The Blind Man at Bethsaida

S. Mark viii. 22–26

Him, and besought Him to touch He put His hands again upon his eyes, by the hand, and led him out of the restored, and saw every man clearly, town; and when He had spit on his 26. And He sent him away to his eyes, and put His hands upon him, house, saying, Neither go into the

He asked him if he saw ought. 24. town, nor tell it to any in the town.

This miracle corresponds closely in many particulars to that of the restoration of “one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech,” and in parts the description is clothed in the very same language. Both are introduced to the reader in the same way: the scene is laid in the same district: x the subjects of the cures are of the same nationality: 2 and the mode of healing adopted is almost peculiar to these alone. One distinguishing feature explains the motive that must have weighed with the Evangelist in preserving the record of both in such close proximity to each other. The point of difference is that in the earlier, as in all other miraculous restorations, the cure was immediate, in the later it was gradual and progressive.

Of the deaf man it is said, “They bring unto Him one that was deaf,... and they beseech Him to put His hands upon him;” of the blind, “They bring a blind man unto Him, and besought * Him to touch him.” There is no change of tense in the original, but the parallel is exact.

In both cases it is the friends who intercede. It illustrates a truth that is full of comfort, that Christ was not infrequently influenced as much by the faith of others, as by that of the sick and afflicted themselves. Indeed, it has been said that “the Gospel history almost throughout is a system of relief through the medium of others.”

The scene is the eastern side of the lake at Bethsaida-Julias. There is no intimation that Jesus had crossed over to the western shore, but every reason to believe that He had closed His ministry there at the conclusion of His encounter with the delegates from the Sanhedrim. His final direction to the restored man not to go into the town, but to return home, when added to other considerations, points to some city of Decapolis as his native place, and consequently to his heathen origin. He was led apart like the other, not, as has been suggested, that when restored his eyes might rest upon the beauties of Nature in the country, rather than on the works of man in the town, but that, in privacy and undisturbed intercourse with the Great Physician, his wants might be made fully known, and his faith quickened into a more receptive state.

It is one of the most touching pictures in the Bible, — Christ, “the Light of the world,” hand in hand with a man that was blind. Well indeed may it have created surprise that no Christian artist should ever have seized upon the subject, so suggestive alike of exquisite treatment and spiritual teaching! We often wonder how deeply the spectators were touched by what they saw, and whether that “vision of beauty” ever faded from their memory, or remained as a joy for ever.

No sooner had Jesus and the blind man withdrawn from the crowd than He anointed his eyes, and laid His hands upon them, and then inquired of him if sight had returned. The man had not been born blind, so was able to recognise objects; but his vision was as yet imperfect, and in the mist and through the film, the forms of men were magnified and distorted. They looked like trees, but they could not be, for they moved about. Again his eyes were touched by the Divine hand, and immediately he saw clearly, for every object stood out in plain and well-defined outline.

In the light of the previous miracle, it calls for no further consideration, save in that one particular which separates it from every other. The mode of cure is a parable in act; its teaching is in exact harmony with that enforced by the gradual growth of the corn, “first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” It is worthy of notice that both have been preserved in this Gospel alone. In opening the eyes of the spiritually blind God is not fettered; “there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God that worketh all in all.” The life of the soul, then, may be developed at once by a sudden crisis, for “with God all things are possible;” but the normal process is according to the analogy of the natural kingdom, or as the restoration of sight to the man at Bethsaida, by gradual and progressive efforts.

If it should be thought that because in the majority of His miracles the effect was immediate, and the cure complete, therefore the same law of proportion should be expected in the restoration of spiritual sicknesses, it must not be forgotten that the direct teaching by parable has infinitely greater weight than the indirect through act and deed. It is true that there is much to be learned from our Lord’s mode of working, as, for instance, in this very miracle the means employed prefigured the human ministries of the Church, and we accept it at once, because it is corroborated by what He taught openly and without reserve. He nowhere 1 said, either in sermon or parable, that the sanctification of the heart was a sudden thing, and therefore we refuse to interpret His instantaneous cures as furnishing an illustration for the manner in which this moral and spiritual change is to be sought or obtained.

On the other hand, we have no hesitation in accepting the mode of healing in this particular miracle as a model for the development of the inner life of the soul, because it is in perfect harmony with what He taught in the parables that dealt directly with the subject. It will be an encouragement, in an age of religious revival and excitement, to quiet Christians who are striving by the Holy Spirit and the appointed means of grace to increase in wisdom and stature, not by abnormal growth, but with steady advance from grace to grace till the end is reached.

Note: All that is certain is that both were in the eastern territory. It has been commonly assumed that the former miracle was wrought close to the Sea of Galilee; but it is an assumption, and has been here treated as such. Cf. pp. 161, 162.

Note: Cf. p. 163.

Note: The only other recorded instance is that of the blind man restored by having his eyes anointed and washing in the Pool of Siloam — S. John ix. 1-8.

Note: It is the present tense in both, used, as so often by S. Mark, to make the description more vivid.

Note: Some have supposed that it was the Galilean Bethsaida, probably from a mistaken idea that Dalmanutha, from which our Lord had just crossed over, was on the eastern shore. On this supposition it has been concluded that He was forbidden to enter the town because of the sins of the inhabitants. “Woe unto thee, Bethsaida!”

Note: According to the best MSS. his exact exclamation was, “I discern men, for as trees I see them walking.” Probably it expresses a broken utterance, and might be understood thus: “I notice some men — that is, indistinct like trees — but they cannot be trees, for they are walking about.”

Note: Kal die(3lelf/ev is now accepted instead of kcli iiroirioev avrbu avafSXexpai, and the meaning is, he saw “the men,” which were before indistinct, quite clearly, and “all things” plainly that he looked at afterwards.

Note: The nearest approach is where the Father brings forth the best robe, and a ring and shoes, for the Prodigal Son on his return (S. Luke xv. 22); but as these were ornaments not of the slave, but of the free, it more probably symbolises “his rehabilitation in Baptismal privileges,” which do not carry with them complete sanctification. Cf. Collect for Christmas Day.