Bartimaeus Receives His Sight

This Note considers the differences about this miracle in the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke. 

*Note:  The vividness of the account (e.g., v. 50) suggests that it was an eyewitness report from one such as Peter. The three Synoptic Gospels record this event with some divergent details. Matthew mentioned two blind men (Matt. 20:30), and Luke placed the incident at Jesus’ approach to Jericho instead of His exit (Luke 18:35). Probably two blind men were involved but Mark and Luke focused on one, perhaps the more vocal or well known. Also there were two Jerichos—an old and a new city—and the healings could have occurred as the crowd was leaving old Israelite Jericho (Matt. 20:29; Mark 10:46) and entering new Herodian Jericho (Luke 18:35), though the evidence that old Jericho was inhabited at that time is not certain.

John D. Grassmick, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 154.

Though all three evangelists report the cure and the decision on the part of the cured to follow Jesus, each makes his own distinct contribution. Matthew adds that it was “in pity” (or: “moved with compassion”) that the Healer “touched the eyes” and effected the cure. Mark reports that Jesus said, “Go, your faith has made you well.” And Luke devotes two entire verses to the conclusion, repeating some of what the others have recorded and adding certain details: Jesus said to the blind man, “Receive your sight”; the cured man “glorified God”; and “all the people, when they saw it, gave praise to God.” (18:42, 43).

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 10:418.

The Roman Jericho of Jesus’ day and its present-day ruins lie somewhat to the south of Old Testament or Jewish Jericho. Now according to Matthew and Mark the miracle about to be related occurred as Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho; but according to Luke, as he was approaching Jericho. Some have argued, therefore, that Matthew and Mark are speaking of the Jewish city which Jesus had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Jesus had not yet arrived. Also, Matthew speaks of two blind men, while Mark and Luke make mention of one. This is not really a contradiction, for neither Mark nor Luke tells us that Jesus restored sight to the eyes of only one blind man. There are many attempts at solving these problems. See N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 417, 418. The best answer is, There is a solution, for this “Scripture,” too, is inspired. However, we do not now have the solution to these problems.

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 11:842.