Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2.pdf

<strong>Commentary</strong> on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
Luke relates that it was done before he came to the city. Besides, Mark and Luke speak of not more
than one blind man, while Matthew mentions two. But as we know that it frequently occurs in the
Evangelists, that in the same narrative one passes by what is mentioned by the others, and, on the
other hand, states more clearly what they have omitted, it ought not to be looked upon as strange
or unusual in the present passage. My conjecture is, that, while Christ was approaching to the city,
the blind man cried out, but that, as he was not heard on account of the noise, he placed himself in
the way, as they were departing from the city, 669 and then was at length called by Christ. And so
Luke, commencing with what was true, does not follow out the whole narrative, but passes over
Christ’s stay in the city; while the other Evangelists attend only to the time which was nearer to
the miracle. There is probability in the conjecture that, as Christ frequently, when he wished to try
the faith of men, delayed for a short time to relieve them, so he subjected this blind man to the same
scrutiny.
The second difficulty may be speedily removed; for we have seen, on a former occasion, that
Mark and Luke speak of one demoniac as having been cured, while Matthew, as in the present
instance, mentions two, (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27 670 ) And yet this involves no
contradiction between them; but it may rather be conjectured with probability, that at first one blind
man implored the favor of Christ, and that another was excited by his example, and that in this way
two persons received sight Mark and Luke speak of one only, either because he was better known,
or because in him the demonstration of Christ’s power was not less remarkable than it was in both.
It certainly appears to have been on account of his having been extensively known that he was
selected by Mark, who gives both his own name and that of his father: Bartimeus, son of Timeus
By doing so, he does not claim for him either illustrious descent or wealth; for he was a beggar of
the lowest class. Hence it appears that the miracle was more remarkable in his person, because his
calamity had been generally known. This appears to me to be the reason why Mark and Luke
mention him only, and say nothing about the other, who was a sort of inferior appendage. But
Matthew, who was an eye-witness, 671 did not choose to pass by even this person, though less known.
30. Have mercy on me, O Lord. I stated, a little ago, that there was at first but one who cried
out, but the other was induced by a similar necessity to join him. They confer on Christ no ordinary
honor, when they request him to have mercy, and relieve them; for they must have been convinced
that he had in his power the assistance or remedy which they needed. But their faith is still more
clearly exhibited by their acknowledgment of him as Messiah, to whom we know that the Jews
gave this designation, Son of David They therefore apply to Christ, not only as some Prophet, but
as that person whom God had promised to be the only Author of salvation. The cry proved the
669 “Mais pource qu’il ne peut estre ouy a cause du bruit du peuple, qu’il s’en alla, l’autre porte de la ville par laquelle Christ
devoit sortir, pour l’attendre la au chemin;” — “but, because he could not be heard on account of the noise of the people, that
he went away to the other gate by which Christ was to go out, to wait for him there on the road.”
670 See Harmony, vol. 1 p. 428.
671 “Qui avoit este present au miracle;” — “who had been present at the miracle.”
303
John Calvin