Blind Bartimæus at Jericho

S. Mark x. 46–52

Three of the Evangelists have recorded this miracle, but with such variety of detail that they have been accused of inaccuracy. The divergence lies in the number of the blind men and the exact scene of the event. S. Matthew mentions two blind men, S. Mark and S. Luke one only. Again, S. Matthew and S. Mark connect the miracle with our Lord’s departure from Jericho; S. Luke with His approach to it. There is an exact parallel in the difference of numbers, in the case of the Gadarene demoniacs. One of the two was well known, fallen perhaps from a position of social distinction, and the preservation of his name Timaeus, Bartimaeus by S. Mark, points to this.

The difficulty in accounting for the discrepancy touching the scene is greater. We notice one or two of the solutions which have been proposed. The Jericho l of our Lord’s time was more than a mile distant from the site of the ancient city; and it is possible that one Evangelist was speaking of the existing town, another of the ruins; and if the miracle was performed between the two it was naturally after our Lord left the one, and whilst He was drawing near to the other. Again, it is possible that the whole scene was not continuous; that the attention of Jesus was called to Bartimaeus as He drew nigh to the city, and, entering into conversation with him, He heard his wants, but postponed the cure from some cause unknown to us, but which seemed to Him sufficient. Then on the morrow, as He left the city, finding him awaiting His departure at the outskirts, He completed the cure. S. Luke, who connects it with His approach to Jericho, anticipates the end, and finishes off the narrative as though the whole scene had been uninterrupted. Precisely the same method is adopted by S. Matthew in his description of the withering of the barren fig-tree.

If this be the right explanation, it helps to clear up the discrepancy of the numbers. Bartimaeus, whom our Lord found at the entrance of the city, encouraged by his interview, followed Him into the crowd, and hearing that He was only staying for the night on His way to Jerusalem, told to some companion in affliction what had occurred, and they agreed together to waylay Jesus as He departed, and both were healed.

And now, confining ourselves to S. Mark’s narrative, we meet with many details of special interest. Jesus had spent the night at the house of Zacchaeus, much to the annoyance, no doubt, of His followers, who found it difficult to reconcile their belief in Him with such a signal mark of favour to a declared enemy of Jewish hopes. Their spirits, however, were revived by His entrance on the last stage of the journey which was to end in the manifestation of His glory. But as they were departing, full of eagerness and impatience, they were suddenly checked. A blind beggar had heard from the crowd that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, and with a flash of faith recognising in Him the Messiah, Whose predicted characteristic it was to take compassion on the miserable and give sight to the blind, he cried aloud above the noise and confusion of the tumultuous multitude, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” They dreaded at such a time the least interruption, and endeavoured to silence him, but it may be he had heard of cases like his own relieved by Jesus, and he would not lightly submit to having his only hope thus rudely crushed. He redoubled his energies, and his voice reached the ears that were never deaf to the cry of the afflicted; and the order was given to those who were nearest, “Call him” l to Me. And, as so often happens in excited crowds, which are easily swayed, they changed instantaneously; rudeness was turned into courtesy, and those who a moment before would have driven him away, now give him every encouragement: “Be of good comfort, rise; He calleth thee.”

Flinging off at once the long cumbrous cloak, the Oriental abba that covered his tunic, he sprang to his feet with impatient joy, and, perhaps led by the hand, or guided by the sound of His call, he “came to Jesus.” We are surprised that He Who knew all, and Who could see his sad condition, even if He did not know it before, should ask him to explain his special need. It was a mark of tenderness, and bespoke His desire to create a closer sympathy by listening to his tale of misery, and to quicken his faith to be healed. Bartimaeus, with exceeding reverence, addressed Him by a title not often used, Rabboni, and pleaded for the restoration of his sight. His prayer was immediately answered, and the assurance given that his faith had “saved” him. It is not easy to say with confidence, in what sense Christ assured him that he was “saved.” The word is used in the original as well of a bodily cure as of spiritual restoration. It may be that on the lips of Him Who saw “the correspondencies of things outward and inward,” it was employed here “with a two-edged reference,” and predicted that the deliverance from that physical infirmity would be accompanied by the cure of his soul’s sickness. And so it came to pass, for he became an attached follower of the Lord; and if an old tradition be true, he braved the obloquy of his countrymen, and stood by Him when all His disciples forsook Him and fled. The Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus records how, in defiance of the attempt to silence our Lord’s supporters, and to suborn false witnesses against Him, Bartimaeus gave evidence in favour of the Accused.

Now, the circumstances of the miracle are especially suggestive from a practical point of view.

How often, for example, are our first efforts thwarted, when we begin to reach forth to better things, by those from whom we might most reasonably expect assistance I Have we not known parents discourage their children from claiming the full privileges of their spiritual birthright, ostensibly from fear lest they should fall away and increase their condemnation, but too often really from a conviction of the obvious inconsistency of their living up to a higher standard of religion than themselves? Many a prodigal son might have been brought back, and many an awakened sinner finally reclaimed, if his first good resolutions and cries for mercy had not been rebuked, as was the blind man’s passionate appeal — O strangest of paradoxes! — even by those who were with Jesus.

Again, when our Saviour draws near to us in any of those countless ways through which He woos back the wanderer, it is the “sin which so easily besets us,” the evil habit from which we cannot tear ourselves, the companionship that is so hard to scorn: it is this which impedes our progress, and makes the return so difficult. Our only chance lies in flinging aside by a single stroke all that endangers our obedience, and in the joy of a sudden emancipation springing to our feet as Bartimaeus did.

Once more, he is an example in following Christ. He “followed Jesus in the way.” The original implies a continu-

234 Blind Bartimaeiis at Jericho ch. x. v. 46-52 ance in so doing. It was no mere impulsive clinging to his Benefactor in the outburst of gratitude for a new-found joy, but in a constant walking in His footsteps Who has promised to be a never-failing Guide to those who seek Him; for “He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Note: Cf. p. ioo, n. 2 and 3.

Note: Riha, or Eriha, is the modern name. It is a miserable village, consisting of a few hovels. But in our Lord’s time it was a city of considerable size, being a priestly station.

Note: He was an apxt-TeXibjtrjs. It is uncertain what this signifies. Perhaps he was one of the sub-magistri more directly connected with the officials at Rome.

Note: (pwqcraTe avrov. This is the reading of the majority of ancient MSS.f N’BCL

Note: a.vaT7)5r)<ra$, according to MSS. X B D and some old Versions.

Note: It is more deferential than the ordinary Rabbi, at least Ribboni (of which in Hellenistic Greek Rabboni is the equivalent) was applied in a higher sense. It was used by Mary on the morning of the Resurrection. It shows the caprice of the Old Translators that the same word should be rendered in this one place “Lord,” and in the other literally reproduced, — “Rabboni,” i.e. my Master.

Note: rjKokovdet, the imperfect tense.