2 Kings 23:36-24:17

Jehoiakim (cf. (2 Chr 36.5-8)

36 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as all his ancestors had done.

24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the LORD, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, 4 and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to pardon. 5 Now the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his ancestors; then his son Jehoiachin succeeded him. 7 The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates.

Jehoiachin (cf. 2 Chr 36.9-10)

8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as his father had done.

10 At that time the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11 King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to the city, while his servants were besieging it; 12 King Jehoiachin of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his officers, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of his reign.

13 He carried off all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he cut in pieces all the vessels of gold in the temple of the LORD, which King Solomon of Israel had made, all this as the LORD had foretold. 14 He carried away all Jerusalem, all the officials, all the warriors, ten thousand captives, all the artisans and the smiths; no one remained, except the poorest people of the land. 15 He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king's mother, the king's wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 The king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon all the men of valor, seven thousand, the artisans and the smiths, one thousand, all of them strong and fit for war. 17 The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah. (2 Kings 23:36-24:17, NRSV)

On October 12, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), comments were repeated from October 7, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Yesterday’s reading reported extensively on Josiah’s religious reforms and his celebration of passover in his eighteenth year. It is clear that the narrator (or narrators) of Kings held Josiah in high regard, approving of the reforms and praising the passover celebration. “The king commanded all the people, ‘Keep the passover to the LORD your God as prescribed in this book of the covenant.’ No such passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, even during all the days of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah” (2 Kgs. 23:21-22). According to Iain W. Provan, “In celebrating the passover according to the stipulations of Deuteronomy (Deut. 16:1-8, noting esp. v. 6), Josiah not only outstrips Hezekiah in faithfulness to God, but even David himself, for a Passover like this had not been observed since the days of the judges who judged Israel (cf. Josh 5:10-12)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Kgs. 23:21-22).

But in spite of the glowing estimate of Josiah and his reign, it was not enough to avert the tragic consequences of Judah’s (and Israel’s) sin. In the interval between yesterday’s reading and today’s, we are told, “Still the LORD did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him” (v.26). The standard summary of Josiah’s reign comes in this interval, including the report of his death. “In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him; but when Pharaoh Neco met him at Megiddo, he killed him” (v. 29). Without the typical evaluation at this point, we are told that “his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb” (v. 30a). This premature death at about age 39 (8 years old when he began to reign in 640 B.C., 2 Kgs. 22:1, killed 31 years later, 609 B.C.) was apparently especially shocking, since it did not fit the pattern of the narrators’ view (a Deuteronomic view in the eyes of many), that the wicked are punished but the righteous are blessed. According to Ziony Zevit, “for the author [of Kings], this death made no sense and remained unexplained. A later generation told the story in a way that provided some theological justification for Josiah’s death: He was interfering with a divinely ordained plan (2 Chron. 35:20-27)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Kgs. 23:29).

The daily readings also pass over the three-month reign of Jehoahaz (609 B.C.) who, according to the formula, “did what was evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kgs. 23:32). One may wonder what or how much evil he could have done in three months, given Josiah’s extensive reforms. According to Robert R. Wilson, “Jehoahaz’s brief reign ends when Neco interferes directly in Judean affairs and places a puppet king on the throne. The text gives no details about the evil Jehoahaz is said to have done” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Kgs. 23:31-35). The narrator says, “Pharaoh Neco confined him at Riblah in the land of Hamath, so that he might not reign in Jerusalem, and imposed tribute on the land of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold” (v. 33). “A talent,” says Provan, “weighed about 34 kg (75 lb)” (op. cit., on v. 33). Since this happened “at Riblah,” we may assume, as Zevit does, that Jehoahaz went to Riblah on his own, though he was apparently summoned there by Neco. According to Zevit, “Jehoahaz traveled to Riblah in northern Syria, most likely to submit formally to Neco as a vassal. Neco arrested him, had him taken to Egypt as a royal hostage, and imposed tribute on Judah. Jehoahaz and the people of the land [cf. v. 30] may have been too closely identified with Josiah’s expansionist ambitions for Neco’s comfort” (op. cit., on v. 33). Riblah was fifty or sixty miles north of Damascus, Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean Sea (cf. maps in Herbert G. May, et al., edd., Oxford Bible Atlas, 3^rd ed., 1984, reprinted 1985, pp. 71, 75). According to David A. Dorsey, Riblah was “a city in the Lebanese Beqaa Valley that guarded the important international thoroughfare connecting Egypt with northern Syria and Mesopotamia. Situated about seven miles south of Kedesh on the Orontes at a crossing place of the river, Riblah functioned as a strategic military base during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Riblah).

As the narrative continues, we are told that “Pharaoh Neco made Eliakim son of Josiah king in place of his father Josiah, and changed his name to Jehoiakim. But he took Jehoahaz away; he came to Egypt, and died there” (v. 34). And for a time, Jehoiakim (i.e., Eliakim) submitted to Neco’s control. He “gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh, but he taxed the land in order to meet Pharaoh’s demand for money. He exacted the silver and the gold from the people of the land, from all according to their assessment, to give it to Pharaoh Neco” (v. 35). Zevit sums this up. “Eliakim was placed on the throne by Neco, not the people of the land [contrast v. 30], and provided by the Egyptian with the throne name Jehoiakim. Cf. also 24:17. Eliakim fulfilled his fiscal obligation to Neco, delivering the tribute” (op. cit., on vv. 34-35).

Our present reading begins at this point, continuing the report of Jehoiakim’s (Eliakim’s) reign. Installed by Pharaoh Neco, he “was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem” (v. 36a). We are told that Jehoiakim’s mother “was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah” (v. 36b). Since Rumah is located about six miles north of Nazareth, midway between the Mediterranean and the Sea of Chinnereth (later called the Sea of Galilee) (cf. maps in May et al., edd., op. cit., pp. 73, 86-87), this is another indication that Josiah expanded his territory north into the former Northern Israel. Jehoiakim is evaluated as are most of the kings of Judah: “He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as all his ancestors had done” (v. 37).

With the new chapter, we find that the pendulum of power in the Near East has swung from Egypt to Babylon. “In his days [i.e., the days of Jehoiakim],” says the narrator, “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him” (24:1). “According to the Babylonian Chronicle,” says Zevit, Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar defeated Neco’s Egyptian forces in Syria in 605 BCE (cf. Jer. 46:1-2). Nebuchadnezzar’s first move against Jerusalem would have happened around the same time (cf. Dan. 1:1), and Jehoiakim became a vassal of Babylonia around 604/3” (op. cit., on 24:1). Since Jehoiakim’s reign is dated 609-598 B.C. (cf. the table of the “Chronology of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy,” HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, p. 500), control of Judah passed from Egypt to Babylon about midway in his reign. Although judged by the narrators as doing “what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as all his ancestors had done” (23:37), given the fact that he was first controlled by Pharaoh Neco and then by King Nebuchadnezzar, he apparently had little choice in the matter of taxation–certainly unpopular–to pay tribute to Pharaoh (23:35) and then to Nebuchadnezzar (24:1). His attempt to withhold the tribute brought on Nebuchadnezzar’s assault: “The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke by his servants the prophets” (24:2). According to Provan, “The Babylonians (here called Chaldeans) are the ultimate agent of divine judgment upon Judah (cf. 20:16-18)” (op. cit., on 23:36-24:7). This judgment, that is, “the word of the LORD that he spoke by his servants the prophets” (v. 2), reflects, of course, the perspective of the prophets. The fate of Judah, compared to that of the Northern Kingdom in chapter 17, is due to the sin of idolatry promoted by the kings. “Surely,” says the narrator, “this [i.e., the assaults of Judah’s enemies] came upon Judah at the command of the LORD, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to pardon” (vv. 3-4; cf. 17:19).

So we now come to the summary of Jehoiakim’s reign. “Now the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? So Jehoiakim slept with his ancestors; then his son Jehoiachin succeeded him” (vv. 5-6). And we are reminded of the change in domination of the Near East from that of Egypt to that of Babylon. “The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates” (v. 7). Nebuchadnezzar, says Provan, “ruled Babylon 605-562 BCE. He subdues Egypt and comes into possession of the whole Solomonic empire, from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates (cf. 1 Kings 4:21, 24; 8:65” (ibid.).

Like Jehoahaz before him, Jehoiachin also had a short, three-month reign. “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem” (v. 8). Jehoiachin’s mother, Nehushta, “played an important role in the royal court; therefore she was exiled to Babylon along with her son (2 Kings 24:12) and the members of other prominent families” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Nehushta). Even though he reigned for only three months, Jehoiachin, as did Jehoahaz before him, gets the standard negative review. “He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as his father [i.e., Jehoiakim] had done” (v. 24:9). In the previous evaluation of Jehoiakim, we were told, “he did what was evil . . . just as all his ancestors had done” (23:37), for his father was the good king Josiah.

Jehoiachin’s three month reign (v. 8) was brought to an end by Nebuchadnezzar’s assault and first siege of Jerusalem (the second if the reference to 606 B.C. in Daniel 1:1 is correct). “At that time,” says the narrator, “the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to Jerusalem and the city was besieged” (2 Kgs. 24:10). But Jehoiachin was not killed, for “King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to the city, while his servants were besieging it; King Jehoiachin of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his officers, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of his reign” (vv. 11-12). Wilson says, “the eighth year [was] the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in which the deportations actually began. The city was captured in March, 597 BCE, the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar’s kingship” (op. cit., on v. 12). According to Zevit,

The objective of the exile [from Babylon’s perspective] was to demilitarize, not punish, Judah by removing the court, high officials, administrators, military officials, and professional soldiers, as well as craftsmen who could manufacture new arms. Unlike the Assyrians, who dispersed populations, the Babylonians allowed them to resettle in exile as organic communities. The extent of the exile is probably exaggerated here; had all of these people been exiled, Judea could not have had the manpower to rebel against the Babylonians again a decade later. (op. cit., on vv. 12-16)

Nebuchadnezzar–or his army–we are told, “carried off all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he cut in pieces all the vessels of gold in the temple of the LORD, which King Solomon of Israel had made, all this as the LORD had foretold” (v. 13). As if the loss of these material things were not enough, the narrator adds that “he carried away all Jerusalem, all the officials, all the warriors, ten thousand captives, all the artisans and the smiths; no one remained, except the poorest people of the land” (v. 14), thus as Zevit notes (above) effectively removing the possibilities for a new rebellion, or so it would seem. In particular, Nebuchadnezzar “carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king's mother, the king's wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon (v. 15). As if to verify Nebuchadnezzar’s effective destruction of war-making power, the narrator says, “The king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon all the men of valor, seven thousand, the artisans and the smiths, one thousand, all of them strong and fit for war” (v. 16). So Jehoiachin was not killed; rather he was taken captive to Babylon and eventually released from prison (25:27). Later hopes of restoring the Davidic kings to power focused on his descendant Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:1; Zech. 4:6; cf. Mt. 1:11-12 [“Jechoniah” = “Jehoiachin”]). Jehoiachin’s uncle, Mattaniah, renamed Zedekiah, was made “king” to rule over the rubble (2 Kgs. 24:17).

The devastation of Jerusalem by Babylon is presented as punishment for Judah’s sin, in particular, the sin of idolatry promoted by the kings. While Manasseh, whose reign preceded Josiah’s reforms, is singled out as especially wicked (2 Kgs. 24:3-4), almost all of the kings are implicated. Josiah’s reforms were too little too late. Chapter 17 of 2 Kings explains in detail why Assyria’s destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel was punishment for continued and persistent idolatry (“This occurred because . . .” 2 Kgs. 17:7-18), and continues by saying that Judah did the same: “Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced” (17:19).

1 Corinthians 12:12-26

One Body with Many Members

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot would say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear would say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; 24 whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, 25 that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. (1 Corinthians 12:12-26, NRSV)

On March 6, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 12, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated from March 30, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Having listed examples of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4-10; cf. 28-30), Paul discusses the need for mutual assistance and cooperation within the Christian community on the analogy of the way various “members” of the physical body work together for the good of the whole. He begins the comparison by saying, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (v. 12). The Christian community is united by “one Spirit”: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (v. 13). Because one member of the physical body cannot exist on its own, for “the body does not consist of one member but of many” (v. 14), neither should Christian believers expect to be in conflict with one another or live in small cliques apart from the Christian community as a whole. Paul explains: “If the foot would say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ that would not make it any less a part of the body” (vv. 15-16). The reciprocal need for one another is emphasized. “If the whole body were an eye,” asks Paul, “where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?” (v. 17).

As Paul continues to present the analogy of unity within the diversity in the parts of the body, he clearly is calling for the same among the Corinthian Christians. In both cases, the harmony which is this unity within diversity is produced by God. “But as it is,” says Paul, “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose” (v. 18). In the absurd case in which the physical body “all were a single member,” Paul indicates that it would not be a true body at all! Rather, “where would the body be?” (v. 19). While Paul continues to speak of parts of a physical body, he clearly intends to be understood as referring to the parts–persons–among the Christian believers at Corinth. “ As it is, there are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’ ” (vv. 20-21). Stephanas (1:16;16:15, 17), for example, cannot say to Fortunatus or Achaicus (16:17), “I have no need of you”–not, of course, that these were the persons in conflict. “On the contrary,” says Paul, “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect” (vv. 22-23). With this reference to the “weaker,” we perhaps come to Paul’s main point, as suggested by Ben Witherington III (see below). The “more respectable members,” says Paul, “do not need this” (v. 24a). And as Paul concludes his analogy, his point clearly has more direct reference to the Christian community than to a physical body. “But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another” (vv. 24b, 25, my emphasis). Paul explains the need for mutual assistance and cooperation within the Christian community on the analogy of the way various “members” of the physical body work together for the good of the whole. And Paul adds that “if one member suffers, all suffer together with it [i.e. him or her]; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it [i.e. him or her]” (v. 26).

The use of the body as a metaphor of the larger society has had a long history. In The Republic, Book V, Plato has Socrates discussing the ideal state. He describes it as “the city whose state is most like that of an individual man. For example, if the finger of one of us is wounded, the entire community of bodily connexions stretching to the soul for ‘integration’ with the dominant part is made aware, and all of it feels the pain as a whole, though it is a part that suffers, and that is how we come to say that the man has a pain in his finger” (Republic, V.462.D, trans. Paul Shorey, Loeb Classical Library). After further discussion Plato (“Socrates”) adds, “But we further agree that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts” (Republic, V.464.B, trans. Paul Shorey, Loeb Classical Library). Ben Witherington III notes the use of this metaphor by M. Agrippa,

who draws an analogy between the state and the human body in which the body’s members or parts represent the quarreling parties or factions in the state. With this analogy he exhorts the revolting plebeians to cease their strife and be united with the patricians, submitting to their authority . . . This deliberative argument against sedition speaks of a revolt of the hands, mouth, and feet against the stomach, which weakens the whole body. (Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 253-254, on 1 Cor. 12:1-13:1)

Witherington finds that “Paul’s use of the argument moves in precisely the opposite direction.”

He urges the strong (probably the well-to-do) to give more honor and respect to the weak, and so cease their factious behavior. It is the ‘more respectable members’ (v. 24) to whom this argument is directed, since it is they who might be tempted to say to the weak ‘I have no need of you.’ It was apparently the ‘respectable’ who were enamored with the gifts of prophecy and tongues and were using them in self-serving ways in worship services. (ibid., p. 254).

Tomorrow’s reading will continue the discussion of the gifts of the Spirit and introduce the “love chapter” (i.e., chap. 13) that Paul presents, in part, at least, as a corrective principle for some misuse and/or misunderstanding of the “gifts.”

Matthew 9:27-34

Two Blind Men (Mt. 9:27:31; cf. 20:29-34; Mk. 10:46-52; Lk. 18:35-43)

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, crying loudly, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith let it be done to you." 30 And their eyes were opened. Then Jesus sternly ordered them, "See that no one knows of this." 31 But they went away and spread the news about him throughout that district.

A Mute Demoniac (Mt. 9:32-34; cf. 12:22-24; Mk. 3:22; Lk 11:14-15; Jn. 7:20; 10:20; 8:48, 52)

32 After they had gone away, a demoniac who was mute was brought to him. 33 And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke; and the crowds were amazed and said, "Never has anything like this been seen in Israel." 34 But the Pharisees said, "By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons." (Matthew 9:27-34, NRSV)

On May 12, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 11, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 12, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 7, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One). They are repeated again here. Some use was made of comments from June 30, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were combined and revised from June 25, 2004, in an email sent June 24, 2004, for June 24 and June 25, and from November 26, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The comments are repeated here with editing and supplement.

Comments on the parallel account in Mark 10:46-52 are available in the Archive for August 14, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One). Comments on the parallel account in Luke 18:31-43 are available in the Archive for June 8, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One). For related parallel accounts, see the separate file Healing the Blind.

“As Jesus went on from there,” we are told, “two blind men followed him” (Mt. 9:27a). “From there,” means from the home of the synagogue leader whose daughter Jesus healed (Mt. 9:18-26), which, by Matthew’s account, took place in Capernaum, “his own town” (9:1). The two blind men who followed him were “crying loudly, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David!’ ” (v. 27b). In Matthew there are two similar accounts of Jesus healing two blind men, this account (Mt. 9:27-31) and a later account (Mt. 20:29-34). For the later account there are parallel accounts in Mark (Mk. 10:46-52) and Luke (Lk. 18:35-43), though in these accounts, only one man is healed. Matthew’s later account and those of Mark and Luke report healings that take place in Jericho during Jesus’ final approach to Jerusalem. “As they were leaving Jericho,” says Matthew, “a large crowd followed him” (Mt. 20:29). Mark also reports the occasion as they were leaving Jericho, but Mark names the blind man. “They came to Jericho,” says Mark, “As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside” (Mk. 10:46). . Mark gives his name, Bartimaeus, “son of Timaeus,” as Mark translates his Aramaic name. Luke puts that briefly, but on the approach to Jericho, not as they were leaving. “As he approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging” (Lk.18:35). It has been suggested that Luke moved the episode from the time when Jesus and the disciples were leaving Jericho to their approach in order to make room for the story of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1-10), which for him was a model of salvation and climax of some Lukan themes.

In Matthew’s later account, the two blind men “were sitting by the roadside” (Mt. 20:30b), similar to Bartimaeus sitting by the roadside in Mark’s account. The three parallel account say that the blind man (or men) heard Jesus passing and cried out for help, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mk. 10:47b; Lk. 18:38). The two cries, identical in English are also identical in Greek except for the word order. If there is a difference, it would be that Mark’s version puts “Son of David first, perhaps for emphasis. Matthew’s version puts the verb, “have mercy” first and uses the plural pronoun “us” (uJma:V, hymas), since there are two blind men. Manuscripts vary in Matthew 20:30; some have “Have mercy on us Lord, Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Jesus, Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Lord Jesus Son of David”; others, “Have mercy on us, Son of David” (cf. 9:27); others, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David.” Amid this variety, it is remarkable that all address Jesus as “Son of David,” clearly recognizing him as the Messiah.

In the later parallel accounts, the crowd attempts to silence these cries for help (not in Mt. 9), but fails in that attempt. Although “many sternly ordered him to be quiet . . . he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ ” (Mk. 10:48; cf. Mt. 20:31; Lk. 8:39). The blind men in Matthew’s first account don’t face that sort of opposition. “When he entered the house,” says Jesus, “the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, ‘Do you believe that I am able to do this?’ ” (Mt. 9:28a). Since it appears that they were in Jesus’ adopted home town, Capernaum (cf. 9:1; see above), it is probable that this was where Jesus lived, or was staying. In Mark’s account, Jesus takes the initiative to call Bartimaeus. “Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’ And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus” (Mk. 9:49-50). Luke tells us that “Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him; and when he came near he asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ ” (Lk. 18:40, 41a). In Matthew’s later account, “Jesus stood still and called them [i.e., the two blind men], saying, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ ” (Mt. 20:32). In every case, of course, the blind want their sight restored. In Matthew 9, the two blind men respond to Jesus’ question, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” with a simple “Yes, Lord” (Mt. 9:28b). Bartimaeus says, “My teacher, let me see again” (Mk. 10:51). In Luke’s version, the blind man says, “Lord, let me see again” (Lk. 18:41b). In the parallel version in Matthew the two blind men say, “Lord, let our eyes be opened” (Mt. 20:33). In Matthew’s earlier account, Jesus “touched their eyes and said, ‘According to your faith let it be done to you.’ And their eyes were opened” (Mt. 9:29-30a). In the three later accounts, sight was received immediately (eujqevwV, eutheōs, Mt. 20:34; eujquvV, euthys, Mk. 10:52; paracrh:ma, parachrēma, Lk. 18:43); cf. “And their eyes were opened (hjnew:/cqhsan, ēneō(i)chthēsan, aorist [past] tense)” (Mt. 9:30).

In Mark, Jesus says to Bartimaeus, “Go; your faith has made you well.” And “immediately (eujquvV, euthys) he regained his sight and followed him on the way” (Mk. 10:52). In Luke, we are told, “Jesus said to him [i.e., to the blind man], ‘Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.’ Immediately (paracrh:ma, parachrēma) he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God; and all the people, when they saw it, praised God” (Lk. 18:42-43). In Matthew’s parallel account, we are told, “Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes. Immediately (eujqevwV, eutheōs) they regained their sight and followed him” (Mt. 20:34). These were physical eyes, but we may also ask for our spiritual eyes to be opened.

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on the relation between the two accounts of healing two blind men in Matthew:

This passage [Mt. 20:29-34] is remarkably reminiscent of 9:27-30. In both Jesus is being followed, two blind men appear, the blind men cry out and say, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David’, Jesus touches their eyes, and they see again. There are also striking verbal links (cf. e.g. 20:29, 30 with 9:27). These parallels form a sort of inclusio. The first restoration of sight occurs towards the beginning of the ministry, the second near the end. This gives an artistic unity to the whole gospel. Furthermore, the first takes place before corporate Israel has rejected Jesus, the second after that rejection has become manifest. So despite being rejected, Jesus’ charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel his compassion. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 871 on Mt. 20:29-34)

Allison also suggests that the sequence of Matthew’s later healing account and the preceding account in that context has a lesson for us:

In the former [account, Mt. 20:20-28], two privileged insiders, (James and John) make a request through a third party (their mother). The request is prefaced by no title of respect or majesty, it concerns the eschatological future, and it involves personal exaltation (to sit at the right and left of the Messiah). In the latter, two outsiders (the blind men) make a request that a third party (the crowd) tries to stifle. That request is prefaced by titles of respect and majesty, concerns the present, and is for something necessary that is taken for granted by most (sight). One might infer that petitions are more likely to be heard when addressed directly, with respect, and for things truly needful. (ibid.)

This prayer was for physical sight, and Allison makes a good point. It is needful. But we also should remember to pray for spiritual sight, and spiritual insight (cf. Jn. 9:40-41).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net