At this point in our study, if we compare Matthew with John, we should come to realize that Jesus is approaching Jericho, as he was coming from Ephriam (John 11:54). Lazarus had already been raised from the dead, and news of this miracle had, no doubt, spread even to Jericho, where large crowds surrounded Jesus, as he passed through the city (cp. Matthew 20:29). People throughout Judea were traveling to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover and wondered about him, hoping they would see him at the Passover (John 11:55-56). Nevertheless, the Jewish authorities were lying in wait to arrest Jesus and had given orders that, if anyone knew where he was, he was to report back to them, so they could bind him and take him away (John 11:57).
So, as Jesus traveled through Jericho, a large crowd of people followed him (Matthew 20:29), which meant others, beyond the crowd, couldn’t see Jesus or approach him (Matthew 20:31; cp. Luke 19:1-3). As Jesus passed by, Matthew tells us of two blind men in the way heard Jesus was coming and cried out to him for mercy (Matthew 20:30). If we compare Matthew, at this point, with the other Synoptics, we would discover that both Mark and Luke mention only one blind man crying out for mercy. However, Mark’s blind man was healed as Jesus left Jericho (Mark 10:46), but Luke’s blind man was healed as he approached Jericho (Luke 18:35)—two blind men (Matthew 20:30)!
Both men were rebuked by the large crowd and wouldn’t permit either to approach Jesus (Matthew 20:31; cp. Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). When Jesus became aware that they called out to him, he called for them to be brought before him, and he asked what they wished him to do (Matthew 20:32; Mark 10:49-51; Luke 18:40-41). They responded by saying they wished that he would heal their blindness (Matthew 20:33; Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41), and allow them to see. Some translations say: “…see again,” indicating they had been able to see at one time, but lost their sight. So, Jesus granted their request and healed their blindness, so they immediately received their sight (Matthew 20:34; Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42-43).
The problem with this record is that both Mark’s and Luke’s records are almost identical, but they tell of two different events. How should we understand this? In previous studies I referred to how the ancients wrote history.[1] It was not like what we do today. Instead of exactness in the account, if two records are brought together, they are to be combined in such a manner that neither could be separated from the other. They both become part of the story. Matthew does this by mentioning both together. Mark and Luke tell the same story about two different blind men.
Mark records the events of the first blind man, but heals him where the second blind man was healed. Luke mentions both, but he doesn’t call the second blind. He says he couldn’t see (Luke 19:1-3). Luke’s second blind man was Zacchaeus, a chief tax-collector, who was small in stature. He heard about Jesus and wanted to see him, but he was prevented from doing so by the crowd. When he finally got to “see” Jesus, Jesus told him to prepare for him and his disciples, for he would spend the evening at his home, before going on to Jerusalem (Luke 19:5). The blindness, which Jesus healed in Zacchaeus was of a spiritual nature. Zacchaeus came to see his need to repent, and when he did, he immediately made restitution for his sins (Luke 19:8-10).
[1] “For, though all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but part of it, their extremities intermingling.” [The Way to Write History 55; Lucian of Samosata; cir. AD 180 to 120 (emphasis mine)]. The point is, the Gospel writers were following an ancient rule of history. They left out some things and began writing about events that occurred later, making them seem to occur at the same time or one immediately after the other.
Leave a comment