Why did Jesus need 2 attempts to heal a blind man?

[MarcoPolo]

In Mark 8:22-26, a blind man is brought to Jesus to be healed. Jesus lays hands on him once, and the man can see, but people look like “trees” to him. So Jesus lays hands on him again and the man sees clearly.

What is the interpretation of this 2-attempt effort? Is it because of the faith of the blind man?

Any commentaries or links to Scripture commentaries welcome!

 

[thistle]

In Mark 8:22-26, a blind man is brought to Jesus to be healed. Jesus lays hands on him once, and the man can see, but people look like “trees” to him. So Jesus lays hands on him again and the man sees clearly.

What is the interpretation of this 2-attempt effort? Is it because of the faith of the blind man?

Any commentaries or links to Scripture commentaries welcome!

D-R Bible with Haydock commentary: “Perhaps Christ restored sight in this manner to the man by degrees, to make him more sensible of the benefit; or to teach us how difficult is a sinner’s conversion; of which this was a figure.”

 

[guanophore]

D-R Bible with Haydock commentary: “Perhaps Christ restored sight in this manner to the man by degrees, to make him more sensible of the benefit; or to teach us how difficult is a sinner’s conversion; of which this was a figure.”

I have heard some different things. One is that the man’s faith was so weak, it was hard for Jesus to do anything for him. You note that, at all the healings, Jesus says 'be it done to you according to your faith".

However, I wonder if a complete and immediate healing would not be too overwhelming for the man? I know the Lord often does inner healings in stages.

 

[Verbum]

Hi MarcoPolo,

Just read the passage that precedes this one (14-21).

In 17:

Is your mind still blinded? Having eyes, do you not see? Having ears, do you not hear?

So being alone with the blind man and the disciples, he now cures the blind man gradually. What are the disciples to understand? That they should not be discouraged at their relative blindness. Eventually, they will undersand everything.

cf John 14:

I have told you these things while I was with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.

Verbum

 

[Verbum]

Hi MarcoPolo,

So, what do you think?

Verbum

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi MarcoPolo,

Just read the passage that precedes this one (14-21).

In 17:

So being alone with the blind man and the disciples, he now cures the blind man gradually. What are the disciples to understand? That they should not be discouraged at their relative blindness. Eventually, they will undersand everything.

cf John 14:

I have told you these things while I was with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things.

Verbum

Exactly!!! This story should be taken in context with the next few chapters.

1. Peter acknowledges that Jesus is the Messiah. (He sees that Jesus is the Messiah)
   a) Jesus tells of his going to Jerusalem to die.
   b) Peter says this can’t be so. (He proves that this is only partial sight)
   c) Jesus says, “Get behind me Satan”.
2. Jesus is Transfigured (The three see that Jesus is divine)
   a) Jesus tells of his going to Jerusalem to die.
   b) The Apostles argue about who is the greatest (They prove to only have partial sight.
3. Jesus rids the boy of the demon that the Apostles couldn’t “de-possess” (They see again that Jesus is great).
   a) Jesus tells of his going to Jerusalem to die.
   b) James and John wish to sit at Jesus’ right and left when He is made king (Again, they don’t fully see what’s going to happen in Jerusalem, even after Jesus tells them for the third time).
4. Bartimeaus, a blind man, is healed completely in only one try.
   a) Bartimeaus “saw” Jesus’ Messiah as clear as day even while blind (Jesus, son of David, have pity on me).

 

[quasimodo]

Actually, I think this passage is almost an open letter to us today. Here’s why:

In recent years doctors have developed surgical techniques that have allowed them to (not restore but) give sight for the first time to people who had been blind since birth ( for a few specific visual impairments). The patients whose sight is thus gained report exactly the same experience as the man in the story. Their perceptions are all mixed up: they have not learned that something small (that is close) can look the same size as something large (which is far away). They can’t tell horizontal from vertical in some situations. They have such a hard time adapting to sight that they are more comfortable in the dark.

The second part of the healing fixes a new problem - one that did not exist until the first healing. It fixed a problem that nobody had ever faced before; it fixed a problem that we can’t fix today.

 

[ricmat]

The second part of the healing fixes a new problem - one that did not exist until the first healing. It fixed a problem that nobody had ever faced before; it fixed a problem that we can’t fix today.

Wow. And Amen.

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, I think this passage is almost an open letter to us today. Here’s why:

In recent years doctors have developed surgical techniques that have allowed them to (not restore but) give sight for the first time to people who had been blind since birth ( for a few specific visual impairments). The patients whose sight is thus gained report exactly the same experience as the man in the story. Their perceptions are all mixed up: they have not learned that something small (that is close) can look the same size as something large (which is far away). They can’t tell horizontal from vertical in some situations. They have such a hard time adapting to sight that they are more comfortable in the dark.

The second part of the healing fixes a new problem - one that did not exist until the first healing. It fixed a problem that nobody had ever faced before; it fixed a problem that we can’t fix today.

I certainly hope you are not implying that this story was meaningless until recent times?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi MarcoPolo,

So, what do you think?

Verbum

Well, I figured part of it had to do with the faith of the blind man. If that is so, it would tie in to what you have said about this being a metaphor for the faith of the disciples.

I am finding this incremental-revelation method by Christ most fascinating. It seems so related to each of our lives, the development of the Church, even the transition of what was revealed in the Old Testament to what was revealed in the New.

Also thanks to NotWorthy for for your further detailed analysis.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Their perceptions are all mixed up: they have not learned that something small (that is close) can look the same size as something large (which is far away). They can’t tell horizontal from vertical in some situations. They have such a hard time adapting to sight that they are more comfortable in the dark.

I first heard of this from a science fiction story. I’m no doctor expert, and I think the Bible passage was more metaphorical, but don’t doctors now expose those who are newly gaining sight first to less complex environments/colors, and work up to more complex visions?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, I figured part of it had to do with the faith of the blind man. If that is so, it would tie in to what you have said about this being a metaphor for the faith of the disciples.

I am finding this incremental-revelation method by Christ most fascinating. It seems so related to each of our lives, the development of the Church, even the transition of what was revealed in the Old Testament to what was revealed in the New.

Also thanks to NotWorthy for for your further detailed analysis.

Thanks! What you’ll find is that when a Scripture Author ties two similar stories together, the part in between usually is related to the two “bookends”. When read in this context, it brings the “interior” to a clearer light.

For examle, later on when Jesus goes to the temple, he condems first the coin-changers and then the fig tree. Look to the story of the man who leased out his vineyard in the same context as these two.

The “den of thieves” comment is related to Jeremiah where God condemned the Temple (a symbol for Israel) because they had made it a “den of thieves”.

The Fig Tree that is condemned is similar to Hosea Chapter 9, where Israel is compared to a fig tree that doesn’t bear fruit.

Now we have Jesus’ story of the man with the vineyard. Again, this harkens back to Isaiah, chapter 6(?), where Israel is compared to a Vineyard that produces wild grapes (actually the translations means “stinking grapes”). Jesus condemns the tenants (the Pharisees) and will soon give the vineyard (Israel) to new Tenants (the New Testament Church).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In Mark 8:22-26, a blind man is brought to Jesus to be healed. Jesus lays hands on him once, and the man can see, but people look like “trees” to him. So Jesus lays hands on him again and the man sees clearly.

What is the interpretation of this 2-attempt effort? Is it because of the faith of the blind man?

Any commentaries or links to Scripture commentaries welcome!

St. Thomas comments on this passage in his Summa Theologica:

Christ came to save the world, not only by Divine power, but also through the mystery of His Incarnation. Consequently in healing the sick He frequently not only made use of His Divine power, healing by way of command, but also by applying something pertaining to His human nature. Hence on Lk. 4:40, “He, laying His hands on every one of them, healed them,” Cyril says: “Although, as God, He might, by one word, have driven out all diseases, yet He touched them, showing that His own flesh was endowed with a healing virtue.” And on Mk. 8:23, “Spitting upon his eyes, laying His hands on him,” etc., Chrysostom [Victor of Antioch] says: "He spat and laid His hands upon the blind man, wishing to show that His Divine word, accompanied by His operation, works wonders: for the hand signifies operation; the spittle signifies the word which proceeds from the mouth." Again, on John 9:6, “He made clay of the spittle, and spread the clay upon the eyes of the blind man,” Augustine says: “Of His spittle He made clay–because ‘the Word was made flesh.’” Or, again, as Chrysostom says, to signify that it was He who made man of “the slime of the earth.”

It is furthermore to be observed concerning Christ’s miracles that generally what He did was most perfect. Hence on John 2:10, “Every man at first setteth forth good wine,” Chrysostom says: “Christ’s miracles are such as to far surpass the works of nature in splendor and usefulness.” Likewise in an instant He conferred perfect health on the sick. Hence on Mt. 8:15, “She arose and ministered to them,” Jerome says: “Health restored by our Lord returns wholly and instantly.”

There was, however, special reason for the contrary happening in the case of the man born blind, and this was his want of faith, as Chrysostom [Victor of Antioch] says. Or ***as Bede observes on Mk. 8:23: “Whom He might have healed wholly and instantly by a single word, He heals little by little, to show the extent of human blindness, which hardly, and that only by degrees, can come back to the light: and to point out that each step forward in the way of perfection is due to the help of His grace.” ***

(Summa Theologica, III, 44, 3)

 

[quasimodo]

I certainly hope you are not implying that this story was meaningless until recent times?

meaningless - no

Perhaps, this small aspect of the story now has more meaning than it did originally in that it speaks to a skeptical age in words of a scientifically recognized phenomenon.

Sort of like when they found archeological evidence of Pontius Pilate. Until they found that evidence, the bible critics were saying that the the story of the crucifixion was suspect because a major player in it never existed. Now we know he did exist from independent archeoligical data.

 

[ricmat]

This isn’t directly related - but in the similar story where Jesus heals the man who was blind from birth - notice that Jesus isn’t just “repairing something that used to be good but went bad”, he was taking something that wasn’t even complete (e.g. no eyes at all) and making it totally perfect.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In studying the Sacraments, I also wonder if this passage is sort of a type of Baptism imparting a certain grace and followed by Confirmation imparting another grace.

The more I think about this passage, the more layers and layers of meaning I see. I even see revelation in stages…even the Old Testament revealing things less clear, but the superior New Testament revealing things more clear.

I think I could go on and on!

 

[guanophore]

In studying the Sacraments, I also wonder if this passage is sort of a type of Baptism imparting a certain grace and followed by Confirmation imparting another grace.

The more I think about this passage, the more layers and layers of meaning I see. I even see revelation in stages…even the Old Testament revealing things less clear, but the superior New Testament revealing things more clear.

I think I could go on and on!

So do!

I think this is also a way for Jesus to show us that some healing takes time, and layers.

I only recently learned about the brain, and what happens to people who “suddenly” get vision. The brain has adapted to blindness, and is confused and upset by vision. Some who have been given sight ask to be blinded again because the frustration of learning “depth perception” is so agonizing! That means that Jesus not only healed their eyes, but the brain and perceptions that interpret the messages from the eyes!