showing how grammar itself dramatizes the theological debate.
Reported Speech: ἔλεγον… οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος
The imperfect verb ἔλεγον (“they were saying”) introduces iterative or repeated speech, not a one-time remark. The subject is a subset of the Pharisees (ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων τινές, “some of the Pharisees”), marking internal division. Their statement begins with the demonstrative οὗτος (“this man”), a dismissive term, and continues with a strong negation: οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (“is not from God”). This categorical judgment is grammatically firm, denying Jesus’ divine commission outright.
Causal Clause: ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ
The charge is substantiated with a causal clause introduced by ὅτι: “because he does not keep the Sabbath.” The verb τηρεῖ (present indicative active of τηρέω) denotes continuous observance or guarding. In Pharisaic interpretation, Jesus’ act of healing violated the halakhic understanding of Sabbath law. Grammar here functions polemically—the present tense paints Jesus as habitually neglecting the Sabbath, not merely an isolated infraction.
Rhetorical Counterquestion: πῶς δύναται ἄνθρωπος ἁμαρτωλὸς τοιαῦτα σημεῖα ποιεῖν;
Another group responds with a rhetorical question: “How is a sinful man able to do such signs?” The interrogative πῶς (“how”) challenges the plausibility of the first claim. The verb δύναται (present indicative middle/passive of δύναμαι) implies ongoing ability, while τοιαῦτα σημεῖα (“such signs”) points to miracles of a magnitude and quality incompatible with mere deception. Grammatically, the question is unanswerable without admitting divine power at work.
Summary Statement: καὶ σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς
The narrator concludes with σχίσμα (“division, split”), a loaded term in Johannine theology. The imperfect verb ἦν describes a continuing state: “there was division among them.” The grammar indicates not a momentary disagreement but a deep and ongoing fracture. This aligns with John’s broader theme that Jesus’ ministry forces separation between belief and unbelief.
Syntax Table: Grammar of Division
| Greek Phrase | Grammar Role | Interpretive Insight |
|---|---|---|
| ἔλεγον… τινές | Imperfect of speech | Indicates repeated or ongoing dispute |
| οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστι παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ | Declarative judgment | Denial of divine mission based on legal interpretation |
| ὅτι τὸ σάββατον οὐ τηρεῖ | Causal clause | Grounds accusation in alleged Sabbath violation |
| πῶς δύναται… σημεῖα ποιεῖν; | Rhetorical question | Challenges coherence of labeling Jesus “sinful” |
| σχίσμα ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς | Narrative summary with imperfect | Describes enduring division within the Pharisees |
Grammar as the Mirror of Theological Division
John 9:16 is more than historical reporting. Its grammar reveals how language embodies theological conflict. The Pharisees’ imperfect verbs underscore continual debate, the causal clause sharpens accusations, the rhetorical question highlights the implausibility of their claim, and the summary statement seals the division. Far from thin content, the verse offers rich grammatical and theological texture: Jesus’ identity cannot be neutrally assessed—his actions force a split that language itself encodes.
