Second attempt

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]23 He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
24 He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”
25 Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, an ...[text shortened]... memory records to compare.

This miracle of Jesus is probably the one that means most to me.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Jesus had two attempts to heal the blind man; the initial attempt seemed to fail... " Is it within the realm of possibility that moistening the blind man's eyes which had become glued shut with spittle to enable them to open was simply the first preparatory step in the process of the miracle Christ performed? Is it even conceivable that His omnipotence would fail?

Jesus was in no way afraid of the Pharisees....The craziest story to me well kinda scary is the story of the man filled with the legion ( of demons) and they were in an area that was not technically Jewish territory.

Originally posted by menace71
Jesus was in no way afraid of the Pharisees....The craziest story to me well kinda scary is the story of the man filled with the legion ( of demons) and they were in an area that was not technically Jewish territory.

dive, here are some commentaries on Mark 8:23-28 suggested by a friend who is the pastor/teacher of an independent non-denominational church near Boston. His email closed with: "Hope they help. Let me know if you have any questions."

8:23. "Jesus responded to their request, took him by the hand, and led him out of the city, probably to develop personal rapport and confidence. Jesus dealt with each person individually, and by taking the man away from the throng He could make him feel more at ease. As Jesus had earlier spat in the healing of the deaf-mute (7:33), so now also He spat in the eye. This act was symbolic, something which the sightless man could feel, assuring the man that he was going to be healed. A further aid to faith came as the Lord tenderly put His hands on the man, this in response to what had been requested by his friends (verse 22). For a blind person touch is sometimes very reassuring, and for this man it no doubt had the effect of developing hope and confidence in what Christ was doing. It is obvious that the Lord wanted this man to be involved in the process so He asked him if he saw anything.

8:24. Three elements are contained in this healing which are not found in our Lord's other healings: (1) the question, "Do you see anything?" (2) the reference to incomplete healing, and (3) the laying on of hands a second time for complete restoration of sight. Why this healing was gradual and not instantaneous is not clear. Perhaps it was in accord with the man's slowness of faith, or perhaps it was a lesson to the Twelve concerning their slowness to perceive who Jesus really was. That Jesus had so recently rebuked the disciples for their dullness of understanding suggests that this may have been meant as a lesson to them, that just as this man was not yet seeing clearly in the physical realm, so they were having difficulty in perceiving in the spiritual realm. That Jesus asked this man if he could see anything at all suggests that He was aware of perhaps some lack of faith on the part of the blind man. Three words having to do with vision are used. The man "looked up" and said, I "am seeing" the men as if I "am observing" trees walking. No longer completely blind, his sight was still not good. Through his blurred vision, he knew that what he saw were men. Though except for their movement, he could not distinguish the people from trees. The man's blindness was not congenital because he knew what trees looked like.

8:25. This marks the second stage of the man's healing. Jesus is not one to leave His work incomplete, so He now put His hands on the man's eyes. At first He took him by the hand (verse 23), then put His hands on him (verse 23), and now placed His hands on his eyes. "Look up" is better understood as "looked steadfastly." It pictures a wide-open intent gaze. That his vision was "restored" (a double compound verb meaning "fully restored" ) indicates that this problem was not congenital. The adverb "clearly" is a compound term, made up of the words afar and radiantly. Distant objects now were radiant to him; he could even see distant objects with clarity. The "walking trees" were now seen for what they really were: individual men." (Complete Biblical Library Commentary - The Complete Biblical Library – Mark.)


23-24 "Why did Jesus lead the blind man out of the village (v. 23)? Was it to avoid the clamor and excitement of the people or perhaps to make personal contact with the man apart from the distraction of the crowd? Most of the miracles in Mark were done in public. Only on three occasions did Jesus withdraw from the people to heal: viz., the raising of Jairus's daughter (5:35-43), where Jesus' motive is clearly to rid himself of the commotion caused by the professional mourners; the healing of the deaf mute (7:31-37), where Jesus wanted to establish a personal contact with the man to help his faith; and the present incident, where the motive seems to be the same as in the healing of the deaf mute.

Jesus performs a double action: he spits on the man's eyes and lays his hands on him. The only parallel anywhere near this double treatment occurs in the incident in John 9, where the blind man has his eyes anointed with clay and then washed in the Pool of Siloam. To Jesus' question "Do you see anything?" the answer of the blind man here in Mark is essentially "Yes, but not clearly" (8:24). Two things require comment: (1) the man had probably not been born blind or else he would not have been able to identify trees as trees and (2) the return of his sight was gradual. As to why Jesus abandoned his usual method of instantaneous healing, Calvin (2:285) said: "He did so most probably for the purpose of proving, in the case of this man, that he had full liberty as to his method of proceeding, and was not restricted to a fixed rule.... And so the grace of Christ, which had formerly been poured out suddenly on others, flowed by drops, as it were, on this man."

25-26 The second laying on of hands is unique in the healing ministry of Jesus (v. 25). The result was a complete cure. Mark's account of it graphically records that fact: "his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly." The word translated "clearly" (telaugos) means "clearly at a distance" and indicates the completeness of the restoration of the man's sight. As for the reason why Jesus did this healing gradually, Mark gives us no hint. Jesus may have moved only as quickly as the man's faith would allow (in Mark's Gospel faith as a requisite for healing is emphasized). But Calvin's suggestion that Jesus was demonstrating his sovereign freedom seems more likely. One thing is certain. The early church did not make up this story!" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, The - The Expositor's Bible Commentary – Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke.)

Originally posted by Great King Rat
First things first: I like what you say about how a person who’s been blind won’t understand what he sees when he can see. Regardless of my (lack of) beliefs, I enjoyed reading that interpretation.

But, considering I am an atheist, of course this story sounds like nonsense to me when taken literal. My first question would be one that I’ve asked bef ...[text shortened]... scriminate between “truth” and “nonsense” when both stories are... let’s call it “unbelievable”?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
This man's blindness was probably easily cured. Maybe his eyelids were glued shut with dried blood from a previous wound and Jesus wiped it away.