The Pharisees' discussion of divorce:

1 And he arose from there and came to the borders of Judea beyond the Jordan. Then crowds gathered to him also, and as was his custom, he also taught them. 2 Then the Pharisees came and asked him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” Let them try it. 3 Then he answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses permitted that a certificate of divorce be written, and she should be divorced.” 5 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment, 6 but from the beginning of creation he created them, male and female Oh God. 7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 For what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” 10 Then in the house his disciples asked him again about this matter, 11 and he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. 12 And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 19:1-12 and 5:31-32).

While Jesus was “on the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan” and the crowd was following him, the Pharisees asked him whether a man was allowed to divorce his wife, that is, to dissolve his marriage by divorce (Verses 1-2). The phrase “to test him” means that through this question they force Jesus to take a position on an issue at hand at the time that is surrounded by controversy, such as the issue of divorce. Only the strict school of Shammai allowed divorce only in the case of adultery. While the lenient Hilal school adopted the broad meaning in Deuteronomy 24:1 “There was something wrong with her that he found,” and this defect could be in any unsuccessful meal or in finding a woman more beautiful than her.

Jesus responds by emphasizing the indissolubility of marriage because it is sealed by God according to the passage in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” He explains the commandment of Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 24:1 that it comes because of the hardness of the heart of the Jews (Verses 3-9). In fact, Moses allowed the issuance of a “letter of divorce” because many men did not hesitate to even resort to murder in order to get rid of their wives and marry others.

The discussion continues in verses 10:12 with the disciples at home where Jesus clearly stresses the indissolubility of marriage, considering that a man abandoning his wife and marrying another is an act of adultery. In a similar passage in Matthew 19:9 it is added “except in the case of adultery” (and in Matthew 5:32). Catholic interpreters are trying to build their church’s position in not allowing divorce, either by claiming that this phrase “except in the case of adultery” was added by the Evangelist, or added later to the text, or they understand it in the following sense: and even in the case of adultery! They also conclude from this phrase that the Lord allows a man to abandon his wife without a second marriage (see the topic of abandonment in the Catholic Church).

Some Protestant interpreters here take the word adultery, as in Acts 15:20, to mean things forbidden according to the Levitical law regarding marriage (see Leviticus 18:6-18), believing that Christ allows the dissolution of marriage among Christians who, before their conversion, were married to one of their relatives, as was the case. It is permissible among the pagans and not permissible in the Holy Bible (see commentators Bonnard, Baltensweiler...)

As for the Orthodox Church, it did not try to match the Lord’s word with its practice. Rather, it took the Lord’s word, relied on it, and accepted the only exception to divorce, which is the case of adultery. (*)

Verse 12, “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” does not appear in the other Gospels. It contradicts the customs prevailing among the Jews because the right to divorce was only for men. This verse seems to relate to some pagan customs, that is, those that were prevalent in Roman society where, despite the strictness of ancient Roman law, it was permitted to leave their husbands and marry another. Manuscript D says in verse 12, “If this woman departs from her husband...” (that is, if her husband drives her away), which is an attempt to return to Jewish customs where it is the man who drives away his wife.

Conclusion:

In this passage, Christ mainly emphasizes the indissolubility of marriage according to God’s will from the beginning. But if there is a rift in the marital partnership due to adultery, only then is divorce permitted.

Jesus blesses the children:

13 And they brought children to him, that he might touch them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them forward. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was angry and said to them, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” 16 Then he embraced them and laid his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16, Matthew 19:13-15, Luke 18:15-17).

This is one of the gentle moments in Jesus' life when he foretells the Christian's positive attitude toward children, in contrast to the old world's known hardness of heart. When the mothers presented their children to Jesus in order to receive his blessing, the disciples prevented them, thus clearly representing the concept of their time, which says that the course of educational work should not be interrupted by persons of little importance, such as children, for example. But Jesus did not support such behavior, but rather became angry and said: “Let the children come to me and do not prevent them” (verse 14).

In these sayings, some interpreters see an echo of the process of infant baptism in the early church. Before we interpret these words, we must take into account the following: Evangelicals do not present the works and sayings of Jesus just once and for some time. That is, they are not only concerned with history, but they are particularly concerned with the relevance of Jesus’ words and works to the life of the church of their time. Many circumstances arise in the Church that require reference to appropriate sayings mentioned by Jesus in the Gospels that justify, establish, or explain what is happening in the Church.

Mark does not care primarily about presenting and writing down a nice scene from the life of Jesus, in which he blesses the children and shows kindness to them. He does not want to describe to us Jesus' emotional mission toward the family and children. The reason for the occurrence of the scene is theological and related to a specific work in the church of his time. Many interpreters rightly see in this scene Jesus’ answer to the church members’ question about whether children should be baptized or not. Through this beautiful scene, and especially these sayings mentioned by the evangelist, he wants to confirm that Jesus did not prevent the young sprouts of the family from coming to him, but rather, on the contrary, he encouraged it. The Church can only follow the work of its Founder in accepting young children into its embrace through baptism.

In the next two verses 15-16 The Evangelist emphasizes the value of children whose rights were denied in that era. He says that the Kingdom of Heaven is for such people, and that every one who does not become “like a child” will not enter the Kingdom. The boy, being weak, does not rely on his own ability, but rather trusts completely in those who are greater than him. To receive the kingdom “like a child” means total trust in God and obtaining the kingdom not by his own abilities (“with his own righteousness,” as the Apostle Paul says), but by receiving it as a gift from God. Theophylectus notes about these verses: “He did not say to these, but to such is the kingdom of God.” That is, for those who acquire through asceticism the innocence available to children by nature.”

Discussion about eternal life:

17 As he was going out on the road, someone ran up and knelt down to him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 Then Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but one, that is God. 19 You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery. do not kill. do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Do not rob. “Honor your father and your mother.” 20 Then he answered and said to him, “Teacher, all these things I have observed from my youth.” 21 Then Jesus looked at him and loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven Come, follow me, bearing the cross.” 22 And he was distressed at the saying, and went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 Then the disciples were astonished at his words. Then Jesus answered again and said to them: “My children, how hard it is for those who trust in money to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” 26 And they were exceedingly astonished, saying to one another, “Who then can? Will he be saved? 27 Then Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God.” 28 Then Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Then Jesus answered and said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or truth Nor, for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, 30 unless it be taken a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brothers, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, With persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.” (Mark 10:17-31, Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30).

Jesus' dialogue with a Jew is mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels (“a young man” according to Matthew, “a very rich ruler” according to Luke) immediately after talking about marriage, divorce, and the blessing of children, to the extent that some interpreters believe that in this common unity between the three evangelists, Jesus takes attitude towards Main themes are marriage, divorce, children and wealth.

The speaker’s position with Jesus does not seem bad, as we infer from the verb “kneel down” in verse 17 and from what was mentioned in verse 21: “And Jesus looked at him and loved him.” In front of Jesus is a gentle person who is performing all his religious duties imposed by the law, but he cannot now realize what Jesus’ face reveals about God’s complete call, which is directed to man in his entirety and not just to some of his manifestations, even if they are major.

This speaker calls Jesus “a good teacher” (verse 17). He calls him in a way that is uncommon in Palestine among the rabbis. Perhaps he took the initiative to use such an adjective, as some fathers explain, after the impression he had of Jesus’ good attitude towards children, which was the incident that immediately preceded this dialogue.

The question, “What should I do to inherit eternal life?” assumes that the questioner has a Jewish concept, which is that eternal life is acquired by the works that a person does. This concept is contrary to the truth revealed by Jesus Christ, which says: Life is a gift from God given to the believer in Christ. “Eternal life” according to Jewish theology is the life of the coming age beginning with resurrection. This life is given by Christ to believers. It grants not only future life, but also the present, because true life, life according to God, begins in the present and continues in the future world of resurrection without being affected by the event of biological death.

Jesus realizes that his interlocutor considers him merely a teacher and nothing more, so he rejects the description of “good” not because he is not good, but because he wants to direct the questioner’s attention to God, the source of goodness (verse 18). We must not see Christological elements in this rejection (1) It comes from Jesus' own feeling about his relationship with God the Father. Jesus himself could sometimes say, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and he could also say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), depending on the circumstance and the desired goal. Here he means to direct his interlocutor’s attention to God the Father, the Grantor of all goodness, and refers to keeping God’s commandments mentioned in the Old Testament as an entrance to the future life known to everyone.

The speaker confesses to Jesus that he has kept all the commandments since his youth. He asks what he still lacks. Does he believe that there is another commandment that the good teacher speaking to him will add, or does he believe that he will be praised because he has kept everything written in the law and therefore lacks nothing else? Perhaps it was both things together, that is, the praise and the new commandment that he applied, thus obtaining the future life. In any case, he was not waiting to hear such an answer as Jesus responded to me Verse 21: Merely keeping the Old Testament commandments does not lead to perfection. The Old Testament points to the Messiah. Therefore, everyone who studies these commandments well and applies them must acknowledge the face of Jesus the Messiah who “fulfills” the law. At this moment, the opportunity for perfection is given to the Jewish man who speaks with Jesus: if he has implemented the will of God revealed in the law since his youth, he can now follow Jesus and thus prove that he accepts the universal call of God as it is revealed to the world in Christ. God's overall call is not to keep some commandments, but rather to liberate man from all the things that restrict him within the world.

This pleasant circumstance in which this Jew exists indicates to us that a person can keep God’s law and remain a prisoner of his material goods, that is, remain a hostage to the various factors that the ego invents in order to preserve himself as much as possible and to resist the fear of death. But in doing so, he creates a false self-satisfaction with which his conscience rests, and he believes that he has fulfilled his duties towards God and his neighbor, while the truth is that at a crucial moment in his life, he finds that his position captivates him to the forces of this world. Through what he says in verse 21, Jesus confirms that the decision of the one who wants to buy the will of God revealed through him does not accept compromises, but rather assumes complete freedom from material possessions, which often constitute an obstacle on the path to perfection.

As soon as the Jew, who had kept the law since his youth, heard Jesus’ heavy and annoying answer, he “went away sad” because he had many possessions. His religiosity covered part of his life, not all of it. He kept the commandments but did not fully respond to God's full call. After the departure of his rich interlocutor (or in his presence, according to Luke's similar account), Jesus points out the difficulty of the rich entering the Kingdom of Heaven, thus wanting to sound the alarm that threatens those with money. Of course, verse 23 does not mean those who have what is necessary for their livelihood, what is necessary for the sustenance of their families. Rather, he means those who accumulate so much money that they pin their lives and hopes on it only and in the end become captive to it. He continues his speech in verse 25, where he expresses it in a proverbial way: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Some commentators wanted to avoid the strangeness and impossibility of the image, so they replaced the word camel = Kamilon, which also means “broad rope,” so the image became plausible, or they resorted to assuming a “needle hole” of a small gate in Jerusalem. But these attempts failed because the use of the word Kamilon to mean a wide rope is later than the era of Jesus, and the aforementioned gate does not appear in any manuscript. We are faced with a proverbial expression known in that era that indicates something difficult to achieve, just as the proverbial expression “an elephant passes through the eye of a needle” appears in the Talmud and indicates something that is unachievable.

Faced with these words, the disciples ask with great astonishment: “Who can be saved?” If this complete renunciation of the possessions of earthly life is what is required for salvation, then who can claim to be able to satisfy it? In his answer in Verse 27 Jesus emphasizes that salvation comes from God's grace. What is difficult and impossible in the eyes of man is possible with God.

The main meanings of the previous narration:

1- Christ announces to mankind the full call of God (The call to perfection). This call, which also appears in the Sermon on the Mount, lies in man’s total submission to God. Keeping the commands of the law does not mean fulfilling man's full duties to God. Above these commandments, God requires the whole person to be free from even small obstacles and doubts. Often, performing some religious rituals creates a false satisfaction and peace of conscience in a person, as if he possessed virtue. This passage draws attention to such misleading competencies.

2- Adhesion may form With material wealth A major obstacle to man's entry into the Kingdom of God. It requires great ability to break free from this earthly treasure and follow Christ, and this ability is given by God because what man cannot do, God can do; It is enough for a person to surrender himself completely to Him.

3- This passage does not constitute another condemnation of the rich, nor does it want to emphasize the closing of the Kingdom of God to the rich. It is a warning and an indication of the danger that faces the one who is captive to his money, the danger of losing him in eternal life. The New Testament nowhere teaches that the poor because of his poverty will inevitably enter the Kingdom of God, and that the rich because of his wealth will lose it. The book only emphasizes, especially in this passage, that wealth can be a barrier to inheriting eternal life. So we have to pay attention.

in Verses 28-31 On the occasion of the previous dialogue, Peter comes forward and says to Christ that he and the disciples have left everything and followed him, so what will become of them? Christ affirms that everyone who is freed from his possessions and material restrictions will receive “now in this time” a hundredfold “and in the age to come eternal life.” Everyone who belongs to God’s eschatological family, that is, the Church, will find brothers and sisters…, “with persecutions” at the end Verse 31 Because the Church still exists within the framework of the documents of “this time” and therefore must face the path of witness.

The third prediction is about the sufferings and the request for the two sons of Zebedee (2):

32 As they were going up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading them, they were astonished. And as they followed, they were afraid. He took the twelve, and he started to say to them what he will happen to him: 33: “We are ascending to Arshilim, and I am Taba, and they will judge him with death, and they will hand him over to the nations, 34, so they mocked him, and they will help him, and they will be blessed. 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said, “Teacher, we want you to do for us everything we ask.” 36 Then he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 Then they said to him, “Grant us that we may sit, one at your right hand and the other at your left, in your glory.” 38 Then Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 Then they said to him, “We can.” Then Jesus said to them, “You shall drink the cup that I drink, and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40 But to sit on my right and on my left is not mine to give, except to those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be angry because of James and John. 42 Then Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and that their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Let it not be so among you. But whoever wants to become great among you will be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first among you will be the slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:32-45, Matthew 20:17-28).

The third prediction about the Passion comes when Jesus ascends with his disciples to Jerusalem. His followers (most likely there were people other than the disciples) were overcome by a vague fear (“and they were perplexed, and as they followed they were afraid”). This fear was due to seeing their teacher walking determinedly into Jerusalem while knowing the hostile attitude of the scribes and Pharisees towards him. Jesus takes the twelve aside and speaks to them about his impending suffering.

Jesus had previously informed his disciples about his suffering (Mark 8:31, 9:31), and here he tells them about it for the third time. The prophecy includes six stages of suffering: A- He will first be delivered to the chief priests; B- He is judged; C- Then he will be handed over to the Gentiles (i.e., to the pagan Pilate); D- He is mocked and flogged; E- Then he is crucified; And - and (Verses 33-34).

How weak was the disciples’ understanding of Jesus’ statements about his passion. This is what is evident from the first time in the position of Peter, who rushed to distance Jesus from the idea of suffering, and the second time was when the discussion took place among the disciples about who is “the greatest.” Here we come to the third prediction through the request of the sons of Zebedee, James and John.

In Matthew's account, the mother of James and John addresses Jesus, expressing their request. According to Mark, James and John themselves approach Jesus and say to him: “Teacher, we want you to do for us everything we ask” (Verse 35). They did not dare directly from the beginning to explain what they wanted, but rather first investigated Jesus' readiness to accept such a request. After Jesus responded to them, they continued with greater courage: “Grant us to sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your glory” (“in your kingdom” according to the expression mentioned in Matthew). We must not see in this request merely the disciples’ love for glory, but rather we must emphasize the presence of the Jewish concept of the Messiah in their minds, which Jesus tried to correct many times. That is, the disciples James and John understand the Messiah as an earthly king who will be installed on the throne of his glory and kingdom in Jerusalem, the city of David. He will gather under his authority the entire Israeli people and subjugate all nations. In such a glorious kingdom, the two disciples will occupy a very prestigious place on the right and left of the Messiah, as long as Jesus has until now shown them such detail because he distinguished them with Peter from the line of the twelve disciples. They seem to believe that the consolidation of the Messiah's reign is a very imminent event, especially as the conversation takes place when they ascend to Jerusalem. It also seems that they absolutely did not understand Jesus’ statements about suffering, or that they understood them in light of the prevailing concepts at the time, which was that the reign of the Messiah would be preceded by hardships and sorrows called “the afflictions of the Messiah.”

The expressions “he drank the cup” and “the baptism with which he was baptized” are used (Verse 38) in other places in the New and Old Testament and indicates martyrdom and death; We only mention the two well-known phrases: “Let this cup pass from me” (Matthew 26:39) and “I have the baptism to baptize it” (Luke 12:50). Jesus asks the disciples if they too can face the witness of death like him. They immediately answered, “We can,” without understanding what he was talking to them about. They responded to the hope of obtaining their request” (Saint John Chrysostom).

Verse 39 is considered by some to be a prediction of the death certificate of the disciples James and John. The New Testament speaks of the martyrdom of James the Apostle in Acts 12:2, and as for John, there is a later tradition that speaks of his martyrdom (the Syrian Synaxarium of the Martyrs of the year 41 mentions the martyrdom of James and John on December 27). But the oldest and most widespread tradition is that John died a natural death in Ephesus after he became a very old man. We can take the words of Jesus in the following sense: to drink the cup of adversity and to be baptized with the baptism of death of martyrdom, as I am doing, this is possible, but to be given prestigious positions in the kingdom, which is not a material, earthly kingdom as you think, but rather a spiritual and heavenly one, this work is not within my authority at this moment. Rather, it is a characteristic of God the Father. Jesus does not say that they can undergo martyrdom without taking a position in the kingdom. Rather, he says: You will face death, but what concerns positions in the kingdom is the business of God alone, and it is given to those who prepare for it. You completed your mission properly, without condition, and God will distribute the positions in the kingdom in a right way, not in a arbitrary way.

Jesus reminds his disciples that true glory is the cross. This is what John especially emphasizes in his Gospel. If the disciples seek glory, let them know that it is gained only through the cross and martyrdom. This martyrdom does not give its holder the right to claim a position in the kingdom because that is the business of God the Father alone.

The other disciples were rightfully angry, not because they had a correct concept of the Messiah that was different from the concept of the two sons of Zebedee, but because these two brothers neglected the rest in the kingdom. Then Jesus turns to them in Verses 42-44 With correct words, saying: “Indeed, those who are considered to be the leaders of the nations lord it over them...” These sayings are of great importance because they give us the true meaning or content of headship in the world in general, and in the church in particular. We can express this meaning as follows: Leadership is, above all, humility and service. The chiefs and leaders of the pagan nations “rule over them” or “rule over them.” In both words, the phrase Kata is used, which is used for emphasis or exaggeration, and it does not mean here merely sovereignty or authority over subordinates, but rather the exploitation of power by superiors. If we read the similar sentence in the Gospel of Luke, we would see that the word kata does not occur. Luke says, “The kings of the nations lord it over them... but it is not like that with you.” Kirievousi and not Katakirievousi (Luke 22:35), and this does not only mean that the exploitation of authority is an undesirable act, but that the mere use of legal authority among Christians is also like that. The greatness of a Christian does not lie in his strength, but in his serviceHe does not use his position within the church as a source of power to benefit financially, but rather as a means to complete the apostolic service. The words “servant” and “slave” are synonymous in the text. They clearly express the message of the president in charge, and more broadly the mission of the Church in the world, this work resulting from the example of Jesus himself, who served humanity through his sufferings “and gave his life as a ransom for many.” He then paid the “ransom” with his death in order to redeem people from the slavery of Satan (Verse 45).

The use of power and force is a great experience for every person in power. But such an experience should not be a cause for concern. It appeared in its sharp and devilish form to Jesus himself: Satan’s temptation in the wilderness that the Synoptic Gospels speak of carries precisely the following meaning: Satan proposes to Jesus the idea of using his power as Messiah and thus following the easy path in order to establish himself as an earthly king. That is, the one who performs miracles by turning stones into loaves of bread will fall as a dazzling spectacle from the temple and appear as a worldly leader. This experience came to Jesus other times, through the crowd who were ready to recognize him as king, or through the disciples (especially Peter, who wanted to keep him away from martyrdom). Jesus was always facing temptation with in mind the songs of the suffering servant according to Isaiah, looking at the suffering. Many sayings of Jesus beginning with the third prophecy about suffering indicate his full awareness that he is taking upon himself the work of the suffering servant of God who will be delivered up to death for the sake of all mankind.

The main meanings of the previous narration:

1- It is the sufferings of the Son of Man that constitute “ransom“Payment for the purchase of the captives from Satan and for the sin of mankind represents the most valuable service that can be rendered to humanity. Failure to acknowledge this offering is the reason why people are either caught up in their problems or resort to deceptive solutions that lead them to disappointment.

2- The greatness of a church leader does not lie in ability or ability Authority Which he has in using his position to serve believers. Experience demonic power It is a dangerous experience and it could lead the president to become self-sufficient and not to humbly complete his service.

3- The Christian's quest for glory is not legitimate and worthy of praise unless it is based on the desire to imitate the sufferings of the Son of Man. It must be The glory of the Christian In martyrdom, just as the cross was, the glory of Jesus. Other glory can come from the offerings of Satan.

Healing of the blind man Bartamaeus in Jericho:

46 And they came to Jericho. While he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a large crowd, blind Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside begging. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Then many rebuked him to be silent, but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 Then Jesus stood and commanded to be called. Then they called the blind man, saying to him: “Take courage! Get up! Behold, he is calling you.” 50 So he threw off his mantle and got up and came to Jesus. 51 Then Jesus answered and said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” Then the blind man said to him, “Master, that I may see!” 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Go. Your faith has healed you.” And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus on the road. (Mark 10:46-52, Matthew 20:29-34, Luke 18:35-43).

The miracle of the healing of the blind man, which is the last before the Passion, according to the Synoptic Gospels, occurs while Jesus was leaving Jericho (located 30 km northeast of Jerusalem). It is a rare incident in which the name of the one who was healed is mentioned. This Barthaeus, as some commentators say, may have later become a well-known member of the church. When the blind man begging heard the commotion of the crowd and inquired and learned that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by, he began to cry out for mercy.O Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me” (Verse 48). Despite people scolding him, his request continues to scream. Jesus did not rebuke him or reject such a messianic title that was given to him in some other situations (see, for example, Matthew 9:27 of the blind, 12:23, 15:22 of the Canaanite, and others), but he does not accept the idea of the political Messiah that the Jews associate with such a title. .

Here Jesus responds to the blind man's request, also praising his faith in me Verse 52. It is worth noting that in this wonder, there is no intention, as usual, to maintain its secrecy. His failure to deny the Messianic title given to him by the blind man indicates that he is indeed the Son of David, knowing that he goes to suffering in order to serve humanity, offering his life “a ransom for many” (10:45). His giving of light to the blind man is one of the messianic gifts according to the prophecies about the Messiah (see Isaiah 29:18, 35:5, 42:7, 61:1). While the Pharisees do not see in the person of Jesus the beginning of the Messianic era, and therefore they are described as “blind men” (see, for example, Matthew 15:14, 23:16), we see this blind man looking at him and recognizing him as a son of David, and after his recovery, he “follows” him as his disciple.

in Verse 50Instead of the phrase “he put on his cloak”..., it appears in another manuscript “and he put on his cloak”. Throwing out the robe so that one can hurry more easily is a well-known custom in the Hellenistic world, while the phrase “and laying on the robe” is considered an attempt to harmonize with the Eastern custom, according to which the incurable person spreads his robe in front of him in order to collect donations and wears it whenever he wants to get up and move.

According to the Synoptic Gospels, this miracle is linked spatially to Jericho and temporally to the period before the Ascension to Jerusalem. According to Luke, the incident occurred “when he approached Jericho,” while according to Mark, it occurred when he left Jericho with his disciples. In addition, Matthew speaks of the healing of two blind men. Therefore, the question seriously arises as to whether the three Evangelists are talking about the same event or whether they are talking about different events! Different answers have been given since ancient times to this question:

1- Among many ancient commentators, the theory prevails that Matthew, as an eyewitness, is closest to the historical facts when he mentions two blind men. Among these two blind men, Mark and Luke are the most famous. That is, they mention the one who was famous and well-known in the region, perhaps because of his Christian affiliation, which he acquired after his recovery (Theophilectus, Victor of Antioch, etc. adopt this theory).

2- The commentator Zygaphonus rejects this theory as he presents his point of view: “And I believe that he is different from the other blind men (according to Matthew). The blind man in Mark threw off his cloak for the sake of speed and received healing without any touching, while the one who came to Luke received healing while Jesus was approaching Jericho and not when he was leaving it. It is worth noting that this point of view is consistent with the opinion of Saint John Chrysostom. This theory, which speaks of different events and four blind men, is found in Origene, who places the events in the following sequence: “It is possible that Luke’s blind man appeared when Jesus approached Jericho, Mark’s blindness when he entered it, and Matthew’s blindness when he crossed it.” Origen gives this interpretation to those who are interested only in “accurate” history and in comparing the biblical accounts. As for those who are searching for the essence of the novels, he says: “One topic was presented in different forms.” Then he presents his symbolic interpretation, which says (in line with the symbolic interpretation of the parable of the compassionate Samaritan) that Jericho is the world, and leaving it means turning away from worldly concerns, and the two blind people are the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and the one blind man (according to the narration of Mark and Luke) is the entire people sitting on “the road.” Through the path of the law and the prophets, he seeks healing from his blindness from the passing Jesus, and the latter responds to his request.

3- St. Ambrose says that the two blind men were presented to Jesus when he entered Jericho asking for healing, and then they received their request upon leaving the city. However, this theory does not apply to any of the biblical narratives.

4- According to Blessed Augustine, of the two blind men mentioned in Matthew, one was healed upon entering the city and the other upon leaving it.

5- According to others, the problem is solved if we take it into account the information contained in Josephus, who says that there are two cities named Jericho, namely Old Jericho and New Jericho, and that the miracle occurred when leaving one and entering the other. Matthew and Mark talk about the old city, and Luke talks about the new.

6- Taking into account the modern Formgeschichte interpretations of the Gospels and the linguistic connections between them, we easily find that these narratives attest above all to the messianic authority of Jesus shortly before his Passion. The same event is presented in different forms by the three evangelists, according to the tradition that was in the mind of each one.

This last theory, which is the most correct from our point of view, is supported by the following elements: The three evangelists as a whole want to say through their accounts That Jesus, whom neither the crowd nor his disciples knew, is recognized by the blind as the Messiah (“Son of David”). The story is nothing but an example presented by the evangelists on the occasion of Jesus’ visit to Jericho before his passion. Of course, this does not mean that Jesus healed one blind man, as we know that he granted “sight” to many blind people. Evangelists speak in many places about the healing of groups of blind people (see Matthew 12:22..., 15:30, 21:14, etc.). But the three evangelists do not aim, through their narratives, to give a sequential timing of Jesus’ movement and daily healing works. From among these many healings performed by Jesus, they choose models that all emphasize one fact: Jesus’ messianic authority and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies through him. If the Messianic healing of the blind man of Jericho was mentioned in different forms in the three Gospels, this is due either to the church tradition that each of them had or to the goals pursued by the three Evangelists. Thus, the Matthew tradition speaks of two blind men and their healing upon Jesus’ departure from Jericho, and the Mark tradition agrees with that, adding the name of the blind man who was healed, while the Luke tradition places the healing of the blind man before Jesus entered Jericho when he was approaching the city.

If we ignore these differences and examine the narratives closely, we realize through many signs that they all testify that the event was the same as the three Evangelists.

(*) See: Metropolitan Callistus Ware, The Orthodox Church: Faith and Doctrine, Chapter V: Secrets

(1) That is, pertaining to Christ.

(2) Gospel for the Fifth Sunday of Lent.