In the post How Important Is Chronology?, we discussed how important it is to consider time in our study of the four gospels. The Three Blind Men of Jericho is a great example of how we consider other factors in the gospels.
We will be comparing the similar records found in Mark and Matthew. Do the two accounts complement or contradict one another?
Is there something written in one gospel that contradicts, disputes, or conflicts with what is written in the other? Or could one be giving us additional, complementary information?
Mark 10:46-52
And they came to Jericho: 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 highway side begging.
And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.
And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.
Now compare Mark’s record to that in Matthew. Are they contradictory or complementary?
Matthew 20:29-34
And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.
And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
Matthew is talking of two men while Mark speaks only of one. Mark names the person, Matthew does not. In Matthew Jesus calls the men over, in Mark he has others bring the man to him. In Matthew he touches their eyes, in Mark he just tells the man his faith has made him whole. Matthew and Mark must be speaking of two different healings.
But wait, both of these occurred while Jesus was leaving Jericho. Time is one factor we should consider. If we believe Jesus’ ministry was three or four years long and the order of events reported in the gospels is inconsequential, that is one thing. But since we believe his ministry was one year long, we recognize the order of events is important. So, we will take a closer look at the similarities and differences in these records.
The Blind Men
Mark 10:46
And they came to Jericho: 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 highway side begging.Matthew 20:29-30a
And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.
And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side . . .
Both records occurred as Jesus was leaving Jericho with a great number of people. Some mark the difference between “going out of Jericho” in Mark and “departing” in Matthew. The same Greek word is used in both verses, it is just translated differently. There is no difference there. Translation is another factor in our consideration.
Perhaps the biggest sticking point is that one gospel speaks of one man, and even names him. The other speaks of two. This appears to conflict, but does it? In at least one other incident we see a similar pattern. When healing the men in the tombs, Matthew reports two possessed men were delivered while Mark and Luke only mention one.
From a logical perspective, if there were two men, there was also one, correct? And Mark does not say there was only one man present, although it clearly focuses on Bartimaeus. Could not that be considered complementary information to Matthew’s record?
Crying for Mercy
Mark 10:47-48
And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.Matthew 20:30b-31
. . . when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
In both records we see the blind men called out for mercy, were told to be quiet, and cried out the more. We see the same action with a blind man as Jesus was entering Jericho in Luke 18:35-43. The fact that they acted the same here is no basis for judging identity.
One record uses the phrase “Jesus, Son of David” and the other “Lord, Son of David”. Many were telling them to hold their peace. Couldn’t they have used both phrases as they earnestly sought his help? Could there be another reason “Lord” was reported in one gospel and “Jesus” in the other?
Jesus’ Invitation
Mark 10:49
And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.Matthew 20:32a
And Jesus stood still, and called them . . .
In Mark Jesus commands the man to be called to him, but in Matthew he called them himself. This is an example of the figure, used many times in Matthew, where actions are attributed to the one in authority (Jesus) that are actually carried out by those in his company.
Another example of this is the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8. We see in other records that Jesus did not minister to those outside the nation of Israel. Why would this Roman centurion be any different? The companion record in Luke 7 shows that the centurion went to the elders of the Jews, and they asked Jesus to heal his son. Jesus never spoke directly to the centurion.
In both instances, the figure was used in Matthew and the literal given in Mark or Luke. Rather than being a contradiction, this is consistent with what we see elsewhere in the gospels.
Reported in Only One Gospel
Mark 10:49b-50
And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee.
And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.
This information does not appear in Matthew. Does that contradict, or does it complement Matthew’s record?
The Blind Men’s Request
Mark 10:51
And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.Matthew 20:32b-33
And Jesus . . . said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?
They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.
Some would insist these are different occasions based on the men’s requests. But are they truly contradictory, or just reported differently? It is possible that both phrases were said. Not everything that occurred is reported in every gospel, only what serves the Author’s purpose.
Also, one record may be offering a summary of the dialogue or action in place of the literal conversation. Again, it comes down to the Author’s purpose.
The Healings
Mark 10:52
And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.Matthew 20:34
So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
In Mark Jesus speaks that his believing has healed him, while in Matthew he touches their eyes. Again, not everything is reported in every gospel.
In the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother, Luke reports he stood over her and rebuked the fever. Matthew reports he touched her hand. Mark reports he took her by the hand and lifted her up. We know all three records are of the same healing, because of the surrounding context in Mark and Luke, but not every action was reported. There are many examples like this in the gospels.
Immediately
The word “immediately” is an issue if we think it means “in the next split second.” When we scan its uses in the gospels, we find there is often a short period of time involved.
When Jesus called Peter and Andrew as they were fishing, it says they immediately left their nets and followed him. Do you imagine they did so without one word to the others in the ship?
In the parable of the sower, the seed that fell on stony ground immediately sprang up because it had no deepness of earth. Was that by magic? Rather we see “immediately” indicates a shorter period of time than the seeds planted in the earth.
Perhaps the reference here is to the immediate healing that occurred, and not the short time between the healing and the preceding action. There is room for Jesus to both speak and act to bring forth healing for these men, and still have their sight immediately restored. Neither gospel reports both actions, but they may supplement each other to give a more complete picture of what occurred.
Four Gospels
This illustrates a point we should recognize about the gospels. We have been blessed with four God-inspired records of Jesus’ life. Each has a unique viewpoint, which we see expressed in their approach to what occurred. We achieve a more complete view of these events as we learn how the gospels fit together, how they complement one another.
This exercise shows us that determining whether two records are identical or merely similar is not a cut-and-dried affair. There are many factors to be considered. The men’s actions and Jesus’ response are common to many records in the gospels. Most of the apparent differences could be explained by checking the words used in the Greek texts, recognizing patterns and figures common to the gospels, and accepting that not every gospel reports every detail of an incident.
The Deciding Factors
Did Jesus heal three blind men of Jericho that day, or only two? We began thinking these two records could not be speaking of the same incident. In the end, we did not find anything definitive where we could proclaim “These could not be the same record.” But neither can we say without doubt, “These are speaking of the same incident.”
In the greater context of Jesus’ journey towards Jerusalem the time and location appear to be identical. That, combined with the considerations given above, led us to show them as one incident in The Gospel Unified.
