The New Testament gospels are rife with testimonies of Jesus’ miraculous powers. His reputation as a healer was, according to these accounts, spread throughout the tiny Jewish kingdom. Many of the accounts of Jesus’ healing miracles involve him curing individuals of blindness. Examples of this feat can be found in Matthew 9:27-31, 20:30-34; Mark 8:22-26, 10:46-52; Luke 7:21; and John 9:1-41. The biblical reports of such miraculous healing are taken by believers to be proof of Jesus’ divinity.

Since there are several accounts in the gospels recording the performance of this miraculous healing ability of Jesus', we enjoy the opportunity of examining just how Jesus could have performed his alleged miracles. It is interesting to see the many ways that Jesus performed the miracle of curing blindness, for according to which gospel you read, the accounts do differ significantly. In fact, there are at least two different methods of curing blindness that Jesus incorporates within the gospel of Mark alone. Mark 8:23-25 records Jesus spitting directly into a man’s eyes as if some substance within Jesus’ saliva contained a curative nutrient sufficient to recover a man’s vision. Why else would Mark have his Jesus do this unless it was believed that such an act could cause a cure? While science has yet to discover what this substance might be, inerrantists will no doubt consider this account to be actual historical fact. (Incidentally, it is curious to note that in this passage Jesus’ attempt to perform this miracle does not initially succeed, but must be completed after yet a second try. Why would this be so if Jesus were the omnipotent and perfect Son of God himself? The Bible does not say.)

In another passage (10:52), Mark has a fellow receive his sight back simply by believing. Within Mark, the two accounts are not consistent, for why would a man’s faith be sufficient to receive a cure for his blindness, and another must have his eyes spit upon by Jesus to receive the same? Would apologists recommend one method over another based on the severity of the blindness? What in either of these accounts would provide justification for such a position?

John has his Jesus go even further than Mark’s, for John has his Jesus spitting on the ground in order to muddy up a portion of clay, which he takes and places on the blind man’s eyes (see particularly John 9:6). In comparison with the gospel according to Mark, which only has Jesus spitting directly onto the blind man’s eyes, John’s blind man appears to require something in addition to the substance(s) in Jesus’ saliva, for it must be mixed with the soil ostensibly in order for it to have its curative effects on the man’s ailment.

John 9:6 - Spittle and Sand:

If Jesus were truly an omnipotent and divine miracle worker as fundamentalists and inerrantists claim, why the need for spittle and clay? Clearly John’s account is an attempt to show some of the inner workings of the miraculous process of curing lost eyesight. While modern science does not concur that saliva mixed with dirt will improve visual impairment, one would expect there to be some reason why John illustrates his Jesus going to such extents. A natural cause and effect are strongly suggested by the practice of John’s Jesus, yet the very notion of ‘miracle’ defies the nature of such causality, for a natural, rather than supernatural or divine-willed, process, is described. If it were a matter of natural cause and effect, any man could accomplish this ‘miracle’ regardless of his status as a believer; all one would need to know is the right combination of elements - spittle and sand, and the proper method of application - smearing it about a blind person's eyes. For some reason, contrary to the notion of an omnipotent ruler of the universe, John has his Jesus connected to the mundane and earthly rather than to the supernatural powers of faith, as suggested in other instances of faith healing [1].

For instance, Matthew 9:29 and 20:34 only have Jesus touch the eyes of two blind men who came to him to see again; no mention of him spitting on the ground to produce a mud pack.

Alternately, as mentioned above, Mark 8:23 has Jesus spit directly onto the blind man’s eyes to recover his sight. Apparently in the case of Mark's report, merely touching the blind man’s eyes is not sufficient, for if it were, why would Jesus resort to the crude and uncivil activity of actually spitting on someone’s face? Did Jesus even warn the blind man that he was going to spit onto his face? Since the man was blind, he would not have expected to get a face full of Jesus' expectorate.

• Mark 10:52 has the blind man recovering his sightedness merely by having faith; no mention of Jesus either touching his eyes, spitting on them or forming an earthen compress.
• Luke 7:22 only says that "unto many that were blind [Jesus] gave sight". No mention of circumstance or means are given in this account.

It is clear that some of the gospel authors definitely had a naturalistic cause and effect idea in their minds when they wrote their accounts of Jesus' miracle cure for blindness. This cause and effect predilection is so necessary to some of these accounts that they undercut the notion of a divine power, which, with all assumptions in operation, should need no causal explanation other than simply "God willed it" [2]. This predilection among some of the gospel writers exposes in their ranks - not a presumption of holy omnipotence - but a this-worldly attitude completely predisposed to natural explanation when it comes to describing the process of miracle performance. In fact, it could very well be argued that the very notion that Jesus - the so-called "god-man" of Christianity - would have had to perform these miracles physically itself argues against the traditional theistic position that these healings were the result of a universe-ruling consciousness.

At the same time it must be noted that the performance of these 'miracles' would probably have been quite convincing to many people in first century Palestine, as the superstition of god-belief and the prevalent mystical attitude of the age would have served to precondition Jesus' audience to accept his and his followers' claims of divinity as truth [3].

Similarly, in other parts of the gospels, it is recorded that Jesus would have to pray furiously, sometimes to the point of sweating blood, in order to gather the strength necessary to perform certain miracles or endure certain stresses [4]. Were it truly the case that Jesus was in fact God, or much less an angel, who had direct control over reality through just his word and wish, why would it be necessary for Jesus to pray and fast in order to gather such strength? If Jesus were really God, couldn't he just make it so? If God were the omnipotent deity Christians claim he is, who fashioned the earth simply by commanding it to be, and if Jesus were one and the same with this omnipotent God, why go through such torturous measures to perform feats far lesser than the creation of the universe? Again, such accounts only fuel the suspicion that these measures were performed merely for their dramatic affect upon any observing audience, an audience populated by hopeful new converts.

• the "healing of many that were possessed of devils" (Matthew 8:16-17) - Jesus "cast out the spirits with his word";
• the cleansing of the leper (Matthew 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-44; Luke 5:12-14) with the words of Jesus "Be thou clean";
• the healing of the deaf mute (Mark 7:31-37) where Jesus merely says to him "Be opened";
• the healing of the crippled woman on the Sabbath (Luke 13:11-13) where Jesus says, "Woman, thou art loosed from thy infirmity" (this account also reports the laying of hands);
• the healing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-14) where Jesus said to them, "Go shew yourselves unto the priests", which words were sufficient to cleanse them of leprosy. [Back]

Integrating this definition with the New Testament examples I've reviewed may prove a bit tedious, for this definition specifies "supernatural manifestations" as the essential involved in discerning a 'miracle' from natural phenomena. The primary issue here is one of nature versus 'super-nature'. Accounts of 'miracles' that attempt to show them in natural cause and affect terms, as many of the healing reports in the gospels, are in no way supported by Unger's definition of 'miracle'. [Back]

While one need not wonder why the Jews had to "become enlightened by contact" with a variety of pagan nations (rightly acknowledging that even in Christ's time nations that did not follow Yahwist philosophy were more advanced), it stands to reason how some of the the people of a nation-culture steeped in supernaturalism, mysticism and the morality of self-sacrifice - of which personal suffering and disease are to be expected when these doctrines are taken seriously - could fall under the "peculiar hold" of Jesus' healing performance. Given the philosophical depravity of the Jewish culture and its resulting gullibility during the first century, the time was ripe for a self-assigned cult leader like Jesus to fill the void that the people had been taught to expect. Staging healing acts would have efficaciously exploited the culture's vulnerability to any variety of god-belief claims. [Back]

Luke 22:44 states, referring to Jesus, "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." The occasion to which this verse relates took place in Jesus' final retreat at Gethsemane just prior to his betrayal by Judas. Why would Jesus need to expend such great energy for something his omnipotent nature could certainly handle quite easily, and for something he was allegedly quite willing to go through in the first place? [Back]

Matthew 9:27-31- "[27] And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, ‘Thou Son of David, have mercy on us’. [28] And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, ‘Believe ye that I am able to do this?’ They said unto him, ‘Yea Lord’. [29] Then touched he their eyes, saying, ‘According to your faith be it unto you’. [30] And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, ‘See that no man know it’. [31] But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country." [Back]

Matthew 20:30-34 – "[30] And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, ‘Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David’. [31] And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, ‘Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David’. [32] And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, ‘What will ye that I do unto you?’ [33] They say unto him, ‘Lord, that our eyes may be opened.’ So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: an immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him." [Back]

Mark 8:22-26 – "[22] And he cometh to Bethsaida; and they bring a blind man unto him, and besought him to touch him. [23] And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands on him, he asked if he saw aught. [24] And he looked up, and said, ‘I see men as trees, walking’. [25] After that he put his hands again on his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored and saw every man clearly. [26] And he sent him away to his house, saying, ‘Neither go ye into the town, nor tell it to any in the town.’" [Back]

Mark 10:46-52 – "[46] And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging. [47] And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, ‘Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me’. [48] And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, ‘Thou son of David, have mercy on me’. [49] And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, ‘Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee’. [50] And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus. [51] And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?’ The blind man said unto him, ‘Lord, that I might receive my sight’. [52] And Jesus said unto him, ‘Go thy way; thy faith hath made the whole’. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way." [Back]

Luke 7:21 – "And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight." [Back]

[1]As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. [2] His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ [3] ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. [4] As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. [5] While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.’ [6] Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. [7] ‘Go,’ he told him, ‘wash in the Pool of Siloam’ (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. [8] His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?’ [9] Some claimed that he was. Others said, ‘No, he only looks like him.’ But he himself insisted, ‘I am the man.’ [10] ‘How then were your eyes opened?’ they demanded. [11] He replied, ‘The man they call Jesus made some mud and put it on my eyes. He told me to go to Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and then I could see.’ [12] ‘Where is this man?’ they asked him. ‘I don't know,’ he said. [13] They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. [14] Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened the man's eyes was a Sabbath. [15] Therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. ‘He put mud on my eyes,’ the man replied, ‘and I washed, and now I see.’ [16] Some of the Pharisees said, ‘This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.’ But others asked, ‘How can a sinner do such miraculous signs?’ So they were divided. [17] Finally they turned again to the blind man, ‘What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.’ The man replied, ‘He is a prophet.’ [18] The Jews still did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight until they sent for the man's parents. [19] ‘Is this your son?’ they asked. ‘Is this the one you say was born blind? How is it that now he can see?’ [20] ‘We know he is our son,’ the parents answered, ‘and we know he was born blind. [21] But how he can see now, or who opened his eyes, we don't know. Ask him. He is of age; he will speak for himself.’ [22] His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews, for already the Jews had decided that anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. [23] That was why his parents said, ‘He is of age; ask him.’ [24] A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. ‘Give glory to God,’ they said. ‘We know this man is a sinner.’ [25] He replied, ‘Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!’ [26] Then they asked him, ‘What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?’ [27] He answered, ‘I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?’ [28] Then they hurled insults at him and said, ‘You are this fellow's disciple! We are disciples of Moses! [29] We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don't even know where he comes from.’ [30] The man answered, ‘Now that is remarkable! You don't know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. [31] We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. [32] Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. [33] If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.’ [34] To this they replied, ‘You were steeped in sin at birth; how dare you lecture us!’ And they threw him out. [35] Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ [36] ‘Who is he, sir?’ the man asked. ‘Tell me so that I may believe in him.’ [37] Jesus said, ‘You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.’ [38] Then the man said, ‘Lord, I believe,’ and he worshiped him. [39] Jesus said, ‘For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.’ [40] Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, ‘What? Are we blind too?’ [41] Jesus said, ‘If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.’" [Back]

© by Anton Thorn. All rights reserved.

[Back to Top]

[Back to Anton Thorn's Main Page]