Blind Man at Bethsaida: A Clue on the Origin of Moral Authority

The healing of the blind man at Bethsaida has long been interpreted as a two-stage miracle, often imbued with theological symbolism — suggesting, for example, a progressive spiritual enlightenment or an instructive moment for the disciples. However, recent insights from neuroscience and cognitive psychology provide a compelling alternative reading that underscores the narrative’s anthropological and cognitive depth.

Contemporary studies on acquired sight after congenital blindness demonstrate that newly sighted individuals often struggle to distinguish between visual stimuli due to a lack of visual memory and experiential reference. Specifically, it would not be unusual for individuals to confuse trees and humans, as both are perceived as upright forms with protruding appendages. For a person whose understanding of the world has been shaped primarily by tactile input, the translation of physical form into visual recognition is not immediate but learned.

Perception is not just sensory input but also interpretation based on experience. A person blind since birth, upon gaining sight, lacks the visual experiential memory needed to differentiate shapes — though cognitively they are fully capable. Their confusion highlights that meaning derived from perception is grounded in context and experience. Intelligence alone does not equate to accurate interpretation without experience to shape it.

In this light, Jesus’ two-stage healing reflects a dual process: the restoration of the man’s optical function and the subsequent neurological adaptation required to interpret the new visual data. This interpretation re-frames the event not as an incomplete miracle requiring a corrective touch, but as an intentional engagement with the man’s lack of visual experience.

Particularly striking is Jesus’ question in verse 23: “Do you see anything?” This moment reveals a profound awareness. Jesus does not presume that restored vision necessarily equates to comprehension. Instead, he recognises that perception involves more than sight — it entails the integration of sensory data into meaningful categories, something that cannot be assumed in a man who has never seen.

The narrative offers more than a demonstration of miraculous power; it presents Jesus as possessing an intimate understanding of both the physical and cognitive dimensions of healing. Far from being a textual anomaly, the staged nature of the healing underscores the nuanced reality of the human experience.

This understanding of experiential memory built through sensory stimuli has been used to support theories of human evolution. It is posited that early hominins such as Neanderthals gained knowledge through observation and repeated exposure to environmental stimuli — like witnessing fire from lightning strikes or friction — and eventually associated that with survival. Their brains enlarged over time, allowing for more complex pattern recognition and memory formation, which gradually developed into learned behaviour, tool use, and possibly early proto-culture. This view underscores the role of experience in shaping knowledge and behaviour.

However, while practical knowledge (like recognising fire) can be built from experience, morality — especially higher-order concepts like altruism, justice, or self-sacrifice — cannot emerge from material experience alone. If no other species on earth, despite intelligence and social structures, develops robust ethical systems, then morality is not naturally emergent. For morality to exist, it must be taught or revealed by a moral authority, implying a divine source. Where else on earth was this present if not from God?

Perception requires experiential memory; knowledge and tool use emerge through cumulative experience; but morality appears qualitatively different — un-tethered to purely material or sensory experience. While experiential learning explains how humans come to understand the physical world, it cannot account for the development of abstract moral principles. If perception and knowledge arise from experience, but morality does not manifest naturally from such experience, then morality points beyond nature — to a source not found in the observable world.

(Mark 8:22–25) “They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 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, and he saw everything clearly.” — The healing of 2 different problems, the physical and the cognitive. (Proverbs 3:5–6) “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.” — Human understanding is limited and must be guided by divine insight. (Isaiah 55:8–9) “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” — Reality beyond human perception and cognition. (Mark 8:17–18) “Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” — Physical sight alone isn’t enough for true understanding. (Psalm 119:105) “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” — Divine revelation guides moral understanding, not just natural knowledge. (Micah 6:8) “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” — Indicates morality is taught and required by God, not naturally evolved.