Page images
[blocks in formation]

wherefore didst thou not give my money at the
bank?* and at my coming I might have required
the same with interest.' 24 And he said unto them
that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give
it to him that hath the ten pounds.' 25 (And they
said unto him, 'Lord, he hath ten pounds.') 26 For
I say unto you, Unto every one that hath shall be
given; but from him that hath not, even that which
he hath shall be taken away from him. But those
mine enemies, who were not willing that I should
reign over them, bring hither, and slay before


28 And when he had thus spoken, he went before, going up to Jerusalem.+


Jesus gives Sight to Two Blind Men near Jericho.‡




29 AND as they were 46 AND they come to 35 IT came to pass, as going out from Jericho, Jericho: and as he was he drew nigh unto Jea great multitude fol- going out from Jericho, richo,§ a certain blind lowed him. 30 And, be- and his disciples, and a man was sitting by the hold, two blind men who great multitude, the son way-side, begging: 56 and were sitting by the way- of Timæus, Bartimæus, hearing a multitude goside, the blind man, was ing by, he asked what sitting by the way-side this meant. $7 And they begging. 47 And when told him, "Jesus of

when they heard that Jesus was passing he heard that it was Nazareth || is passing by, cried out saying, Jesus of Nazareth, he by." 38 And he cried Pity us, Lord! thou began to cry out, and say aloud, saying, "Jesus!




• Or, at the table of the exchangers.—The original import of bank, in this connection, exactly corresponds with that of τραπεζα.

+ The brevity of St. Luke's narration will be obvious, on comparing ver. 7-10 with ver. 11, and this with ver. 28; it might even be supposed, but for ver. 5, that our Lord did not remain at all in the house of Zacchæus. Considering this brevity, there appears no reason why we should not suppose that he passed the night there, if this be found best to suit the train of the history.

On the locality of this miracle, see the Note at the end of the Section.

The original, ev Tq eɣyizεiv avтov εis 'Iεpixw, might allow us to render, when he was drawing nigh Jerusalem, at Jericho'; (comp. ver. 31, and ch. xix. 29, 37): but as respects the difference between St. Luke's narrative, and that of the former Evangelists, this presents no direct advantage; for, after recording the miracle, St. Luke expressly says, that Jesus entered and was passing through Jericho'; so that he must have considered the transaction as occurring before our Lord entered the city.

|| Or, the Nazoræan, o Nazwpatos; or, the Nazarene, as in Matt. ii. 23.






Son of David!” 31 But" Son of David! Jesus! Son of David! pity me!"
the multitude rebuked pity me!"
42 And many
39 And they who went be-
them, that they might rebuked him, that he fore rebuked him, that
be silent but they cried might be silent: but he might be silent: but
the more, saying, "Pity he cried much more, he cried so much the
us, Lord! thou Son of "Son of David! pity more, "Son of David!
David!" 32 And Jesus me!" 49 And Jesus stood pity me!" 40 And Jesus
stood still, and called still, and commanded stood still, and
them, and said,
him to be called: and manded him to be

brought unto him:



when he was come near,


they call the blind man, saying unto him, " Be of good courage! rise! he calleth thee." 50 And casting away his mantle, he arose and came to Jesus. 1 And Jesus answered and said unto he asked him, saying, "What him, "What dost thou "What dost thou desire do ус desire that I desire that I should do that I should do unto should do unto you?" unto thee?" And the thee?" And he said, They say unto him, blind man said unto him, "Lord! that our eyes may" Rabboni!* that I may be opened." And Je-receive my sight." 52 And sus, moved with compas- Jesus said unto him, sion, touched their eyes; "Go thy way; thy faith hath restored thee." + And straightway he received his sight, and fol-received his sight, and lowed him in the way. followed him, glorifying God and all the people having seen it, gave praise unto God.

and straightway their eyes received sight, and they followed him.

• Or, My Teacher (or, Master). The received Text has of the pure Hebrew 'Paßßt, My Teacher, (or Master). which represents the Galilean pronunciation of 'Paßßovi. more dignified than Rabbi, and this than Rab, which


"Lord! that I may re-
ceive my sight." 42 And
Jesus said unto him,
"Receive thy sight: thy
faith hath restored thee."+
43 And immediately he


[blocks in formation]

+ Η πίστις σου σέσωκε σε. In Luke, the common translation is, hath saved thee'; in Mark, hath made thee whole.'

There are two considerable diversities in the narratives of this miracle: St. Matthew speaks of two blind men, while the other Evangelists mention one only; and both Matthew and Mark expressly say that the miracle was wrought when our Lord was going out of Jericho, whereas St. Luke places it on his approaching that city. See Note § p. 193.

The first diversity presents no difficulty. From the mention of the name of Timæus, it is reasonable to suppose that he was a person well known at Jericho; and at any rate, the history of Bartimæus is alone recorded, as he would himself tell it, or, (just as that of the maniac of Gadara, see Note* p. 78,) owing to his being from some cause the most noted. St. Matthew having seen two blind men, speaks of two.

As to the second point, there is a real discrepancy: not, however, in the least affecting the credibility of the miracle, or the faithfulness of St. Luke; and easily arising from the nature of his sources of information. His narrative of the approach of Jesus to Jerusalem, (ch. xviii. 15–43, continued in ch. xix. 29-38), is obviously derived from the same general source as that in Mark x. 13-34, continued in x. 46-xi. 10. Into that narrative, Mark (in common with Matthew) introduces the application of the mother and the sons of Zebedee, ch. x. 35-45; and St. Luke, introduces his record respecting Zacchaeus, which was obviously a separate document, derived, we may reasonably suppose, from Zacchæus himself, or some one of his family. Let us suppose that the record which Luke had of the approach to Jerusalem, expressed the history in the words which he has himself given in ver. 35: these (see the Note on the verse) leave the reader at liberty to refer the words as he drew nigh, to Jerusalem (understood); just as in ch. xix. 29, ώς ήγγισεν, εις Βηθφαγή και Βηθανίαν, προς το όρος Tо kaλovμevov tλatov, the original may well be rendered, and probably does mean, ‘as he drew nigh Jerusalem, at (or ucar) Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the Mount of Olives.' In this case, siç 'Iɛpixo would mean 'at (or near) Jericho;' and nothing could be determined, from the record alone, as to the locality of the miracle. The more copious information possessed by Mark enabled him to determine this; and he (as well as Matthew) has fixed it to the departure from Jericho-where, it may be observed, it is most probable that the blind men begging would take their station, as the concourse was towards Jerusalem for the Passover. In the ambiguity of the original record, which would naturally, in the train of events, lead any one to think of the approach to Jericho, St. Luke has so taken it,-inserting the record respecting Zacchæus, (which begins with our Lord's entering and passing through Jericho), after the cure of Bartimæus. But for this, we might, with the other Gospels before us, have reasonably conjectured that St. Luke meant nothing more than that the miracle was wrought at Jericho, as our Lord was drawing nigh to Jerusalem.

In this view of the matter, the whole of the discrepancy resolves itself into the verbal ambiguity of the original record, the train of events leading to a natural, but, as it proves, erroneous interpretation of it.

Calvin (Harm. p. 265), says that Osiander imagines there were four blind men; and that one was cured as Christ was entering Jericho, and another, and then two more, as he was going out: but he justly reprobates the supposition. His own supposition is, that the application of the blind man (with that of his companion) was made to our Lord as he was entering Jericho, but the cure actually wrought by him on his leaving the city. Close attention to the records of the first two Evangelists forbids the sup position that they thought so.-Macknight (in addition to two other explanations) adduces some reasons for supposing that Jericho consisted of an old and a new town ; and that the first two Evangelists speak of our Lord's coming out from one, and St. Luke of his entering the other. But the supposition is destitute of the necessary evidence.

Mr. Greswell, (Diss. xxii.), following a "mode of reconciliation" "not more recommended (he says) by its antiquity, than by its simplicity," supposes that there were "two miracles, each at different times, and on a different individual; "; St. "Luke recording one wrought on entering Jericho, St. Mark another on leaving it, and St. Matthew both of them together. But could St. Matthew, who was accompanying our Lord, have so recorded them, and yet placed both at his leaving Jericho and is it probable that the circumstances of each miracle, if separate, could have so corresponded as we find them to do in Mark and Luke Mr. Greswell's theory is quite untenable. By those who have been accustomed to consider the effects of the ambiguities of language, and to observe the diversities in evidence, even when given by faithful and well-informed witnesses, and especially the diversities produced by these causes in the narratives drawn up from such testimony, the discrepancy which exists in relation to the circumstances of the miracle, cannot reasonably be thought to throw any impeachment on St. Luke's fidelity and diligence of research. In another case, (the cure of the Centurion's servant), his fuller and more precise information enables us to correct one particular in St. Matthew's brief record, (see p. 73), without in any way impeaching the faithfulness of the Apostle: here the advantages possessed by an eye-witness, and by another who would continally hear the circumstances of the last journey retraced by eye-witnesses, enable us to correct one particnlar in St. Luke's narrative, without in any way impeaching his fidelity or his diligence of research. This is the simplest way of viewing the matter; and "truth is simple."


The Six Days ending with the Crucifixion.

According to the Jewish modes of calculation, any time between the sunset on Saturday and the sunset on Sunday, i. e. the 9th of Nisan, would answer the designation 'six days before the Passover' in John xii. 1. (See Observations at the end of this Part). If our Lord passed the night of the 9th, at the house of Zacchæus, (see Note + p. 193), then he probably arrived at Bethany in the forenoon of Sunday. Upon this calculation, the following distribution may be made of the ‘Six Days.'

[blocks in formation]

2. Sunday.

3. Monday.

4. Tuesday.

Jesus arrives at Bethany: the Supper at the house of Simon.
Public Entry into Jerusalem: † Voice in the Temple.
Miracle on the Barren Fig-tree: The Temple cleared.

5. Wednesday.The Last Day in the Temple: Prophecy on the Mount of Olives.
6. Thursday. Jesus at Bethany in the Evening goes to Jerusalem.

7. Friday. The Crucifixion.


From St. Matthew's narrative, ch. xxi. 1., (see Sect. ii.), it would not have been known that our Lord even stopped at Bethany in his way to Jerusalem. Hastening to the public acts of the week, the Evangelist passes by the Supper at Bethany; and he adverts to it only in connection with the effect which the circumstances had produced on Judas's mind, at the time when this Apostle made his offer to the High Priest and his partisans. Mark's agreement with Matthew in this arrangement, was most probably owing to his being in possession of a record which had been derived from the same source as Matthew's. The great correspondence between Mark and Matthew, after the Return of the Apostles, renders it probable that a record by St. Matthew, of that period of our Lord's Ministry, was in' possession of St. Mark, who employed it in writing his Greek Gospel, making, of course, those additions which his own knowledge, as an inhabitant of Jerusalem, and a companion of the Apostle Peter, might be expected to supply.

+ Mr. Greswell also (Diss. Vol. III. p. 19). refers to the Monday our Lord's "procession to the temple:" the common opinion, he properly observes, rests on no better authority than that of prescription."

[ocr errors]





Day of Christ's Arrival at Bethany: the Supper at Simon's House.*

[blocks in formation]


55 Now the passover of the Jews was nigh: and

many went up to Jerusalem out of the country | before the passover, to purify themselves. 56 They sought therefore for Jesus, and said among themselves, as they stood in the temple, "What think ye? that he will not come to the feast ? " 57 Now both the Chief Priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man should know where he was, he should declare it, that they might take him.

CH. XII. Jesus therefore six days before the pass. over came to Bethany where Lazarus was that

• The order of St. John is here followed, and ovv, therefore, in ch. xii. 2, (except for his frequent employment of the word as little more than a connective), would be decisive in favour of it. Matthew and Mark obviously introduce the transaction in connection with the purposes of the Sanhedrim and the treachery of Judas, (see Note on Sect. viii.); and it is not difficult, therefore, to see why they might postpone it: but St. John's narrative gives no room for the supposition that he anticipated the time. The calm-judging Newcome, however, follows the order of Matthew and Mark; and in this he agrees with Marsh and other eminent critics.

« PreviousContinue »