John 11:37

Joh 11:37. Τινές, some) who were more estranged [averse] from faith.—οὐκ ἠδύνατο, could not?) Jesus had shed tears. Thence they were inferring, that Jesus had the desire to have preserved the life of Lazarus, if He had had the power. He could, say they, and He ought. So ἠδύνατο, This might have been [sold, and ought to have been sold for much, and given to the poor], Mat 26:9. They draw their conclusion from the greater exercise of power to the less. But then to raise the dead is, in its turn, a greater exercise of power, than to cure the sick or restore sight to the blind. The conclusion, which they ought to have drawn, was this: He hath given sight to the blind; therefore He can give life to the dead. But unbelief precipitates [hurries away with] all its conclusions in an opposite direction.—καὶ οὗτος, even this man) this Lazarus, one in the prime of youth, and beloved by Him.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 11:37 . But this again suggested to the more thoughtful and wary the question, Οὑκ … ἀποθάνῃ ; The tears of Jesus, which manifest His love for Lazarus, puzzle them. For if He opened the eyes of a blind man, He was able to prevent the death of His friend. The question with οὐκ expects an affirmative answer. Euthymius and the Greek interpreters in general think the question was ironical and scoffing. Thus Cyril, Ποῦ ἡ ἰσχύς σου ὦ θαυματουργέ ; But there is nothing in the words to justify this.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And--rather, "But."

some . . . said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that this man should not have died?--The former exclamation came from the better-feeling portion of the spectators; this betokens a measure of suspicion. It hardly goes the length of attesting the miracle on the blind man; but "if (as everybody says) He did that, why could He not also have kept Lazarus alive?" As to the restoration of the dead man to life, they never so much as thought of it. But this disposition to dictate to divine power, and almost to peril our confidence in it upon its doing our bidding, is not confined to men of no faith.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 37. Could not this man, which opened the eyes, c.] Through the maliciousness of their hearts, these Jews considered the tears of Jesus as a proof of his weakness. We may suppose them to have spoken thus: "If he loved him so well, why did he not heal him? And if he could have healed him, why did he not do it, seeing he testifies so much sorrow at his death? Let none hereafter vaunt the miracle of the blind man's cure if he had been capable of doing that, he would not have permitted his friend to die." Thus will men reason, or rather madden, concerning the works and providence of God; till, by his farther miracles of mercy or judgment, he converts or confounds them.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(37) And some of them said.—Better, But some of them said—i.e., another party of the Jews, differing from those mentioned in the last verse.

Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind . .?—They refer to the greatest miracle which had taken place within the limits of their own knowledge. The other miracles of raising the dead they must have heard of, but had not believed. What they think of here is not raising the dead, but the possibility of preventing death; and their question is meant to imply that He could not have prevented this death. If He could, surely He would have done so for one whom He had loved, and would have come at once, instead of waiting until death had taken place. The inference they would draw is that, after all, the present failure is a proof that He did not open the eyes of the blind.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

37. And some of them] Better, But some of them, in contrast to those who speak in Joh_11:36, who are not unfriendly, while these sneer. The drift of this remark is ‘He weeps; but why did He not come in time to save His friend? Because He knew that He could not. And if He could not, did he really open the eyes of the blind?’ They use the death of Lazarus as an argument to throw fresh doubt on the miracle which had so baffled them at Jerusalem. Their reference to the man born blind instead of to the widow’s son, or Jairus’ daughter, has been used as an objection to the truth of this narrative. It is really a strong confirmation of its truth. An inventor would almost certainly have preferred more obvious parallels. But these Jews of course did not believe in those raisings of the dead: they much more naturally refer to a reputed miracle within their own experience. Moreover they are not hinting at raising the dead, but urging that if Jesus could work miracles He ought to have prevented, Lazarus from dying.

should not have died] Rather, should not die.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died?

Ver. 37. And some of them said] Thus our Saviour is diversely interpreted and censured; and so it is still with his ministers. When we see our auditors before us, little do we know with what hearts they are there, nor what use they will make of their pretended devotion. Doeg may set his foot as far within the tabernacle as David. If some come to serve God, others come to observe their teachers and pick quarrels; yea, if conscience might be judge, many a hearer would be found to have a Herod’s heart toward his minister.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Some only concluded Christ’s love to the deceased from his affection showed at his grave; but others made a worse conclusion, in derogation to Christ’s reputation, from the miracle he had wrought, Joh 9:1-34, in restoring him that was born blind; for their speech soundeth in this sense, If he had indeed cured one that was born blind, certainly he could as well have kept this man, to whom (dead) he expresses so great affection, clear from death. A learned interpreter therefore calleth this, a devilish sarcasm; they go about to weaken the reputation of our Saviour, from the miracle which he had wrought, apparently showing his Divine power, because he did not keep his friend from dying. It is much like the scoff with which they afterward scoffed him, while he flung upon the cross, Mat 27:42, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Or the words may have been spoken, if not with an irony, yet with admiration, that having cured the blind man, a stranger to him, he did not heal his sick friend; or as if they were uncertain whether his power of working miracles were not limited to some times, that he could not perform all things when he pleased. But how weak must this their argumentation be, which could stand upon no other foundation than this, That if Christ were the Son of God, he would at all times, and in all cases, have put forth his Divine power. As if God acted necessarily, not freely, governing his actions by his own wisdom, as he saw most conducing to the wise ends of his glory.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

37. Some said—This was an echoed response. It expresses no doubt of his past miracles, no malice or cavil about his power. It stops at simple wonder that this miraculously endowed being had allowed so loved a friend to die! The words rather indicate that the miracle of restoring the blind-born was admitted as true by the people of Jerusalem.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Could not this person have even caused, that this man should not have died? - Yet they never dreamed that he could raise him again! What a strange mixture of faith and unbelief.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

37. τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐ. But some of them, in contrast to those who speak in Joh 11:36, who are not unfriendly, while these sneer. The drift of this remark is ‘He weeps; but why did He not come in time to save His friend? Because He knew that He could not. And if He could not, did he really open the eyes of the blind?’ Or possibly, ‘He weeps; but why did He not take the trouble to come in time? His tears are hypocritical.’ They use the death of Lazarus as an argument to throw fresh doubt on the miracle which had so baffled them at Jerusalem; or else as evidence that His grief is feigned. Their reference to the man born blind instead of to the widow’s son, or Jairus’ daughter, has been used as an objection to the truth of this narrative. It is really a strong confirmation of its truth. An inventor would almost certainly have preferred more obvious parallels. But these Jews of course did not believe in those raisings of the dead: they much more naturally refer to a reputed miracle within their own experience. Moreover they are not hinting at raising the dead, but urging that if Jesus could work miracles He ought to have prevented Lazarus from dying.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

37. Some of them, however (δέ), expressed surprise that He who had cured the blind man at Jerusalem (9:6, 7) could not have kept His friend from death. Like Martha (v. 21) and Mary (v. 32), they seem to think that if Jesus had been present, Lazarus would not have died, although they are not so sure of it. They are not contemplating any raising of Lazarus from the dead; such a thing does not occur to them. They refer merely to a healing miracle at Jerusalem, of which they had recently heard, and which they may have witnessed.

A reference here to the Galilæan miracles of raising from the dead (Mar 5:35f., Luk 7:11f.) could hardly have been resisted by a writer who was inventing the story of the raising of Lazarus. But these citizens of Jerusalem may not have heard of any Galilæan miracles.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of the blind [τουτυφλου] . Referring to the restoration of the blind man in ch. 9. The A. V. is too indefinite. Rev., rightly, of him that was blind.

Have caused, etc. This saying of the Jews may have been uttered ironically, in which case it throws light on the meaning of groaned in the spirit (ver. 33) and of groaning in Himself in the next verse. But the words may have been spoken sincerely.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.