John 11:36-37

John 11:36-37. The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him! But some of them said, Gould not this man, which opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die? Again there is a division amongst the Jews. Many recognise the naturalness of His tears, as a proof of His love for the departed. But some (in no spirit of simple wonder and perplexity, but in unfriendliness) ask why He had not prevented the calamity over which He is mourning. They may mean, As He gave sight to the blind man, could He not, if He had really wished, have stayed the power of the fatal disease? But it is also possible that they merely assume the former miracle for the purpose of invalidating it: If He really did give sight, why could He not heal the sickness? To heal diseases was to them a less wonderful act than to give sight to one born blind. We are compelled to assume an unfriendly spirit of the second question, partly because of John's use of the term ‘the Jews,' partly from the analogy of many other passages in which He records the opposing comments of different sections of the party: the sequel also (John 11:45-46) seems naturally to suggest such a division. The recurrence (in John 11:38) of the word discussed above (John 11:33) is thus very easily explained.