They excused the restored man from blame, but appeared shocked at the guilt of him who had assumed the responsibility of ordering a man to take up his bed upon the Sabbath day. They asked him who it was that had done this thing, but he could not enlighten them on that subject. These rulers knew very well that only one person had shown himself able to do this deed; but they wished to get direct proof that it was Jesus, for they then hoped to be able to condemn him as a Sabbath-breaker. They considered that he had not only broken the law in healing the sick man on the Sabbath, but had committed an act of sacrilege in bidding him take up his bed and bear it away. {2SP 159.2}

De undskyldte manden, som var blevet helbredt, men syntes at blive forfærdede over den synd, som var blevet begået af ham, som havde vovet at befale et menneske (160) at bære sin seng på sabbaten. De spurgte ham, hvem det var, som havde gjort dette; men han kunne ikke sige dem det. Disse øvester vidste meget godt, at der kun var ét menneske, som var i stand til at udføre denne gerning; men de ønskede at få beviser for, at det var Jesus; thi de håbede da at kunne anklage og fordømme ham for sabbatsovertrædelse. De mente, da han havde ikke blot overtrådt loven, idet han helbredte den syge mand på sabbaten; men han havde tillige vanhelliget sabbaten ved at byde ham et tage sin seng op og bære den bort.