Did Jesus heal two blind men (Matthew 20:29-34) or one blind man (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43)?

If, at this point, Luke's Gospel be compared with Matthew 20:29-34, and Mark 10:46-52, a serious discrepancy becomes evident. Luke most definitely places the cure of the blind man as Jesus approached Jericho, and the other two Evangelists as definitely place it as He left Jericho. With our limited knowledge it seemed impossible on this point to reconcile the different accounts. But during the last few years the archaeologists have been digging in the Jericho area, and have laid bare the foundations of two Jerichos; one, the old original city, the other, the Roman Jericho, a short distance off. The blind man understood the begging business and planted himself between the two! Luke writing for Gentiles, naturally has the Roman Jericho in his mind. The other Evangelists very naturally are thinking of the original city. We mention this to show how very simply what looks like an insuperable objection vanishes, when we know all the facts.

No sight was more characteristic of our Lord's ministry than His grace to the blind. It has the first place given to it in the answer to John the Baptist's message. A special case is presented in Matt. 9:27, another in Mark 8:22, and the more general fact in Luke 7:21 with other cures, but the most marked of all in John 9. Yet there is this striking circumstance common to the three earlier Gospels, that the final testimony which the Lord offers to the Jews in or near Jerusalem opens with the healing of the blind man near Jericho. Only Matthew, as his manner is, tells us of two (compare Matt. 8:28, 9:27). Mark and Luke were led to dwell on what was for other reasons the more remarkable of them. It is idle to conceive separate occasions, one on entering and the other in quitting Jericho. For Matthew and Mark are express that the miracle was wrought on going out from the town. The phrase of Luke is so indeterminate as to fall in with that statement. He does not say, "as he drew nigh" or "when he came near" to Jericho; but while in the neighbourhood. This was as true when He went out as when He came in.*

In the present case it seems to have been in the mind of the Spirit that all three who dwell on the Galilean ministry of Christ should mark Jericho and the healing of the blind there as a common starting-point before His formal appearance in Jerusalem. We can understand, therefore, why Luke, even if the incident of Zacchaeus occurred after the miracle, should, according to his manner, postpone his account of it till he had told us of the blind man healed. But there seems to have been a yet stronger reason of a similar character in the fact that, if the healing had been introduced after Zacchaeus, when (I have no doubt) it really took place, adherence to the mere chronology of the facts would have spoilt the very impressive order actually adopted, in which we see the tale of Zacchaeus, with salvation brought to his house though a chief tax-gatherer, followed at once by the parable of the pounds, which together beautifully set forth the general character and differing objects of the two advents of the Lord, who was about to suffer as the Ground of righteousness and salvation for the lost, instead of at once establishing His throne in Zion as others fondly thought. If this were the design of the inspiring Spirit, as I conceive it certainly to be, gathered from the special character traceable throughout its course, it does not seem possible to suggest any other order so admirably calculated to convey it as that which is pursued. Hence the point in verse 35 was to choose a phrase which, while not breaking the thread of the narrative, and, of course, in words thoroughly consistent with the exact truth, should nevertheless convey the thought of a time or state during which the particular act related took place. This, in my opinion, has been done perfectly in the language of Luke: so much so that, granting the aim to be as I suppose, no man can desire better words to combine what is intimated, or to avoid a false inference for all aware of that design. If, on the contrary, men, however learned, assume a bare order of fact, this naturally would influence their translation; and so I think we may fairly account for the common mistake.

Accordingly there is no need of resorting to any of the various methods of reconciling Luke's account with Matthew and Mark. We are not driven to the harsh supposition that Luke's blind man was healed before entering Jericho, and that the news of this reached Mark's blind man, Bartimaeus, so that he went through a similar process of appeal on the Lord's exit, as Origen and Augustine supposed in early days, Greswell, etc., in our own time. Nor is it necessary (though undoubtedly quite legitimate, and the fact elsewhere) to suppose that Matthew combined the two instances in one summary. Less reasonable is the view of Euthymius, who will have it that all three instances were distinct, and, therefore, that four blind men were healed at this time near Jericho. Nor is there any substantial ground to argue, as men have done from Calvin to Wordsworth, that the blind man began crying as our Lord approached Jericho, but was not healed till another joined him outside, and both received sight as Jesus left the place. Still more violent are the hypotheses of Markland and of Macknight. The truth is that there is nothing in this to reconcile, all that being evidently harmonious, when the language of Luke is seen to be such as falls in with the time and place described more precisely by Matthew and Mark. It may be well, however, to add that Matthew elsewhere names two where Mark and Luke as here speak only of one, as in the case of the demoniacs. (Compare Matthew 8:28-34 with Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39.) See also Matthew 9:27-31. This was all right, when the fact (as here) warranted it, in one writing especially for Jews, with whom it was a maxim to demand at least two witnesses. The other Evangelists were each led to dwell only on the one that best suited the design of his own Gospel.

"And they came to Jericho." That city which first opposed itself to the entrance of Israel into the land of promise, but fell by the mighty power of God, when His people submitted themselves to His word by Joshua; that city which brought the predicted curse on him and his sons who reared it again; that city whose waters were healed, and from whose land barrenness was taken away in grace by the prophet, is the scene of a remarkable display of beneficent power, in answer to the faith that owned the promised Seed and King.

"And as He went out of Jericho, with His disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the wayside begging." I do not doubt that it is the same incident which is recorded in Matt. 20 and in Luke 18. But the differences are so great as to have occasioned doubts of this in some.111 The truth is that each is perfect. Matthew gives the double cure — true to his habit (see Matt. 8) and the exigency of Jewish witness. Luke so states it that the careless might infer that the cure took place as the Lord went into (instead of as He came out of) Jericho. His moral order required the juxtaposition of the tale of Zacchaeus and the parable of the nobleman, as illustrating the scope of the two advents, and hence displaced of necessity the story of the blind man. But Luke takes care to say, not "as he was come nigh unto Jericho" (as the English Bible and others), but "as He was nigh to Jericho," ἐν τῳ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχώ, without saying whether it was His coming or His going."112 He was in that neighbourhood. Some manuscripts give "the son of Timeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, sat," etc. The Sinai copy has "blind and a beggar." As usual, our Evangelist relates the facts and even names with characteristic precision. "And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazaraean,† he began to cry out, and say, Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me." No expression of unbelief on the part of others could stifle his own cry of faith. It was, no doubt, in keeping with his wants to call on Him to whom Isaiah of old testified, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened" (Isa. 35:5). Others knew this Scripture as well as Bartimaeus, but he claimed the blessing from the despised Nazarene. They said they saw, and therefore their sin remained. As for him, he was confessedly miserable, poor, and blind; naked, too, he was content to be, if he might the more readily cast himself on the Lord. The multitude, not feeling their own need, had no sympathy with one who felt his, and sought to drown his importunity. But it was God who had laid it on the heart of the blind beggar — God who, in his appeal to the rejected Messiah, rebuked the incredulity of His people, as miserable and poor and blind as he — yea, more so, incomparably more, because they felt it not, and owned not their King. For them He was but Jesus of Nazareth. "And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Son of David, have mercy on me." BDLΔ and ℵ, as stated above; the T.R. follows A, etc. †"Nazaraean": so ℵAC, etc. Edd. adopt "Nazarene," after BLΔ, I, with most Old Latin and Amiatine. See note 112.

The closing scenes of the Gospel begin with the incident concerning the two blind men as He departed from Jericho. Both Mark and Luke mention only one of them, whose name was Bartimaeus, but evidently there actually were two. The same feature is seen in the accounts of the casting out of the legion of demons, for at the end of Matthew 8 tells us of two men, where Mark and Luke mention one only. In both cases there were two witnesses of the power and grace of Jesus, and Matthew mentions it since it would be specially impressive to Jewish readers, accustomed to the stipulation of their law as to the validity of the witness of two, whilst one only might be disregarded.

He leaves Jericho on the last journey to Jerusalem, with great crowds following Him. Mark and Luke mention only one blind man at this time, no doubt to draw attention to individual personal faith; but Matthew speaks of two, a witness becoming to the gospel of the kingly glory of the Lord Jesus. Likely one was the chief spokes men, but on hearing that Jesus passed by, they plead for His mercy, using His royal title, "Lord, thou Son of David." The crowd, irritated by their crying, want to silence them. But this only induces them to increase their crying out. Faith will not be silenced by popular opinion. In fact, the Lord waited to answer until they showed this evidence of serious concern.

"And Jesus stood still." Such is His heart of tender care for those in need He asks them, what do they specifically desire? They have no doubt as to what is their most pressing need, as Israel in a coming day will realize the seriousness of their spiritual blindness and cry out for mercy. At present the nation is sadly blinded, but determined not to admit it, so she has found no relief. Immediately the lowly appeals made to Israel's true Messiah, the men find Him full of compassion. He touches their eyes and they receive sight without delay. This is then a lovely picture of what will be true for the nation Israel when eventually they acknowledge Jesus as both Lord and Son of David. The men spontaneously follow the Lord.It is a moment of most serious significance as the Lord is now about to enter Jerusalem. He is to be publicly presented to Israel, yet in lowly grace, not in power and majesty. Two of His disciples are sent to the village (perhaps Bethphage, "the house of unripe figs") in which they are immediately to find an ass tied and a colt with her. Only Matthew mentions the mother: Mark, Luke and John speak only of the colt. For the mother speaks of Israel's long history of rebellion and in subjection, while the colt (though unbroken) is typical of the new spirit of obedience that will eventually be found in Israel when she is turned back to the Lord and willingly gives Him control. The disciples are told, if they are questioned, to reply that the Lord has need of them, for this supersedes all man's rights of ownership.

The present miracle is also peculiar to the first Gospel. There are two blind men specified: a fact which made it very suitable to him who was inspired to testify of Jehovah-Messiah to the circumcision. For it was a well established maxim of the law for them to look for at least two witnesses. Hence the mention of the two demoniacs in Matthew's account of the last fact in Matt. 8; whereas for Mark and Luke it sufficed to dwell on the more striking of the two (Mark 5, Luke 8). A similar principle applies also to the two blind whom Matthew shows healed at Jericho (Matt. 20:29-34: compare Mark 10 and Luke 18).

Vers. 29-34. In the three Synoptic Gospels this journey to Jerusalem begins at Jericho. It is different in John where the Lord begins His ministry as the rejected One. We have two blind men in chap. 9 of our Gospel: these connect with the Lord's Galilean ministry; here it is in Judea. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established," so Matthew, writing to his countrymen, the Jews, tells us of two, while the other Gospels only give one, the son of Timaeus. The giving of sight was one of the things specially mentioned as what Messiah would do — "then the eyes of the blind shall be opened (Isa. 35:5) etc." That is in Messiah's day, so you get it fulfilled in testimony to Israel. In the early chapters of the Acts the lame man leaps as a hart. Here its connection is with Judea and the Lord's public final testimony. He left Galilee never to return to it (in chap. 19). The blind man of John 9, and the two here teach lessons that are quite different. Here is seen the Messiah; in John the Son of God. There is beautiful design in scripture; not only a selection of events from the Lord's ministry, but a divine arrangement of them. It is God who is acting here: He is dealing with these blind men and ordaining a testimony to His Son. If Israel refuses Him at the beginning, Gentiles come to worship Him as born King of the Jews; and here at the end there are these blind men, a testimony to the nation. Thus is the wisdom of the Spirit. Nationally they had forfeited everything. In the dispensational part of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul shows us this, and at the end he has to burst out: "O the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" God will fulfil His word. Now He is blessing the Gentiles, exercising His sovereignty. The Jews were making much of being the natural descendants of Abraham; so was Ishmael. Then when you come to Isaac and Jacob, the two sons of the same mother and father, God's sovereignty again comes out. And when Israel gets the blessings unconditionally promised to Abraham, they will get them solely on the ground of unmerited mercy; and on that same ground we also come in. The very One who at the word of a man made the sun stand still, stood still Himself at the cry of a beggar! After Israel had forfeited everything by taking deliberately the ground of law (for, ignorant of themselves they did not value the grace so blessedly brought out in the early chapters of Exodus), then God tells them, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy"; He retreats into Himself. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." And so here, "Jesus had compassion on them." They follow Him, and so become His disciples. From disciples it was that Jesus choose the twelve that they might be with Him, and whom He sent forth to preach the kingdom of God, to heal the sick, and cast out demons.

Rebuked by those who went before that he should hold his peace, the blind man only cried out the more a great deal, "Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." Would his reiterated appeal reach the ear of the Lord? Could it be heard above the noise which necessarily accompanies a passing multitude? It could, and it did. And all progress on the onward march was arrested by the cry of blind Bartimaeus. "Jesus stood," we read, "and commanded him to be brought to Him." Many had rebuked him to hold his peace. Now he had reached the immediate presence of the Lord, and was permitted to prefer in person his request. Sight, not alms, he wanted; sight he asked for; sight he got. But more, the Lord spake a word in commendation of his faith: "Receive thy sight; thy faith has made thee whole." A beggar could receive blessing, for it depended, not on that which any man could give or do, but on faith in the Lord to heal. The man's circumstances were no obstacle to his receiving that which he desired. Where faith draws out the blessing the rich man has no advantage over the poor man, even if this last be a beggar. Receiving his sight, he forthwith showed that he needed no human hand any longer to guide him. He showed to all that he had sight, for he followed the Lord glorifying God. "He followed Jesus in the way," wrote Mark (10:52), for the Lord had now left Jericho, with His face set toward Jerusalem. Luke however writes simply that "he followed Him," for he narrates this history, as we have remarked, out of its chronological order. In the way is in perfect keeping with Mark's note of time. It would not have been so suited for our evangelist. Independent each writer was of his fellow-historian, and each was guided of the Holy Ghost. So Luke closes his account with a notice of the effect on the multitude who witnessed it: "All the people when they saw it gave praise to God" (Luke 18:43).

Ere passing on we would remark that though this miracle is related by two who witnessed it, and by a third who had subsequently, perhaps years after, become acquainted with it, each narrator furnishes something which is not mentioned by the others. From Matthew we learn there were two who got sight that day, and he likewise notices the Lord's compassion as well as His manner of healing them: "He touched their eyes." Mark, with Luke, writes of but one blind man, and tells us, in common with Luke, of his occupation. He was a beggar. Whilst Luke adds to this that he was at that time begging. But Mark alone acquaints us with his name, tells us too of the encouraging words addressed to him by the crowd when the Lord had called him: "Be of good comfort; rise; He calls thee; and graphically describes the blind man's action as, "casting away his garment, he sprang up, and came to Jesus." From him also we gather the language in which the blind beggar answered the Lord. It was Aramaic, not Greek; for Mark has preserved the title of respect, Rabboni, applied by Bartimaeus to Christ. Luke, on the other hand, has recorded the effect of the healing on the man's heart, and also on the multitude. The former glorified God; the latter praised Him; and they both tell us what Matthew omits: the Lord's commendation of the blind man's faith. It is interesting to note these differences, and it is also well. Such serve to remind us of the danger of drawing hasty conclusions from inadequate data, supposing from the silence of a historian that such and such things could not have taken place, or thinking because we know some things — those which are related — that therefore we know all about a history or an event. What we have we can, and should, stand on. To deny the possibility of this or that on the ground that it is not recorded, may land us in mistakes, and demonstrate our folly.

Now, much difficulty has arisen in some minds from the fact that the four Gospels do not appear to agree in every detail. With reference to this difficulty I would say that it would be surprising if they were all exactly similar, for, as we have seen, the four Gospels present Christ in four different lights. In recording the same event the different historians relate different circumstances, some giving more, some fewer than the rest: the fuller account in‘ eludes the shorter, and the shorter does not contradict the fuller. Take the case of the blind man at Jericho recorded in Matt. 20:30-34; Mark 10:46-50; Luke 18:35-43. Read the three narratives carefully and see how one adds to the other. Was it ignorance that caused Mark to write "a beggar" instead of "two beggars"? As we shall see, the apostles did not write according to their knowledge, but according to the guidance of the Spirit of God.