Chapter Twenty

1–16. Parable of the workers in the vineyard. – 17–19. Announcement of suffering. – 20–28. Request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee. – 29–34. Healing of two blind men.

Matthew 20:1. For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. The adverb γάρ (“for”) places the parable that follows in immediate connection with the Savior’s previous words, that is, with Matt 19:30. But since this latter verse is connected with Matt 19:29 by the particle δέ and since the connection (expressed through καί, δέ, τότε) can be traced not only up to verse 27 of chapter 19, but even up to verse 16 of the same chapter (though in Matt 19:16-26 it is not everywhere expressed by the mentioned adverbs and particles), it is clear that the evangelist’s narrative from Matt 19:16 to Matt 20:16 presents a coherent whole and therefore should be examined as such. Peter’s question (Matt 19:27) by its inner content has obvious relation to the account of the rich young man and is externally connected with the narrative by the adverb “then.” The train of thought is thus: the rich young man refused to follow Christ because he did not wish to leave his earthly possessions. Peter on this account says to Jesus Christ that the disciples left everything and asks: “what will be given to us?” In response to this question Jesus Christ indicates what reward the disciples will receive, and not only they but “everyone who has left houses” and so forth (Matt 19:29). The apostles will “sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28), and besides, all who followed Christ will receive “a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life” (Matt 19:29). The particle “but” (δέ) in Matt 19:30 expresses an opposition to the thought expressed in Matt 19:29. From the words of verse 29 it does not follow that all will receive the same reward. On the contrary (δέ), many first will be last and last will be first. This thought is proven (γάρ – Matt 20:1) by the parable that follows, which, judging by the train of thought, must first clarify who exactly is meant by the first and the last, and second, why in the kingdom of heaven there should prevail an order completely unlike what exists in earthly relations. By the vineyard should be understood the kingdom of heaven, and by the master of the vineyard – God. Origen understood by the vineyard the Church of God, and the marketplace and places outside the vineyard (τὰ ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος) as that which is outside the church (τὰ ἔξω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας). Chrysostom understood by the vineyard “the commandments and commandments of God.”

Matthew 20:2. And after agreeing with the workers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. In our money a denarius equaled 20–25 kopecks (equivalent to the value of 4–5 grams of silver. – Editor’s note).

Matthew 20:3. And going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace. Matthew 20:4. And to them he said: Go you also into the vineyard, and whatever is right I will give you. So they went. The Hebrew method of reckoning time is adopted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In the pre-exilic Old Testament writings there is no trace of dividing the day and night into hours. There existed only the main divisions of the day, which were primitive in character – evening, morning, midday (see Ps 54:18). Other designations of daytime were “the heat of the day” (Gen 18:1), σταθερὸν ἧμαρ (Prov 4:18 – “the full day”), “the cool of the day” (Gen 3:8). Times of night were sometimes distinguished (besides the division into watches) by the expressions ὀψέ (evening), μεσονύκτιον (midnight), ἀλεκτροφωνία (cockcrow), and πρωΐ (dawn). In the Babylonian Talmud (Avoda Zara, leaf 3, 6, and following) there is a distribution of the day into four parts of three hours each, used for the distribution of prayer times (in the third, sixth, and ninth hours of the day; this is also referred to in Matt 20:3). The division into hours was borrowed by both the Jews and the Greeks (Herodotus, “History,” II, 109) from Babylon. The Aramaic word for hour, “sha’a,” in the Old Testament occurs only in the prophet Daniel (Dan 3:6 and following). In the New Testament, reckoning by hours is already customary. The twelve daytime hours were counted from the rising of the sun to its setting, and therefore the 6th hour corresponds to midday, and the 11th hour marked the end of the day (verse 6). Depending on the season, the hours varied in length from 59 to 70 minutes. Thus, the third hour equals our nine o’clock in the morning.

Matthew 20:5. And again going out about the sixth and ninth hour, he did the same. By our reckoning, about noon and three o’clock in the afternoon.

Matthew 20:6. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing idle, and he said to them: Why do you stand here idle all day long? Around 11 o’clock – by our reckoning around 5 o’clock in the afternoon.

Matthew 20:7. They say to him: No one has hired us. He says to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and you will receive whatever is just. Matthew 20:8. When evening had come, the master of the vineyard says to his steward: Call the workers and give them their wages, beginning with the last to the first. Matthew 20:9. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius each. Matthew 20:10. But those who came first supposed they would receive more, but they also received a denarius each; Matthew 20:11. and when they had received it, they grumbled against the master of the house Matthew 20:12. and said: These last have worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who have borne the heat of the day and its burden. To equate the first with the last and vice versa, to explain and prove that this can happen and often does, although not always, and that equal pay depends simply on the goodness and generosity of the Supreme Householder – this is the chief and essential thought of the parable. And we must acknowledge that this thought is fully explained and proved by Christ. In interpreting this parable, as in many other sayings of Christ, one must generally avoid abstractions as much as possible. Understood more concretely, the parable means that the first ought not to glory in their priority, to exalt themselves above others, because there can be such cases in human life which clearly show that the first are completely equated with the last and even the last are given preference. This was to be instructive for the apostles, who were arguing: “What then will be for us?” (Matt 19:27). Christ speaks as it were thus: You ask who is greater and what will be for you. To you, who have followed Me, much will be (Matt 19:20), but do not take this in an absolute sense, do not think that it will always be so, that it necessarily will. It may be (but it ought not necessarily to be so) something like this (the parable about the workers). The conclusion which the listening disciples of Christ should have drawn from this is thus completely clear and intelligible. No command is given here necessarily to be equated with the last, no counsel is offered, but rather a principle is explained by which the workers in Christ’s vineyard should carry out their labors.

Matthew 20:13. But in reply he said to one of them: Friend! I am not wronging you; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Matthew 20:14. Take what is yours and go; but I wish to give to this last one the same as to you; Matthew 20:15. Am I not permitted to do what I choose with what is mine? Or is your eye envious because I am generous? Matthew 20:16. So the last will be first, and the first will be last, for many are called, but few are chosen. The words spoken in Matt 19:30 are repeated here (verse 16), and this clearly shows that in them is contained the aim, the chief idea and the moral lesson of the parable. The sense of the expression does not lie in the fact that the last ought always to be first and vice versa, but that this can be and so under certain, almost exceptional circumstances. This is indicated by the word used at the beginning of the verse οὕτως (“thus”), which can here mean: “thus, in such or similar cases (but not always)”. In explaining verse 16, a parallel is found in the eighth chapter of the Second Epistle of John, and it is thought that it “gives the key” to explaining the parable, and this can be agreed with. Jerome and others put verse 16 and the whole parable in connection with the parable of the prodigal son, where the older son hates the younger, does not want to accept him as a penitent, and accuses the father of injustice. The last words of verse 16: “for many are called, but few are chosen,” should be recognized as a later insertion both on the basis of the testimony of the best and most authoritative manuscripts and by internal considerations. These words were probably borrowed and transferred here from Matt 22:14 and greatly obscure the meaning of the whole parable.

Matthew 20:17. And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them: (Compare Mark 10:32; Luke 18:31). Matthew’s words are not connected by any adverbs to the preceding, except for the conjunction “and” (καί). One can even suppose that there is a gap here in the account of events which occurred not long before the last Passover (the fourth year of Jesus Christ’s public ministry), which is only partially filled in by John 11:55-56. The disciples were called aside, evidently because the words of the Savior by their content required secrecy or, as Euthymius Zigabenus thinks, “because this should not be told to many, lest they be scandalized.”

Matthew 20:18. Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; Matthew 20:19. and they will deliver him to the gentiles for mocking and scourging and crucifixion; and on the third day he will be raised. (Compare Mark 10:33-34; Luke 18:31-34). By “gentiles” are meant the Romans.

Matthew 20:20. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, bowing down and asking him for something. (Compare Mark 10:35). In Mark’s Gospel, the disciples themselves, named by name – James and John, sons of Zebedee – address themselves to Christ with their request. It is quite natural that in a historical narrative it is possible to speak both of the mother together with her sons and of the sons alone, for brevity’s sake not mentioning the mother. To clarify the reasons for the request, one should first of all draw attention to the addition in Luke 18:34 (which the other Synoptists do not have), where it is reported that the disciples did not understand Christ’s words about His sufferings. But on the word “be raised” they could pay special attention and understand it somewhat, though in a mistaken sense. The question of what the mother of James and John was called by name is quite difficult. In those places of the Gospel where the mother of the sons of Zebedee is mentioned (Matt 20:20), she is nowhere called Salome, and where Salome is spoken of (Mark 15:40), she is nowhere called the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Only primarily on the basis of comparing the testimonies of Matt 27:55-56 and Mark 15:40-41 do they come to the conclusion that the mother of the sons of Zebedee was indeed Salome. This is easily seen from the following. At the cross were women watching from afar the crucifixion: Matt 27:56 – “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”; Mark 15:40 – “There were also women watching from afar: among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome.” From this it is evident that the “mother of the sons of Zebedee” is mentioned by Matthew where Mark speaks of Salome. Further, the evangelist John says (John 19:25) that “standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” This place can be read in two ways, namely: 1. His mother (of Christ), 2. and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, 3. and Mary Magdalene; or: 1. His mother, 2. and his mother’s sister, 3. Mary of Clopas, 4. and Mary Magdalene. In the first reading, consequently, at the cross stood only three women, in the second – four. The first reading is refuted on the ground that if Mary of Clopas had been the sister of the Mother of God, then two sisters would be called by the same name, which is very improbable. Further, in the Gospel of John there are indicated, as it were, two groups of women, and the names of the first and second, and then the third and fourth are connected by the conjunction “and”: 1st group: His mother and his mother’s sister, 2nd group: Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Thus, here too, under “his mother’s sister” it is possible to see Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Such an identification cannot, for various reasons, of course, be considered fully certain. But it cannot be denied a certain probability. If, on the one hand, Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and on the other – the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, then it means James and John of Zebedee were cousins of Christ. Salome was among the women who accompanied Jesus Christ, who followed Him in Galilee and served Him (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:41). In all likelihood, the idea of approaching Jesus Christ with a request arose from the apostles themselves, and they asked their mother to present the request to Jesus Christ. In Mark, the apostles’ request is expressed in such a form as would have been proper only in addressing a king, and in some cases was even pronounced and proposed by kings themselves (see Matt 14:7; Mark 6:23). Based on Matthew’s account one can conclude that Salome, for all her respect toward Jesus Christ, did not possess sufficient knowledge of the character and purpose of His ministry. She approached with her sons to Jesus Christ, bowed to Him, and asked for something (τι). She, without doubt, spoke, but her words were so vague and indefinite that the Savior had to ask what exactly she wanted.

Matthew 20:21. He said to her: What is it you wish? She says to him: Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom. Compare Mark 10:36-37 – Christ addresses the disciples with the question of what they wish. Instead of “say” in Mark is the more categorical “give” (δός). Instead of “in your kingdom” – “in your glory.” Other differences in the speech of the evangelists are conditioned by the fact that the request is placed in the mouths of different petitioners. Salome asked that in His future kingdom the Savior seat her sons: one on his right, and the other on his left side from Him. The customs indicated here have not disappeared to this day. Places on the right and on the left hand, i.e., in the closest vicinity of some important person, are still considered especially honorable. The same was true among ancient pagan peoples and the Hebrews. The places nearest to the royal throne were the most honorable. This is mentioned in the Bible (1 Sam 2:19; Ps 44:10). Josephus Flavius (“Jewish Antiquities”, VI, 11, 9) relates the well-known biblical account of David’s flight, when Saul at the festival of new moon, having purified himself according to custom, lay down at the table, his son Jonathan sat on his right, and Abner on his left. The sense of the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee was, consequently, that Christ would give her sons the chief, most honorable places in the kingdom which would be established by Him.

Matthew 20:22. Jesus answered: You do not know what you are asking for. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized? They say to him: We are able. (Compare Mark 10:38). The Savior indicates that the disciples do not know and do not understand what His true glory and true dominion and kingdom consist of. This is the glory, dominion, and kingdom of the Servant of Jehovah, who offers Himself as a sacrifice for the redemption of humanity. This is well expressed by Chrysostom, paraphrasing the Savior’s words: “You remind Me of honor and crowns, while I speak of struggles and labors that lie before you.” In essence, in the words of the mother of the sons of Zebedee and of themselves there was contained a request for admission to the sufferings that lay before Christ and of which He had already spoken before. Therefore the real sense of the request was terrible, but the disciples suspected nothing of this. The Savior, in full agreement with the instruction just now given, or rather, the teaching (verses 18–19), reveals its true sense. He points to the cup that He was to drink (Matt 26:39), which the Psalmist (Ps 114:3) calls the sorrows of death, the pangs of Hades, anguish and grief (Jerome points to these texts in his commentary on verse 22). The Savior does not say that the request of the disciples was based on an incorrect understanding by the disciples of the nature of His spiritual kingdom, and does not predict here that He will be crucified between two robbers. He only says that suffering, the offering of Himself, and death do not lead to and cannot be a path to worldly dominion. He speaks only of the cup, without adding, however, that this will be a cup of sufferings. It is very interesting that the word “cup” was used in Old Testament writings in two senses: to designate both happiness (Ps 15:5) and misfortunes (Ps 10:6; Isa 51:22; Jer 49:12). But it is doubtful whether the disciples understood Christ’s words in the first sense. The most probable supposition is that their understanding was, so to speak, something intermediate (see Luke 18:34). They did not understand all the depth of meaning of the word “cup” with all that was implied here, but on the other hand they did not imagine the matter as though there would be only sufferings and nothing more. They could imagine the matter thus: to acquire external, worldly dominion, they would first need to drink the cup of sufferings that lay before Christ Himself. But if Christ Himself will drink it, then why should they not take part in this? This should not exceed and will not exceed their strength. And so, in response to Christ’s question the disciples boldly answer: We are able. “In the fervor of their zeal they at once expressed their consent, not knowing what they said, but hoping to hear agreement to their request” (St. John Chrysostom).

Matthew 20:23. And he says to them: You will indeed drink my cup, and be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father. (Compare Mark 10:39-40). This verse has always been considered one of the most difficult to interpret and even gave occasion to some heretics (Arians) falsely to assert that the Son of God is not equal to God the Father. The Arian opinion was rejected by all Church fathers as groundless and heretical, for from other places of the New Testament (Matt 9:6; Mark 2:10; John 17:2 and others) it is clearly seen that Christ everywhere ascribes to Himself authority equal to that of God the Father. To properly interpret the utterances of the Savior set forth in the verse under consideration, one should pay attention to two very important circumstances. First, if the disciples and their mother in verse 21 ask Christ for the first places in His kingdom or in glory, then in the Savior’s speech beginning with verse 23 and ending with verse 28 (and in Luke in the section placed in a different context, Luke 22:24-27, which is sometimes cited here as a parallel), there is not the slightest mention either of kingdom or of glory. Coming into the world, the Messiah appeared as the suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Redeemer of humanity. From this it is clear that to sit on the right and left side of Christ does not first and foremost mean to participate in His glory, but indicates prior nearness to Him in His sufferings, self-denial, and bearing the cross. Only after this do people have the possibility of entering also into His glory. By the will and counsel of God there are always found those who take part in the sufferings of Christ and thus become especially near to Him, as if sitting on His right and left sides. Second, it should be noted that two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, use two different expressions here: “for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matthew) and simply: “for whom it has been prepared” (Mark). Both these expressions are exact and powerful and contain the same thought – about the providential significance of sufferings in the earthly life of humanity.

Matthew 20:24. When the ten heard this, they were angry with the two brothers. (Compare Mark 10:41; Luke 22:24). The cause of the anger of the ten disciples was the request of James and John, which tended to belittle the other apostles. The occurrence of such phenomena shows that the disciples of Christ, even in His presence, did not always distinguish themselves by love for one another and brotherly unity. But in the present case this was not from malice, but rather, apparently, from simplicity, lack of development, and insufficient assimilation of Christ’s teaching. The struggle over the first places in the new kingdom, precedence-seeking, was repeated again at the Last Supper.

Matthew 20:25. But Jesus called them to him and said: You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority felt among them; (Compare Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25). In Luke it is in a completely different context. In Mark the speech is stronger than in Matthew. Instead of the more univocal “rulers of the gentiles” (ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν) in Mark it is οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν, i.e., “those who think they rule the gentiles, the would-be rulers.”

Matthew 20:26. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your servant; (Compare Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26). A contrast to what is said in the preceding verse. Among the “gentiles” it is so, but among you it ought to be completely otherwise. The Savior’s words are distinguished by high instructiveness not only for spiritual leaders, but for all rulers and chiefs, who ordinarily wish to possess all the fullness of power, not thinking at all that true (not false) Christian authority is founded only on the services rendered to people, or on service to them, and that without any thought of any external power, which comes of itself.

Matthew 20:27. And whosoever will be first among you, let him be your servant: (Compare Mark 10:44). The thought is the same as in verse 26.

Matthew 20:28. Just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Compare Mark 10:45). The highest and most familiar to all who know the life of Christ example and pattern is offered. Christ was served by both angels and people (Matt 4:11; Mark 1:13; Luke 4:39; John 12:2), and He required and requires this service from Himself and even demands an account of it (Matt 25:34-45). But no one will say that the teaching revealed in the verse under consideration contradicts His own teaching and behavior or does not correspond to reality. On the contrary, it seems that the passages cited from the Gospels not only do not contradict, but only further emphasize the thought that the Son of Man came to the earth solely in order to serve. People responded to His service to them in some cases with service full of love, and thus, being a servant, He was fully Lord and Teacher and even called Himself such (see especially John 13:13-14 and others). But how unlike all this is to the usual display of power on the part of various rulers and princes of this world! The expression ὥσπερ (in the Russian translation – “just as”) properly means “in the manner of” (German gleichwie; Latin sicut), indicates a comparison, not a cause. Thus, the sense is: whosoever will be first among you, let him be your servant, in the manner of the Son of Man who came and so on. But in the parallel in Mark the same words are adduced as a cause (καὶ γάρ, in the Russian translation – “for”). The word “came” indicates Christ’s consciousness of His higher origin and coming to earth from another world, from a higher sphere of being. Concerning the idea of redemptive self-sacrifice compare 2 Macc 7:37-38. Λύτρον, used by Matthew (and Mark in the parallel) only here, comes from λύειν – to untie, resolve, free; was used by the Greeks (ordinarily in the plural) and is found in the Old Testament in the sense of: 1) ransom for the soul from the threat of death (Exod 21:30); 2) payment for a female slave (Lev 19:20) and for a slave (Lev 25:25); 3) redemption of the firstborn (Num 18:15); 4) in the sense of propitiation (Prov 13:8). Synonymous terms ἄλλαγμα (Isa 43:3 and others) and ἐξίλασμα (Prov 21:18) are ordinarily translated as “ransom.” The singular λύτρον is set, evidently, in correspondence with the singular ψυχήν. Christ does not say that He will give His soul for the ransom of Himself, but – “for the ransom of many.” The word “many” has caused much perplexity; if only for the ransom of “many” people, then not all. The redemptive work of Christ extends not to all, but only to many, perhaps even relatively few, the elect. Jerome adds: those who wished to believe. But Euthymius Zigabenus and others consider the word πολλούς here equivalent to πάντας, because in Scripture it is often said this way. Bengel introduces here the concept of individuals and says that here the Savior speaks of offering Himself as a sacrifice for many, not only for all, but even for individual persons (et multis, non solum universis, sed etiam singulis, se impendit Redemptor). They have also said that πάντων is objective, πολλῶν is subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for all objectively, but subjectively only a vast multitude, which no one could number, will be saved, πολλο.... In the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Rom 5:12-19) one observes an alternation between οἱ πολλοί and simply πολλοί, and πάντες. The actual sense of ἀντὶ πολλῶν is expressed in a place which can serve as a parallel to the present (1 Tim 2:6), where λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, as here in Matthew, is replaced by ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. All these interpretations are satisfactory and can be accepted.

Matthew 20:29. As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. (Compare Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35-Luke 19:28). The order of events in the three evangelists here is quite contradictory. Luke (Luke 18:35) begins his account thus: “When he drew near to Jericho” (ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχώ); Mark (Mark 10:46): “they come to Jericho” (καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ); Matthew: “as they were leaving Jericho” (καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἰεριχώ). If we accept the testimony of the evangelists in its precise sense, then we should first place Luke’s account (Luke 18:35-Luke 19:27), where it is reported of the healing of “one” blind man before entering Jericho; then, when Jesus Christ entered there, He visited Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) and spoke the parable of the ten talents (Luke 19:11-27). Then, with Mark’s note “they come to Jericho” – Luke 19:1, the parallel account of the two first evangelists begins (Matt 20:29-30; Mark 10:46), and finally Luke joins them (Luke 18:38). With such an arrangement, however, great difficulties are not removed, as will be seen below. Jericho was on the west side of the Jordan, somewhat north of where the Jordan flows into the Dead Sea. In the New Testament it is mentioned only six times (Matt 20:29; Mark 10:46; Luke 10:30; Heb 11:30). In Greek it is written Ἰεριχώ and Ἰερειχώ. In the Old Testament it is mentioned frequently; it was one of the most ancient Palestinian cities. The region where the city is located is one of the most fertile in Palestine and in the time of Christ was probably in a flourishing state. Jericho was known for its palms, balsam trees, and other fragrant plants. At the site of the ancient city there now stands the village of Ariha, full of poverty, filth, and even immorality. In Ariha there are about 60 families. During Christ’s journey from Jericho to Jerusalem, He was accompanied by a large crowd of common people (ὄχλος πολύς).

Matthew 20:30. And behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying: Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David! (Compare Mark 10:46-47; Luke 18:35-38). Matthew speaks of two blind men whom the Savior healed when going out from Jericho; Mark – of one, naming him by name (Bartimaeus); Luke also of one, whom the Savior healed before His entry into Jericho. If we admit that all the evangelists are recounting the same event, then clearly irreconcilable contradictions arise. This has, even in ancient times, provided powerful ammunition for the enemies of Christianity and the Gospels, who considered this place irrefutable proof of the unreliability of the Gospel accounts. Attempts to reconcile the accounts were therefore made by Christian writers in ancient times. Origen, Euthymius Zigabenus, and others admitted that here is spoken of three healings of the blind: one healing is spoken of by Luke, another by Mark, and a third by Matthew. Augustine asserted that there were only two healings, of which Matthew and Mark speak of one healing and Luke of another. But Theophylact and others consider all three healings to be one and the same. Among modern exegetes some explain the discrepancy by the fact that here there were only two healings and only two blind men, of whom Mark and Luke speak separately; of them one took place before entering Jericho, and another after going out of it. Matthew, however, combined both healings in one account. Others – by the fact that the disagreement of the evangelists depended on the fact that they had different sources from which each evangelist borrowed his account. One should admit that the accounts of the evangelists do not allow us to recognize either three persons and their healings, or to combine them into one. Here there is simply a lack of clarity in the account, something not fully expressed, and this hinders us from imagining and understanding how it actually was. The most reliable path to resolving this question can, apparently, lie in the following. In reading the accounts of the healing of the blind men, we should not at all imagine that as soon as any of them cried out, calling to Christ for help, he was immediately healed. In an extremely compressed and brief account, events are brought together that could have occurred over a more or less extended period of time. This is indicated, among other things, by the general testimony of all Synoptists that the people forbade the blind men to cry out and made them be silent (Matt 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). Further, from Luke’s account it cannot at all be concluded that the healing of the blind man took place before Jesus Christ’s entry into Jericho. On the contrary, if we suppose that it took place after Christ’s departure from Jericho, all the details of Luke’s account become clearer to us. First the blind man sits by the wayside, begging for alms. Learning that a crowd is passing by, he asks what it is. Learning that “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by,” he begins to cry out for help. Those going ahead make him be silent, but he cries out even more loudly. Nowhere is it evident that Jesus Christ was standing in one place during all of this. He stopped only when He had left Jericho and ordered the blind man to be brought to Him. If He ordered him to be brought, then the blind man was not at the closest distance from Him. To this we must add that in passing through any city it can be crossed in both a prolonged and a short time, depending on its size. Even through the largest city one can pass in a short time, crossing, for example, the outskirts. Nowhere is it evident that Jericho was at that time a large city. Thus, we have every right to identify the blind man spoken of by Luke either with Bartimaeus of Mark or with one of the blind men unnamed of whom Matthew speaks. This means that all three evangelists are in complete agreement regarding the fact that the blind men were healed as Jesus Christ was departing from Jericho. Having dealt with this difficulty, we must, as far as possible, clarify the other one. According to Mark and Luke, the blind man was one, according to Matthew – two. But the question arises: if only one blind man was healed, then why did Matthew need to say that there were two? If, as it is asserted, he had before him the Gospels of Mark and Luke, then surely he did not wish to undermine confidence in these evangelists by giving a different testimony without any reservations about their inaccuracy? Did he, by adding what they say was a fictitious miracle, wish artificially to increase the glory of Christ as a healer? All this is extremely improbable and is incoherent with anything. Let us say that it would be so foolish to reason even in a most hostile attitude toward the Gospels. Further, if Mark and Luke knew that two blind men were healed, but wished intentionally (there is no especial intention evident in this case) to report only about one healing and the healed man, then no honest critic familiar with documents, and especially ancient ones, would dare to accuse the evangelists of fabrication and distortion of historical facts. True, we cannot explain why Matthew recounts two blind men while Mark and Luke only one. But factually it quite possibly could be that two blind men were healed during the movement of the people’s crowd; this does not at all contradict any historical probability.

Matthew 20:31. But the crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out the more, saying: Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David! (Compare Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). Why did the crowd make the blind men be silent? Perhaps those passing by the blind men made them be silent simply because they “were disturbing the public peace” and their cries were not in accord with the rules of public propriety at that time.

Matthew 20:32. And Jesus stopped and called them and said: What do you want me to do for you? (Compare Mark 10:49; Luke 18:40). It is evident here that Luke uses soft, elegant, and precise Greek expressions. Matthew and Mark use the beautiful, but rather vulgar word φωνεῖν (to make a sound and then to call, summon). According to Matthew, Jesus Christ called (ἐφώνησεν) the blind men Himself, but according to Mark’s testimony – ordered them to be called (εἶπεν φωνήσατε). In Mark further there are reported interesting and vivid details about the conversation between the blind man and those who were calling him, and about how he, shedding his garment, got up (jumped up – ἀναπηδήσας) and went (it does not say “ran”) to Jesus Christ. Christ’s question is distinguished by naturalness.

Matthew 20:33. They said to him: Lord, we want our eyes to be opened. (Compare Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41). The speech of the blind men in Matthew (and the other Synoptists) is shortened. The full speech would be: Lord! We wish our eyes to be opened. The blind men ask not for alms, but for the performing of a miracle. Evidently, they had before heard of Christ as a Healer. The healing of the man blind from birth, of which John speaks (John 9), should be referred to a time before these events. And the people probably knew that Christ could open the eyes of the blind.

Matthew 20:34. Jesus in compassion touched their eyes, and immediately their eyes were opened, and they followed him. (Compare Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42-43). According to Matthew, the Savior does not speak a single word to the blind men, but instead touches their eyes. In Mark and Luke – it is different. The word εὐθέως (“immediately”) indicates sudden restoration of sight, which is also said by Mark and Luke (εὐθύς ώ παραχρῆμα).