67. March, 783 [A.D. 30] (Cont.)

March, 783 [A.D. 30] (Cont.) As in company with the crowd of pilgrims He approaches Jericho, two blind men, sitting by the way side begging, address Him as the Son of David, beseeching Him to restore their sight. He heals them, and they follow Him. Entering Jericho, He meets Zaccheus, and goes to his house, where He remains during the night. In the morning, when about to depart, He speaks to the people the parable of the pounds. He leaves Jericho, and the same day reaches Bethany, near Jerusalem.* [Note:Luke 18:35-43;Matthew 20:29-34;Mark 10:46-52;Luke 19:1-10;Luke 19:11-28] The account of the healing of the blind men is differently related by the Synoptists, both as to the place and the number of persons. Matthew and Mark make it to have taken place as Jesus was leaving Jericho; Luke, as He was entering it. Matthew mentions two blind men; Mark and Luke mention but one. Of these discrepancies there are several solutions:

1st.—That three blind men were healed; one mentioned by Luke, as He approached the city; two mentioned by Matthew, (Mark speaks only of one,) as He was leaving the city. [Note: Kitto, Augustine, Morrison.] Some, as Osiander, make four to have been healed.

2nd.—That the cases of healing were two, and distinct; one being on His entry into the city, the other on His departure. [Note: Lightfoot, Ebrard, Krafft, Tischendorf, Wieseler, Greswell, Bucher, Lex, Neander.] According to this solution, Matthew combines the two in one, and deeming the exact time and place unimportant, represents them as both occurring at the departure of the Lord From the city.

3rd.—That two were healed, and both at His entry; but one being better known than the other, he only is mentioned by Mark and Luke 1:1-80[Note: Doddridge in loco. Newcome, Lichtenstein, Friedlieb.]

4th.—That one of the blind men sought to be healed as the Lord approached the city, but was not; that the next morning, joining himself to another, they waited for Him by the gate, as He was leaving the city, and were both healed together. Luke, in order to preserve the unity of his narrative, relates the healing of the former, as if it had taken place on the afternoon of the entry. [Note: Bengel, Stier, Trench, Ellicott. See a modification of this view in McKnight, and another in Lange onMatthew 20:30.]

5th.—That only one was healed, and he when the Lord left the city. Matthew, according to his custom, uses the plural where the other Evangelists use the singular. [Note: Oosterzee on Luke; Da Costa.]

6th.—That Luke’s variance with Matthew and Mark, in regard to place, may be removed by interpreting (Matthew 18:35) “as He was come nigh to Jericho,” εν τῳ εγγιζειν αυτον εις Ιεριχω, in the general sense of being near to Jericho, but without defining whether He was approaching to it, or departing from it. Its meaning here is determined by Matthew and Mark: He was leaving the city, but still near to it. Luke, like Mark, mentions only the more prominent person healed. [Note: Grotius onMatthew 20:30; Clericus, Diss. ii., Canon vi.; Pilkington, cited in Townsend v. 33; Robinson, Jarvis, Owen.]

Other solutions of the discrepancy in regard to place, have been given, as by Newcome, [Note: Har., 275.] that Jesus spent several days at Jericho, that He went out of the city, as mentioned by Matthew and Mark, for a temporary purpose, and that on His return He healed the blind men; by McKnight, [Note: Har., ii. 93.] that there were two Jerichos, old and new; and the blind men, sitting on the road between them, were healed as the Lord was departing from one and entering the other; by Paulus, (iii. 44,) that there was a multitude of pilgrims with Jesus, and that the front ranks of the procession were leaving the city as He was entering it.

Olshausen and Riggenbach decline to attempt to harmonize the accounts, regarding the differences as unimportant. Meyer and De Wette suppose the Evangelists to have followed different traditions, and find the discrepancies invincible. With them Alford agrees in substance: “The only fair account of such differences is, that they existed in sources from which each Evangelist took his narrative.” The supposition that two were healed separately, or that there were two distinct miracles combined by Matthew in one, he characterizes as “perfectly monstrous; and would at once destroy the credit of Matthew as a truthful relator.” Norton (ii. 302) observes: “The difference in the accounts of the Evangelists is entirely unimportant, except as serving to show that they are independent historians; and it is idle to try to make them agree by the forced suppositions, to which some commentators have resorted.” It is most probable that two were healed, though one only is mentioned by Mark and Luke.

None of the Evangelists state at what time of the day Jesus reached Jericho, but it was probably in the afternoon. The distance to Jerusalem, and the nature of the country through which the road passed, may have made it difficult or impossible to go on to Bethany that night, and there was no intervening village where they could encamp. That Jesus did spend the night at Jericho, appears from His words to Zaccheus, (Luke 19:5,) “Today I must abide at thy house;” and from the murmurings of the people, (Luke 19:7,) “That He was gone to be a guest, (καταλυσαι,) with a man that is a sinner.” [Note: For this usage of καταλυσαι, seeLuke 9:12; so Meyer, Alford, Greswell, Lichtenstein.] This visit of the Lord to the house of a publican, although a chief among his class, and rich, did not escape strong animadversion. It was regarded by the people at large, and perhaps also by some of His own disciples, as an act unworthy of His high claims. In popular estimation, publicans, whose calling so odiously reminded them of Roman domination, were no fit hosts for Him whom they fondly believed to be now on His way to Jerusalem to proclaim Himself the king. The conversation between the Lord and Zaccheus (Luke 19:8-10) apparently took place in the court of his house, or near the entrance, where the crowd had followed. Olshausen supposes it to have been on the morning of His departure, but there is no good ground for this. It is not certain where the parable of the nobleman (Luke 19:11-27) was spoken, but it would seem from the connection that He was still standing by the door of Zaccheus’ house. [Note: So Meyer, Lichtenstein.] Some, who suppose that He merely passed a few hours with Zaccheus, and then journeyed on toward Bethany the same day, make all from Luke 19:8-27 to have been spoken at His departure. [Note: Oosterzee in loco; Stier, iv. 318.] We need not, however, understand Luke 19:28 as meaning that, immediately after He had uttered the parable, He went up to Jerusalem. Of Zaccheus little more is known than is here related. He was not, as some have said, a heathen; but, as appears both from his name and from v. 9, of Jewish descent. [Note: So Meyer, Alford.] He was a chief publican, or head collector of the taxes, having the other publicans of that region under him. Jericho was rich in balsams, and therefore much toll was collected here. According to tradition, Zaccheus became bishop of Cæsarea. A tower, standing in the modern village of Riha, is still shown as the “house of Zaccheus.”