Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 8:23
And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught.
23. he took the blind man ] Even as He did with the other sufferer, whose case came before us in Mar 7:33. As then, so now, the Lord was pleased to work gradually and with external signs: (i) He leads the man out of the town; (ii) anoints his eyes with the moisture of His mouth; (iii) lays His hands upon him twice (Mar 8:23; Mar 8:25); (iv) inquires of the progress of his restoration.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Led him out of the town – Why this was done the sacred writers have not told us. It might have been to avoid the collecting of a multitude, and thus to have escaped the designs of the Pharisees who were attempting to take his life, and chiefly on a charge of sedition and of exciting the people. On this account Jesus chose to perform the miracle alone, thus showing that while he did good, he desired to do it in such a way as to avoid the appearance of evil, and to prevent, at the same time, ostentation and the malice of his enemies.
Spit on his eyes – Why this was done is not known. It was evidently not intended to perform the cure by any natural effect of the spittle. It was to the man a sign, an evidence that it was the power of Jesus. The eyes were probably closed. They were perhaps gummed or united together by a secretion that had become hard. To apply spittle to them – to wet them – would be a sign, a natural expression of removing the obstruction and opening them. The power was not in the spittle, but it attended the application of it.
Saw aught – Saw anything.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. And he took the blind man by the hand] Giving him a proof of his readiness to help him, and thus preparing him for the cure which he was about to work.
Led him out of the town] Thus showing the inhabitants that he considered them unworthy of having another miracle wrought among them. He had already deeply deplored their ingratitude and obstinacy: See Clarke on Mt 11:21. When a people do not make a proper improvement of the light and grace which they receive from God, their candlestick is removed – even the visible Church becomes there extinct; and the candle is put out – no more means of spiritual illumination are afforded to the unfaithful inhabitants: Re 2:5.
When he had spit on his eyes] There is a similar transaction to this mentioned by John, Joh 9:6. It is likely this was done merely to separate the eyelids; as, in certain cases of blindness, they are found always gummed together. It required a miracle to restore the sight, and this was done in consequence of Christ having laid his hands upon the blind man: it required no miracle to separate the eyelids, and, therefore, natural means only were employed – this was done by rubbing them with spittle; but whether by Christ, or by the blind man, is not absolutely certain. See Clarke on Mr 7:33. It has always been evident that false miracles have been wrought without reason or necessity, and without any obvious advantage; and they have thereby been detected: on the contrary, true miracles have always vindicated themselves by their obvious utility and importance; nothing ever being effected by them that could be performed by natural means.
If he saw aught.] , if, is wanting in the Syriac, all the Persic and Arabic, and in the AEthiopic; and , Dost thou see any thing? is the reading of CD, Coptic, AEthiopic, all the Arabic and Persic.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
23. And he took the blind man by thehand, and led him out of the townOf the deaf and dumb man itis merely said that “He took him aside” (Mr7:33); but this blind man He led by the hand out of thetown, doing it Himself rather than employing anothergreathumility, exclaims BENGELthatHe might gain his confidence and raise his expectation.
and when he had spit on hiseyesthe organ affectedSee on Mr7:33.
and put his hands upon him,he asked him if he saw aught.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he took the blind man by the hand,…. Not for the sake of touching him, in order to heal him, as they desired, but to be his guide:
and led him out of the town; to shun all appearance of vain glory and popular applause, being willing to do the miracle in a private manner; and because of the obstinacy and unbelief of the inhabitants of this place, who were not worthy to be witnesses of such a cure; see Mt 11:21;
and when he had spit on his eyes; not as a cause of healing him; for whatever use spittle may be of to such that have weak eyes, it can have no causal influence upon, or be of any service, in a natural way, to a blind man to restore his sight unto him:
and put his hands upon him; as he sometimes did, when he healed persons of any disorder:
he asked him, if he saw ought; any object whatever, whether he could perceive he had any sight at all. Christ’s taking the blind man by the hand, and leading him out or the town, and spitting on his eyes, and putting his hands upon him, and then asking him if he saw ought, are emblematical of what he does in spiritual conversion, when he turns men from darkness to light: he takes them by the hand, which expresses his condescension, grace, and mercy, and becomes their guide and leader; and a better, and safer guide they cannot have; he brings them by a way they know not, and leads them in paths they had not known before; makes darkness light before them, and crooked things straight, and does not forsake them: he takes them apart, and separates them from the rest of the world; he calls them out from thence to go with him, teaching them, that, when enlightened by him, they should have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, and the workers of them; for what communion has light with darkness? his putting spittle upon his eyes, may signify the means of grace, the eye salve of the word, which, when attended with a divine power, enlightens the eyes; and which power may be represented here by Christ’s putting his hands upon the man; for the Gospel, without the power of Christ, Is insufficient to produce such an effect; but when it is accompanied with that, it always succeeds.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Brought him out of the village ( ). It had been a village, but Philip had enlarged it and made it a town or city (), though still called a village (verses Mark 8:23; Mark 8:26). As in the case of the deaf and dumb demoniac given also alone by Mark (Mr 7:31-37), so here Jesus observes the utmost secrecy in performing the miracle for reasons not given by Mark. It was the season of retirement and Jesus is making the fourth withdrawal from Galilee. That fact may explain it. The various touches here are of interest also. Jesus led him out by the hand, put spittle on his eyes (using the poetical and Koine papyri word instead of the usual ), and laid his hands upon him, perhaps all this to help the man’s faith.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Took [] . Tynd., caught.
If he saw [ ] . Rev., more accurately, renders the direct question : Seest thou aught? The change of tenses is graphic. Asked (imperfect). Dost thou see (present).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) ”And He took the blind man by the hand,” (kai epilabomenos tes cheiros tou tuphlou) ”And Jesus laying hold of the hand of him (the blind man),” to show care and compassion, love and affection for him, to set him free from his bondage of blindness, Luk 4:16-21.
2) ”And led him out of the town,” (eksenegken auton ekso tes komes) ”He led him out of and away from the village,” in which He refused to do any further miracles, leaving them to their just judgment, Mat 11:21.
3) ”And when He had spit on his eyes,”(kai ptusaseista ommata autou) “And having spit in the man’s eyes,” on the diseased part of his eyes. Spittle was considered, in ancient days, to be a cure for temporary blindness,
4) “And put His hands upon him,” (epitheis tas cheiras auto) “And having placed His hands on him,” expressing continuing tenderness toward him,
5) “He asked him if he saw ought,” (eperota auton)”He question him,” asked him – – – (ei ti blepeis) “Do you see anything?” or are you able to see anything, at all? Our Lord could have healed this man by a word, but they besought Him to touch him, and He condescended to their shallow faith of “touch -to- heal, Mar 6:56; Joh 9:6-7.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(23) He took the blind man by the hand.We note in the act the same considerate adaptation of the method of healing to the mans infirmities as in the case of the deaf man in Mar. 7:33. As far as the first three Gospels are concerned, these are the two instances of the spitting here recorded, but it is one of the links that connect St. Mark with the fourth Gospel (Joh. 9:6).
If he saw ought.The better MSS. give the very words, Dost thou see ought?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. Spit on his eyes See notes on Mar 7:33. Asked him if he saw aught Our Lord in this whole process of half curing and then wholly curing, shows that the result is completely at his command. He can, as at some times, perform the work without word or sign; at others with an instantaneous word; at others still with a word and sign; and finally, as here, with word and sign, arresting the completion as he pleases. Disease shall start, and depart forthwith, or go by lingering delays, as he permits.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he took hold of the blind man by the hand and brought him out of the village.’
Again we note the parallel with the deaf and dumb man. ‘He brought him out of the village’, compare ‘He took him aside from the multitude privately’ (Mar 7:33). And that was what He had done to the disciples in order to open their ears and eyes, and yet sadly they were still inoperative (Mar 8:18).
‘The village.’ Philip had made Bethsaida into a fairly large town, but this may be a reference to the old fishing village which was the basis of the later building of the town, and was still a relatively separate entity. It may, however, be that the local title ‘the village’ had been retained for the whole through custom and usage.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘And when he had spat on his eyes and laid his hands on him, he asked him, “Do you see anything?”
Again we have similar treatment, the use of saliva, although applied differently to the different parts (compare Mar 7:33). The idea is that the words of Jesus will open the eyes of the spiritually blind as they will open the mouth of the spiritually dumb.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
DISCOURSE: 1431
THE BLIND MAN HEALED
Mar 8:23-25. And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw aught. And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking. After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.
THIS miracle has many circumstances common to others. On other occasions our Lord manifested similar condescension and compassion: on other occasions also he both shewed his abhorrence of ostentation, and his displeasure at the obstinate unbelief of men, by performing his miracles in private, and forbidding the persons who were cured to make them known. But the gradual manuer in which he effected this cure is peculiar to this single miracle; we shall therefore fix our attention more particularly on that, and deduce from it some profitable observations.
I.
Persons may be under the hand of Christ, and yet have but very imperfect views of spiritual things]
[This man had experienced somewhat of the power and grace of Christ. Yet he could not distinguish men from trees, except by their motion. Thus are many, of whom there is reason to hope well, extremely dark and indistinct in their views. They know very little of their own depravity, or of Christs excellency, or of the nature of the spiritual warfare. Thus the Apostles themselves saw not the necessity of Christs death [Note: Mat 16:22.], or the spiritual nature of his kingdom [Note: Luk 9:54.]. Even after Christs resurrection they could not conceive for what ends he was risen [Note: Act 1:6.]. Nor, for several years after the day of Pentecost, did they understand their entire freedom from the Mosaic law, or the purpose of God to make the Gentiles partakers of his salvation [Note: Peter needed repeated visions to overcome his prejudices; nor did any thing but a conviction of Gods particular interposition prevent the whole college of Apostles from censuring Peter for preaching to Cornelius and his friends: Act 10:28 and Act 11:17-18.]. We may well expect therefore to find some amongst ourselves, who, notwithstanding they are dear to Christ, still have the veil in some measure upon their heart.]
Nor should this at all appear strange unto us. For,
II.
Though our Lord could heal our blindness in an instant, yet he chooses rather to do it by the repeated use of the same means
[Our Lord, if it had pleased him, could have healed the man without touching him at all; or have cured him instantly by the first touch. He needed not, like Elisha, to repeat the use of the same means, because he had not power in himself to render the first use of them effectual [Note: 2Ki 4:33-35.]. But he saw fit to repeat the imposition of his hand in order to exercise the faith and patience of the blind man. Thus could he instantaneously enlighten our minds. He who commanded light to shine out of darkness, could with the same ease shine into our hearts with meridian splendour [Note: 2Co 4:6.]. But this is not his usual mode of proceeding in any part of his works. He perfected not the creation but in six successive days of labour. The vegetable, the animal, and the rational creation rise to maturity by degrees. Thus in the new creation of the soul he gradually informs and renews it. He makes use of his preached Gospel to open the eyes of the blind. Inadequate as these means are (even as the mere touch of a finger) he has appointed them for this end. He orders also the means to be continually used, as long as there remains the smallest imperfection in our sight. And he is pleased to render them conducive to the end proposed. He leads us gradually into all truth [Note: Joh 16:13.], and enables us at last to comprehend the breadth, and length, and depth, and height of his unsearchable love [Note: Eph 3:18-19.].]
However imperfect his work in us now is, it must afford us consolation to consider,
III.
Wherever he has begun the good work, there is reason to hope that he will carry it on to perfection
[Never did our Lord leave one of his miracles imperfectly wrought. In the instance before us he presently perfected the cure he had begun. Thus may we hope he will do with respect to the illumination of our minds. If indeed, like Balaam, we be only illuminated, and not really sanctified by the truth, we may justly expect to perish with a more aggravated condemnation [Note: Num 24:3-4. Heb 6:4-6.]: but if we walk according to the light we have, that light shall surely be increased, and all saving blessings be communicated with it [Note: 1Jn 1:7]. Hence the Christians path is compared to the sun rising to its meridian height [Note: Pro 4:18.]. We have none of us reason to doubt, but that Christ will thus perfect that which concerneth us. He has promised to do so [Note: Psa 138:8.]. On this ground St. Paul expresses his confidence, that he will complete the good work wherever he has begun it [Note: Php 1:6.].We too may be confident, provided our faith be tempered with a holy fear [Note: Rom 11:20.]. We may well argue with Manoahs wife, that he would not have revealed such things unto us, if he had intended to destroy us [Note: Jdg 13:23.]. We may regard his smaller gifts as an earnest and pledge of greater; and may be assured, that he who has been the Author of our faith will also be the Finisher of it [Note: Heb 12:2.].]
Surely this subject may well teach us,
1.
Candour in respect to others
[If a person have not very distinct views of divine truth, we are apt to undervalue him, as though the root of the matter were not in him. But God honoured young Abijah because there was some good thing in him towards the Lord his God. And if God does not despise the day of small things, should we? Is our brother a babe? let us feed him with milk. Is he a lamb? let us carry him in our bosom. Many a babe and suckling in divine knowledge stands higher in Gods estimation than those who value them selves as wise and prudent.]
2.
Jealousy in reference to ourselves
[If we have ever come to Christ aright, he has so far opened our eyes, that we are made to possess some spiritual discernment. Let us ask ourselves therefore, What do I see, which flesh and blood could never have revealed unto me? And am I desirous that my knowledge of my own heart may be more deep, my views of Christ be more enlarged, and my experience of the divine life in all its diversified operations be more manifested by its transforming efficacy upon my soul? Dear brethren, we must grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: and if, when for the time that we have been in the school of Christ we ought to be teachers of others, we need ourselves to be taught what are the first principles of the oracles of God, we have reason to fear, that the scales have never truly fallen from our eyes, but that a veil of darkness is yet upon our heart]
3.
Thankfulness to God, if he have given us the smallest insight into divine truth
[I would not disparage worldly knowledge: but the Apostle Paul, who had made attainments in it beyond most, yet counted it all but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus our Lord. Yes indeed, a single ray of spiritual discernment is preferable to the meridian splendour of human science; since that will transform the soul, which earthly knowledge never can; and will save the soul, when the wise of this world shall be found to have prosecuted a mere phantom, and to have wasted their lives in a sad fruitless course of laborious folly. As to human sciences, they are not within the reach of all: but spiritual knowledge is: for God can open the eyes of the poor as well as of the rich; yea rather, the things which he has hid from the wise and prudent, he reveals to babes, that his power may be the more seen, and his name be the more glorified. If then the day have begun to dawn on any of you, rejoice: and beg of God that your path may shine brighter and brighter unto the perfect day.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
23 And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought.
Ver. 23. He took the blind man by the hand ] He could have delivered him to his friends, to lead him; but he did it himself, as holding it an honour, a pleasure, to do men in misery any office of courtesy.
And led him out of the town ] Either that the miracle he wrought might be the less noticed, or as holding the inhabitants unworthy to behold it. All Israel might see Moses go towards the rock of Rephidim; none but the elders might see him strike it. Their unbelief made them unworthy this privilege; so might their unthankfulness the men of Bethsaida. Woe to thee, Bethsaida! It is no small favour of God to make us witnesses of his great works.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23. ] The leading of this blind man out of the town appears as if it had been from some local reason . In Mar 8:26 we find him forbidden expressly to enter into or tell it in the town , and with a repetition of , which looks as if the place had been somehow unworthy of such a work being done there. (This is a serious objection against Meyer’s reason, that the use of spittle in both miracles occasioned the same privacy here and in ch. Mar 7:33 .) Or we may perhaps find the reason in our Lord’s immediate departure to such a distance ( Mar 8:27 ); and say, that He did not wish multitudes to gather about and follow Him.
] See above on ch.Mar 7:33 .
We cannot say what may have induced our Lord to perform this miracle at twice certainly not the reason assigned by Dr. Burton, “that a blind man would not, on suddenly recovering his sight, know one object from another, because he had never seen them before,” and so would require a double miracle; a second to open the eyes of his mind also , to comprehend what he saw. This assumes the man to have been born blind, which he was not, from Mar 8:24 ; for how should he know how trees appeared? and besides, the case of the man born blind in Joh 9 required no such double healing. These things were in the Lord’s power , and He ordered them as He pleased from present circumstances, or for our instruction.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 8:23 . , outside the village, for the same reason as in Mar 7:33 , to avoid creating a run on Him for cures. Therefore Jesus becomes conductor of the blind man Himself, though he doubtless had one (Weiss-Meyer). , spitting, in this case certainly on the diseased parts. Spittle was regarded as a means of cure by the ancients. Holtzmann (H. C.) cites the story of Vespasian in Alexandria narrated by Tacitus ( Hist. , iv., 81). The prince was asked to sprinkle the eyes of a blind man “oris excremento”. , do you, possibly, see anything? with a direct question, vide Winer, lvii., 2.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
took = took hold of. (So Tyndale.)
out of = outside of.
on = into. Greek. eis, App-104.
put = laid.
asked = was asking. (Imperf.)
if he saw = can you see . . . ? Present Tense.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] The leading of this blind man out of the town appears as if it had been from some local reason. In Mar 8:26 we find him forbidden expressly to enter into or tell it in the town, and with a repetition of , which looks as if the place had been somehow unworthy of such a work being done there. (This is a serious objection against Meyers reason, that the use of spittle in both miracles occasioned the same privacy here and in ch. Mar 7:33.) Or we may perhaps find the reason in our Lords immediate departure to such a distance (Mar 8:27); and say, that He did not wish multitudes to gather about and follow Him.
] See above on ch.Mar 7:33.
We cannot say what may have induced our Lord to perform this miracle at twice-certainly not the reason assigned by Dr. Burton, that a blind man would not, on suddenly recovering his sight, know one object from another, because he had never seen them before, and so would require a double miracle;-a second to open the eyes of his mind also, to comprehend what he saw. This assumes the man to have been born blind, which he was not, from Mar 8:24; for how should he know how trees appeared? and besides, the case of the man born blind in John 9 required no such double healing. These things were in the Lords power, and He ordered them as He pleased from present circumstances, or for our instruction.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 8:23. , taking to Him) Himself was leading the way, illustrating His great humility.-) Bethsaida is called , a city, Joh 1:44. It was a , a village-town. To the blind man, on recovering sight, the aspect of heaven and of the Divine works in nature was more joyous than that of mans works in the village.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
And he took
Our Lord’s action here is most significant, Having abandoned Bethsaida to judgment Mat 11:12-24. He would neither heal in that village, nor permit further testimony to be borne there Mar 8:26. The probation of Bethsaida as a community was ended, but He would still show mercy to individuals. Cf Rev 3:20.
Christ is outside the door of that church, but “If any man hear My voice,” etc.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
by the: Isa 51:18, Jer 31:32, Act 9:8, Heb 8:9
out: Mar 7:33, Isa 44:2
spit: Joh 9:6, Joh 9:7, Rev 3:18
Reciprocal: 2Ki 6:6 – he cut down Mat 9:25 – and took Mat 9:27 – two Mar 9:27 – General Luk 8:54 – took Act 23:19 – took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
3
Jesus anointed the man with saliva and touched his eyes.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 8:23. Brought him out of the town. A more decided separation even, than in the last case (chap. Mar 7:33). The reason may have been the unbelief of the place, since the man was particularly commanded not to go back there (Mar 8:26). The application of saliva came first, then the laying on of hands (which had been requested) which was repeated (Mar 8:25). Three successive acts instead of the usual word or touch.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 23
Out of the town. On account of the increasing hostility of the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus seems to have thought it best to be more and more cautious in his movements, and in the performance of his miracles. There seem to have been some circumstances in this case to require that the cure should be entirely private. It appears from Mark 8:26, that the man did not live within the town; and he therefore took him out beyond its limits, and cured him, and then directed him to go immediately home. We are left entirely uninformed in regard to the reasons for the ceremonies, and the successive steps by which this cure was performed.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
"Our Lord’s action here is significant. Having abandoned Bethsaida to judgment (Mat 11:21-24), He would neither heal in that village nor permit further testimony to be borne there (Mar 8:26). The probation of Bethsaida as a community was ended, but He would still show mercy to individuals." [Note: The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1059.]
Jesus may have led the man out of Bethsaida so He could establish a personal relationship with him (cf. Mar 5:35-43; Mar 7:31-37) and perhaps to avoid publicity (cf. Mar 8:26). The man’s willingness to follow Jesus demonstrated some faith. This was evidently one of only three miracles that Jesus did in private that Mark recorded. In all three cases, some disciples were present, as witnesses.
The English translations permit a rather unpleasant interpretation of what Jesus did, namely, spitting in the man’s face and placing His hands on his head or shoulders. The Greek text encourages us to interpret the data differently. Probably Jesus applied a small quantity of His spittle to the man’s eyes with His fingers. This action would have made it clear to the blind man that Jesus was restoring his vision. Perhaps the saliva told the man that this healing came out of Jesus’ mouth (cf. Gen 1:3; Gen 1:6, et al.).
". . . the use of saliva was a well-known Jewish remedy for affections of the eyes." [Note: Edersheim, 2:48.]
Jesus asked the man, "Do you see anything?" to get him to state what he saw for the disciples’ benefit. Evidently the man had lost his vision; he appears not to have been blind from birth. He knew what trees looked like. Blindness from disease was and still is common in many Middle Eastern countries.