Bartimaeus: Healed on the way into or out of Jericho?

Achilles6129 · Jun 3, 2017

"35 As [j]Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. 36 Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. 37 They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. 38 And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 39 Those who led the way were sternly telling him to be quiet; but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 40 And Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to Him; and when he came near, He questioned him, 41 “What do you want Me to do for you?” And he said, “Lord, I want to regain my sight!” 42 And Jesus said to him, “[k]Receive your sight; your faith has [l]made you well.” 43 Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God." Lk. 18:35-43 (NASB)

"46 Then they *came to Jericho. And as He was leaving Jericho with His disciples and a large crowd, a blind beggar named Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the road. 47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” 48 Many were sternly telling him to be quiet, but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” 49 And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him here.” So they *called the blind man, saying to him, “Take courage, stand up! He is calling for you.” 50 Throwing aside his cloak, he jumped up and came to Jesus. 51 And answering him, Jesus said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And the blind man said to Him, “[q]Rabboni, I want to regain my sight!” 52 And Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has [r]made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him on the road." Mk. 10:46-52 (NASB)

"29 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. 30 And two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” 31 The crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 32 And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 33 They *said to Him, “Lord, we want our eyes to be opened.” 34 Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him." Mt. 20:29-34 (NASB)

Thoughts?

Tolworth John · Jun 3, 2017

Three disciples tell their story of Jesus and some details do not match. They are omissions by the author. No where does the bible claim to be a strict cronalogicaly ordered story. Luke even says that he researched it and arranged it in order. i.e. he set it out to tell the story the way he wanted to tell it.
There is nothing here that gives rise for cause to doubt these accounts.

Achilles6129 · Jun 3, 2017

Tolworth John said:
Three disciples tell their story of Jesus and some details do not match. They are omissions by the author. No where does the bible claim to be a strict cronalogicaly ordered story. Luke even says that he researched it and arranged it in order. i.e. he set it out to tell the story the way he wanted to tell it.
There is nothing here that gives rise for cause to doubt these accounts.

So you're saying that not everything that happens is in chronological order...I understand that and agree with it. But the narratives themselves establish the chronology, which is why they use the "approached" or "leaving." The chronology contradicts itself.

Tolworth John · Jun 4, 2017

They establish there cronological order, they don't claim it is the cronological order.
May I suggest you start ffololowing coldcasechristianity and learn about how a dectective views witness statements.

Achilles6129 · Jun 4, 2017

Tolworth John said:
They establish there cronological order, they don't claim it is the cronological order.
May I suggest you start ffololowing coldcasechristianity and learn about how a dectective views witness statements.

It is possible that there were two different individuals healed in a very similar fashion, since Luke does not specifically name the blind man as "Bartimaeus." I will look into coldcasechristianity, thanks for the suggestion.

birdetto · Jun 6, 2017

"Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out." is one scripture that springs to mind.

The thing to keep in mind, in my opinion, is that Jericho is a picture of the congregations of the church age and maybe also of the congregations of Old Testament Israel, but at least of the church age. The name Jericho means moon and the moon in the Bible is a picture of the law of God (Jer 31:35). Further, Jericho is said to be the city of palms and palms in the Bible are a picture of righteousness (Psalm 92:12). Also, Jericho had walls, and walls in the Bible are a picture of salvation (Isaiah 60:18). When we see that Jericho is the city of the righteous who have the law of God (Bible) and salvation, we see that they are a picture of the congregations of the church age. When Joshua and his Israelites compassed the city and its walls fell, it was a picture of how Jesus and his true believers compass the congregations of the church age and finally salvation falls from that arena as the true gospel is rejected there and Jesus and the true believers are the ones who occupy salvation. We remember that here we have no continuing city but we seek the one that is to come. Further, when fallen fallen is that great city (also a picture of the congregations) the true believers are told to 'Come out of her my people'. And in Hebrews we are told to go unto Jesus without the camp. So it is easy to see that a picture of salvation occurring (spiritual sight being given to the spiritually blind through mercy) could easily occur as Jesus was leaving Jericho (the congregations).

It is also possible that salvation could occur for persons as Jesus was nearing Jericho since the early church was established through an outpouring of salvation.

The pictures of blind men being healed by mercy are cases in which the men represent the coming of spiritual sight (salvation) to those who were formerly spiritually blind. These men are pictures of many persons and fit into a time frame of Jesus moving in a saving way for various groups of persons.

pescador · Jun 7, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
So you're saying that not everything that happens is in chronological order...I understand that and agree with it. But the narratives themselves establish the chronology, which is why they use the "approached" or "leaving." The chronology contradicts itself.

Why is that important? Is this scene evidence in a US court of law?

pescador · Jun 7, 2017

birdetto said:
"Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out." is one scripture that springs to mind.

The thing to keep in mind, in my opinion, is that Jericho is a picture of the congregations of the church age and maybe also of the congregations of Old Testament Israel, but at least of the church age. The name Jericho means moon and the moon in the Bible is a picture of the law of God (Jer 31:35). Further, Jericho is said to be the city of palms and palms in the Bible are a picture of righteousness (Psalm 92:12). Also, Jericho had walls, and walls in the Bible are a picture of salvation (Isaiah 60:18). When we see that Jericho is the city of the righteous who have the law of God (Bible) and salvation, we see that they are a picture of the congregations of the church age. When Joshua and his Israelites compassed the city and its walls fell, it was a picture of how Jesus and his true believers compass the congregations of the church age and finally salvation falls from that arena as the true gospel is rejected there and Jesus and the true believers are the ones who occupy salvation. We remember that here we have no continuing city but we seek the one that is to come. Further, when fallen fallen is that great city (also a picture of the congregations) the true believers are told to 'Come out of her my people'. And in Hebrews we are told to go unto Jesus without the camp. So it is easy to see that a picture of salvation occurring (spiritual sight being given to the spiritually blind through mercy) could easily occur as Jesus was leaving Jericho (the congregations).

It is also possible that salvation could occur for persons as Jesus was nearing Jericho since the early church was established through an outpouring of salvation.

The pictures of blind men being healed by mercy are cases in which the men represent the coming of spiritual sight (salvation) to those who were formerly spiritually blind. These men are pictures of many persons and fit into a time frame of Jesus moving in a saving way for various groups of persons.

Well that explains everything! The Bible is a large collection of analogies; nothing means what it says.

Achilles6129 · Jun 7, 2017

pescador said:
Why is that important? Is this scene evidence in a US court of law?

It's important for the inerrancy of Scripture.

I've read another explanation which is very interesting. It says that Luke simply omits the exit from Jericho and Christ really did heal Bartimaeus on the way out. The passage about Zacchaeus would then be out of chronological order. I think that this is a very interesting explanation and may be true.

pescador · Jun 7, 2017

Achilles6129 said:
It's important for the inerrancy of Scripture.

I've read another explanation which is very interesting. It says that Luke simply omits the exit from Jericho and Christ really did heal Bartimaeus on the way out. The passage about Zacchaeus would then be out of chronological order. I think that this is a very interesting explanation and may be true.

Keep in mind that every single English bible is a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (the source languages) into the receptor language (English) of which there is no one-to-one direct correspondence, that the available manuscripts are sometimes in conflict with each other. and that English has changed significantly over the centuries.

Now, what were you saying about inerrancy?

1watchman · Jun 8, 2017

Most Bible teachers explain this as follows:
Mark 10:46 speaks of a blind man met while going out of Jericho (Bartimaeus);
Luke 18:35 speaks of a blind man when approaching Jericho;
Matt. 20:30 speaks of two blind men met when going out at a different time.

Rather than try to impugn the Bible, one should see this as different men, since blindness was a common thing, and they sat at the city gates to beg help.

pescador · Jun 9, 2017

1watchman said:
Most Bible teachers explain this as follows:
Mark 10:46 speaks of a blind man met while going out of Jericho (Bartimaeus);
Luke 18:35 speaks of a blind man when approaching Jericho;
Matt. 20:30 speaks of two blind men met when going out at a different time.

Rather than try to impugn the Bible, one should see this as different men, since blindness was a common thing, and they sat at the city gates to beg help.

Our you could see it as three different men writing at three different time to three different audiences, with the intent of teaching the audience about who Jesus was and what he could do.

Here is a poor analogy 8^( ... If I described Peyton Manning and his football career, I could discuss his playing at Tennessee, at Baltimore, and at Denver, and my story would differ each time and would depend on how much the audience understood American football.

It would be far better if people tried to understand the Bible instead of trying to find "errors" in it.

1watchman · Jun 9, 2017

pescador said:
It would be far better if people tried to understand the Bible instead of trying to find "errors" in it.

I can certainly agree with that much! - Ever in Christ by grace alone, 1watchman

Achilles6129 · Jun 10, 2017

pescador said:
Keep in mind that every single English bible is a translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts (the source languages) into the receptor language (English) of which there is no one-to-one direct correspondence, that the available manuscripts are sometimes in conflict with each other. and that English has changed significantly over the centuries.

Now, what were you saying about inerrancy?

Inerrancy doesn't mean that every word of our manuscripts has to be correct. It only means that every word of the original manuscripts was correct.

-V- · Jun 11, 2017

It's important to remember that these are not modern historians writing in modern English with modern thought. To think of it as an analogy, modern historical writing/thought tends to have the goal of providing a photograph of what happened; whereas ancient Hebrews tended to think more in terms of painting a portrait. Tell two artists to paint the exact same object, and you'll get two different paintings. That doesn't mean one of the paintings has to be "wrong", but only that they are different interpretations, both equally true. This is, in part, seen in how the NT writers quoted the Old Testament. Sometimes the words were slightly changed, and sometimes they'd quote multiple prophets in a single quote and only credit the more major prophet. To them, expressing a theological truth was the main goal, rather than the exact literal details.

Also note that John wrote that it would have been impossible to write down everything Jesus did (John 20:25). It's possible that the Gospel writers occasionally combined similar but distinct events into one in order to compensate for not being able to record everything. And that might be exactly what is happening in this instance.

There were a LOT of people in Jericho. Jesus likely healed many people that aren't specifically mentioned. Jesus could likely have healed blind men both on His way in and on His way out of Jericho. The writers combined it into one event, they just differed on their expression of the timing. Their paintings were both theologically true, despite their specific interpretations being slightly different.

1watchman · Jun 12, 2017

If one allows that God has preserved what He intends for us to know and value, we should bow to that; rather than keep trying to modernize and change meanings to suit present religious ideas. I don't think God appreciates those who tinker with that which was given us.

I personally am very satisfied with the venerable authorized King James Version, which has been studied much over 300-400 years and mostly found sound by Bible scholars.

Achilles6129 · Jun 17, 2017

1watchman said:
If one allows that God has preserved what He intends for us to know and value, we should bow to that; rather than keep trying to modernize and change meanings to suit present religious ideas. I don't think God appreciates those who tinker with that which was given us.

I personally am very satisfied with the venerable authorized King James Version, which has been studied much over 300-400 years and mostly found sound by Bible scholars.

The KJV has not been found sound by scholars; as a matter of fact, quite the opposite, at least in the NT.

1watchman · Jun 17, 2017

There is a difference between some Bible teachers/preachers and Bible scholars, and if one does research on Bible history they can receive the benefit of valued studies by learned men. I refer sincere seekers to the Concise Bible Dictionary and showing development from the original manuscripts ---available through Bible Truth Publishers, Addison, IL. One can, of course, believe and read anything they wish.

Bartimaeus: Healed on the way into or out of Jericho?

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Active Member

Wise old man

Wise old man

Veteran

Wise old man

Overseer

Wise old man

Overseer

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Overseer

Veteran

Overseer

Similar threads