Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 11:37
And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
37. And some of them ] Better, But some of them, in contrast to those who speak in Joh 11:36, who are not unfriendly, while these sneer. The drift of this remark is ‘He weeps; but why did He not come in time to save His friend? Because He knew that He could not. And if He could not, did he really open the eyes of the blind?’ They use the death of Lazarus as an argument to throw fresh doubt on the miracle which had so baffled them at Jerusalem. Their reference to the man born blind instead of to the widow’s son, or Jairus’ daughter, has been used as an objection to the truth of this narrative. It is really a strong confirmation of its truth. An inventor would almost certainly have preferred more obvious parallels. But these Jews of course did not believe in those raisings of the dead: they much more naturally refer to a reputed miracle within their own experience. Moreover they are not hinting at raising the dead, but urging that if Jesus could work miracles He ought to have prevented, Lazarus from dying.
should not have died ] Rather, should not die.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 37. Could not this man, which opened the eyes, c.] Through the maliciousness of their hearts, these Jews considered the tears of Jesus as a proof of his weakness. We may suppose them to have spoken thus: “If he loved him so well, why did he not heal him? And if he could have healed him, why did he not do it, seeing he testifies so much sorrow at his death? Let none hereafter vaunt the miracle of the blind man’s cure if he had been capable of doing that, he would not have permitted his friend to die.” Thus will men reason, or rather madden, concerning the works and providence of God; till, by his farther miracles of mercy or judgment, he converts or confounds them.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Some only concluded Christs love to the deceased from his affection showed at his grave; but others made a worse conclusion, in derogation to Christs reputation, from the miracle he had wrought, Joh 9:1-34, in restoring him that was born blind; for their speech soundeth in this sense, If he had indeed cured one that was born blind, certainly he could as well have kept this man, to whom (dead) he expresses so great affection, clear from death. A learned interpreter therefore calleth this, a devilish sarcasm; they go about to weaken the reputation of our Saviour, from the miracle which he had wrought, apparently showing his Divine power, because he did not keep his friend from dying. It is much like the scoff with which they afterward scoffed him, while he flung upon the cross, Mat 27:42, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Or the words may have been spoken, if not with an irony, yet with admiration, that having cured the blind man, a stranger to him, he did not heal his sick friend; or as if they were uncertain whether his power of working miracles were not limited to some times, that he could not perform all things when he pleased. But how weak must this their argumentation be, which could stand upon no other foundation than this, That if Christ were the Son of God, he would at all times, and in all cases, have put forth his Divine power. As if God acted necessarily, not freely, governing his actions by his own wisdom, as he saw most conducing to the wise ends of his glory.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
37. Andrather, “But.”
some . . . said, Could notthis man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that thisman should not have died?The former exclamation came from thebetter-feeling portion of the spectators; this betokens a measure ofsuspicion. It hardly goes the length of attesting the miracle on theblind man; but “if (as everybody says) He did that, why could Henot also have kept Lazarus alive?” As to the restoration of thedead man to life, they never so much as thought of it. But thisdisposition to dictate to divine power, and almost to peril ourconfidence in it upon its doing our bidding, is not confined to menof no faith.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And some of them said,…. Who were averse to him, and bore him a secret grudge, and were willing to put the worst construction on every action of his:
could not this man which opened the eyes of the blind; as it is said, at least pretended, that he did, Joh 9:6, for this must be understood as calling the miracle into question, and as a sneer upon it, and not as taking it for granted that so it was; and even supposing that, it is mentioned to his reproach, since if so, he might
have caused that, even this man should not died: for either the above cure was a sham, or, if it was a real thing, he who did that could have prevented Lazarus’s death; and if he could, and would not, where is his friendship? and what must be thought of all this show of affection to him? and what are these tears, but crocodile ones? but this reasoning, as specious as it may seem, was very fallacious; for he that cured the man born blind could raise Lazarus from the dead, which he intended; and therefore did not prevent his death, that he might still give more joy to the family, bring more glory to God, and himself, and more shame and confusion to his enemies.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Could not this man ( ). Imperfect middle of . They do not say (can, present middle indicative). But clearly the opening of the blind man’s eyes (chapter 9) had made a lasting impression on some of these Jews, for it was done three months ago.
Have caused that this man also should not die ( ). First aorist active infinitive of with , like the Latin facere ut (sub-final use, Robertson, Grammar, p. 985), with the second aorist active subjunctive and negative . These Jews share the view expressed by Martha (verse 21) and Mary (verse 32) that Jesus could have
prevented the death of Lazarus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Of the blind [] . Referring to the restoration of the blind man in ch. 9. The A. V. is too indefinite. Rev., rightly, of him that was blind.
Have caused, etc. This saying of the Jews may have been uttered ironically, in which case it throws light on the meaning of groaned in the spirit (ver. 33) and of groaning in Himself in the next verse. But the words may have been spoken sincerely.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “And some of them said,” (tines de eks auton eipan) “Then certain of them inquired,” witnessed aloud, reasoned soundly among themselves.
2) “Could not this man which opened the, eyes of the blind,” (ouk eclunato houtos ho anoiksas tous ophthalmos tou tuphlou) “is not this man who opened the eyes of the blind able,” or empowered who was empowered enough to open the eyes of the blind, a thing He had recently done, Joh 9:6-7.
3) “Have caused that,” (poiesai hina) “In order that he might cause,” or enable to cause, did He not have in Him the strength to do, or to prevent, or He had power to have kept Lazarus from dying, didn’t He?
4) “Even this man should not have died?” (kai houtos me apothane) “That even this one (Lazarus) should not die?” The answer is “yes,” but more glory to the Father could and would come by His raising him from the dead, see? For all things do work “together,” not “separately,” for good to them who love the Lord, to them who are the called according to His purpose, Rom 8:28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(37) And some of them said.Better, But some of them saidi.e., another party of the Jews, differing from those mentioned in the last verse.
Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind . .?They refer to the greatest miracle which had taken place within the limits of their own knowledge. The other miracles of raising the dead they must have heard of, but had not believed. What they think of here is not raising the dead, but the possibility of preventing death; and their question is meant to imply that He could not have prevented this death. If He could, surely He would have done so for one whom He had loved, and would have come at once, instead of waiting until death had taken place. The inference they would draw is that, after all, the present failure is a proof that He did not open the eyes of the blind.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
37. Some said This was an echoed response. It expresses no doubt of his past miracles, no malice or cavil about his power. It stops at simple wonder that this miraculously endowed being had allowed so loved a friend to die! The words rather indicate that the miracle of restoring the blind-born was admitted as true by the people of Jerusalem.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?
Ver. 37. And some of them said ] Thus our Saviour is diversely interpreted and censured; and so it is still with his ministers. When we see our auditors before us, little do we know with what hearts they are there, nor what use they will make of their pretended devotion. Doeg may set his foot as far within the tabernacle as David. If some come to serve God, others come to observe their teachers and pick quarrels; yea, if conscience might be judge, many a hearer would be found to have a Herod’s heart toward his minister.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 11:37 . But this again suggested to the more thoughtful and wary the question, ; The tears of Jesus, which manifest His love for Lazarus, puzzle them. For if He opened the eyes of a blind man, He was able to prevent the death of His friend. The question with expects an affirmative answer. Euthymius and the Greek interpreters in general think the question was ironical and scoffing. Thus Cyril, ; But there is nothing in the words to justify this.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And = But.
this man (Greek. houtos) = this (One). Compare Mat 8:27.
blind = blind (man). See Joh 9:1-7.
not. Greek. me. App-105.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 11:37. , some) who were more estranged [averse] from faith.- , could not?) Jesus had shed tears. Thence they were inferring, that Jesus had the desire to have preserved the life of Lazarus, if He had had the power. He could, say they, and He ought. So , This might have been [sold, and ought to have been sold for much, and given to the poor], Mat 26:9. They draw their conclusion from the greater exercise of power to the less. But then to raise the dead is, in its turn, a greater exercise of power, than to cure the sick or restore sight to the blind. The conclusion, which they ought to have drawn, was this: He hath given sight to the blind; therefore He can give life to the dead. But unbelief precipitates [hurries away with] all its conclusions in an opposite direction.- , even this man) this Lazarus, one in the prime of youth, and beloved by Him.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 11:37
Joh 11:37
But some of them said, Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?-These Jews, although they did not believe in and follow him, yet knew of the miracles and signs he had wrought on the afflicted and suffering. And it occurred to them, as it had to the sisters that he might have saved the man from death. All seemed to have recognized that it would require greater power to raise the dead than to heal one while yet alive.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Could: Joh 9:6, Psa 78:19, Psa 78:20, Mat 27:40-42, Mar 15:32, Luk 23:35, Luk 23:39
Reciprocal: Isa 35:5 – the eyes Isa 42:20 – Seeing Joh 5:36 – the works Joh 9:7 – and came Joh 11:21 – if Joh 11:32 – if Act 9:37 – she was
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
The Lord did not see fit to prevent the death of Lazarus, and the people implied that it was because he could not do so.