Глава 20

1–16. The parable of the workers in the vineyard. – 17–19. Proclamation of suffering. – 20–28. Request from the mother of the sons of Zebedee. – 29–34. Healing of two blind men. Matthew 20:1. For the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. The adverb γάρ (“for”) puts the Savior’s further parable in close connection with His previous speech, i.e. from Matthew 19:30. But since this last verse is connected with Matthew 19:29 by the particle δέ and since the connection (expressed through καί, δέ, τότε) can be traced not only to the 27th verse of the 19th chapter, but even to the 16th verse of the same chapter (although in Matthew 19:16-26 it is not always expressed by the indicated adverbs and particles), then it is clear that the story of the evangelist from Matthew 19:16 to Matthew 20:16 is something whole, coherent and therefore should be considered in this form. Peter's question (Matthew 19:27), in its internal content, has an obvious relation to the story about the rich young man and is externally connected to the story by the adverb “then.” The train of thought is this: the rich young man refused to follow Christ because he did not want to leave his earthly acquisitions. On this occasion, Peter tells Jesus Christ that the disciples left everything and asks: “What will happen to us?” In response to this question, Jesus Christ indicates what kind of reward the disciples will receive, and not only they, but also “everyone who leaves home,” etc. (Matthew 19:29). The apostles will “judge the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28), and, in addition, all who follow Christ will receive “a hundredfold and inherit eternal life” (Matthew 19:29). The particle “the same” (δέ) in Matthew 19:30 expresses the opposite of the thought expressed in Matthew 19:29. It does not follow from the words of verse 29 that the reward will be the same for everyone. On the contrary (δέ), many first will be last and last will be first. This idea is proven (γάρ - Matt. 20:1) by a further parable, which, judging by the course of thoughts, should, firstly, explain who exactly is meant by the first and last, and, secondly, why in the relations of the Kingdom of Heaven an order should prevail that is completely different from the one that exists in earthly relations. The vineyard should be understood as the Kingdom of Heaven, and the owner of the vineyard should be understood as God. Origen understood the vineyard as the Church of God, and the market and places outside the vineyard (τὰ ἔξω τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος) are what is outside the church (τὰ ἔξω τῆς Ἐκκλησίας). Chrysostom understood the vineyard as “the commandments and commandments of God.” Matthew 20:2. and, having agreed with the workers for a denarius per day, he sent them into his vineyard; With our money, a denarius was equal to 20–25 kopecks (corresponding to the cost of 4–5 g of silver. – Ed.). Matthew 20:3. going out about the third hour, he saw others standing idly in the marketplace, Matthew 20:4. and he said to them, “Go you also into my vineyard, and whatever is proper I will give you.” They went. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke adopt the Jewish reckoning of time. There is no trace of the division of day and night into hours in the Old Testament writings. There were only the main divisions of the day, which were distinguished by their primitive nature - evening, morning, noon (cf. Ps. 54:18). Other designations for the time of day were “the heat of the day” (Gen. 18:1), σταθερὸν ἧμαρ (Prov. 4:18 – “full day”), “the cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8). The times of the night were sometimes distinguished (except for the division into watches) by the expressions ὀψέ (evening), μεσονύκτιον (midnight), ἀλεκτροφωνία (roosters crowing) and πρωΐ (dawn). In the Babylonian Talmud (Avoda Zara, sheet 3, 6 et seq.) there is a division of the day into four parts of three hours, which served to distribute the time of prayer (at the third, sixth and ninth hour of the day; this is also indicated in Matthew 20:3). The division into hours was borrowed by both the Jews and the Greeks (Herodotus, History, II, 109) from Babylonia. The Aramaic word for hour "shaa" in the Old Testament is found only in the prophet Daniel (Dan. 3:6 et seq.). In the New Testament, counting by the hour is already common. The twelve hours of the day were counted from the rising of the sun to the setting, and therefore the 6th corresponds to noon, and at the 11th hour the day ended (verse 6). Depending on the time of year, the hours varied in duration from 59 to 70 minutes. Thus, the third hour is equal to our ninth in the morning. Matthew 20:5. Coming out again around the sixth and ninth hours, he did the same. In our opinion, around twelve and three o'clock in the afternoon. Matthew 20:6. Finally, going out about the eleventh hour, he found others standing idly, and said to them: Why have you been standing here all day idly? About 11 o'clock - in our opinion about 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Matthew 20:7. They tell him: no one hired us. He says to them: You also go into my vineyard, and you will receive what follows. Matthew 20:8. When evening came, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the workers and give them their wages, beginning from the last to the first. Matthew 20:9. And those who came about the eleventh hour received a denarius. Matthew 20:10. Those who came first thought that they would receive more, but they also received a denarius; Matthew 20:11. and having received it, they began to murmur against the owner of the house Matthew 20:12. and they said: these last worked one hour, and you made them equal to us, who endured the burden of the day and the heat. To compare the former with the latter and vice versa, to explain and prove that this happens and can be, at least not always, and that equal pay simply depends on the very kindness and goodness of the Supreme Householder - this is the main and essential idea of ​​the parable. And we must admit that it is precisely this idea that Christ fully explained and proved. When interpreting the parable, like many other sayings of Christ, one must generally avoid, if possible, abstractions. Understood more specifically, the parable means that the former should not be proud of their primacy, or exalt themselves over others, because there may be cases in human life that clearly show that the former are completely compared with the latter and the latter are even given preference. This should have been instructive for the apostles, who reasoned: “What will happen to us?” (Matthew 19:27). Christ says something like this: you ask who is greater and what will happen to you. There will be many things for you who have followed Me (Matthew 19:20), but do not accept this in the full and unconditional sense, do not think that it should always be this way, it will certainly happen. Maybe (but it shouldn’t be, it certainly happens or will happen) and this is what (the parable of the workers). The conclusion that the disciples who listened to Christ should have drawn from here is thus completely clear and understandable. There is no command here to be necessarily compared with the latter, no advice is offered, but a principle is explained by which the workers in Christ's vineyard should carry out their work. Matthew 20:13. He answered and said to one of them: friend! I don't offend you; Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Matthew 20:14. take yours and go; I want to give this last one the same as I gave you; Matthew 20:15. Don't I have the power to do what I want? Or is your eye envious because I am kind? Matthew 20:16. So the last will be first, and the first last, for many are called, but few are chosen. The words spoken in Matthew 19:30 are repeated here (verse 16), and this clearly shows that this is precisely the purpose, main idea and moral teaching of the parable. The meaning of the expression is not that the last should always be first and vice versa, but that this may be the case under certain, almost exceptional circumstances. This is indicated by the οὕτως (“so”) used at the beginning of the verse, which can here mean: “here, in such or similar cases (but not always).” To explain verse 16, they find a parallel in 2 John 1:8 and think that it “gives the key” to the explanation of the parable, with which one can agree. Jerome and others connect the verse and the entire parable with the parable of the prodigal son, where the eldest son hates the younger one, does not want to accept his repentance and accuses his 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 evidence of the best and most authoritative manuscripts, and for internal reasons. These words were probably borrowed and transferred here from Matthew 22:14 and greatly obscure the meaning of the entire parable. Matthew 20:17. And going up to Jerusalem, Jesus called the twelve disciples alone on the way, and said to them: (Cf. Mark 10:32; Luke 18:31). Matthew's words are not connected by any adverbs with the previous one, with the exception of the conjunction “and” (καί). One can even assume that there is a gap in the presentation of the events that took place shortly before the last Passover (the 4th year of the public ministry of Jesus Christ), only partially filled in by John 11:55–56. The disciples were recalled, obviously, because the Savior’s speech in its content required secrecy or, as Evfimy Zigavin thinks, “because this should not have been communicated to many, so that they would not be tempted.” Matthew 20:18. behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death; Matthew 20:19. and they will deliver Him over to the pagans to be mocked and beaten and crucified; and on the third day he will rise again. (Cf. Mark 10:33–34; Luke 18:31–34). By "pagans" we mean the Romans. Matthew 20:20. Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee and her sons approached Him, bowing and asking Him for something. In the Gospel of Mark, disciples named by name make a request to Christ: James and John, sons of Zebedee. It is absolutely clear that in the historical narrative it was possible to talk about the mother together with her sons, and about the sons alone, without mentioning the mother for the sake of brevity. To clarify the reasons for the request, one should first of all pay attention to the addition in Luke 18:34 (which is not found in other synoptics), where it is reported that the disciples did not understand Christ’s words about His suffering. But they could pay special attention to the word “resurrect” and understand it somewhat, albeit in a wrong sense. The question of what the mother of James and John was called by name is quite difficult. In those places in the Gospel where the mother of the sons of Zebedee is mentioned (Matthew 20:20, 27:56), she is nowhere called Salome, and where Salome is spoken of (Mark 15:40, 16:1), she is nowhere called the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Only mainly on the basis of comparing the testimony of Matthew 27:55–56 and Mark 15:40–41 do they come to the conclusion that it was Salome who was the mother of the sons of Zebedee. This is easy to see from the following. At the cross there were women looking at the crucifixion from afar: Matthew 27:56 – “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Josiah, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”; Mark 15:40 – “There were also women here who looked from afar: among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Josiah, and Salome.” From this we can see that “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” is mentioned in Matthew where Mark speaks of Salome. Further, the Evangelist John says (John 19:25) that “at the cross of Jesus stood His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.” This passage can be read in two ways, namely: 2. and the sister of His Mother, Mary of Cleopas, According to the first reading, therefore, only three women stood at the cross, according to the second - four. The first reading is refuted on the grounds that if Mary of Cleopas were the sister of the Mother of God, then the two sisters would be called by the same name, which is highly unlikely. Further, in the Gospel of John, two groups of women are indicated, 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 Cleopas and Mary Magdalene. Thus, here too, under the “sister of His Mother” it is possible to see Salome or the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Such an identification, for various reasons, cannot, of course, be considered completely undoubted. But he cannot be denied some probability. If, on the one hand, Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and on the other hand, the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, then it means that James and John Zebedee were cousins ​​of Christ. Salome was among the women who accompanied Jesus Christ, who followed Him in Galilee and served Him (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:41). In all likelihood, the idea of ​​asking Jesus Christ arose from the apostles themselves, and they asked their mother to convey the request to Jesus Christ. In Mark, the disciples' request is expressed in a form that was only appropriate when addressing the king, and in some cases was even pronounced and proposed by the kings themselves (cf. Matt. 14:7; Mark 6:23). Based on Matthew's testimony, it can be concluded that Salome, with all her respect for Jesus Christ, did not have sufficient information about the nature and purpose of His ministry. She approached Jesus Christ with her sons, bowed to Him and asked for something (τι). She, no doubt, spoke, but her words were so unclear and vague that the Savior had to ask what exactly she wanted. Matthew 20:21. He said to her: what do you want? She says to Him: command that these two sons of mine may sit with You, one on Your right hand and the other on Your left in Your Kingdom. Wed. Mark 10:36–37 – Christ asks the disciples what they want. Instead of “tell”, Mark has a more categorical “give” (δός). Instead of “in Thy Kingdom” - “in Thy glory.” Other differences in the speech of the evangelists are due to the fact that the request is put into the mouths of different petitioners. Salome asked that in His future Kingdom the Savior would seat her sons: one on His right and the other on His left. The customs referred to here have not disappeared to this day. Places on the right and left, i.e. in the very proximity of some important person are still considered especially honorable. The same thing happened among the ancient pagan peoples and Jews. The places closest to the royal throne were the most honorable. This is mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings 2:19; Ps.44:10). Josephus Flavius ​​(“Jewish Antiquities”, VI, 11, 9) sets out the famous biblical story about the flight of David, when Saul, on the New Moon holiday, having purified himself according to custom, lay down at the table, and his son Jonathan sat on his right side, and Abner on his left. The meaning of the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee was, therefore, that Christ would provide her sons with the main, most honorable places in the Kingdom that would be established by Him. Matthew 20:22. Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you are asking.” Can you drink the cup that I will drink, or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized? They say to Him: We can. The Savior points out that the disciples do not know or understand what His true glory and His true dominion and kingdom are. This is the glory, dominion and kingdom of Jehovah's Servant giving Himself as a sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. Chrysostom expresses this well, paraphrasing the speech of the Savior: “You remind Me of honor and crowns, but I speak of the exploits and labors that lie before you.” In essence, the words of the mother of the sons of Zebedee and themselves contained a request for admission to the suffering that lay before Christ and about which He had already spoken earlier. Therefore, the real meaning of the request was terrible, but the disciples did not suspect it. The Savior, in full agreement with the message, or rather doctrine, just taught (verses 18-19), exposes its true meaning. He points to the cup that He had to drink (Matthew 26:39), which the Psalmist (Psalm 115:3) calls mortal diseases, hellish torments, distress and sorrow (Jerome points to these texts in his interpretation of verse 22). The Savior does not say that the disciples’ request was based on the disciples’ misconception of the nature of His spiritual Kingdom and does not predict here that He will be crucified among two thieves. He only says that suffering, self-sacrifice and death do not and cannot be the path to worldly dominion. He speaks only of the cup, without adding, however, that it will be a cup of suffering. It is very interesting that the word “cup” was used in the Old Testament scriptures in two senses: to designate both happiness (Ps. 15:5, 22:5) and disasters (Ps. 10:6; Is. 51:22; Jer. 49:12). But it is doubtful whether the disciples understood the words of Christ in the first sense. The most likely assumption is that their understanding was, so to speak, something in between (cf. Luke 18:34). They did not understand the full depth of the meaning of the word “cup” with everything that was implied here, but, on the other hand, they did not imagine the matter in such a way that there would only be suffering and nothing more. They could present the matter this way: in order to acquire external, worldly dominion, they first needed to drink the cup of suffering that Christ Himself had to drink. But if Christ Himself drinks it, then why shouldn’t they take part in it? This should not and will not exceed their strength. And so, to Christ’s question, the disciples boldly answer: we can. “In the heat of zeal, they immediately expressed their consent, not knowing what they said, but hoping to hear consent to their request” (St. John Chrysostom). Matthew 20:23. And he says to them: You will drink My cup, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized, but to let you sit on My right side and on My left does not depend on Me, but on whom My Father has prepared. This verse has always been considered one of the most difficult to interpret and has even given rise to some heretics (Arians) to falsely claim that the Son of God is not equal to God the Father. The opinion of the Arians was rejected by all the church fathers as unfounded and heretical, for from other places in the New Testament (Matthew 9:6, 8, 28:18; Mark 2:10; John 17:2, 10:30, etc.) it is clearly seen that Christ everywhere arrogates to Himself power equal to God the Father. To correctly interpret the sayings of the Savior set forth in the verse under consideration, attention should be paid to two very important circumstances. Firstly, if the disciples and their mother in verse 21 ask Christ for first places in His Kingdom or in glory, then in the speech of the Savior, starting from verse 23 and ending with 28 (and in Luke in a section set in another connection, Luke 22:24-27, which is sometimes given here as a parallel), there is not the slightest mention of either the Kingdom or glory. Coming into the world, the Messiah appeared as the suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Redeemer of mankind. From here it is clear that sitting on the right and left sides of Christ does not mean, first of all, to participate in His glory, but indicates a preliminary approach to Him in His suffering, self-denial and bearing the cross. Only after this will people have the opportunity to enter into His glory. By the will and advice of God, there are always people who take part in the suffering of Christ and thus become especially close to Him, as if they sit on His right and left sides. Secondly, it should be noted that the two evangelists, Matthew and Mark, use two different expressions here: “for whom it is prepared by My Father” (Matthew) and simply: “for whom it is prepared” (Mark). Both of these expressions are precise and strong and contain the same idea - about the providential meaning of suffering in the earthly life of mankind. Matthew 20:24. Hearing this, the other ten disciples were indignant at the two brothers. (Cf. Mark 10:41; Luke 22:24). The reason for the indignation 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, were not always distinguished by love for each other and fraternal unity. But in the present case this was not out of malice, but rather, apparently, out of simplicity, underdevelopment and insufficient assimilation of the teachings of Christ. The struggle for the first places in the new Kingdom, localism, was repeated at the Last Supper. Matthew 20:25. Jesus called them and said, “You know that the princes of the nations rule over them, and the nobles rule over them; (Cf. Mark 10:42; Luke 22:25). Luke has a completely different connection. Mark's language is stronger than Matthew's. Instead of the more unambiguous “princes of the nations” (ἄρχοντες τῶν ἐθνῶν) in Mark οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν , i.e. “those who think that they rule over the nations, pretended rulers.” Matthew 20:26. but let it not be so among you: but whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant; (Cf. Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26). The opposite of what is said in the previous verse. It’s like this for the “peoples”, but it should be completely different for you. The words of the Savior are highly instructive not only for spiritual people, but also for all rulers and leaders, who usually want to have full power, without thinking at all that true (and not imaginary) Christian power is based only on services provided to people, or on serving them, and, moreover, without any thought about any external power that comes by itself. Matthew 20:27. and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave; The idea is the same as in verse 26. Matthew 20:28. for the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give His soul as a ransom for many. The highest and most understandable example and model is offered to all those familiar with the life of Christ. Christ was served by both Angels and people (Matthew 4:11, 8:15, 27:55; Mark 1:13, 31, 15:41; Luke 4:39, 8:3, 10:40; John 12:2, 26), and He demanded and demands for Himself this service and even an account of it (Matthew 25:34–45). But no one will say that the teaching revealed in the verse under discussion contradicts His own teaching and behavior or does not correspond to reality. On the contrary, it seems that the indicated passages from the Gospels not only do not contradict, but only further emphasize the idea that the Son of Man came to earth only to serve. In His service to people, they responded to Him in some cases with service full of love, and thus, being a servant, He was fully Lord and Teacher and called Himself so (see especially John 13:13-14, etc.). But how different everything here is from the usual manifestation of power on the part of various rulers and princes of this world! The expression ὥσπερ (in Russian translation - “since”) means, in fact, “just as” (German gleichwie; Lat. sicut), indicates a comparison, not a reason. Thus, the meaning is this: whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man came and so on. But in the parallel in Mark the same words are given as a reason (καὶ γάρ, in Russian translation - “for and”). The word “came” indicates Christ’s consciousness of His higher origin and coming to earth from another world, from a higher sphere of existence. On the idea of ​​redemptive self-sacrifice cf. 2Mac.7:37–38. Λύτρον, used in Matthew (and Mark in parallel) only here, comes from λύειν - to untie, resolve, free; used among the Greeks (usually in the plural) and is found in the Old Testament in the sense: 1) a ransom for your soul from the threat of death (Ex. 21:30); 2) payment for a woman to a slave (Lev.19:20) and for a slave (Lev.25:25, 25:51–52); 3) ransom for the firstborn (Numbers 18:15); 4) in the sense of propitiation (Proverbs 13:8). The synonymous terms ἄλλαγμα (Is. 43:3, etc.) and ἐξίλασμα (Prov. 21:18) are usually translated through “ransom.” The only λύτρον is obviously placed in correspondence with the only ψυχήν. Christ does not say that He will give His soul to redeem Himself, but “for the ransom of many.” The word “many” aroused a lot of bewilderment; if only for the redemption of “many” people, then that means not all. The redemptive work of Christ does not extend to everyone, but only to many, perhaps even a relatively few, the elect. Jerome adds: to those who wished to believe. But Evfimy Zigavin and others consider the word πολλούς here to be equivalent to πάντας, because Scripture often says so. Bengel here introduces the concept of individuals and says that here the Savior speaks of giving Himself as a sacrifice for many, not only for all, but even for individuals (et multis, non solum universis, sed etiam singulis, se impendit Redemptor). They also said that πάντων is an objective, πολλῶν is a subjective designation of those for whom Christ died. He died for everyone objectively, but subjectively only a huge multitude will be saved by Him, which no one could count, πολλο... . In the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 5:12–19), the Apostle Paul observes a change between οἱ πολλοί and simply πολλοί, and πάντες. The actual meaning of ἀντὶ πολλῶν is expressed in a place that can serve as a parallel for the present (1 Tim. 2:6), where λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν, as here in Matthew, is replaced ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων. All these interpretations are satisfactory and can be accepted. Matthew 20:29. And when they left Jericho, a multitude of people followed Him. (Cf. Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35 - Luke 19:28). The order of events among the three evangelists here is quite contradictory. Luke (Luke 18:35) begins his story this way: “When He approached Jericho” ); Mark (Mark 10:46): “they come to Jericho” (καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ); Matthew: “and when they came out of Jericho” If we take these testimony of the evangelists in their exact meaning, then first we need to place the story of Luke (Luke 18:35 - Luke 19:27), which reports the healing of “one” blind man before entering Jericho; then, when Jesus Christ entered there, He visited Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1–10) and told the parable of the ten minas (Luke 19:11–27). Then, after Mark’s note, “they come to Jericho” - Luke 19:1, there is a parallel story of the two first evangelists (Matthew 20:29-30; Mark 10:46), and finally Luke joins them (Luke 18:38). With this arrangement, however, great difficulties are not eliminated, as will be seen from what follows. Jericho was located on the western side of the Jordan, slightly 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, 18:35, 19:1; Heb. 11:30). In Greek it is written Ἰεριχώ and Ἰερειχώ. Often mentioned in the Old Testament, it was one of the oldest Palestinian cities. The area where the city is located is one of the most fertile in Palestine and at the time of Christ was probably in a flourishing state. Jericho was famous for palm trees, balsam and other fragrant plants. On the site of the ancient city there now stands the village of Eriha, full of poverty, dirt and even immorality. There are about 60 families in Erich. During Christ's procession from Jericho to Jerusalem, He was accompanied by a large crowd of common people (ὄχλος πολύς). Matthew 20:30. And so, two blind men who were sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, began to shout: have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David! (Cf. Mark 10:46–47; Luke 18:35–38). Matthew speaks of two blind men whom the Savior healed upon leaving Jericho; Mark talks about one thing, calling him by name (Bartimaeus); Luke also speaks of one whom the Savior healed before His entry into Jericho. If we assume that all the evangelists are talking about the same thing, then we get obvious and completely irreconcilable contradictions. Even in ancient times, this provided a powerful weapon to the enemies of Christianity and the Gospels, who considered this place as irrefutable proof of the unreliability of the Gospel stories. Attempts to reconcile stories on the part of Christian writers, therefore, date back to ancient times. Origen, Euthymius Zigavinus and others accepted that this speaks of three healings of the blind, Luke speaks of one healing, Mark speaks of another, and Matthew speaks of a third. Augustine argued that there were only two healings, of which one is spoken of by Matthew and Mark and the other by Luke. But Theophylact and others consider all three healings to be one. Of the new exegetes, some explained the disagreement by the fact that there were only two healings and only two blind men, about whom Mark and Luke speak separately, one of which took place before entering Jericho, and the other after leaving it. Matthew combined both healings in one story. Others - by the fact that the heteroglossia of the evangelists depended on the fact that the sources from which each evangelist borrowed his story were different. It must be admitted that the stories of the evangelists do not allow us to recognize either three persons and their healings, or to unite them into one. There is simply ambiguity in the story, something left unsaid, and this prevents us from imagining and understanding how it really happened. The surest way to resolve this issue would seem to be as follows. Reading stories about the healing of blind people, we should not imagine that as soon as one of them shouted, calling on Christ for help, he was immediately healed. In an extremely condensed and brief story, events that could have occurred over a more or less long period of time are brought together. This is indicated, by the way, by the general testimony of all weather forecasters that the people forbade the blind to shout and forced them to remain silent (Matthew 20:31; Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). Further, from Luke’s story it is absolutely impossible to conclude that the healing of the blind man took place before Jesus Christ entered Jericho. On the contrary, if we assume that it was already after Christ’s exit from Jericho, then all the details of Luke’s story will become clearer to us. First, the blind man sits by the road, begging. When he hears that a crowd is passing by, he asks what it is. Having learned that “Jesus the Nazarene is coming,” he begins to scream for help. Those walking ahead force him to remain silent, but he screams even louder. It is not visible from anywhere that at the time when all this was happening, Jesus Christ was standing in one place. He stopped only when he came out of Jericho and ordered the blind man to be brought to Him. If he ordered him to be brought, it means that the blind man was not at the closest distance from Him. To this it must be added that when passing through a city, it can be crossed in both a long and short time, depending on its size. Even the largest city can be passed through in a short time, crossing, for example, the outskirts. It is not clear from anywhere that Jericho was then a large city. Thus we have every right to identify the blind man of whom Luke speaks, either with Bartimaeus of Mark, or with one of the unnamed blind men of Matthew. This means that all three evangelists are in complete agreement regarding the fact that the blind were healed after the departure of Jesus Christ from Jericho. Having dealt with this difficulty, we must, as far as possible, clarify another. According to Mark and Luke, there was one blind man, according to Matthew there were two. But the question is, if only one blind man was healed, then why did Matthew need to say that there were two of them? If, as they claim, he had before him the Gospels of Mark and Luke, did he really want to undermine the credibility of these evangelists by giving a different testimony without any reservations about the incorrectness of their messages? Did he really want to artificially increase the glory of Christ as a healer by adding one miracle that was supposedly invented by him? All this is extremely incredible and inconsistent with anything. Let's say that it would be absurd to argue even with the most hostile attitude towards the Gospels. Further, even if Mark and Luke knew that two blind men were healed, but wished intentionally (in the present case no special intention is noticeable) to report only one healing and the healed one, then even then not a single conscientious critic familiar with documents, and especially ancient ones, would dare to accuse the evangelists of fiction and distortion of historical facts. True, we cannot explain why Matthew talks about two blind men, and Mark and Luke only about one. But in fact, it could well have been that two blind men were healed during the movement of the crowd; this does not at all contradict any historical probability. Matthew 20:31. The people forced them to remain silent; but they began to shout even louder: have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David! (Cf. Mark 10:48; Luke 18:39). Why did people force the blind to remain silent? Perhaps blind people passing by forced them to remain silent simply because they “disturbed public silence” and their cry did not comply with the rules of public decency of the time. Matthew 20:32. Jesus stopped and called them over and said, “What do you want from Me?” (Cf. Mark 10:49; Luke 18:40). It is clearly noticeable that here Luke uses soft, elegant and precise Greek expressions. Matthew and Mark use the beautiful word φωνεῖν, which is more typical of popular speech (to make a sound and then call, beckon). According to Matthew, Jesus Christ called (ἐφώνησεν) the blind Himself, and according to Mark, he ordered them to call (εἶπεν φωνήσατε). Mark further reports interesting and lively details about the conversation with the blind person who called him, and how he, throwing off his clothes, stood up (jumped up, jumped up - ἀναπηδήσας) and went (it is not said “ran”) to Jesus Christ. Christ's question is natural. Matthew 20:33. They say to Him: Lord! so that our eyes may be opened. (Cf. Mark 10:51; Luke 18:41). The speech of the blind in Matthew (and other weather forecasters) is abbreviated. The full speech is: Lord! We want our eyes to be opened. The blind do not ask for alms, but for a miracle to be performed. Obviously, they had heard about Christ as a Healer before. The healing of the man born blind, as described by John (John 9), should be attributed to a time before the present events. And the people probably knew that Christ could open the eyes of the blind. Matthew 20:34. Jesus, being moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him. (Cf. Mark 10:52; Luke 18:42–43). According to Matthew, the Savior does not speak a single word to the blind, but instead touches their eyes. With Mark and Luke it’s different. The word εὐθέως ("immediately") indicates a sudden insight, which is also spoken of by Mark and Luke (εὐθύς ώ παραχρῆμα). You might be interested in: