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?

But some of them said, Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?

But some of them said: Could not he that opened the eyes of the man born blind, have caused that this man should not die?

And some of them said, Could not this man, who has opened the eyes of the blind man, have caused that this man also should not have died?

and certain of them said, 'Was not this one, who did open the eyes of the blind man, able to cause that also this one might not have died?'

But others of them asked, "Was this man who opened the blind man's eyes unable to prevent this man from dying?"

But some of them said, This man, who made open the eyes of the blind man, was he not able to keep his friend from death?

But some of them said, 'Could not this man, who opened the eyes of him who was blind, have also kept this man from dying?'

But some of them said, "Would not he who opened the eyes of one born blind have been able to cause this man not to die?"

but some of them said, "Could not this man, who gave sight to the blind man, have also prevented Lazarus from dying?"

Could not this man, which opened the eyes, etc. - 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.

And some of them said,.... Who were averse to him, and bore him a secret grudge, and were willing to put the worst construction on every action of his:
could not this man which opened the eyes of the blind; as it is said, at least pretended, that he did, John 9:6, for this must be understood as calling the miracle into question, and as a sneer upon it, and not as taking it for granted that so it was; and even supposing that, it is mentioned to his reproach, since if so, he might
have caused that, even this man should not died: for either the above cure was a sham, or, if it was a real thing, he who did that could have prevented Lazarus's death; and if he could, and would not, where is his friendship? and what must be thought of all this show of affection to him? and what are these tears, but crocodile ones? but this reasoning, as specious as it may seem, was very fallacious; for he that cured the man born blind could raise Lazarus from the dead, which he intended; and therefore did not prevent his death, that he might still give more joy to the family, bring more glory to God, and himself, and more shame and confusion to his enemies.

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.

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.