Matthew 20:30Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

This exemplifies a resolute spirit, where obstacles serve only to propel one towards their goal. Christ did not silence them; instead, He allowed their fervor to shine, indicating their worthiness of healing. He did not question them with, “Do you believe?” as He often did with others, for their cries and eagerness to approach Him already manifested their faith.

Take heed, dear friends, that regardless of our perceived insignificance or rejection, approaching God with genuine diligence empowers us to ask for whatever we need. Notice how these blind men, lacking even one apostolic supporter and facing prohibitions from many, transcended barriers to come directly to Jesus. The Evangelist does not testify to their lives serving as a basis for their boldness; rather, their singular diligence sufficed. Let us also strive to emulate these blind men. Even if God seems slow to bestow His gifts, and even if many dissuade us from the journey of prayer, let us remain steadfast. In doing so, we especially gain God’s favor. Moreover, observe that neither poverty nor blindness, nor the belief that they would go unheard, nor the discouragement from others could deter them. This is the nature of a passionate and persevering soul!

He restored their sight through His touch, demonstrating that every part of His sacred body is imbued with life-giving and divine power. Although Luke and Mark refer to a singular blind man, they do not contradict Matthew; instead, they highlight the more well-known individual. Luke recounts that the Lord healed the blind man prior to entering Jericho, while Mark states it was after leaving the city; Matthew, preferring a succinct account, refers to both occurrences simultaneously. The blind men symbolize the Gentiles who placed their faith in Christ: they were metaphorically healed by Him along their journey. Christ’s primary mission was not solely for the Gentiles, but for the children of Israel. Just as the blind came to know Christ through what they heard, the Gentiles also believed in Him through the message they received. Those who tried to silence the blind men, failing to proclaim the name of Jesus, represent the persecutors of the faithful. They aimed to stifle the voice of the Church, yet it proclaimed the name of Christ all the more boldly. This is why the Church experienced healing: it recognized the brilliance of truth and began to follow Christ, emulating His example in its mission.

By the roadside were two blind men. The term “blind” refers to those who had yet to grasp the truth expressed in the scripture, "In Thy light we shall see light" (Ps. 36:10). They occupied their spot along the way, appearing knowledgeable of the law, yet they had not yet encountered the Way, who is Christ. Some interpret them as representative of the Pharisees and Sadducees, while others see them as encompassing both Old and New Testament believers, since both groups, in their adherence to the written and natural law respectively, remained in blindness absent the knowledge of Christ.

These blind men, unable to see for themselves, recognized the cheers of joy surrounding Christ and proclaimed Him as the Son of David. If the two blind men are not to be specifically linked to the Jewish community, the ensuing statement about the crowd silencing them should then be viewed in the context of the Gentiles, whom the Apostle warns against arrogance regarding their inclusion in salvation, as noted in Romans 11:16-21. They should not envy the salvation afforded to the initial chosen people.

"Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" Despite attempts from the crowd to quiet them, the blind men persist, intensifying their cries, displaying their deep yearning for the true light.

The second distinction can be clarified by considering that the event may have unfolded across two separate moments: initially, the blind men called out to the Lord for healing as He entered the city, but Jesus chose not to respond right away, testing their faith. Later, as He was leaving the city, the men cried out once more, leading the Lord to call them to Him and grant healing.

The evangelists provide complementary details concerning the healing itself. Upon hearing a crowd approaching, the blind men inquired about the commotion. Upon learning it was Jesus of Nazareth, they began to cry out, “Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!” However, the crowd urged them to be quiet, likely wishing to hear Jesus’ teachings without distraction. Undeterred, the blind men continued to call out to the Lord, pleading for His mercy. At that moment, the Lord summoned them. Those nearby encouraged the blind men, saying, “Take courage; get up, He is calling you.” The assurance that Jesus was calling them inspired confidence that they would receive healing, prompting them to discard their outer garments to run more swiftly to their Savior. Once informed of their request, Jesus touched their eyes and said, “Go, your faith has saved you.” Instantly, the blind men received their sight and followed Jesus, glorifying God.

And as He was going out of Jericho with His disciples and a multitude of people, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind man, was sitting by the roadside, asking for alms.” Luke 18:35 mentions, “As He approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside, asking for alms.” Therefore, Matthew and Mark indicate that the healing occurred as they were leaving Jericho, while Luke suggests it happened at the entrance, indicating that Jesus was approaching Jericho. Bishop Michael explains that the Greek term "eggidzein," applied by Luke, means to be near something from any side; thus, Luke's account can also be understood as occurring when He was near Jericho. This indicates no conflict with Matthew and Mark regarding the miracle's location.

The remaining discrepancy concerns the accounts of the number of blind men. Matthew notes that Jesus healed two blind men, while Mark and Luke refer to just one. Similar differences were observed in their accounts of the demoniacs in the land of the Gadarene, drawing comparisons to John Chrysostom’s interpretations. Here too, we find that there were indeed two blind men, as stated by Matthew, although one, notably Bartimaeus, gained recognition, which might explain why Mark referred to him specifically. It is plausible that Bartimaeus’s loud cries overshadowed his companion's pleas in the memory of those who later recounted the event to the Evangelists Mark and Luke. Their silence regarding the second blind man does not diminish the validity of Matthew's account of there being two.

From the viewpoint of the Evangelists, the miracle performed by Jesus was significant, emphasizing the event itself rather than the specific number of those healed; the volume of miraculous healings was so great that counting them was unnecessary. Thus, it is clear that as Jesus departed Jericho, the two blind men, sitting by the roadside and begging for alms, heard the commotion of the surrounding crowd and inquired about what was happening. Upon learning that Jesus was approaching, the blind men, having certainly heard of His miraculous deeds and some recognizing Him as the awaited Messiah, seized the moment to seek healing and called out loudly: "Have mercy on us, O Lord, Son of David!"