The present section is found only in Mark’s Gospel. 22.

They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man to him, and begged him to touch him. The boat landed on the northeastern side of the sea, near the entrance of the Jordan. The place of arrival was Bethsaida Julias, where the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand had occurred (Luke 9:10). Mark calls it a “village” (verse 23). Luke, in the passage to which reference has just been made, states that it was a “city.” There is nothing unusual or disturbing about this seeming discrepancy. For a long time Bethsaida had been a mere village. Then Philip the tetrarch (Luke 3:1) enlarged and beautified it. It now became a city, and in honor of Julia, the daughter of Emperor Augustus, was named Bethsaida Julias. However, having been a “village” for so long a time, it is not surprising that the designation “village” continued for some time to be applied to it. The same thing happens even today.

When “West St.” changes to “Westnedge Avenue” it continues for several years to be called “West St.” Similarly what today is “Marne” (Mich., U.S.A.) continued for a while to be called “Berlin,” and one still occasionally hears, “He lives in The Brickyard,” when the real brickyard is today but a faint memory. As to the two Bethsaidas see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 216, 217, 225.
At Bethsaida a blind man was brought to Jesus. His guides begged Jesus to touch him. As to the significance of this touch see on 1:41.

23. He took the blind man by the hand, led him outside the village, and after spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on him, asked him, Do you see anything?

It is a striking fact that among those healings of blind men which in the Gospels are described in some detail not two are alike. This shows that in his love and wisdom the Master dealt with each case individually. His heart went out to the needy ones not just in general but to each one in particular, so that his treatment of a case was never a mere duplication of what had been done before. Anyone can see this for himself by studying and comparing the following passages: Matt. 9:27–31; Mark 8:22–26; 10:46–52 (and parallels); John 9. See also on Mark 7:33, 34.

First, Jesus took this man by the hand. Not as if the handicapped individual did not have any guides. He did, and these guides had brought him to Jesus. But the latter wishes to impart his own very personal attention and love to this man. Therefore he himself now becomes the Guide.

Secondly, Jesus led him out of the village. Commentaries are divided on the question why this man had to be led away from the village. Was it because Jesus did not wish to see a large crowd running up to him for cures? Or was it in the interest of the blind man himself, to make him feel more at ease and able to concentrate all his attention on his Benefactor? Both are possible, or either is. In harmony with what was said in connection with 7:33, the second reason seems best.

Thirdly, Jesus spat on the man’s eyes. Here, too, compare the cure of the deaf-mute (7:31–37). In that case Jesus applied saliva to the man’s tongue; in the present, since this man’s trouble was in the eyes, he spat on his eyes. Cf. John 9:6. The meaning again was clear: “Something will be done for your eyes … and I will do it.”

Fourthly, reassuringly the Master laid his hands on the man, an action that often preceded healing, and was therefore a hopeful sign to the blind person.

Fifthly, Jesus asked him, “Do you see anything?” It is clear that the Lord wants this individual to become “involved” in his own cure, step by step.

24. He looked up and said, I can make out the people, for I see them as trees, walking around. Three different words are used in the original of this verse, all having to do with vision. The man looked up, involuntarily he raised his eyes. He said, “I can make out the people.”

This refers here to outward, rather vague, discernment. He added, “for I see them as trees, walking around.” He perceives that certain objects which to him resemble trees differ from trees in one important respect: they are walking around, and must therefore be people. He may well have been looking at the disciples of Jesus. His outward vision was still blurred, but his perception or mental observation was correct: those moving objects were indeed people. What made him all the more certain of this was the fact—high probability at least—that he had not been born blind. Accordingly, he knew how people looked.

Nevertheless, when men resemble trees—except for the fact that men move, trees do not—, something is still wrong. Since Jesus always completes his work (cf. John 17:4; Phil. 1:6), there follows: 25. Then he [Jesus] again laid his hands on the man’s eyes, and he opened them wide, was fully restored, and was seeing everything clearly. This time when the man focused his eyes intently, opening them wide, people no longer looked like trees. Vision had been fully restored. He saw and continued to see distant objects as if they were nearby.

It should be emphasized that this act of healing is by no means in line with slow present-day healings that require several visits to the “healer.” In the case here recorded the entire healing process was accomplished within a few moments, with the result: a change from complete blindness to perfect vision.

Exactly why it was that in this particular case the healing process occurred in two stages has not been revealed to us. Was it, perhaps, because especially this person was in need of understanding the inestimable nature of the blessing that was being bestowed upon him? The reason cannot have been initial lack of power on the part of Jesus. Surely, he who was able instantly to raise the dead was also able to impart instant recovery to this blind man. For a reason known to the Healer the present restoration occurred in two stages.

Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 10, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary, Page 321. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001.

Reformed and Always Reforming,