John 10:21
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
Original Language Analysis
Cross References
Historical Context
The healing of the blind man (John 9) was a watershed event. The man's testimony was simple but devastating: "Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see" (John 9:25). The Pharisees couldn't dispute the miracle—neighbors confirmed the man's previous blindness—so they excommunicated him and attacked Jesus.
In first-century Jewish thought, healing demonstrated divine favor and power. Demons caused afflictions; God healed them. For Jesus to consistently heal diseases, cast out demons, and restore the broken suggested He operated with divine authority. The question "Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" leveraged this theological framework: if Jesus heals, He cannot be from Satan.
Jesus Himself made this argument when accused of casting out demons by Beelzebub: "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:26). A divided kingdom falls. The consistency and nature of Jesus's works testified to their source: the Father.
Questions for Reflection
- How do Jesus's miracles serve as evidence of His divine identity and mission?
- Why do some people acknowledge Christ's extraordinary works yet refuse to believe in Him?
- What role does willingness to see the evidence play in coming to faith—is unbelief primarily an intellectual problem or a volitional one?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil—A dissenting voice emerges. While "many" (verse 20) accused Jesus of madness, "others" (ἄλλοι/alloi) recognized the inconsistency: demon-possessed people don't speak with such wisdom, authority, and coherence. The phrase "these are not the words" (ταῦτα τὰ ῥήματα οὐκ ἔστιν/tauta ta rhēmata ouk estin) appeals to the content and character of Jesus's teaching as evidence against the accusation.
Demons produce confusion, destruction, and darkness. Jesus's words produce illumination, life, and coherent truth. The disconnect between the accusation (demon possession) and the evidence (Jesus's teaching) was obvious to those willing to see. This demonstrates that even amid opposition, truth has witnesses. Not everyone was blind to Jesus's credentials.
Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?—This question references Jesus's recent healing of the man born blind (John 9), a miracle that preceded this discourse. The logic is irrefutable: demons blind, destroy, and kill; they don't heal, restore, and give sight. The miracle provides empirical evidence that Jesus operates by divine, not demonic, power.
The Greek construction expects a negative answer: "A demon cannot open blind eyes, can it?" The question exposes the absurdity of the accusation. Satan's kingdom opposes God's restorative work; Jesus's miracles demonstrate the kingdom of God breaking into Satan's domain (Matthew 12:28). To attribute Christ's healings to Satan is to credit darkness with producing light—a logical and theological impossibility.