A new division of our gospel here opens. It is the Lord's final presentation of Himself to the nation as Messiah. His ministerial work was closed. Here He is viewed as Son of David.
“And they came to Jericho.” That city which first opposed itself to the entrance of Israel into the land of promise, but fell by the mighty power of God, when His people submitted themselves to His word by Joshua: that city which brought the predicted curse on him and his sons who reared it again; that city whose waters were healed, and from whose land barrenness was taken away in grace by the prophet, is the scene of a remarkable display of beneficent power, in answer to the faith that owned the promised Seed and King.
“And as he went out of Jericho with his disciples, and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, at by the wayside begging.” I do not doubt that it is the same incident which is recorded in Matt. 20 and in Luke 18 But the differences are so great as to have occasioned doubts of this in some. The truth is that each is perfect. Matthew gives the double cure—true to his habit (see chap. 3) and the exigency of Jewish witness. Luke so states it that the careless might infer that the cure took place as the Lord went into (instead of as He came out of) Jericho. His moral order required the juxtaposition of the tale of Zacchaeus and the parable of the nobleman, as illustrating the scope of the two advents, and hence displaced of necessity the story of the blind man. But Luke takes care to say, not “as he was come nigh unto Jericho” (as the English Bible and others), but “as he was nigh to Jericho,"ἐν τῶ ἐγγίξειν α'ὐτὸν εἰς Ἱεριχώ without saying whether it was His coming or His going. He was in that neighborhood. Some MSS. give, “the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, sat,” &e. The Sinai copy has “blind and a beggar.” As usual, our evangelist relates the facts and even names with characteristic precision. “And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.” No expression of unbelief on the part of others could stifle his own cry of faith. It was, no doubt, in keeping with his wants to call on Him to whom Isaiah of old testified, “Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened.” Others knew this scripture as well as Bartimaeus, but he claimed the blessing from the despised Nazarene. They said they saw, and therefore their sin remained. As for him he was confessedly miserable, poor, and blind; naked, too, he was content to be, if he might the more readily cast himself on the Lord. The multitude, not feeling their own need, had no sympathy with one who felt his, and sought to drown his importunity. But it was God who had laid it on the heart of the blind beggar—God who, in his appeal to the rejected Messiah, rebuked the incredulity of His people as miserable, and poor, and blind as he, yea, more so, incomparably more, because they felt it not, and owned not their king. For them He was but Jesus of Nazareth. “And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Son of David, have mercy on me.”
The application of this title is the more strikingly in place and season here, because it is the first occurrence and, one may say, the only instance in Mark, common as it is from the first to the corresponding chapter of Matthew. The nearest approach is in the Lord's reference to Psalms in chapter 12. This, as well as chapter 11:9, 10, may show how truly guided of God Bartimaeus was—the type, doubtless, of the remnant of the latter day, whose eyes will be opened of the Messiah before He is in publicly-recognized relationship with Jerusalem.
But let us turn to the foreshadowing of the “mercy that endureth forever.” No rebuke came from Jesus. On the contrary, He stood still and said, Call him. “And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth for thee. And be, casting away his garment, rose and came to Jesus.” Mark, not Matthew, mentions the cloak cast off in the alacrity that hastened at the invitation of Jesus; yet Matthew, not Mark, was an eyewitness.
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do for thee? The blind man said to him, Rabboni [My Master], that I may recover sight. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Go, thy faith hath healed thee. And immediately he recovered sight, and was following Jesus in the way.” Luke alone adds the expressed moral effect on the part both of the blind man and of all the people that saw the miracle: be glorified God, as they gave Him praise. But this is thoroughly the province of Luke, as must have been observed, in fact, by every reader of ordinary attention.