III. Matthew 20:1-16. Parable Of The Labourers Who Received The Same Reward. Found in Matthew only. It is designed to illustrate the saying of Matthew 19:30, which is repeated at the close, as the outcome of the illustration. (Matthew 20:16) The terms of the parable itself are for the most part plain.Matthew 20:1-6. The kingdom of heaven, the Messianic reign (see on “Matthew 3:2”) is like, in some respects resembles, the following story (compare on Matthew 13:24) Unto a man, that is a householder. As the story is told in the past tense throughout, the Amer. Revisers very naturally wish to insert ‘that was’, rather than ‘that is’, as in Matthew 13:22, where the present tense follows. ‘Householder’, or housemaster, is the same word as in Matthew 10:25 (See on “Matthew 10:25”); Matthew 13:52, Matthew 13:57, and below in Matthew 21:21, Matthew 21:33, Matthew 21:24, Matthew 21:43. He owns a house, and a vineyard. (Matthew 20:8) [Broadus, 1886]

A penny, denarius, about seventeen cents, see on Matthew 18:28. This was the customary wages of a soldier or a labourer; Plin. XXXIII, 8; Tac., Ann. I, 17; Tobit 5:14; Talmud. [Broadus, 1886]

The third hour. The Jews divided the day, from Sunrise to sunset, into twelve parts. At the vernal and autumnal equinox these would be exactly as long as an hour with us, but at other seasons would be longer or shorter. The sixth hour would always be noon, the third and ninth would correspond loosely to our 9 A.M. and 3 P.M.; the eleventh hour loosely to an hour before sunset. In the market place, or public square, where people came together for business or conversation. [Broadus, 1886]

Go ye also, ‘ye’ being expressed in the Greek and thus emphatic. Whatsoever is right, no definite bargain as with the first set. In the supposed actual occurrence this might result from haste, or from the fact that they would now be glad to find employment at all, and would trust the employer’s justice without s definite arrangement. As to the illustration, this point prepares for the result, and the peculiar application. [Broadus, 1886]

About the eleventh hour. Here ‘hour’ is not expressed in the correct Greek text, but naturally suggested. Others standing idle. The word ‘idle’ is here wanting in very many of the earliest and best documents, and was obviously drawn by copyists from Tobit 5:3 and the end of Tobit 5:6. Why stand ye here all the day idle? This is often used homiletically as representing persons who are slothful in neglecting to work in Christ’s vineyard. But such application is unwarranted, and alien to the tone of the parable. The reason given by these men is treated as valid, and they are paid for a full day’s work. [Broadus, 1886]

Go ye also, ‘ye’ emphatic, as in Matthew 20:4 [1] Obviously this employer of labour acts very peculiarly. (Compare Bruce.) It is not necessary to seek parallel cases, nor wise to propose his course as a model in ordinary business (as Ruskin does in “Unto this last,” the title being drawn from Matthew 20:12.) The thing is possible, and the story is meant as an illustration of God’s course, who is other and higher than man. (Isaiah 55:8 f.)

[1] The final clause in the common Greek text, ‘and whatsoever is right that ye shall receive,’ is wanting in the earliest and best documents. We can easily account for its insertion from Matthew 20:4, and cannot account for its omission if originally present; so there is no doubt that it is here spurious. [Broadus, 1886]

His steward, same word in Luke 8:3 Galatians 4:2, is natural in the story of a great employer; what good is done by saying that the steward represents Christ? (Compare on Matthew 13:3) Beginning from the last was a special direction given, in order that those hired earlier might see that all were paid alike. [Broadus, 1886]

Murmured, a strong word, more exactly, grumbled. The Greek word, the Latin murmur, and the English grumble, are all onomatopoetic. The tense is imperfect, describing the grumbling as in progress. [Broadus, 1886]

Have wrought but one hour. Spent is the meaning, rather than ‘wrought’. The heat, the same word as in Luke 12:55 James 1:11. The Rev. Ver. renders ‘scorching heat’ in this v. and Luke, and ‘scorching wind’ in James and puts ‘hot wind’ in the margin of Matthew and Luke. The word means ‘burner’, and is applied sometimes to burning heat in general, but more frequently in Septuagint to the burning east wind. (See Grimm.) The order of the words, ‘the burden of the day and the scorching heat’, (kauson), as well as the more frequent use in that sense, renders it likely that the hot wind is here intended. Mere heat is so common in Palestine that it would scarcely be worth remark: but the dry and scorching east wind is something terrible. Even in February (1871) this dry east wind, having come across the desert sands and lost all its moisture, in an hour so parched the mouth and nostrils as to make breathing painful and speech difficult. The position of the article in the Greek makes it impossible to render, ‘the burden and heat of the day’ (as in Tyn. and followers.) [Broadus, 1886]

Friend, or ‘comrade,’ a familiar and kindly term, as in Matthew 11:16, Matthew 22:12, Matthew 26:50. [Broadus, 1886]

Take, take up, or ‘take away.’ They had received the pay, but perhaps had laid it down again, or stood holding it in the hand, unwilling to go off with it. I will give. The Rev. Ver., It is my will to give, conveys the meaning well. The Greek is expressed in English by ‘will to’ or ‘wish to’, (Matthew 15:32, Matthew 16:24, Matthew 19:17) according to the nature of the case; compare Matthew 20:15, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9. [Broadus, 1886]

Is it not lawful, permissible. (See on Matthew 14:4) To do what I will with mine own? The Saviour here illustrates his sovereignty in the whole matter of rewarding his followers. Or, Is thine eye evil, here expresses jealousy and hate, (Mark 7:22 Deuteronomy 15:9 Proverbs 28:22) quite different from the meaning in Matthew 6:23. ‘Or’ is in the correct Greek text. [Broadus, 1886]

The latter clause of this verse in the common Greek text, for many be (are) called, but few chosen, is wanting in leading early documents, and evidently brought in from Matthew 22:14, where there is no variation in the reading.[1] Our Lord here repeats the saying of Matthew 19:30, which he introduced the parable to illustrate. It is very natural that it should be repeated in a general form, without the restrictive ‘many’ of the first statement. Some able writers (Meyer, Weiss, others) urge that the parable and this statement teach that in the consummated Messianic kingdom all will have an equal reward. But this is inconsistent with the first statement, and with the distinct intimation of Matthew 19:28 f. that there will be difference of reward. The general thought of the parable is that the assignment of individual rewards will be a matter of divine sovereignty, precisely as in Matthew 20:23 Acts 1:7. We have seen on Matthew 19:30 that this had a special application for the disciples, but as a general principle may be variously applied. It is very true, as some commentators urge, and it may be properly recalled here, that God will reward men more according to aim and spirit than to time spent or results achieved: but the Saviour does not here say that, or distinctly imply it.

[1] It is wanting in ‏א‎ B, L, Z, 86, Thebaic, Memphitic, and a codex of the Æthiopic. We see at once how it could be inserted, and can see no sufficient reason for its omission if originally present. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 20:17-28. Jesus Again Foretells His Death And Resurrection. Ambitious Request Of James And John. Found also in Mark 10:32-45; and (in part) in Luke 18:31-34. This passage seems in Matthew, Mark, and Luke to follow immediately upon the foregoing matters, (Matthew 19:3 to Matthew 20:16) and to precede by only a few days the triumphal entry. (Matthew 21:1) The phrase ‘going up’, ‘we go up to Jerusalem’, does not prove that they had crossed the river, and were now ascending from its valley, as in Luke 19:28. Since Jerusalem was reached by ascent both from east and west, it became customary to speak of ‘going up’ to Jerusalem from all parts of the country, Luke 2:42 John 2:13, John 5:1, John 11:55 Acts 15:2, Acts 25:1 Galatians 1:17 f.; Galatians 2:1. It is after this that Jesus and his followers reach Jericho, Matthew 20:29 Mark 10:46. The scene is somewhat more likely to have been in Perea, than between the river and Jericho, which was only a few miles; but the question cannot be determined, and does not affect the exegesis. This section contains two parts, Matthew 20:17-19 and Matthew 20:20-28

I. Matthew 20:17-19. Jesus A Third Time Foretells His Death And Resurrection, compare re and just after the Transfiguration, (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22) and at least six months earlier than this. We cannot judge whether he had spoken of it distinctly in the mean time, but there is in Luke 12:49 ff., an indication that his own mind had been all the while turning towards what awaited him, turning with a feeling of constraint and pressure, but not of grief or discouragement. Going up to Jerusalem.[1] What follows was said in the way, on the road. Mark 10:32 tells that his followers here meaning more than the Twelve, were ‘amazed’ and ‘afraid’ as they walked after him along the road, probably because of what he had said about the difficulty of saving the rich, (Matthew 19:23 ff.) and about the Messianic rewards for sacrifices in his service; (Matthew 19:28 ff.) perhaps also there was an absorbed and fixed look in the Master’s face as he pressed on to his terrible baptism of suffering, that was new, and filled them with wonder and alarm. Took the twelve disciples apart, from the throng that were accompanying him to the Passover. (Matthew 20:29 Luke 18:36) Only the Twelve were in the least prepared to understand such predictions concerning the Messiah. Even at Jerusalem, some six months earlier, the people did not at all understand “Yet a little while am I with you, and I go unto him that sent me”, John 7:33-36, Rev. Ver.

[1] Westcott Hort adopt the reading ‘was about to go up’, from B, one cursive, Memph., Theb., Pesh, Origen (three times). This might easily have been changed into ‘was going up’ by way of assimilation to Matthew 20:18 and to Mark and Luke, and so is probably correct. There is of course no substantial difference. [Broadus, 1886]

We go up to Jerusalem, etc. Origen remarks that Paul exactly imitated Christ when he went up to Jerusalem in full view of peril. Acts 21:10-13. The prediction our Lord here gives is substantially the same as in Matthew 16:21 (See on “Matthew 16:21”). Some new particulars are now added, as is natural in the nearer approach to the event, and when their minds have been somewhat prepared by the previous predictions. The Sanhedrin will formally condemn him to death; and not only will he ‘be delivered into the hands of men’, as foretold on the second occasion (Matthew 17:22, with Mark and Luke), but delivered to the Gentiles (Mark and Luke also), to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify; Mark and Luke add ‘spit upon’, and Luke generally that he shall be ‘shamefully treated’. Tyndale, Cram, Gen., King James, all here render the same word, ‘betrayed’ in Matthew 16:18 and ‘deliver’ in Matthew 16:19, a useless and misleading variation, compare on Matthew 17:22, and Matthew 10:4. Still, after this renewed and detailed prediction, the Twelve “understood none of these things “. (Luke 18:34) It was utterly contrary to all their ideas of Messiah and his work; these things could not be literally true of the king what did it all mean? Notice how Luke dwells upon their inability: “and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said.” Compare on Matthew 16:21. Hanna : “This only proves what a blinding power preconception and misconception have in hiding the simplest things told in the simplest language—a blinding power often exercised over us now as to the written, as it was then exercised over the apostles as to their Master’s spoken, words… They had made up their minds, on the best of evidence, that he was the Messiah. But they had their own notions of the Messiahship. With these, such sufferings and such a death as actually lay before Jesus were utterly inconsistent. His expressions, then, must be figurative, intended, perhaps, to represent some severe struggle with his adversaries, through which he had to pass before his kingdom was set up and acknowledged. [Broadus, 1886]

II. Matthew 20:20-28. Ambitious Request Of The Mother Of James And John Mark 10:35-45. Luke does not give this, though parallel to Matt. and Mark, just before and just after; but he gives similar teaching on another occasion, Luke 22:24-30. Mark represents James and John as themselves saying, in almost exactly identical words, what Matt. ascribes to their mother. The case is precisely like that of the centurion (see on “Matthew 8:5 ff.”), and in accordance with the law maxim, “He who does a thing through another, does it himself.” Our Lord so takes it, for he presently addresses the sons themselves as making the request. ‘ye’ Luke 22:22 f. Then came, does not necessarily (see on “Matthew 3:13”), but does naturally indicate that this followed closely upon the preceding; Mark simply ‘and’, as in Matthew 19:13. The request seems to have been made privately, when the other ten apostles were not present, Matthew 19:24. The mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons. Tyndale and followers rendered ‘Zebedee’s children’, probably to avoid the immediate repetition of ‘sons’; but the effect is to suggest that there were other children besides the sons. As to Zebedee and Salome, and their sons, see on Matthew 10:2. We have no knowledge whether Zebedee was in the company, or was still living. It is clear that the mother here shares the ambition of her sons, and so it is not unlikely that from her it was inherited. If, as many suppose (see on “Matthew 27:56”), she was the sister of the Saviour’s mother, that would explain her boldness in personally approaching him and preferring so grave a request. Compare Bathsheba coming to David for Solomon, 1 Kings 1:11 ff. Worshipping him here evidently means paying homage as to a king, (compare on Matthew 2:2), for it is precisely as such that they approach him. ‘Worshipping’ and ‘asking’ are in the singular number, but it is implied that the sons united with her. A certain thing, or ‘something,’ Wyc., Rheims, Bib. Union, and so Meyer. Mark says they first wished him to promise that he would do whatsoever they should ask—which was presumptuous indeed. [Broadus, 1886]

Grant—or command, that, for the Greek construction see on Matthew 5:29. She is thinking of the two highest places in an earthly kingdom. Could not the solemn prediction of his death and resurrection which he had just before made correct their unspiritual conception? Nay, even after the death and resurrection had actually occurred, the Twelve retained the same expectation. (Acts 1:6) In fact the prediction seems on several other occasions also to have been immediately followed by a dispute as to greatness in the kingdom; see on “Matthew 18:1″, and hereafter Matthew 26:2. (Luke 22:24) They seem to have lost sight of the suffering and death, and fixed their minds only upon the thought that somehow or other the splendid Messianic kingdom was about to be established; compare Luke just afterward (Luke 19:11),”they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.” Our Lord had shortly before, (Matthew 19:28) perhaps the same day, spoken of himself as the Messiah who would ‘in the regeneration sit on the throne of his glory’, and had promised that the Twelve should then occupy ‘twelve thrones’. Salome and her sons seem to have fastened upon that thought. Why not ask that her two sons may sit on the two chief thrones? To place the most distinguished persons on the right and left of a sovereign or presiding personage was common among the Greeks and Romans, as well as the Jews (Wet.), and is practiced among us at banquets, etc. As to the dignity of being on the right hand, compare Psalms 16:11, Psalms 45:9, Psalms 110:1; Mark 14:52 Acts 7:55 f., etc. Salome’s two sons, with Peter, have already been treated with special distinction at the raising of Jairus’ daughter and at the Transfiguration, and this might encourage their present high ambition. They had also shown a fiery and self-assertive nature in forbidding the man who followed not with them, (Mark 9:38) and in wishing to call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan village; (Luke 9:54) compare above on Matthew 10:2. [Broadus, 1886]

Our Lord treats the request as that of the sons themselves. Ye know not what ye ask. To ask that they might reign with him was asking that they might suffer with him; compare 2 Timothy 2:12 Revelation 3:21 Romans 8:17. The cup that I shall drink, a familiar image for great suffering, as in Matthew 26:39 John 18:11 Psalms 75:8 Isaiah 51:17 Jeremiah 49:12. Be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized, to be plunged in the same sufferings, compare Luke 12:50, and see above on Matthew 3:6. This comes from Mark 10:38, and was added to Matthew here and in the next verse by many copies.[1] We are able. This was excessive self-confidence, but not mere arrogance. They were ignorant what the cup would contain, but sincere and resolute in their devotion, as they afterwards showed. Probably (Alexander) they thought of having to fight for the Messianic kingdom, and the ardent spirit of the “Sons of Thunder” would swell at the thought. Peter, the other of the three chosen disciples, made a like confident expression soon after, Luke 22:33. Our Lord’s reply is not severe, but kind.

[1] It is here wanting (in both verses) in ‏א‎ B D L Z, two curstyes, Old Syriac, most copies of the Old Latin, Vulgate, Memph., Theb., Aeth.; and the difference between Matthew and Mark is expressly mentioned by Origen. Such an enlargement of one Gospel from another is extremely common. [Broadus, 1886]

Drink indeed of my cup, the particle rendered ‘truly’ in Matthew 9:37 and there explained, indicating that this statement is placed in contrast with something to follow. Ye shall drink indeed of my cup,… but, etc. They were not appointed to suffer as profound mental anguish as the Master, nor would their suffering have any atoning character; but in his service James would die as the first apostolic martyr, (Acts 12:2) and John would as a living martyr suffer persecution, (Revelation 1:9) and sore trouble in conflict with error (Epistles of John). The legends that John was made to drink poison, and was plunged in boiling oil, are likely (Meyer) to have been suggested by this saying. Not mine to give. He thus lifts their minds away from the idea of a human sovereign bestowing earthly honours to that of divine gifts. He speaks of himself (compare John 14:28) as officially subordinate to the Father in his office as the God-man, the Mediator, in which he has derived all his authority and power from the Father, (Matthew 28:18) and will at length return it to him. (1 Corinthians 15:28) Compare Matthew 24:36 Mark 13:32 . The English word ‘but’ might here seem to mean ‘except’ “not mine to give except to those for whom it has been prepared,” but the Greek word (alla) cannot have that sense. For whom it is prepared of my Father. All the arrangements of the Messianic kingdom have been already made by the Father, indeed made “from the foundation of the world,” Matthew 25:34 , compare Acts 1:7. [Broadus, 1886]

When the ten heard it. They had not been present at the time, but heard, apparently soon after, what had occurred. Moved with indignation against the two brethren, not ‘against’ but concerning, about their whole course in the matter. Mark has the same expression. Their feeling is more easily accounted for from the fact mentioned by Matthew, that the request was made through Salome. Here was not only an ambitious attempt to gain the advantage over the rest, and to forestall matters by a promise in advance, but it may have seemed an unworthy thing to use a woman’s plea; all the more if she was near of kin to the future sovereign. So near the end, and they are still thinking of a worldly kingdom, and full of selfish scheming and unkindness. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 20:25-28. What a sorrowful task for the loving Saviour, to repress these ambitions and asperities. Called them unto him. The two may have been still with him, or all may have been summoned together. He refers to the fact that high places of authority and dominion belong to worldly kingdoms. It shall not be so among you, or more likely, not so it is among you.[1] Will be, or wishes to become; and so ‘wishes to be.’ For minister and servant, or more exactly ‘bond servant’ (Rev. Ver. margin), compare on Matthew 8:6. Alas! how easily human ambition can use these very words and yet retain its own spirit. The “great ones” in a kingdom are called “ministers.” Even the Christian “minister” will sometimes ‘lord it’ over his charge; (1 Peter 5:8, same word as here) and the often arrogant despot in the Vatican calls himself “the servant of servants of the servants of God.” Even as the Son of man (see on “Matthew 8:20”), the Messiah himself did not come to enthrone himself in an earthly kingdom, with higher and lower officials to wait on him. How different from all this his life had been they knew; and he here declares that such was the purpose of his coming. Compare Luke 22:27; Philippians 2:5; Romans 15:8. And now comes a phrase of the highest moment, such as the Saviour has not before employed. He has spoken repeatedly of his approaching death (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:22, Matthew 20:19; compare John 7:33), but now it is added that his death will be redeeming and vicarious, and that this was the design of his coming. Mark 10:45 has precisely the same expression. This remarkable statement must have been quite beyond the comprehension of the disciples, till afterwards brought to their remembrance by the Holy Spirit. (John 14:26) His life, compare on Matthew 16:25. A ransom (Greek lutron). The Greek verb (luo) means to loose, release, e. g., a prisoner, Acts 22:30. (termination—tron) is the means or instrument of releasing, and this in the case of a captive is naturally a ransom. The word is often used in the classics and the Septuagint (Liddell and Scott, Cremer) to denote a ransom in money, and in corresponding figurative senses. So here Christ’s life is given as ‘a ransom,’ serving to redeem men from captivity, from the power of sin and spiritual death. From this word lutron are formed the words translated in the New Testament ‘redeem’ and ‘redemption’. Our English word ransom is the French rangon, contracted from the Latin redemptio, which we afterwards borrowed separately as redemption. The Old Latin and Vulgate here render redemptionem; so Cranmer and Rheims, ‘a redemption for many’. The preposition rendered ‘for’ (anti) necessarily means ‘instead of,’ involving substitution, a vicarious death. The preposition in Mark 14:24 and commonly employed by Paul in speaking of Christ’s death for us (compare John 11:51) is huper, which means ‘in behalf of,’ ‘for the benefit of,’ and derivatively ‘instead of’ wherever the nature of the case suggests that idea, wherever performing an action for one’s benefit involves performing it in his stead. This derivative use of huper is frequent enough in the classics, and that Paul often employs it to mean ‘instead of’ is beyond all reasonable question. When objectors urge that that is only a secondary meaning of huper, and require us to prove otherwise that Christ’s death was vicarious, then it is well to remember that here (and so in Mark) the preposition is huper, which no one can possibly deny to have, and necessarily, the meaning ‘instead of’; and in 1 Timothy 2:6, while ‘for’ is huper, this same anti is prefixed to lutron, “who gave himself a substitutionary ransom for all.” In Matthew 26:28 the preposition is peri, concerning. For many, Christ’s atoning death made it compatible with the divine justice that all should be saved if they would accept it on that ground; and in that sense he “gave himself a ransom for all”, (1 Timothy 2:6) “tasted death for every man”, (Hebrews 2:9) compare 1 John 2:2; but his death was never expected, nor divinely designed, actually to secure the salvation of all, and so in the sense of specific purpose he came “to give his life a ransom for many,”  Compare Matthew 26:28 Hebrews 9:28 Romans 5:15, Romans 5:18 Isaiah 53:12.  Henry: “Sufficient for all, effectual for many.”[2]

[1] Several of the best documents here, and still more in Mark, read esti, ‘is’, rather than estai, ‘shall be’. It is difficult to decide, for the former corresponds to what precedes, and the latter to what follows.

[2] Here the “Western” documents, D, Old Syriac, most copies of Old Latin and some Latin Fathers, add (details varying): “But do you seek out of little to increase and out of greater to be less. And when you enter in and have been invited to dine, do not recline in the prominent places, lest a more honoured than thou come, and the host come and say to thee, Move still lower, and thou shalt be ashamed; but if thou recline in the inferior place, and there come one inferior to thee, the host will say to thee, Get up still higher, and this shall be useful to thee.” The latter sentence is obviously a mere traditional corruption of Luke 14:8-11. The former is likely enough based on a true saying of our Lord. For a collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus in early MSS. and Fathers, and not given in New Testament, see Westcott’s “Introduction to Study of Gospels,” App. C. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 20:29-34. Two Blind Men Healed Near Jericho. Found also in Mark 10:46-52 Luke 18:35-43. Our Lord and his disciples and the accompanying throng on the way to the Passover, had crossed the Jordan, and were within one day’s journey of Jerusalem. They had probably crossed by a ferry-boat several miles higher up the river than the point opposite to Jericho. Such a ferry exists there now, and existed in that vicinity at an early day. (2 Samuel 19:18) The river just before the Passover must have been comparatively high and swift, and only the more adventurous of the multitude would attempt to ford. As to the Jordan, see on Luke 3:6. Jericho, as flourishing and fortified with strong walls at the coming of the Israelites, and as destroyed by them, is well known from the Book of Joshua. The curse of Joshua (Joshua 6:26) was fulfilled against the man who rebuilt it, (1 Kings 16:34) and may have been regarded by some as exhausted in his case. The plain west of the Jordan is there some eight miles wide, the great fountain which bursts forth near the ancient site is so copious as to irrigate several square miles, there is another fountain northward and streams from the mountains lying west, while artificial irrigation from fountains higher up the valley could make all the lower plain richly productive. There were doubtless many dwellers in that plain at all periods. (2 Samuel 10:5, 2 Kings 2:1-22; Nehemiah 7:36) In the time of the Maccabees, about B. C. 160, a Syrian general “repaired the fort in Jericho.” (1 Maccabees 9:50) Pompey, B. C. 63, destroyed two forts that protected the entrance to Jericho. In speaking of this, Strabo (16, 2, 41) describes Jericho as a plain everywhere irrigated, filled with dwellings, abounding in the finest palm trees and other fruit trees, and says that here was “the paradise of balsam,” a bush whose coagulated juice was highly valued as a medicine and the wood for its aroma, and which was found here only. The plain is so far below the level of the Mediterranean as to be extremely hot. Josephus says that linen clothes were worn at Jericho when there was snow in Jerusalem; and it may be added (from personal experience) that mosquitoes abound in the end of February. Accordingly the productions were tropical in character and in luxuriance. (Josephus “War,” 4, 8, 3.) The Roman allies of Herod plundered the city in B. C. 39 (“War, “1, 15, 6), finding “the houses full of all sorts of good things.”

The great revenues of Jericho, especially from the balsam, were presented by Antony to Cleopatra (Josephus “Ant.,”15, 4, 2), and at a later period made the chief revenue officer notably rich. (Luke 19:2) Herod built a fortified palace and a new town northward from the old site (“Ant.,”16, 5, 2), and died there (“Ant.,” 17, 6, 5). Eusebius says of Jericho (“Onom.”): “Which our Lord Jesus Christ thought worthy of his presence. But when it also was destroyed at the siege of Jerusalem on account of the unbelief of the inhabitants, there arose a third time another city which is shown even now. And of the two former also the traces are even now preserved. “We know not whether our Lord took any special interest in the fact that his own genealogy included Rahab of Jericho; (Matthew 1:5) but we may be sure he delighted in the well-watered and verdant plain, with the spring flowers and fruits.” It was not the season of figs “on the Mount of Olives yet (Mark 11:13 R.V.), but they were ripening at Jericho. The juicy green almonds were delicious to the taste. The “rose plants in Jericho” (Ecclus Sirach 24:14) were famous through the land. Every sense was gratified to the utmost as he and his followers came up the successive terraces from the river into this magnificent plain. And yonder precipitous rock mountain that overhangs the city on the west, was it indeed the scene of that forty days’ temptation which began the ministry now so soon to end?

Jesus spent the night at Jericho, and may have stayed there longer. Luke gives a deeply interesting account (Matthew 19:1-28) of Zaccheus, at whose house he abode, and of a parable he spoke to modify the supposition that “the kingdom of God was immediately to appear,” which parable in an altered form will be repeated a few days later. (Matthew 25:14-30)

As they departed from Jericho. So Mark. But Luke, (Luke 18:35) ‘as he drew nigh unto Jericho.’ This celebrated “discrepancy” has not been explained in a thoroughly satisfactory way. The older explanations are very poor: as that he healed one man in drawing near and two others in leaving, thus making three in all; or that Matthew has thrown together the two eases described by Mark and Luke; that Jesus tarried some days, and the healing occurred while he was going in and out of the city; that ‘draw nigh’ means simply to be near (which is not true), etc. Our choice at present must be between two possible views. (1) Calvin presents as his “conjecture,” followed by Maldonatus, Bengel, Trench, Wordsworth, EIlicott, Hackett, Morison, that the blind man made his request as Jesus approached Jericho (Luke), but was not heeded, in order to develop his faith, as in Matthew 15:23 ff., and in the closely similar case Matthew 9:27 ff.; and that he renewed the application as Jesus was leaving Jericho, accompanied now by another, and they were healed. Then we understand that Luke, meaning to tell of Zaccheus and the parable and so pass on to the ascent to Jerusalem, (Luke 19:28) finishes the matter of the blind man in connection with his original application. Such prolepsis, or anticipation, is common in all histories. (2) Farrar quotes from Macknight the supposition, and Godet quotes it from a German periodical of 1870, that the healing occurred at a point between the old and the new city, and so could be described as occurring either when they went out from Jericho or as they drew near to Jericho. The same view presented itself independently on the spot a few years ago to Prof. H. H. Harris, D. D., of Richmond College, Va.[1] Each of these explanations seems laboured, but either is entirely possible. It will not do to say that the accounts are irreconcilable, and therefore involve inaccuracy, if the apparent conflict can be explained in any reasonable way. These discrepancies in the Gospels show the independence of the narratives, and their verisimilitude, and thus do not diminish but add to their historical credibility, provided there be any reasonable explanation. It may nowadays be affirmed that nearly every case has received satisfactory explanation. The present example, and a few others, would probably be plain enough if we knew some slight circumstances not mentioned; and may be fully cleared up hereafter, as some have been by the discoveries and researches of every recent generation. We must not nervously insist on the adequacy of our explanations in every case, nor arrogantly assume that the difficulty cannot be removed. A great multitude followed him. So also when he was approaching the city. (Luke.) They seem to have come with him from Perea, perhaps many of them from Galilee (compare on Matthew 19:1), en route for the Passover.

[1] Dr. Harris writes in a private letter, Richmond, Virginia, September, 1885: “Suppose Jesus spent a night as he would likely do in the city of his foremother Rahab, and that Zaceheus had his office in the Roman town and his residence in the West End. Now locate the healing at a bank on the roadside about half way between the ruins of the two cities, where a beggar might naturally sit. Matthew and Mark speak of it as when ‘he went out from Jericho,’ i.e., the old city. But Luke, a Gentile or Hellenist, and writing to a Gentile, says ‘as he drew nigh unto Jericho,’ i.e., the Roman town, and going on to tell about Zaecheus adds ‘he entered and was passing through Jericho.’” Dr. Harris says he was not aware that this idea had been suggested by others. [Broadus, 1886]

Two blind men. Luke ‘a certain blind man,’ and Mark gives his name, ‘the son of Timeus, Bartimeus.’ Here, as in Matthew 8:28 (See on “Matthew 8:28”), we have to suppose that one of the two was more notable, and thus alone named by Mark and Luke. The supposition is somewhat difficult, but certainly by no means impossible, and on every account far more probable than that of a flat error. The balsam of Jericho was “a wonderful remedy for headache (neuralgia), and for incipient cataract, and dimness of vision.” (Strabo 16, 2, 41.) But no balsam could open the blind eyes. Sitting by the wayside, Luke ‘begging,’ Mark ‘a beggar.’ Heard that Jesus was passing by, Mark and Luke ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ a title by which the teacher and healer had doubtless been heard of throughout the land. Thou Son of David, so also Mark and Luke, meaning that he was the Messiah, compare On Matthew 9:27, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 22:42. We cannot tell how they reached this conviction. As to their particular request, they had doubtless heard of his healing the blind elsewhere, perhaps of cases in Galilee, (Matthew 9:27) more likely of the man born blind healed at Jerusalem six months before. (John 9:1 ff.) [Broadus, 1886]

The multitude rebuked them. Luke ‘they that went before,’ Mark simply ‘many.’ They were vexed that mere blind beggars should disturb a procession, and annoy the principal personage, from whom they may have been eagerly expecting further teaching. (Compare Matthew 19:13) Beggars in the East are almost always offensive and often disgusting, and it is hard to feel compassion for them, even when blind. Because, or, that they should, for the Greek construction see on Matthew 5:29; so also, that our eyes may be opened. Hold their peace, an old English phrase, the Greek being literally be silent. As they were needy and hopeful, opposition only stimulated a louder cry. The Greek word denotes a harsh cry, compare Matthew 8:29, Matthew 9:27, Matthew 15:23, and Mark and Luke have the imperfect tense, describing a continued crying. [Broadus, 1886]

Matthew 20:32-34. Called them. Mark gives vivid particulars; Jesus directed those near him to call; they spoke cheeringly; and Bartimeus, “casting away his garment, his loose outer garment, (See on Matthew 5:40), sprang up, and came to Jesus.” We easily suppose that the other and less noticeable blind man followed. Jesus had compassion, see the Greek word explained on Matthew 9:36. Touched their eyes, not mentioned by Mark or Luke, a sign to them that he was the healer, as in Matthew 9:29. Mark and Luke relate that Jesus said, “thy faith hath made thee whole,” saved thee, healed thee, as above in Matthew 9:22, and compare Matthew 9:29. And they followed him, Mark ‘in the way,’ Luke ‘glorifying God.’ They probably accompanied him to Jerusalem. Luke adds: “And all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God.”

(Compare Matthew 9:8, Matthew 15:31) Jesus here shows no desire to prevent his miracles from becoming generally known, as he did in Matthew 9:30 and often. The crisis of his ministry is now near at hand, and publicity will make no difference. [Broadus, 1886]