At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction between the Gospel accounts regarding how many blind men Jesus healed as he left Jericho. Matthew 20:29-34 describes Jesus healing two blind men, while Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 only mention one blind man being healed. However, when the passages are examined more closely, a plausible explanation emerges that resolves this apparent discrepancy.
The Passages in Question
Let’s look first at the specifics of what each Gospel says about this healing miracle:
Matthew 20:29-34
As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him. Two blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” The crowd told them to be quiet, but they shouted even louder, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” Jesus stopped and called them over, asking what they wanted him to do for them. They said, “Lord, we want our sight.” Jesus had compassion on them and touched their eyes, and immediately they could see again. They followed him.
Mark 10:46-52
As Jesus and his disciples left Jericho with a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus was sitting by the roadside. When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth passing by, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Many people scolded him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stopped and said, “Call him over.” They called the blind man over, saying, “Take heart, get up, he is calling you.” Bartimaeus threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus. Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The blind man said, “Rabbi, I want to see again.” Jesus told him, “Go, your faith has healed you.” Immediately he could see again, and he followed Jesus on the road.
Luke 18:35-43
As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. Hearing a crowd going by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” He called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” The people in front scolded him and told him to be quiet, but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” Jesus stopped and asked that the man be brought to him. When he came near, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, I want to see again.” Jesus told him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” Instantly he could see again, and he followed Jesus, glorifying God. All the people witnessed this and praised God.
Examining the Differences
There are some clear differences between Matthew’s account and those of Mark and Luke:
- Matthew mentions two blind men, while Mark and Luke only describe one
- Matthew does not give the blind men’s names, but Mark names one of them as Bartimaeus
- Matthew says the healing took place as Jesus left Jericho, while Luke says it occurred as he approached Jericho
How can these discrepancies be explained? Let’s look at some possible solutions:
1. There were two blind men, but Bartimaeus was likely the spokesman
Matthew specifically states there were two blind men healed, while Mark and Luke focus on just one – Bartimaeus. A reasonable explanation is that there were indeed two blind beggars, but Mark and Luke chose to highlight just one of them – likely because Bartimaeus was the spokesman for the pair. He was the one interacted directly with Jesus by calling out to him and answering his questions. The other blind man simply followed along. So while there were two blind men present, Mark and Luke chose to focus on Bartimaeus since he played the lead role in the story.
2. Jesus healed blind men on two separate occasions
Another possibility is that Jesus performed two separate healings – one as he entered Jericho involving two blind men (Matthew’s account) and another as he left Jericho involving just one blind man (Mark and Luke’s account). The fact that Matthew specifies the healing took place “as they went out of Jericho” while Luke says it was “as he drew near to Jericho” lends support to this theory. If these were two distinct events, it would explain the differing details in the Gospel accounts.
3. The discrepancy over Jericho can be attributed to its unusual geography
In ancient times, Jericho was an unusual city in that it had an “old” Jericho and a “new” Jericho – the old ruins of the city and a newer inhabited area close by. This could explain why Matthew says Jesus was leaving Jericho while Luke records he was approaching Jericho – they may have simply been referring to different parts of the ancient city. So there need not be any contradiction regarding the location if Jesus was moving between the old and new parts of Jericho.
Resolution in the Context of Inerrancy
For those who hold the Bible to be inerrant and infallible, potential solutions arise that can reasonably resolve the apparent discrepancies between the Gospel accounts:
- Matthew and Mark/Luke describe the same event, with Matthew providing additional detail about there being two blind men while Mark and Luke choose to focus on the interaction with just Bartimaeus.
- There were two separate but similar healings performed in Jericho, one involving two blind men and another involving just one blind man named Bartimaeus.
- The unusual geography of ancient Jericho explains the different timing of the healings in Matthew versus Luke.
Through careful examination of the passages, plausible explanations emerge that allow the Gospel accounts to be reconciled. This prevents the variation in details from being construed as a contradiction or error. Instead, it highlights the unique perspectives and selectivity utilized by the individual Gospel authors under divine inspiration.
While on the surface there appears to be a discrepancy, closer study of the accounts in their historical and textual context allows for resolution. This is consistent with an inerrant, harmonious view of Scripture.
Significance of the Miracle in the Synoptic Gospels
Though details vary between the Synoptic Gospels, the accounts share key similarities that point to the significance of this miracle in Jesus’ ministry:
- It demonstrates Jesus’ compassion – He stopped what He was doing to specifically heal the blind men when they cried out persistently.
- It shows Jesus’ divine identity as the Messiah – The blind men acknowledge this by calling Him “Son of David,” a messianic title.
- It reveals the power of faith – Their faith in Jesus is specifically cited in the healing.
- It inspires praise to God – The crowds and the healed man himself glorify God after the miracle.
- It serves as a precursor to Holy Week – This miracle represents the last recorded healing by Jesus before His triumphal entry into Jerusalem the following week.
Despite some differences in detail, all three Synoptic Gospels agree on the nature and purpose of this miracle – to reveal Jesus’ divine authority and mercy in a powerful way right before the culmination of His ministry in Jerusalem.
The Case for Harmonization
When examining variations between Gospel accounts, it is reasonable and beneficial to seek plausible harmonizations whenever they can be found. A major argument for harmonizing the accounts includes:
1. It upholds the historical truthfulness of Scripture
Harmonization supports the doctrine of biblical inerrancy – that Scripture is completely true and reliable in all its teaching. Apparent discrepancies can be reasonably resolved without compromising this doctrine.
2. It acknowledges the selectivity of the Gospels
Each Gospel writer selected which details to include based on their purpose and audience. Thus variation in details does not equate to contradiction. Harmonization attempts to account for each author’s perspective.
3. It seeks the most natural understanding
The preferred harmonization is the one that comes to the text naturally without straining. Good harmonization does not force an interpretation but provides a plausible explanation for the differences.
4. It recognizes the limits of human knowledge
Since we lack omniscience, harmonization remains tentative. There may be facts unknown to us that would resolve an apparent discrepancy.
In summary, harmonization of biblical accounts is reasonable given the presuppositions Christians bring to Scripture. It aims for the most natural understanding that upholds inerrancy and recognizes the selectivity of the Gospel writers under divine inspiration.
Principles for Resolving Gospel Discrepancies
When facing an apparent contradiction between the Gospels, certain principles can guide attempts to harmonize the accounts:
- Study the context carefully – look at what precedes and follows the passages in question.
- Consider the author’s purpose and audience – this affects their selectivity in what details were included or omitted.
- Note where details differ and where they align – points of alignment suggest a shared factual basis.
- Look for common solutions – some discrepancies have multiple plausible harmonizations.
- Avoid strained or forced harmonizations – find the most natural harmonization.
- Remain tentatively open to facts beyond our knowledge – human knowledge is limited, only God has full omniscience.
- Focus on the unified theological message – variations in details need not undermine the coherent doctrinal truth conveyed across the Gospels.
Using these principles, apparent contradictions can often be reasonably resolved while upholding Scripture’s inerrancy and divine inspiration.
Objections to Harmonization
There are objections raised to the practice of harmonizing Gospel discrepancies:
1. It ignores genuine contradictions
Some claim harmonization uses “mental gymnastics” to eliminate contradictions that are real. But reasonable harmonizations using shared facts between accounts do not ignore or eliminate contradictions, but provide plausible resolutions.
2. It assumes inerrancy rather than proving it
Critics argue harmonization assumes the Bible has no error rather than demonstrating it. But starting from a position of inerrancy makes sense for believers; harmonization substantiates rather than presupposes inerrancy.
3. It downplays the humanity of Scripture
Some say harmonization overlooks the human aspect of Scripture. But evangelicals recognize the dual authorship – divine and human – and allow for variety consistent with truth.
4. Minor details aren’t important anyway
Some claim the details are insignificant; what matters is the gist of the story. But even minor details have basis in fact; God’s Word accurately reflects history.
Overall, these objections can be reasonably answered within an inerrant view of Scripture that maintains both its divine and human characteristics.
Conclusion
While variations between the Gospel accounts are natural given the selectivity of the human authors, it is reasonable and beneficial to seek harmonization where it naturally exists. Plausible explanations can resolve discrepancies while upholding biblical inerrancy and the historical accuracy of Scripture. The healing of blind men near Jericho provides an example where proposed harmonizations account for differences in detail between Matthew, Mark and Luke. Careful study can reveal a coherent picture that affirms the reliability of the Gospels. Though challenges remain due to limited knowledge, harmonization seeks the most compelling understanding from the information available.