Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 8:2

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 8:2” utilice nuestra app.

And, behold, there came a leper and worshiped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

2. a leper ] St Luke has “full of leprosy,” a term implying the gravity of the disease, not that it covered the whole body, in which case the leper was pronounced clean, Lev 13:12-13; Lev 13:16-17. See Our Lord’s Miracles of Healing, ch. 4 (Belcher). Leprosy is to be regarded as especially symbolic of sin: the beginning of the disease is almost unnoticed, it is contagious (this point is disputed, but see in confirmation of the note Belcher, Our Lord’s Miracles of Healing, ch. 4, also Meyer ad loc. who takes the same view), in its worst form it is incurable except by the touch of Christ; it separated a man and classed him with the dead.

worshipped him ] The imperfect in the original marks that persistency in prayer, which Jesus had just promised should win acceptance; while the leper’s words imply a faith which is another condition of acceptance.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

There came a leper – No disease with which the human family has been afflicted has been more dreadful than that which is often mentioned in the Bible as the leprosy. It first exhibits itself on the surface of the skin. The appearance is not always the same, but it commonly resembles the spot made by the puncture of a pin or the pustules of a ringworm. The spots generally make their appearance very suddenly. Perhaps its appearance might be hastened by any sudden passion, as fear or anger. See Num 12:10; 2Ch 26:19. The spots commonly exhibit themselves at first on the face, about the nose and eyes, and increase in size a number of years, until they become as large as a pea or a bean.

There are three kinds of leprosy, distinguished by the appearance of the spots – the white, the black, and the red leprosy. These spots, though few at first, gradually spread until they cover the whole body.

But, though the appearance of the disease is at first in the skin, yet it is deeply seated in the bones, and marrow, and joints of the body. We have reason to suppose that in children it is concealed in the system for a number of years until they arrive at the age of puberty; and in adults for three or four years, until at last it gives fearful indications on the skin of its having gained a well-rooted and permanent existence. A leprous person may live twenty, or thirty, or even fifty years, if he received the disease at his birth, but they will be years of indescribable misery. The bones and marrow are pervaded with the disease. The malady advances from one stage to another with slow and certain ruin. Life still lingers amid the desolation; the joints, and hands, and feet lose their power; and the body collapses, or falls together in a form hideous and awful. There is a form of the disease in which it commences at the extremities: the joints separate; the fingers, toes, and other members one by one fall off; and the malady thus gradually approaches the seat of life. The wretched victim is thus doomed to see himself dying piecemeal, assured that no human power can arrest for a moment the silent and steady march of this foe to the seat of life.

This disease is contagious and hereditary. It is easily communicated from one to another, and is transmitted to the third and fourth generation. The last generation that is afflicted with it commonly exhibits the symptoms by decayed teeth, by a fetid breath, and by a diseased complexion.

Moses gave particular directions by which the real leprosy was to be distinguished from other diseases. See Lev. 13. The leprous person was, in order to avoid contagion, very properly separated from the congregation. The inspection of the disease was committed to the priest; and a declaration on his part that the person was healed, was sufficient evidence to restore the afflicted man to the congregation. It was required, also, that the leprous person should bring an offering to the priest of two birds, probably sparrows (see Lev 14:4 s margin), one of which was slain and the other dismissed, Lev 14:5-7. In compliance with the laws of the land, Jesus directed the man that he had healed to make the customary offering, and to obtain the testimony of the priest that he was healed. The leprosy has once, and but once, appeared in America. This loathsome and most painful disease has in all other instances been confined to the Old World, and chiefly to the Eastern nations.

It is matter of profound gratitude to a benignant God that this scourge has been permitted but once to visit the New World. That awful calamity was on the island of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, about the year 1730, and is thus described by an eye-witness: Its commencement is imperceptible. There appear only some few white spots on the skin. At first they are attended with no pain or inconvenience, but no means whatever will remove them. The disease imperceptibly increases for many years. The spots become larger, and spread over the whole body. When the disease advances, the upper part of the nose swells, the nostrils become enlarged, and the nose itself grows soft. Tumors appear on the jaws; the eyebrows swell; the ears become thick; the points of the fingers, as also the feet and the toes, swell; the nails become scaly; the joints of the hands and feet separate and drop off. In the last stage of the disease the patient becomes a hideous spectacle, and falls to pieces.

Worshipped him – Bowed down before him, to show him respect. See the notes at Mat 2:2.

If thou wilt – This was an exhibition of great faith, and also an acknowledgment of his dependence on the will of Jesus, in order to be healed. So every sinner must come. He must feel that Jesus can save him. He must also feel that he has no claim on him; that it depends on his sovereign will; and must cast himself at his feet with the feelings of the leper:

I can but perish if I go;

I am resolved to try;

For if I stay away, I know

I shall forever die.

Happily, no one ever came to Jesus with this feeling who was not received and pardoned.

Make me clean – Heal me. The leprosy was regarded as an unclean and disgusting disease. To be healed, therefore, was expressed by being cleansed from it.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. And, behold, there came a leper] The leprosy , from , a scale, was an inveterate cutaneous disease, appearing in dry, thin, white scurfy scales or scabs, either on the whole body, or on some part of it, usually attended with violent itching, and often with great pain. The eastern leprosy was a distemper of the most loathsome kind, highly contagious, so as to infect garments, (Le 13:47, c.), and houses, (Le 14:34, c.), and was deemed incurable by any human means. Among the Jews, GOD alone was applied to for its removal and the cure was ever attributed to his sovereign power.

The various symptoms of this dreadful disorder, which was a striking emblem of sin, may be seen in Lev. 13:14:, where also may be read the legal ordinances concerning it which, as on the one hand, they set forth how odious sin is to God, so, on the other, they represent the cleansing of our pollutions by the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, by the sprinkling and application of his blood, and by the sanctifying and healing influences of the Holy Spirit.

The Greek name , seems to have been given to this distemper, on account of the thin, white SCALES () with which the bodies of the leprous were sometimes so covered as to give them the appearance of snow, Ex 4:6; Nu 12:10; 2Kg 5:27.

Herodotus, lib. 1, mentions this disorder as existing, in his time, among the Persians. He calls it , the white scab; and says, that those who were affected with it were prohibited from mingling with the other citizens; and so dreadful was this malady esteemed among them that they considered it a punishment on the person, from their great god, the sun, for some evil committed against him. Dr. Mead mentions a remarkable case of this kind which came under his own observation. “A countryman whose whole body was so miserably seized with it that his skin was shining as covered with flakes of snow, and as the furfuraceous or bran-like scales were daily rubbed off, the flesh appeared quick or raw underneath.” See the doctor’s Medica Sacra, chap. 2. It was probably on account of its tendency to produce this disorder, in that warm climate, that God forbade the use of swine’s flesh to the Jews. Feeding on this crude aliment, in union with the intemperate use of ardent spirits, is, in all likelihood, the grand cause of the scurvy, which is so common in the British nations, and which would probably assume the form and virulence of a leprosy, were our climate as hot as that of Judea. See Clarke on Ex 4:6, and on Lev. 13: and 14.

Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.] As this leper may be considered as a fit emblem of the corruption of man by sin; so may his cure, of the redemption of the soul by Christ. A sinner, truly penitent, seeks God with a respectful faith; approaches him in the spirit of adoration; humbles himself under his mighty hand, acknowledging the greatness of his fall, and the vileness of his sin; his prayer, like that of the leper, should be humble, plain, and full of confidence in that God who can do all things, and of dependence upon his will or mercy, from which all good must be derived. It is peculiar to God that he need only will what he intends to perform. His power is his will. The ability of God to do what is necessary to be done, and his willingness to make his creatures happy, should be deeply considered by all those who approach him in prayer. The leper had no doubt of the former, but he was far from being equally satisfied in respect of the latter.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

2. And, behold, there came aleper“a man full of leprosy,” says Lu5:12. Much has been written on this disease of leprosy, butcertain points remain still doubtful. All that needs be said here isthat it was a cutaneous disease, of a loathsome, diffusive, and,there is reason to believe, when thoroughly pronounced, incurablecharacter; that though in its distinctive features it is still foundin several countriesas Arabia, Egypt, and South Africaitprevailed, in the form of what is called white leprosy, to an unusualextent, and from a very early period, among the Hebrews; and that itthus furnished to the whole nation a familiar and affecting symbol ofSIN, considered as (1)loathsome, (2) spreading, (3) incurable. Andwhile the ceremonial ordinances for detection and cleansingprescribed in this case by the law of Moses (Le13:1-14:57) held forth a coming remedy “for sin and foruncleanness” (Psa 51:7;2Ki 5:1; 2Ki 5:7;2Ki 5:10; 2Ki 5:13;2Ki 5:14), the numerous cases ofleprosy with which our Lord came in contact, and the glorious curesof them which He wrought, were a fitting manifestation of the workwhich He came to accomplish. In this view, it deserves to be noticedthat the first of our Lord’s miracles of healing recorded by Matthewis this cure of a leper.

and worshipped himinwhat sense we shall presently see. Mark says (Mr1:40), he came, “beseeching and kneeling to Him,” andLuke says (Lu 5:12), “hefell on his face.”

saying, Lord, if thou wilt,thou canst make me cleanAs this is the only cure of leprosyrecorded by all the three first Evangelists, it was probably thefirst case of the kind; and if so, this leper’s faith in the power ofChrist must have been formed in him by what he had heard of His othercures. And how striking a faith is it! He does not say he believedHim able, but with a brevity expressive of a confidence that knew nodoubt, he says simply, “Thou canst.” But of Christ’swillingness to heal him he was not so sure. It needed more knowledgeof Jesus than he could be supposed to have to assure him of that. Butone thing he was sure of, that He had but to “will” it.This shows with what “worship” of Christ this leper fell onhis face before Him. Clear theological knowledge of the Person ofChrist was not then possessed even by those who were most with Himand nearest to Him. Much less could full insight into all that weknow of the Only-begotten of the Father be expected of this leper.But he who at that moment felt and owned that to heal an incurabledisease needed but the fiat of the Person who stood beforehim, had assuredly that very faith in the germ which now casts itscrown before Him that loved us, and would at any time die for Hisblessed name.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And behold there came a leper,…. As soon as he came down from the mountain, and whilst he was in the way; though Luke says, Lu 5:12 “when he was in a certain city”; in one of the cities of Galilee; one of their large towns, or unwalled cities, into which a leper might come: he might not come into walled b towns, at least they might turn him out, though without punishment: for the canon runs thus c,

“a leper that enters into Jerusalem is to be beaten; but if he enters into any of the other walled towns, though he has no right, as it is said, “he sitteth alone”, he is not to be beaten.”

Besides, this leper, as Luke says, was “full of leprosy”, Lu 5:12 see the note there; and he might be pronounced clean by the priest, though not healed, and so might go into any city or synagogue: the law concerning such an one, in Le 13:1 is a very surprising one; that if only there were some risings and appearances of the leprosy here and there, the man was unclean; but if “the leprosy covered all his flesh”, then he was pronounced clean; and such was this man: he was a very lively emblem of a poor vile sinner, full of sin and iniquity, who is brought to see himself all over covered with sin, when he comes to Christ for pardon and cleansing; and is so considered by Christ the high priest, when he applies his justifying righteousness and sin purging blood to his conscience. A leper, by the Jews d, is called , “a wicked” man; for they suppose leprosy comes upon him for evil speaking. This account is ushered in with a “behold”, as a note of admiration and attention, expressing the wonderfulness of the miracle wrought, and the seasonableness of it to confirm the doctrines Christ had been preaching to the multitude. This man came of his own accord, having heard of the fame of Christ;

and worshipped him in a civil and respectful way, showing great reverence to him as a man; which he did by falling down on his knees, and on his face; prostrating himself before him, in a very humble and submissive manner, as the other evangelists relate: for that he worshipped him as God, is not so manifest; though it is certain he had an high opinion of him, and great faith in him; which he very modestly expresses,

saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean: he was fully assured of his power, that he could make him clean, entirely rid him of his leprosy, which the priest could not do; who could only, according to the law, pronounce him clean, so that he might be admitted to company, but could not heal him of his disease: this the poor man was persuaded Christ could do for him, and humbly submits it to his will; of which, as yet, he had no intimation from him. And thus it is with poor sensible sinners under first awakenings; they can believe in the ability of Christ to justify them by his righteousness, cleanse them by his blood; and save them by his grace to the uttermost: but they stick at, and hesitate about his willingness, by reason of their own vileness and unworthiness.

b Misn. Celim. c. 1. sect. 7. c Maimon. Biath Hamikdash, c. 3. sect. 8. & in Misn. Celim. c. 1. sect. 8. d Maimon. in Misn. Negaim, c. 12. sect. 5. & Bartenora in ib. sect. 6.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

If thou wilt ( ). The leper knew that Jesus had the power to heal him. His doubt was about his willingness. “Men more easily believe in miraculous power than in miraculous love” (Bruce). This is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined), a hopeful doubt at any rate. Jesus accepted his challenge by “I will.” The command to “tell no one” was to suppress excitement and prevent hostility.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And, behold, there came a leper,” (kai idou lepros proselthon) “And behold a leper while approaching,” coming closer and closer toward him, as recounted also Mr 1:40; Luk 5:12-14. Leprosy was a type of sin, as an abhorrent, unclean, and incurable disease that ravaged the body, as sin does the soul of man, Lev 13:14; 2Ki 5:1.

2) “And worshipped him, saying,” (prosekunei auto legon) “Worshipped him, saying repeatedly,” bowing, failing down on the ground before Him, crying out as follows: Mr 1:40; Luk 5:12-12. He fell down on his face as an inferior to a superior, seeking a favor.

3) “Lord if thou wilt,” (kurie ean theles) “Lord, if you are willing,” earnestly willing I believe and I know, Mr 1:40; Luk 5:12. The leper knew who Jesus was and believed in Him but was not sure of Jesus’ willingness to heal him.

4) “Thou canst make me clean.” (dunasai me kathraisai) “You are able to cleanse me,” or “you are able, cleanse me.” This is perhaps both a confession of faith and an earnest prayer, simultaneously offered, Mr 1:40; Luk 5:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. Approaching, worshipped What is the meaning of the verb προσκυνεῖν, which is rendered in the Latin version, adorare, to adore or worship, may be easily learned from this passage. For the exposition of it we may rely on the other two Evangelists, of whom Mark says, that he fell on his knees, and Luke, that he fell down on his face The outward gesture of kneeling was exhibited by the leper as a token of reverence. Now we know, that such marks of respect were in general use among the Jews, as the people of the East are more addicted to that kind of ceremonies. Many people accordingly think, that the leper did not intend to render to Christ divine worship, (489) but gave him a respectful salutation as a distinguished prophet of God.

I enter into no dispute as to the feelings which moved the leper to pay reverence to Christ. But I look at what he attributed to him, that he was able to cleanse him, if he were willing By these words he declared, that he acknowledged a divine power in Christ: and when Christ replies, I am willing, he shows that he claimed more for himself than belongs to man. He who, by the mere expression of his will, restores health to men, must possess supreme authority. Whether the leper believed that Christ was the Son of God, or that he had received this power in the same manner as Moses and the other prophets, he entertains no doubt that he held in his hand, and in his power, the gift of healing. True, he speaks conditionally, if thou art willing, thou art able But this is not inconsistent with that certainty of faith, which God demands in our prayers: for men ought not to expect more than God promises. The leper had not learned by any inspired communication, or any promise of God, what Christ would do. It would have been improper in him, therefore, to go beyond these limits for though we sometimes read that certain persons prayed without any condition, we ought to believe that they were guided by special movements of the Spirit, (490) which must not be taken for a general rule. I am not even certain if we are at liberty to say, strictly speaking, that the leper offered a prayer. He only declares, that he is so fully convinced of the power of Christ, as to entertain no doubt that it is in his power to cure leprosy; and then presents himself to be healed, but uncertain as to the result, because he did not yet know the will of Christ. (491)

(489) “ De faire a Christ un honneur appartenant a Ia majeste divine;” — “to do to Christ an honor belonging to the divine majesty.”

(490) “ Qu’il y a eu en tels personnages des mouvemens singuliers, et inspirations particulieres du S. Esprit;” — “that there were in such persons singular movements, and peculiar inspirations of the Holy Spirit.”

(491) “ Le vouloir de Christ sur sa requeste;” — “the will of Christ as to his request.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CHAPTER EIGHT
Section 12

JESUS HEALS A LEPER

(Parallels: Mar. 1:40-45; Luk. 5:12-16)

TEXT: 8:24

And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed.

And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priests, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Jesus accepted the worship of this miserable leper. If Jesus is not God come in the flesh, what should one think of Jesus for accepting? Or was this worship that one must render God alone?

What insight do you gain into the nature of true worship in this lepers request, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst . . .?

What is significant about Jesus touching the leper?

If leprosy was a dread disease, why does Matthew say Jesus cleansed him instead of healed him?

Why was it important for the cleansed leper to tell no man?

Why was it necessary for the leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering?

Why would the priests need to know that the leper had been healed for a testimony unto them?

What do you think Jesus deepest purpose was in commanding the cleansed leper to tell no man? Could not Jesus foresee his disobedience to such a difficult command? Or, foreseeing that the man could not keep such good news quiet, Jesus might have used reverse psychology to get the maximum advantage of news coverage through a rapidly spread secret. What is your opinion?

Do you think, in light of the previous question, that the man was entirely blameworthy for his actions? Are his actions true to normal human psychology; i.e. are they actions that we would normally expect people to do under similar circumstances? If so, does this mitigate his responsibility for disobeying Jesus specific prohibition?

What is your opinion? Jesus touched the leper. Do you think that Jesus was legally (in relation to Moses law on defilement) unclean until sunset that day and until He had bathed Himself? On what basis do you answer as you do? This question may not seem too important to moderns, but upon how you answer may depend how much significance you attribute to Jesus spontaneous but meaningful gesture.

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

While Jesus was in one of the cities, a leper approached Him when he saw Him. He was a mass of leprosy, covered with it, Coming up to Jesus and falling to his knees, he bowed his face to the earth in front of Him and begged Him for help, Sir, if only You are willing, You can cleanse me because You are able to do it!

Jesus heart was moved with compassion and, stretching forth His hand, He touched the leper, saying as He did so, Indeed, I am willing! Become clean. Instantly he was cleansed of the leprosy, for it left him. Jesus dismissed the former leper with this stern warning, Be sure that you tell nobody; but go to the priests for your physical examination, and offer the gift Moses commanded in Leviticus 14, for your recovery. Do this as a public proofas evidence to the authorities and the peopleof the reality of your cure.

But the man went away and began to talk freely about it and spread the news so much that more than ever Jesus reputation was well-known. Consequently, it became impossible for Jesus to show Himself in a town but He stayed outside in the open country which was sparsely settled. Yet great multitudes of people came to Jesus from every quarter to hear His message and to be healed of their diseases. But Jesus continued in His habit of retiring from time to time to lonely places to pray.

SUMMARY

When a leper in the last stages of his disease came to Jesus in one of the Galilean cities, humbly and desperately, seeking cleansing, Jesus touched him, speaking but a word of power. He then sent the man directly to the priests to undergo the necessary physical examination performed by them and offer, consequently, the proper sacrifice. The man was not to mention his cleansing to anyone prior to that examination but he spoke freely about it to all. His actions rendered Jesus ministry more difficult because of the excited crowds pressing Him to perform the same miracles on their own sick folk. But Jesus managed to keep up His habit of praying by getting away from people to be alone with God.

NOTES

I. THE LEPERS REQUEST

Mat. 8:2 There came to him a leper. With this surprising sentence Matthew begins this section which describes the marvellous supernatural works of Jesus. To be able fully to appreciate Matthews inclusion of precisely this illustration of Jesus unfailing compassionate love for outcasts, we must grasp the whole Jewish viewpoint regarding lepers and leprosy. Otherwise, we may fail to see why this sentence is such a surprise. For special help in grasping the Jewish concept of ceremonial and spiritual defilement (Lev. 15:31), seek out the principal passages in the OT on this subject by checking through concordance listings under defiling, defilement, unclean, uncleanness, common, impure, profane, unholy, polluted.

Leprosy is an infectious condition produced by microbe discovered and described by A. G. Hansen in 1874. Hansens disease is contagious, its infection being thought to arise from direct contact with infected skin and mucous membranes, although not very readily communicated by casual contact. Seemingly it is not hereditary. Nerve involvement is attended with anaesthesia, tingling and pain of the parts affected. In those forms of leprosy where nodular growths are the most prominent features the small bones of the hands and feet are destroyed and often drop off. Modern medicine has discovered treatments for leprosy of the various types (lepramatous, tuberculoid and non-specific) and control through early diagnosis, isolation and some drugs that show encouraging results, although complete cure is not yet promised. Spontaneous arresting of the disease and temporary cures have occurred. However, treatment is often necessary for years. (See UWRE, 2954; ISBE, 1867)
Some affirm, however, that Hansens disease is not the biblical leprosy. There are several complications to our problem of identifying precisely the leprosy of the Bible:

The Biblical terminology identifying leprosy describe only the initial symptoms and discuss none of the later manifestations as a fully developed disease or attempt a medical description of its characteristics. The purpose of the biblical terminology was originally for identifying and isolating the victims of this disease. It is worthy of note that there is no mention of treatment of remedy for the disease.

The biblical term leprosy in the critical passage (Leviticus 13) is obviously used in several senses, meaning, generally, skin disease and, precisely, leprosy (the real thing). It would seem that Moses in that passage is describing leprosy and then listing eight other skin diseases which might be confused for leprosy, but which, regarding ceremonial defilement, were clean.

Any remarkes derived from the Mosaic legislation would have to be tempered by the actual practice of the Jews in Jesus time, which may well have been quite different from that intended by Moses. For instance, while Moses required lepers to stay out of inhabited centers (Lev. 13:46), this regulation may have been relaxed in later times so that lepers even entered a segregated portion of the synagogues, although not into the Temple. (Edersheim, Life, I, 493)

This circumstance however would not surprise us especially in Galilee where Gentile custom and influence were stronger, producing a more general laxity of rigid Judaism. Further, there are four facts that serve to clarify much ignorance regarding modern prejudices concerning lepers and leprosy:

The biblical position regarding lepers and leprosy was stated in relationship to one nation of people, the Israelites, to whom the law of Moses, which contains the leprosy legislation, was given. Thus, the prejudices and inhumanity expressed regarding leprosy after the coming of Christ has no basis whatever in Christian documents, since Christ did away with that law with all of its prescriptions, whether on leprosy, circumcision, sabbath days or atonement.

Although certain biblical cases of leprosy were clearly visitations of the wrath of God (Num. 12:9-15; Numbers 2 Kg. Mat. 5:25-27; 2Ch. 26:16-21), this by no means proves that all cases were that. This view of leprosy as a stroke of God may explain the usual hauteur with which some rabbis kept lepers at a distance. The defilement that a leper brings to others by contact with them may also explain this. (Edersheim, Life, I, 495)

Modern medical science has been able to discover medicine that for all practical purposes and under the right conditions of hygiene, does away with the virulent aspects of the disease, promising new hope for lepers which was totally unavailable in Bible times.

The chief emphasis of the Levitical legislation in the first place was the defilement which the disease brought to the sufferer, thus rendering him incapable of entering either the camp of Israel or of participating in the formal worship of Jehovah while in the grip of that disease. And it was by a sin offering that the ceremonial uncleanness was atoned for, upon ones cleansing from leprosy. (Lev. 14:13-14; Lev. 14:18 b Lev. 14:22) But the homiletic use of leprosy as a TYPE of sin is not biblical, although the similarities are striking. Were we to judge leprosy from the ancient Jewish standpoint of defilement, there could possibly be no lower state, nor worse defilement than this; however, estimating the disease from Christs standpoint, there are certainly worse defilements than mere leprosy. (Study Matthew 15; Mark 7) Let it be remarked that though leprosy was atoned for by a sin, that is, a guilt offering, yet Jesus never declared the sins forgiven a leper in connection with his disease, in the same way in which He apparently did not hold the demon-possessed as particularly guilty or sinful, or as He did in the case of others (Luk. 7:47-50; Mat. 9:1-8). Yet, from the silence of the Scripture record, no real argument can be made, inasmuch as the Apostles recorded only what we have. But it must be made absolutely clear that leprosy today carries no spiritual contamination to any man as it did only to Jews under Moses law.

There came to him a leper, but not just a leper, for he was full of leprosy (Luk. 5:12), hence not clean (Lev. 13:13), because, were the man merely covered with white disease, he could have been pronounced clean without recourse to Jesus. On the other hand, there is an air of desperation in his voice. The fact that he approached Jesus in one of the cities (Luk. 5:12) may not prove the desperation of his case, which presumably would have driven him to approach Jesus in one of the cities, for. while the OT law required lepers to stay out of the camp of Israel (Lev. 13:46) and as a matter of practice they were thus excluded (Num. 5:1-4; Num. 12:13-15; 2Ki. 15:5; 2Ch. 26:16-23; Luk. 17:12), yet other cases indicate that lepers could enter cities (among Syrians not under the Mosaic law, 2Ki. 5:1-5; among Jews, Naaman was permitted to enter Samaria, 2Ki. 5:5-7. Four lepers thought they could enter the city of Samaria, 2Ki. 7:3-4). And had the Deuteronomic code specified that all sorts of unclean persons had to leave the city wherein they dwelt after Israel entered the promised land? The Levitical prescription had spoken of the lepers leaving the camp of Israel while Israel dwelt together in one great tent city around the tabernacle in the wilderness. How did the prescription apply upon entering Canaan? Again, Edersheims note (Life, 1 493) should be recalled that lepers were permitted into a segregated compartment in the synagogues also. In what particular city of Galilee the leper approached Jesus is not stated.

We can better appreciate the impression Jesus made upon people by this simple affirmation: a leper came to him, In order to preserve their self-righteous personal ceremonial purity, some rabbis went so far as to declare a distance no less than six feet as sufficient to keep from a leper, but if the wind blew from the direction of the leper, scarcely 100 were sufficient. Others boasted of throwing stones at lepers to keep them at their distance. Another went on record as refusing to eat an eggthe best example of well-packaged foodpurchased on a street where a leper had been. (See Edersheim, Life, I, 495). And yet this leper came to Jesus, without precedents in Jewish history, except perhaps the case of the Gentile Naaman (2 Kings 5), whose position as an outcast of Israel he now shared. It may also be that the Lord had not cleansed any lepers previous to this occasion either; at least Matthews summary (Mat. 4:24) does not specifically mention leprosy as an example of Jesus power. If this observation is correct, we can sense the same difference between Jesus and His contemporaries that this leper must have felt, a difference which awakened in him a long-absent hope that this friendly Galilean could change his vile body into the image of His own healthy human body, and thus caused him to dare to approach Jesus.

and worshiped him (see notes on worship at Mat. 2:2) Mark and Luke strengthen this expression by noting that the leper kneeled in front of Jesus bowing his head to the ground. From this unashamed expression of deep reverence for Jesus, how much can we deduce of this mans understanding of Jesus true identity? Is he approaching Jesus with the same respect for Jehovah that caused Naaman to stand before the door of Elisha? Perhaps we can say he intended the highest respect for this Prophet who spoke for the living God and who could, through the power of the Almighty, cleanse him. It is tempting to read more understanding into the lepers confession than he actually grasped of Jesus Deity. Lord, for this Jew, may not have meant all that this glorious title has come to mean to Christians, for until Jesus full Self-revelation was completed and His highest claims fully justified and His true identity completely announced, it is quite possible that those who addressed Jesus as Lord intended little more than the term of courtesy and respect, Sir (cf. Mat. 21:29; Mat. 25:11; Mat. 27:63; 1Pe. 3:6; Joh. 12:21; Joh. 20:15; Act. 16:30; Rev. 7:14), as also the term kyrie is so used in modern Greek. The problem is not how much this man understood of Jesus true position as Lord of lords, and thus the depth of his devotion, but rather what real content is present in our addressing Him as Lord, given our superior advantages of knowing Him. (Mat. 7:21; Luk. 6:46)

If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Nowhere has there ever appeared a better statement of the right basic attitude of prayer, which so trustingly, yearningly lays our otherwise hopeless case upon Gods power to help. (See notes on Mat. 5:10) The leper probably did not intend this plea as a prayer to deity, but as the disciplined request for cleansing. He meant, and we must mean as we pray,

If thou wilt (Luke adds edeth, He begged Him.)

Some have suggested that this lepers expressed uncertainty about Jesus willingness throws the responsibility for his continued misery upon Jesus who could so easily deliver. Perhaps so, for, psychologically, people are tempted rather fatalistically to blame God for their continued suffering, and with this sighed expression they resign themselves to their fate. Also the usual treatment received at the hands of other rabbis might have taught this leper never to presume upon any.

It is more probable that the lepers lowly acquiesance intends to leave Jesus free to decide whether to leave him in his horrible contamination or not. It takes deep insight and rigorous discipline to place his case in these terms before Him who is the lepers last hope. As he bravely states his desire, he is committing himself, if Jesus shall so choose, to remain a leper! (cf. Dan. 3:16-18; 2Sa. 15:24-26) He thus showed a more profound insight into the Lords authority than some more privileged disciples.

Thou canst make me clean: I am sure of your power. No double-mindedness here! (cf. Jas. 1:5-8; Heb. 11:6; Jas. 4:4; Jas. 4:8) Note how immediately the man comes to the point of his petition: Cleansing, Lord! No flowery expressions or lengthy appeals to Jesus reason, understanding or sympathy were needed. Christians can learn more directness in their petitions from this Jew who felt his need deeply and could concentrate it into one sentence.

II. THE LORDS RESPONSE 8:3

Mat. 8:3 And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him. To the western mind this verse cannot have the earth-shaking importance it would have had to the Jew trained in Levitical legislation regarding ceremonial purity and defilement. (See on Mat. 8:2; Lev. 11:39-45; Lev. 13:45-46; Leviticus 15, all, esp. Lev. 15:31; Lev. 18:24-30; Lev. 22:3-9; Num. 5:1-5; Num. 6:5-9; Num. 6:12; Num. 19:11-22; Deu. 24:8-9) These passages clearly require Jewish clergy and laity alike, as well as those under special vows, to maintain that special separation from certain acts and contacts that were defined by God as defiling or unclean. While it is true that there were certain acts which defiled but were permissible (sexual relations, for example, Lev. 15:18), yet, for the most part, no God-fearing Jew could bring himself to go deliberately against the general order: You shall not defile yourselves . . . you shall be holy, for I am holy. (Lev. 11:44-45) without bringing himself under the condemnation: Thus shall you keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst. (Lev. 15:31)

But what is so eternally important about views on Jewish defilement to the modern Christian whose entire mentality revolves around completely different principles?

Because OUR appreciation of this meaningful gesture of Jesus is enhanced as we understand the background in which it comes. Leprosys attack upon this man brought into the picture all of the heartless application of Moses Law. The Law was the same for allheartless, and he, a leper, had been forced by that Law to leave his family, his associations, his life. That same Law required all to clear a heart-chilling circle around him everywhere, none could share with him the warming embraces of love. The Law had perhaps made him even forget how the touch of anothers hand felt, for he was now, for the duration of his hopeless case, a fellow-sufferer with others of the living dead. Yet, Jesus, moved with compassion (Mar. 1:41), swiftly, spontaneously moved to the lepers side, and touched him. This was a demonstration of love we should not soon forget! This was an answer that shouted Jesus love more than any word could have done. For Jesus, and for those who follow Him, there is but one law: loving helpfulness to anyone who has a need, regardless of the loathsomeness of that which makes his need so apparent. If necessary, we must be prepared to dispense with conventions and take the necessary risks to help a suffering fellow human. This means also that we must be prepared to take the consequences for our actions.

Because our understanding of the nature and identity of Jesus of Nazareth is partly contingent upon what we think of this act whereby He seemingly went beyond the express prohibitions of Gods Law. The Law had been clear enough against this deliberate defiling oneself through contact with what had been defined as unclean. Why must Jesus break the Lawif He, in fact, did? Or, is Jesus, as Author of the Law, hereby revealing a facet of its interpretation and application that we could not have previously known?

Is he revealing that the Law is not the only or perfect expression of perfect righteousness, and that much of the loving compassion for suffering humanity, which God Himself really felt, had to be omitted from the Laws legal prescriptions? If so, by His actions Jesus is saying, Friend, the Law says I cannot touch you, but Gods mercy, which triumphs over strict justice, permits it. This seeming disregarding of the ceremonial law is on the same level as those acts which, though, strictly speaking, are violations of the Mosaic legislation or interpretations thereof, are yet acts in which not only Jesus, but any man could rise higher than the strict application of the law, so as to show mercy and kindness to these miserable, suffering neighbors to every Jew. Lev. 19:18 is also legislation on the treatment of lepers too, and more people than Jews failed to see this.

Is Jesus revealing here, as elsewhere, that any Jew could have ministered mercifully to these unfortunate sufferers? (See on Mat. 12:1-8) If so, Jesus may be saying, Though the safe course for any man is not to touch you because of the absence of adequate medicines whereby you could be healed and brought back into the circle of human fellowship again, yet I am that medicine, hence, I am the only one truly qualified to bridge the gap and bring you back to health. Is Jesus action intended to teach us that the law of loving-kindness is above the law of ceremonies? (cf. Mat. 9:12-13; Mat. 12:1-14) Certainly, He is teaching that, although the Law heartlessly had to separate the unclean from the clean to preserve holiness, there was however no excuse whatever that could justify all the inhuman traditions and heartless cruelties on the part of the ceremonially clean, pure and righteous.

Could it be that Jesus is also revealing the end of the entire system of ceremonial defilements? This He will do on other occasions and by means of the very character of the gospel (cf. Mat. 15:1-20). If so, this incident is in perfect harmony with other revelations. This point is however not weakened by the fact that the leper was not dispensed with the necessity to present himself to the Levitical priests for inspection and official recognition as cleansed, because the Law itself must stand until Jesus took it away by His death on the cross. (Eph. 2:11-16. See notes on Mat. 5:17-20)

But, how could Jesus touch the leper without incurring at least one days defilement?

One possible answer offered by some is that He thus declared Himself an independent Priest, after Melchizedeks order, hence qualified to touch such a leper. This is doubtful, because, His future priesthood was to be heavenly and universal while the Laws prescriptions dealt with this worlds problems and the Jews only (Heb. 8:4). Further, the Mosaic system established the Levitical priests as the official health officials; Jesus, the future High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek (see Heb. 6:20 to Heb. 7:28), had not been designated such a health official for whom Moses laws had relevance. Again, Jesus made no such declaration of High Priesthood during His earthly ministry. There is a better reason why Jesus touched the leper without fear of contamination of defilement:

He was God and could act without any reference to Old Testament Law if He so choose: as Deity, He was the Author of the Law, hence above it. Evidences supporting this conclusion, which find their only satisfactory explanations in this conclusion, are the following:

Jesus showed divine authority by taking charge of the Temple, when He cleansed it (Joh. 2:14-22).

There is no evidence that Jesus ever offered sacrifices for sin or even attended all the feasts required of all Jews. (Deu. 16:16) Rather there is evidence to the contrary which would explain why Jesus would not have offered sin offerings. (See Joh. 8:46; Heb. 4:15)

Jesus forgave sins directly, without reference to the Mosaic system (Mat. 9:1-8; Luk. 7:48-50).

He deliberately announced the change of the central place of worship, a cardinal doctrine of the Mosaic system. (Joh. 4:20-24 contrasted with Deu. 12:1-14; Joshua 22; 2Ki. 18:22; 2Ch. 32:12; Isa. 36:7)

Jesus set aside the distinction between clean and unclean foods (Mat. 15:11; Mar. 7:19).

For all practical purposes, Jesus drastically altered Mosaic legislation regarding divorce. (contrast Mat. 19:1-9 with Deu. 24:1-4)

Jesus was baptized by Gods inspired prophet, not for forgiveness of sins, as John had commanded others, but to fulfill all righteousness (see on Mat. 3:15).

He also claimed to be greater than the Temple (Mat. 12:6), Lord of the Sabbath (Mat. 12:8), and declared that there are cases when human needs supercedes the strict observance of the Law (Mat. 12:1-14) His enemies thus understood His claims to superiority to the Law and its institutions and attacked Him at His trials on this basis, ignoring His disregard for their traditions (Mat. 26:61; Mar. 14:58).

The KEY INCIDENT which explains Jesus unique position as Son of God and, at the same time, Son of Man, is the temple-tax incident (Mat. 17:24-27). Gods Son is not bound to pay the temple tax even though Moses commanded it (Exo. 30:13; Exo. 38:26).

Thus, here Matthew records an act of Jesus that was, for those trained in Levitical purity, every bit as marvellous as the cleansing itself. But to Jesus, the Son of God come in human flesh, this act was no different than what He had been doing since His incarnation, for His incarnation had already brought Him into intimate, defiling contact with mortal flesh. Some have observed that when Jesus touched and healed and cleansed the leper, that Jesus purifying touch overweighed the contaminating influence of the lepers uncleanness. Jesus was not defiled, but the leper was cleansed; the two were not left in the lepers former conditiondefiled (the situation covered by the Law). Jesus made the leper like Himselfpure, (a situation unimagined by any but God!) How like Jesus to touch this leper! Here is a revelation of His quickness to perceive anothers feeling because He loved him. In short, here is the untouchable wrapped around with the love and mercy of God in Jesus of Nazareth.

Another reason why Jesus may have chosen to touch the leper was to clear any doubt about His willingness to heal. But there is no indication that Jesus touched him to strengthen the mans faith, as some say, because this miracle like many others did not depend upon the faith of the individual healed. (cf. Mat. 8:5-13; Mat. 8:28-32; Mat. 9:18-25; Luk. 7:11-15) There is no hint of a psychosomatic cure here.

Saying, I will. (Greek: thlo) This is not the simple future (somai) meaning I shall do it, but rather thlo, meaning, I wish (to heal you), I am willing (to do it), I will it! This expression of Jesus was not merely the naked word or warming touch but also the sheer exercise of His will, which cleansed the leper. Be clean. The command of Jesus is perfectly consonant with the previously expressed views on defilement: He did not say, Be healed, even though this certainly was involved, but rather: Be cleansed. The marvellous and immediate result: And straightway his leprosy was cleansed. Both Mark and Luke note further: immediately the leprosy left him, almost as if to answer critical charges that Jesus healings were not obviously and immediately manifest to all, but required time, much prayer and boundless credulity. Instantly the raw sores and dead flesh and insensitive nerves were restored to perfectly normal health. This omnipotent act of Jesus shadows into insignificance all modern attempts at faith healing, because His was real, immediate and complete.

Mat. 8:4 See thou tell no man. Mark says that He sternly charged him. This mans former conduct in coming to Jesus in a city to be healed, when the clear implication of the Law was to forbid it, showed that he needed such severe language. But he showed a similar carelessness with Jesus stern warning. This command probably clarifies the fact that the leper was not cleansed in the presence of the great multitudes of Mat. 8:1, for such a charge as this could have little meaning, although Jesus sometimes required this of multitudes also (Mat. 12:15-16).

But this command to silence cannot be urged as proof that Jesus, during His lifetime never claimed to be Messiah, or that He was, for some reason embarrassed by the possibility that His disciples after His death might attribute Messiahship and Deity to Him on the basis of such fabulous stories as the (unreal) cleansing of a leper. His injunctions to silence had quite another basis: He was fully aware of His real Messiaship and time schedule. He did not always forbid such publicity (as in the case of the paralytic, [Mat. 9:2-8 also Joh. 5:1-18]); rather He sometimes commanded it (Mar. 5:18-20). He also empowered Apostles to enter the same miraculous ministry (Mat. 10:7-8). This seeming inconsistency between Jesus claims to be Messiah and His forbidding people to say anything about His works which identified Him as such, cannot be offered as basis for rejecting the miracles as not possessing historical reality or for supposing that the prohibitions of publicity are but hypocritical expressions created by the writers of these narratives. This apparent inconsistency is really a valuable guarantee of the truthfulness of the witness given by the gospel writers. To resolve the supposed contradictions we need but look in each case of an injunction to silence for answers to the following questions: In what part of Palestine was Jesus located when He prohibited such publicity? To what persons did He make such prohibitions? What political background made necessary such precautions, which without them, would have hindered further the progress of Jesus ministry and schedule?

Galilee and Judea were particularly sensitive to any Messianic uprising. Jesus needed time to teach what kind of Messiah God really intended, before the people could seize Him and use Him and His movement to raise a national liberation front to deliver the nation from the galling yoke of Rome.

See thou tell no man, is sometimes interpreted by some as Jesus use of reverse psychology whereby he forbade the man to advertise the miracle, thus insuring its greater publicity. It is reasoned that surely Jesus would have foreseen the effect of so wondrous a cleansing upon the emotions of so horribly afflicted a wretch, and could thus have predicted the enthusiastic reaction to his cleansing. Perhaps, it is said, Jesus told him not to tell, so that the man would tell it all the more as a secret too good to be kept. After all, nothing travels as rapidly as a secret!

No, this suggestion is doubtful because:

Although reverse psychology is not in itself wrong, the plain import of Jesus words required obedience to their obvious meaning, unless something in the face or voice of Jesus indicated to the man the opposite meaning, a fact not recorded by any Evangelist. Rather, both Mark and Luke record the mans actions, beginning with the weak adversative d, Luke adding also mllon. While d by itself, may introduce a contrast between the clause it introduces and that which goes before it, mllon d introduces an expression or thought that supplements and thereby corrects what has preceded. (instead). Lukes actual word order is d mllon, which Arndt and Gringrich translate but to a greater degree, even more than ever. So it is clear that Mark and Luke regarded the result of the mans advertising as contrasting, not harmonizing, with Jesus intent.

Political popularity of the Messiah concept among the Jews was definitely detrimental to the real success of Jesus ministry, and to agitate further an already emotionally charged atmosphere was not at all expedient.

Also, the man needed to concentrate on his own obedience to God by carrying out without interruption the prescribed ritual for cleansing. He must not disregard Gods commands out of excited gratitude to Jesus.

But, someone might object, was not there a crowd already present when Jesus thus forbade the unwanted publicity? Were a crowd present, would not His injunction to silence be rather meaningless, since, manifestly, the crowd, not being required also to keep silent, would have spread the news? And, is not the exact wording of Luke that a report about him (or Him?) went abroad, so that many crowds gathered . . . more consonant with the possibility that there were already many present who also told of the cleansing? No, because Mark clearly links the coming of the crowds to the mans actions after he left Jesus. And just because Jesus was in one of the towns does not presuppose the existence of a crowd. Mat. 8:1 probably is not to be connected chronologically with Mat. 8:2-4, so again we have no crowd until after the man went away. There is also hurry implied in Marks expression: He sent him away at once (euths exbalen), lest his lingering till excited crowds could gather, further hindering the mans getting away to Jerusalem and impeding Jesus ministry.

But go show thyself to the priest means: Go to Jerusalem! because the seven-day ritual of cleansing and offerings were to take place at the Temple (see Lev. 14:11) and the priest who officiates at the cleansing is the same as he who offers the sacrifices, applies the blood and oil. A whole colony of priests living in Galilee could not pronounce him clean, without that trip to Jerusalem. Jesus, our potential High Priest, superior in every way to Aaron, does not here set aside the mans responsibility to obey the then-valid Levitical prescriptions that applied to him. Jesus, Himself the end of the Law, would not save the man the long walk to Jerusalem for his physical exam.

And offer the gift that Moses commanded. See Leviticus 14 for the entire procedure of cleansing. Offer for thy cleansing. Though Jesus Power had taken away all the physical aspects of the leprosy, and thus the leper was cleansed physically, yet a leper is legally unclean until his physical examination by the priests confirms the fact that the disease has indeed left him. Though a healed leper is considered clean prior to his offerings (Lev. 14:7), he is not legally cleansed until after his offerings (Lev. 14:20).

Go show yourself to the priest . . . for a testimony to them. Who is them? Them is plural while the priest is singular, so can the testimony to be rendered, refer to the priest at all? Perhaps, since one priest may be a representative of the class of people in Jerusalem hostile to Jesus. It was very important that the priests have the testimony borne to them that this healed leper could bring, because they had not all the opportunities to see all the miracles that crowds in Galilee had. The priests who had only heard of Jesus, or who were hostile and unbelieving, needed to have this conclusive evidence of the reality of Jesus miracles thrust into their presence. They became thus, to us, another group of witnesses to the reality of this mans cleansing and to the fact that Jesus did not disregard the law (cf. Mat. 5:17-18). And, certainly, the clean bill of health from the priest in the hands of the former leper would be powerful witness to the Messianic identity of Jesus. There are a multitude of reasons why Jesus should make this peculiar requirement of the man:

That the people and priests might see that Jesus did not disregard the Law.

To get the official seal upon the validity of the cure by authoritative certification by the priests, thus convincing others of the completeness of the cure, permitting the former leper to re-enter society.

To prevent the priests from hearing of the miracle before the man arrived, and from deciding against the reality of the cute out of hostility to Jesus. They could perhaps deny that the man had ever been a leper, or that he had been truly cleansed. Thus their ignorance of the cause of his cleansing would keep them from being prejudiced against a correct appraisal of the lepers true condition.

To prevent the multitudes from becoming unduly excited about so great a miracle (cf. Joh. 6:15), when Jesus primary purpose was to preach, not to heal (Luk. 4:42-43).

To remind the man himself of his responsibility to Gods revelation as then given and applied to his case. He might be tempted to think that a man so miraculously cured was not bound by ordinary rules. His mixing with others before being declared clean by competent authorities would serve only to confirm the antagonism of the religious leaders to Jesus.

III. THE LAST RESORT

Did the cleansed leper get to Jerusalem and offer as he had been told or did he disobey this command also, as apparently he did the other one to tell no one? Mark says: But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, All of the justifications in the world that the man could have offered for his actions did not remove the hindrance he thus created for Jesus: Jesus could no longer openly enter a town (Mar. 1:45), This was not a question of ability but of strategic impropriety of doing so. Jesus was planning and executing the strategy of His campaign, but the leper created a crisis for Him, by corning to him openly in a city. Jesus sought to settle it by endeavoring to keep the miracle as private as possible, but the disobedient leper interrupted Jesus plans, caused unwanted excitement, thus closing the door to further activity by Jesus in open cities.

He was out in the country (Mk.), withdrew to the wilderness (Lk.) and still the multitudes came to Him from every quarter to hear and be healed! Jesus had to use such withdrawals to the desert places as tactics to thwart the plans of those who sought to take over His movement to use it for their own political ambitions. Jesus only hope of accomplishing His earthly purpose lay in the careful training of a few hardy believers who were zealous enough to embibe of His spirit and purposes and carry out His work after the heady excitement caused by His presence had died down. Jesus kept dividing His multitudes in order to conquer them. His popular movement would have been otherwise impossible to control. His constantly shifting headquarters made it difficult for anyone to capitalize on crowd fervor.

It is a distinguishing mark of Jesus true greatness that, at the height of this popularity, He withdrew to the wilderness and prayed (Luk. 5:16). He could have done an excellent job as rabbi at Capernaum alone. He had the masses literally in the palm of His hand, but He recognized how near to being in THEIR hands He was! He deliberately escaped the noisy crowd of well-wishers to slip into the presence of His Father to pray about this crisis.

FACT QUESTIONS

Is there any necessary (especially temporal) connection between Mat. 8:1 and Mat. 8:2?

What additional information regarding this event do Mark and Luke contribute?

Describe the kind of leprosy proscribed by the law of Moses. Tell where the legal descriptions are to be found, what examinations are to be made and, how those definitely diagnosed as lepers were to be regarded by the Israelites.

What are the similarities (or differences) between the leprosy described in the Mosaic legislation and modern leprosy?

Does the Bible teach that leprosy, as an obvious physical disease, is a symbol or type of sin? Prove your answer.

If you deny that leprosy is a type of sin, then, what instruction may be derived from this passage by way of application?

In what way(s) is the fact that Jesus touched the leper to be viewed by the then-current Jewish mentality as unthinkable, disgusting or even revolting? It there any Mosaic legislation against touching a leper? Cite the passage.

Why does the Bible speak of cleansing of lepers, instead of healing them? What, if anything, is the difference?

The leper worshipped Jesus. Is there anything implied in this word more than simple, natural, oriental obeisance of humility rendered to a respected superior? Prove your answer.

10.

Explain the psychological contrast between the original approach that the leper made to Jesus and his later response to Jesus specific command not to tell anyone but the priests about his healing.

11.

What, according to Mark and Luke, was the result of the lepers disobeying Jesus command to tell no man?

12.

What do Mark and Luke report as Jesus reactions to the results of the cleansed lepers spreading the news of his cleansing far and wide?

13.

For whom was the lepers offering to be a testimony? And, what was the testimony to testify to them?.

14.

Though the nationality of this leper is not stated in the text, as sometimes the nationality is given for other people whom Jesus helped, yet we can confidently affirm that this man was Jewish. What clue in the narration leads us to this conclusion?

15.

Is there anything in the account to indicate whether the man advertised his healing before or after his examination by the priests? (Cf. Mar. 1:45; Luk. 5:15)

THE TOUCH THAT CLEANSES (Mat. 8:2-4)

Introduction: When Matthew wanted to show Gods power at work in Jesus of Nazareth, he picked the most loathsome disease he could conceive.

THE LEPERS INSISTENT REQUEST: It was:

Original: there were no previous recorded instances of such a cure amid all the Judean and Galilean cures. Perhaps he reasoned: It is no secret what God can do; what Hes done for others He can do for me too!

Courageous: full of leprosy in a city directly to Jesus he came with a courage born of desperate hope.

Pitiful: Lord, if you will . . . Is he not sure of Jesus willingness?

He had a repulsive disease from which people recoiled in disgust; it was a horrible, living death.

His was a contaminating disease; rabbis wanted nothing to do with him or his kind; they even delighted in throwing stones to keep him at a distance so as to insure their ceremonial purity.

He had an isolating or separating disease which barred him from human society.

Believing: he had a perfect confidence in Jesus power and even in Jesus willingness to welcome the man whom everyone else would have driven away.

Humble: There is no demand here, no thoughtless claim upon His time, or energies. His unspoken plea: I cast myself upon your heart.

II.

THE LORDS IMMEDIATE RESPONSE: To a Jew trained in the strict observance of the Levitical mentality of ceremonial pollution and cleanness, there could be no more amazing sentence in the New Testament than the simple declaration: Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand and touched the leper.

From a human standpoint Jesus ran the risk:

of ghastly infection: What if Jesus became a leper too?

of moral contamination: Should anyone, including Jesus, deliberately sully His life with such outcasts as lepers? Would not God also reject Him?

of social rejection: What if the crowds rejected an unclean Christ?

Jesus got involved and touched this leper. It was just like Jesus to do it! But when Jesus became man He had already gotten involved with our filthy, corrupting morals and our insoluble problems.

Jesus not only spoke cleansing but willed it! (Greek: thl) I will itI want to cleanse you! Jesus answer was no naked word of power spoken at an uncommitted distance. Jesus loved him and desired to help him. Here we see a man who had been kept at arms length by all men, now wrapped around with the compassionate love of God.

III. THE FIRST COMMAND OF JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLE: Obey Gods revelation for those in your situation!

To the cleansed leper it was:

Go show yourself to the priests for a testimony to them! They too must hear of my power first.

Offer the sacrifices Moses commanded for your cleansing! Not even so marvellous a cleansing as that from living death can excuse you from your normal duties to God.

Keep still: revolutions are afoot; the success of my ministry cannot stand such display of ignorant popularity encouraged in unthinking crowds. Besides, your pride cannot stand display either. Tell it to no man!

To us and our age, Jesus charges us who claim to be His followers:

Faith, repentance, baptism (Mat. 10:32; Luk. 13:3; Mat. 28:18-20).

Growth in discipleship (Mat. 11:28-30) and all that it involves,

Sharing His message and His life with our associates.

Getting involved in His work.

CONCLUSION. Jesus touched the untouchable, crossed the chasm and got involved in our suffering, our sorrows. Who can refuse such a Lover as He? No man can ever feel himself incurable in body or unforgiveable in soul while Jesus Christ lives! Do you fear the exposure of some hideous sin in your life? Are you deliberately separating yourself from human companionship because of some heartbreaking experience in your home and family? Do you wonder if anyone really loves you and cares what happens to you? Do you long above all else to turn to a useful, happy life of service, gratefully rendered to Jesus? Jesus calls you to His side. Will you come? Will you say, Jesus, if you want to, you can cleanse me, restore me, heal me, fill me! He lays His reassuring hands upon you, saying, I want to, come to me. I will give you rest and cleansing.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(2) A leper.The discussion of leprosy, as to its nature, symptoms, and causes, would be at once long and difficult. The word, which is Greek and not Hebrew in its origin, has probably been used with varying extent of meaning, sometimes including elephantiasis, or even cancer. Even in its narrower meaning, as used by Hippocrates, leprosy was subdivided into three kinds: (1) the mealy, (2) the white, (3) the black, according to the appearance presented by the portions of diseased flesh. Confining ourselves to the Biblical form of the disease, we note (1) its probable origin in the squalor and wretchedness of the Egyptian bondage. It was the botch, or plague of Egypt (Deu. 28:27). In the Egyptian legends of the Exodus, indeed, the Israelites were said to have been expelled because they were lepers. (2) Its main features were the appearance of a bright spot on the flesh, whiter than the rest, spreading, in flaming, cracking; an ichorous humour oozing from the cracks, the skin becoming hard, scaly, as white as snow (Exo. 4:6; 2Ki. 5:27). One so affected was regarded as unclean; his touch brought defilement (Lev. 13:3; Lev. 13:11; Lev. 13:15). He was looked upon as smitten with a divine plague, and cases like those of Miriam and Gehazi gave strength to the belief. He had to live apart from his fellows, to wear on his brow the outward sign of separation, to cry out the words of warning, Unclean, unclean (Lev. 13:45). The idea which lay at the bottom of this separation seems to have been one of abhorrence rather than precaution. The disease was loathsome, but there is no evidence that it was contagious, or even believed to be contagious. At the stage in which it reached its height, and the whole body was covered with the botch and scabs, the man was, by a strange contrast, declared to be ceremonially clean (Lev. 13:13), and in this state, therefore, the leper might return to his kindred, and take his place among the worshippers of the synagogue. In the case now before us, the man would appear to have been as yet in the intermediate stage. St. Luke describes him, however, as full of leprosy.

Worshipped himi.e., as in St. Mark, falling on his knees, or in St. Luke, falling on his face, in the highest form of Eastern homage. The act gave to the word Lord the emphasis of one, at least, of its higher meanings.

If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.The words imply either that he had seen or heard of our Lords works of healing, or that His words had impressed him with the belief that the Teacher must have a power extending to acts also. There does not appear to have been any previous case of leprosy miraculously cleansed. The words of the man involve a singular mingling of faith and distrust. He believes in the power, he does not as yet believe in the will. Can it stoop to one so foul as he? If he shared the common feeling that leprosy was the punishment of sin, he might ask: himself, Will He pity and relieve one so sinful?

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

29. FIRST MIRACLE CLEANSING THE LEPER, Mat 8:2-4 .

2. Behold a leper A living instance of the receptive faith alluded to in the closing lines of our comment on the last chapter, now steps forward in the person of a leper. How do afflictions sometimes urge us to Christ! The leper, who had, perhaps, been in the outskirts of the congregation, had seen his works and heard his words of mercy, comes with the language of humility and confession on his lips.

Leprosy, in its worst form, was one of the most terrible of diseases. It began with red spots upon the body, grouped in circles, and covered with a shiny scale or scab. It became, generally, incurable, and so corrupted the system that it became hereditary for generations. The body crumbled, the limbs fell apart, and the man literally went to pieces.

Yet it seems not to have been clearly contagious. Hence Mr. Trench forcibly argues that all the provisions made against it by Moses, placing its examination under the care of the priest, and exiling the man, when clearly a leper, from society, were established as a matter of ceremonial uncleanness. To impress the lesson of the corruption of sin upon men, the touch of a dead body and every contact with the circumstantials of death, rendered a man unclean. From among diseases, leprosy was selected as the emblem of moral uncleanness, and subjected to priestly examinations, to banishment, and to every abhorrence which could indicate his utter moral defilement. Lev 14:15. All this arose, not from the special wickedness of the man himself, but to present him as a physical representative of the depravity belonging to our inmost nature.

Worshipped The word may signify the reverence paid either to a human or to a divine being. Doubtless, sorrow had so subdued this poor leper, that he was ready to believe this benefactor to be either human or divine, as himself should claim. He could not, indeed, fully measure the amount of power or divinity residing in the Lord’s person, and so his reverence was susceptible of any appropriate measure.

The bowing (called often worshipping) of the Oriental people is low and formal in proportion to the intended reverence paid. A simple inclination of the head is ordinary civility; a low and deliberate curve of the body indicated deep respect; a prostration, with the face upon the ground, was the most worshipful homage.

Lord Similar varied meanings belong to this title. It may signify the same as our Sir, indicating the respect we pay to man; or it may be a most solemn compellative of God, answering to Jehovah itself.

Note to Mat 8:2 , page 107.

That Matthew places the healing of the leper in its true chronological position appears probable from the following considerations: 1. Mark’s account does not assign it any place or date. Luke gives no chronological sign, but says (and this is the only reason for questioning Matthew’s chronology) it was “when he was in a certain city;” or more literally, When he was in one of their cities. But by Matthew’s account Jesus was on his way from the Mount to Capernaum, which was one of their cities. He may have arrived at the precincts of that city before the leper could acquire courage to come forth and state his case, and the miracle be performed in the presence of the multitudes. 2. The words of Matthew imply the immediate succession of the three points, namely, that Jesus came down; that the multitudes followed him toward Capernaum; and that the leper came from the crowds. 3. It seems not only most appropriate, but most natural, and apparently the writer’s intention, to view the miracle as a confirmation of the sermon; and therefore occurring immediately after it.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean”.’

‘Behold.’ This is probably to be seen as opening the whole series of incidents. Matthew is saying, ‘look now at the kinds of things that He did’. He wants to bring out that what now happens is significant (compare Mat 1:20). But it also introduces the main character in this story (apart of course from Jesus).

Jesus is approached by a skin-diseased man (not necessarily Hansen’s disease, that is, what we call leprosy). We can almost feel the shock that ran through those who were there. Such men were not supposed to approach a crowd of people. They were seen as dead men, ‘the living dead’, and banished from human society. For the Law declared, ‘All the days in which the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled. He is unclean. He will dwell alone. Outside the camp will his dwellingplace be’ (Lev 13:46). His clothes had to be torn, his hair dishevelled, his upper lip covered, and as he moved around he had to cry, ‘Unclean, unclean’ (Lev 13:45). The medical necessity for this was clear, but for the person himself it was devastating.

In Jesus’ day they were not allowed to enter walled towns, and in the synagogues a small chamber would be set aside for their use, approached from the outside. They were, however, allowed to live in unwalled towns as long as they lived in their own houses. Most Scribes and Pharisees, if they saw a skin-diseased man would hasten off in the other direction, lest his uncleanness affect their ritual purity. He was not allowed to approach within two metres/yards (four cubits) of ordinary people, and they would keep to his windward side, otherwise when there was a wind he had to keep fifty metres/yards (one hundred cubits) away. If he entered a house it would be rendered instantly unclean.

To approach a group of people in this way the man must have been desperate. And yet he must have had great faith in this prophet. It says much for Jesus’ reputation for compassion that he felt that he could approach Him at all, for a prophet might well curse such a man as he, for daring to approach Him. And, no doubt keeping the regular two metres/yards distant, he fell on his face and ‘made obeisance’ to Jesus. The word can mean ‘worship’ in the fullest sense, but can also signify the payment of homage and respect. The latter was probably the attitude of the skin-diseased man, although homage of the deepest kind, but the former was probably in the back of Matthew’s mind. The difference between homage and worship is very often clouded, and regularly homage includes a certain level of worship.

The words of the skin-diseased man are powerful. ‘LORD, if you will, you can make me clean’. In his isolated world he had had much time to think, and word would have reached him and his fellow-lepers, through relatives and friends who brought them food, of this amazing prophet and what he was doing for people. Possibly he had even heard Him speak in the synagogue. And he had become convinced that here was One with unusual powers, who had the power to remove this dreadful scourge. But he had also recognised that it would all depend on His willingness and His will. He was a great Prophet. Would He even want to bother Himself about the living dead? Would He exercise His will on his behalf? The way that he phrases it demonstrates the uniqueness that he saw in Jesus. ‘If you will.’ This is as decisive a claim to Jesus authority as we will find anywhere. By His will He has the power to make clean.

‘Clean.’ The word conveys the depths of his despair. He was not only permanently diseased, he was unclean. He was a total outcast. His condition was one despised by men, it rendered him unfit for society, it prevented more than a limited approach to God, for it barred him from the Temple. To be made clean would be such a transformation of his life as was indescribable.

But what does he mean by ‘Lord’? The word is especially significant here as it is not found in Mark’s account (although included in Luke). It is probably a recognition of His greatness as a true prophet with amazing powers, as so often in this section. He recognises in Jesus someone Who is outstanding and has unusual supernatural power (compare Mat 8:25). People in desperate circumstances are often made to face up to what powers are necessary in order to save them in a way that others are not. And this man knew how deep his need was. Matthew, however, wants his readers to recognise the implication behind the word, that this One is LORD indeed, in the fullest sense.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Healing of The Leper (8:2-4).

Matthew abbreviates this story of the healing of the ‘Leper’, bringing out only the essential detail (compare Mar 1:40-45). For it is that essential detail that he wants to get over. And we will soon learn that Jesus sees the healing of lepers as part of the Messianic ministry and the ministry of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (Mat 10:7-8; Mat 11:5). It is these things that make quite clear that ‘at hand’ means ‘about to break in on all who will hear His word’.

But note how Matthew omits the fact that after this healing His fame spread abroad. For he wants us to recognise that that process only happened gradually, and thus leaves drawing attention to it until Mat 9:26 onwards. This must also be seen as confirming that he sees Mat 8:1 to Mat 9:35 as one whole.

Leprosy is one of the things that the Coming One will remove from the Messianic Kingly Rule (Mat 11:5). Thus we are justified in seeing in this leper a picture of the world defiled and unclean and waiting to be delivered. ‘He has torn and He will heal us, He has smitten and He will bind us up’ (Hos 6:1; compare Jer 8:22; Jer 46:11). Sin and its consequences are depicted in the Scriptures in terms of disfiguring disease, illness and uncleanness (Isa 1:4-6; compare Psa 38:3-8. Consider also Isa 64:6). This healing is therefore a reminder that Jesus can heal each one of us of the leprosy of sin if only we will come and beseech Him to do His will and make us clean.

Analysis.

a And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him (Mat 8:2 a).

b Saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean” (Mat 8:2 b).

c And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him (Mat 8:3 a).

b Saying, “I will, be you made clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed (Mat 8:3 b).

a And Jesus says to him, “See you tell no man; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony to them” (Mat 8:4).

Note how in ‘a’ the leper comes to Jesus, and worships Him, and in the parallel he is told to go to the priest and offer his gift to God. In ‘b’ is the confidence of the leper that by His will Jesus can make him clean, and in the parallel Jesus confirms that he is right and heals him. In ‘c’ and centrally He reaches out and touches the leper. The Coming One reaches out to the lowest of the low.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Jesus at once performed a miracle:

v. 2. And, behold, there came a leper, and worshiped Him, saying, Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.

The evangelist uses the formula for introducing a narrative, for stimulating interest. A leper came to Him, transgressing, in his eagerness and his earnest desire for help, the rules which had been made with regard to those afflicted with this disease. Leprosy is a particularly malignant contagious (not infectious) sickness, though it is not hereditary. It is wide-spread over the world, but it occurs frequently only in the East and along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Several varieties of the disease are recognized, since the germ that causes it has been found. In all cases, however, the sickness follows the same general course. Spots of various colors appear on the body, later on also blisters and tubercles. The face soon assumes a stupid appearance. Ulceration, atrophy, wasting away of the bone sets in, which may cause deep holes and even the loss of entire members. In some fortunate cases, death occurs within a short time, in others the disease lasts for many years. Among the Jews, lepers were considered unclean, Lev 13:44-46, had to rend their garments, cover their faces, go without the usual attention to cleanliness, and, upon the approach of people, utter the cry, “Unclean, unclean!” They were obliged to live outside of the camp or city, had a special section of the synagogue reserved for them, and anything they touched, or any house into which they entered, was declared unclean. For their cleansing, a very elaborate ceremonial was prescribed in the Jewish law, Lev 19:1-37. No wonder this poor man was so anxious to be healed. He hurries up to Jesus; he throws himself to the ground in the gesture of abject pleading, fully aware of his own unworthiness and of the great superiority of Him of whom he asks the favor; he calls Him Lord, giving Him divine honor as the promised Messiah. His prayer is short, but comprehensive, a model in form and content. “If Thou wilt”; he had no doubt about the power or ability of Christ, but he is not sure as to His willingness. The humility of his faith leaves the decision to Christ. But if there is to be a cleansing by healing, let it be at once. Insistent, yet humble; willing to leave manner and time of the fulfillment of his prayer to the love and mercy of the Lord. “That means, not only to believe right, but also to pray right; as these two are always together: he that has the right faith has the right form of prayer; he that does not believe rightly cannot pray rightly. For with prayer it must first be thus that the heart be certain; God is so merciful and gracious that He will gladly take away our trouble and help us… That the leper here moderates his prayer and says: ‘Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean,’ is not to be understood as though he had doubts in regard to Christ’s goodness and mercy. For faith would be nothing, though he believed that Christ is almighty, could perform, and knows all things. For that is the living faith which does not doubt: God has the good and gracious will to do what we pray. But it is to be understood thus: Faith does not doubt that God has a good will toward the person, does not begrudge him all that is good for him, but rather desires him to have it. Whether, however, that which faith begs and pleads for is good and useful, of that we have no knowledge; that God alone knows. Therefore faith prays thus that it leaves everything to the gracious will of God, whether it will be conducive to His honor and our need, and does not doubt that God will give it, or, if it is not to be given, that His divine will out of great mercy does not give it, since He sees it is best not given. But for all that the faith in God’s gracious will remains certain and sure, whether He grants it or does not grant it.”

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 8:2. And, behold, there came a leper It has been generally thought, that this is the leper whose cure is recorded, Mar 1:40. Luk 5:12 and consequently that the sermon in Luke is not the same with that in the preceding chapter. But the cures, says Macknight, are different: that was performed in a city, this in the fields. Having cleansed the leper here mentioned, Jesus entered into Capernaum, and cured the centurion’s servant; whereas, the other leper having published the miracle, Jesus did not choose, at least in the day-time, to go into the town; but remained without in desart places to shun the crowd. It must be acknowledged, indeed, that there are some things similar in the two cures: for instance,both the lepers say to Christ, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean; but it was so natural to address their desires to the Son of God in this form, by which also they express their belief in his power, that it is rather matter of wonder we do not find it more frequently made use of. Farther, there is the same command given to the lepers to go shew themselves to the priest; but this command must have been repeated not twice, but twenty times, on supposition that Jesus cleansed lepers so often. Accordingly we find him repeating it to the ten lepers, whom he cleansed at one time in Samaria; Luk 17:14. As for the circumstance of his bidding the cured person tell no man what had happened, it occurs almost in every miracle performed by Christ during the two first years of his ministry; the reasons for which see in the note on Mat 8:4.

The immediate cure of the leprosy was only in the power of God: the leper, therefore,bythisapplication to Christ, immediately confesses his divine authority; but more fully to enter into this subject, the reader should refer to our notes on Leviticus 13 and on 2Ki 5:6-7.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 8:2 . ] , , a most dangerous, contagious disease, descending to the fourth generation, which lacerated the body with scales, tetter, and sores; Trusen, bibl. Krankh. p. 103 ff.; Kurtz in Herzog’s Encykl. I. p. 626 ff.; Furer in Schenkel’s Bibellex. I. p. 317 ff.; Saalschutz, M. R. p. 223 ff.

] To express the reverence that is founded on the recognition of higher power.

] entire resignation to the mighty will of Jesus.

] from the disease that was polluting the body; Plut. Mor. p. 134 D.

] and immediately his leprosy was cleansed (Joh 11:32 ), Mat 13:25 , Mat 22:13 , Mat 25:41 . The leprosy is spoken of as cleansed, according to the idea that the disease experiences the healing that the disease is healed (Mat 4:23 ). Differently and more correctly expressed in Mar 1:42 .

On , Bengel aptly observes: “echo prompta ad fidem leprosi maturam.” In answer to Paulus, who understands the cleansing in the sense of pronouncing clean, as also Schenkel, Keim, see Strauss, II. p. 48 ff., and Bleek.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

XXVI

OUR LORD’S GREAT MINISTRY IN GALILEE

Part I

Harmony pages 85-39 and Mat 4:17-25 ; Mat 8:2-17 ; Mat 9:2-26 ; Mar 1:14-2:22 ; Mar 5:22-43 ; Luk 4:14-5:39 ; Luk 8:41-56 ; Joh 4:46-54 .

We now come to our Lord’s great ministry m Galilee. We will take a sort of preview of this whole division and then follow it up with more detailed discussions. The general theme of this division of the Harmony is “The kingdom of heaven.” We are prone at times to fall into errors of interpretation concerning the kingdom similar to those which led ancient Israel so far and so harmfully astray concerning the advent of the Messiah. Either we so fill our minds with the sublimity of world redemption, as applied to the race, in the outcome, so satisfy our hearts with rhetorical splendor in the glowing description of universal dominion that we lose sight of its application to individuals in our day, and the responsibilities arising from the salvation of one man, or we so concentrate our fancy upon the consummation that we forget the progressive element in the development of the kingdom and the required use of means in carrying on that progress. The former error breeds unprofitable dreamers the latter promotes skeptics. The preacher is more liable to be led astray by the one, the average church member by the other.

Perhaps the most unprofitable of all sermons is the one full of human eloquence and glowing description excited by the great generalities of salvation, and perhaps the most stubborn of all skepticism is that resulting from disappointment as not witnessing and receiving at once the very climax of salvation, both as to the individual and the race.

Such a spirit of disappointment finds expression in words like these: “The prophecies here of the kingdom are about 1,900 years old. Nineteen centuries have elapsed since the Child was born. Wars have not ceased. The poor are still oppressed. Justice, equity, and righteousness do not prevail. Sorrow, sin, and death still reign. And I am worried and burdened and perplexed. My soul is cast down and disquieted within me.” In such case we need to consider the false principles of interpretation which have misled us, and inquire: Have we been fair to the Book and its promise?

Here I submit certain carefully considered statements: (1) The consummation of the Messiah’s kingdom was never promised as an instantaneous result of the birth of the Child. (2) The era of universal peace must follow the utter and eternal removal of things and persons that offend. This will be the harvest of the world. (3) Again, this consummation was never promised as an immediate result, i.e., without the use of means to be employed by Christ’s people. (4) Yet again, this aggregate consummation approaches only by individual reception of the kingdom and individual progress in sanctification. (5) It is safe to say that the promises have been faithfully fulfilled to just the extent that individuals have received the light, walked in the light and discharged the obligations imposed by the gift of the light. These receptive and obedient ones in every age have experienced life, liberty, peace, and joy, and have contributed their part to the ultimate glorious outcome. (6) And this experience in individuals reliably forecasts the ultimate race and world result, and inspires rational hope of its coming. This is a common sense interpretation. In the light of it our duty is obvious. Our concern should be with our day and our lot and our own case as at present environed. The instances of fulfilment cited by the New Testament illustrate and verify this interpretation, particularly that recorded by Matthew as a fulfilment of the prophecies of Isaiah 4-13 inclusive, of his gospel. What dispassionate mind can read these ten chapters of Matthew, with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, without conceding fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies uttered seven centuries before?

Here is the shining of a great light, brighter than all of the material luminaries in the heavens which declare the glory of God and show his handiwork. This is, indeed, the clean, sure and perfect law of the Lord, converting the soul, making wise the simple, rejoicing the heart, enlightening the eyes, enduring forever, more desirable than gold and sweet “r than honey in the honeycomb. Here are judgments true and righteous altogether.

Here in sermon and similitude the incomparable Teacher discloses the principles and characteristics of a kingdom that, unlike anything earth-born, must be from heaven. Here is a fixed, faultless, supreme, and universal standard of morality. The Teacher not only speaks with authority and wisdom, but evidences divinity by supernatural miracles, signs, and wonders. But there is here more than a teacher and wonder worker. He is a Saviour, a Liberator, a Healer, conferring life, liberty, health, peace, and joy. To John’s question John in prison and in doubt the answer was conclusive that this, indeed, was the one foreshown by the prophets and there was no need to look for another: “Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. And whosoever shall find no occasion for stumbling in me, blessed is he” (Mat 11:1-4 ).

The special matter here most worthy of our consideration is that the kingdom of heaven was not expanded by instantaneous diffusion over a community, a nation, or the world, regardless of human personality, activity, and responsibility ill receiving and propagating it, but it took hold of each receptive individual’s heart and worked out on that line toward the consummation.

To as many as received him to them he gave the power to become the sons of God. Those only who walked in the light realized the blessings of progressive sanctification. To the sons of peace, peace came as a thrilling reality. From those who preferred darkness to light) who judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, the proffered peace departed, returning to the evangelists who offered it.

The poor woman whom Satan had bound for eighteen years experienced no imaginary or figurative release from her bonds (Luk 11:10-16 ). That other woman, who had sinned much, and who, in grateful humility, washed his feet with her tears was not forgiveness real and sweet to her? That blind Bartimeus who kept crying, “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me” did he not receive real sight? That publican, who stood afar off and beat upon his breast, crying, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner” was he not justified?

And when the Galilean disciples went forth in poverty and weakness preaching his gospel, did they not experience the Joy of the harvest on beholding the ingathering of souls? And when they saw even demons subject to them through the name of Jesus, was not that the joy of victory as when conquerors divide the spoil?

When the stronger than the strong man armed came upon him and bound him, might not our Lord justly say, “As lightning falls from heaven, I saw Satan fall before you”? And just so in our own time.

Every conversion brings life, liberty, peace, and joy to the redeemed soul. Every advance in a higher and better life attests that rest is found at every upward step in the growth of grace. Every talent or pound rightly employed gains 100 per cent for the capital invested, and so the individual Christian who looks persistently into the perfect law of liberty, being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the Word, is blessed in every deed. Willing to do the will of God, and following on to know the Lord, he not only knows the doctrine to be of God, but experimentally goes on from strength to strength, from grace to grace, and is changed into the divine image from glory to glory.

In the light of these personal experiences he understands how the kingdom of God is invincible, and doubts not the certain coming of the glorious consummation foreshown in prophecy and graciously extended, in the hand of promise. His faith, staggering not through unbelief, takes hold of the invisible, and his hope leaps forward to the final recompense of the reward.

The opening incident of the Galilean ministry is the healing of the nobleman’s son, the second miracle of our Lord in Galilee, and a most remarkable one. The nobleman was Herod’s steward, maybe Chuza, as many suppose, but that is uncertain. The nobleman manifested great faith and it was amply rewarded. This is an illustration of the tenderness with which Jesus ministered to the temporal needs of the people, thus reaching their souls through their bodies. The effect of this miracle was like that of the first: “He himself believed, and his whole house.”

The next section (Luk 4:16-31 ) gives the incident of his rejection at Nazareth. The account runs thus: “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read.” How solemn, how sad in its immediate result how pathetic that scene in Nazareth when the Redeemer announced his mission and issued his proclamation of deliverance: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to publish good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To send crushed ones away free, To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

Oh! what a day when this scripture was fulfilled in the hearing of the captives I But the Spirit on him was not on them.

As Jewish widows in Elijah’s day, perished of famine, through unbelief, and left to Sarepta’s far-off widow in a foreign land to believe and be blessed with unfailing meal and oil, as Jewish lepers, through unbelief, in Elisha’s day died in uncleanness and loathsomeness while touching elbows with One having power to heal, leaving to a Syrian stranger to wash in Jordan and be clean, so here where Jesus “had been brought up,” the people of Nazareth shut their eyes, bugged their chains and died in darkness and under the power of Satan died unabsolved from sin, died unsanctified and disinherited, and so yet are dying and shall forever die.

The Year of Jubilee came to them in vain. In vain its silver trumpets pealed forth the notes of liberty. They had no ear to hear, and so by consent became slaves of the Terrible One forever.

This brings us to church responsibility and ministerial agency in the perpetuation of this proclamation of mercy. As Paul went forth to far-off shores, announcing in tears, yet with faith and hope and courage, the terms of eternal redemption, so now the churches find in the same mission their warrant for existence, and so now are we sent forth as witnesses to stand before every prison house where souls are immured, commissioned “to open the eyes of the prisoners that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in Christ.” Ours to blow the silver trumpets and proclaim to captives the year of jubilee. Ours is the evangel of liberty ours to make known that “if the Son of God make men free, they shall be free indeed.”

Leaving Nazareth, Jesus went to Capernaum, where he made his residence from which he radiates in his ministry in Galilee, teaching and healing on a large scale. His work here in Zebulun and Naphtali is a distinct fulfilment of Isa 9:1-2 , in which he is represented as a great light shining in the darkness. By the sea of Galilee near Capernaum he calls four fishermen to be his partners Peter, Andrew, James, and John, two sets of brothers. Here he announces his purpose for their lives to be fishers of men. What a lesson! These men were skilled in their occupation and now Jesus takes that skill and turns it into another direction, toward a greater end, “fishers of men.” Here he gives them a sign of his authority and messiahship in the incident of the great draught of fishes. The effect on Peter was marvelous. He was conscious of Christ’s divinity and of his own sinfulness. Thus he makes his confession, Luk 5:8 : “Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” But our Lord replied to Peter: “Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men.” Later (Joh 21 ), when Peter and his comrades went back to their old occupation, the risen Lord appeared to them and renewed their call, performing a miracle of a similar draught of fishes.

In Section 28 (Mar 1:21-28 ; Luk 4:31-37 😉 we have his first case of healing a demoniac. What is the meaning of the word “demoniac”? It means demon-possessed, and illustrates the fact of the impact of spirit on spirit, many instances of which we have in the Bible. Here the demons recognized him, which accords with Paul’s statement that he was seen of angels. They believed and trembled as James says, but they knew no conversion. The lesson there is one of faith. The effect of this miracle was amazement at his authority over the demons.

In Section 29 (Mat 8:14-17 ; Mar 1:29-34 ; Luk 4:38-41 ) we have an account of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, which incident gives us light on the social relations of the disciples. Peter was married, the Romanist position to the contrary notwithstanding. Further scriptural evidence of his marriage is found in 2Co 8:5 . It is interesting to compare the parallel accounts of this incident in the Harmony and see how much more graphic is Mark’s account than those of Matthew and Luke. There is a fine lesson here on the relation between the mother-in-law and the son-in-law. Peter is a fine example of such relation. Immediately following the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother those that had sick ones brought them to Jesus and he healed them, thus fulfilling a prophecy of Isaiah, that he should take our infirmities and bear our diseases. Our Lord not only healed their sick ones, but he cast out the demons from many, upon which they recognized him. But he would not let them speak because they knew that he was the Christ.

The effect of our Lord’s great work as described in Section 29 was that Peter tried to work a corner on salvation and dam it up in Capernaum. This is indicated in the account of the interview of Peter with our Lord as described in Section 30 (Mat 4:23-25 ; Mar 1:35-39 ; Luk 4:42-44 ). Here it is said that Jesus, a great while before day, went out into a desert place to pray, and while out there Peter came to him and complained that they were wanting him everywhere. To this our Lord responded that it was to this end that he had come into the world. So Jesus at once launched out and made three great journeys about Galilee. His first journey included a great mass of teaching and healing, of which we have a few specimens in Sections 31-36, which apparently occurred at Capernaum, his headquarters. A second journey is recorded by Luke in Section 47 (Luk 8:1-3 ) and a third journey is found in Section 55. (For Broadus’ statement of these tours, see Harmony, p. 31.)

Here we have the occasion of one of the special prayers of Jesus. There are four such occasions in his ministry: (1) At his baptism he prayed for the anointing of the Holy Spirit; (2) here he prayed because of the effort to dam up his work of salvation in Capernaum; (3) the popularity caused by the healing of a leper (Sec. 31 Mat 8:2-4 ; Mar 1:40-45 ; Luk 5:12-16 ) drove him to prayer; (4) the fourth occasion was the ordination of the twelve apostles. The immense labors of Jesus are indicated in Mat 4:23-24 . These labors gave him great popularity beyond the borders of Palestine and caused the multitudes from every quarter to flock to him. Attention has already been called to the popularity caused by the healing of the leper (Sec. 31) and Jesus’ prayer as the result.

In the incident of the healing of the paralytic we have a most graphic account by the synoptics and several lessons: (1) That disease may be the result of sin, as “thy sin be forgiven thee”; (2) that of intelligent cooperation; (3) that of persistent effort; (4) that of conquering faith. These are lessons worthy of emulation upon the part of all Christians today. Out of this incident comes the first issue between our Lord and the Pharisees, respecting the authority to forgive sins. This was only a thought of their hearts, but he perceived their thought and rebuked their sin. From this time on they become more bold in their opposition, which finally culminated in his crucifixion. Let the reader note the development of this hatred from section to section of the Harmony.

In Section 33 (Mat 9:9-13 ; Mar 2:13-17 ; Luk 5:27-32 ) we have the account of the call of Matthew, his instant response and his entertainment of his fellow publicans. Here arose the second issue between Christ and the Pharisees, respecting his receiving publicans and sinners and eating with them. This was contrary to their idea in their self-righteousness, but Jesus replied that his mission was to call sinners rather than the righteous. This issue was greatly enlarged later, in Luk 15 , to which he replied with three parables showing his justification and his mission. In this instance (Mat 9:13 ) he refutes their contention with a quotation from Hosea which aptly fitted this case: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”

Then came to him the disciples of John and made inquiry about fasting, to which he replied with the parable of the sons of the bride chamber, the interpretation of which is that we should let our joy or sorrow fit the occasion, or set fasting ments and old bottles, the interpretation of which is to let the form fit the life; beware of shrinking and expansion.

In Section 35 (Mat 9:18-25 ; Mar 5:22-43 ; Luk 8:41-56 ) we have the account of his healing of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. Usually in the miracles of Christ, and in all preceding miracles, there was the touch of some kind between the healer and the healed. We are informed that great multitudes of people came to Jesus with this confidence, “If I but touch him I shall be healed.” Accordingly we find that Christ put his fingers on the eyes of the blind, on the ears of the deaf, or took hold of the hand of the dead. In some way usually there was either presence or contact.

We will now consider the special miracle connected with the fringe of the garment of Jesus which the Romanists cite to justify the usage concerning the relics of the saints. In Num 15:38 we have a statute: “Thou shalt put fringes on the wings or ends of the outer garment,” and this fringe had in it a cord or ribbon of blue, and the object of it was to remind the wearer of the commandments of God. The outer garment was an oblong piece of cloth, one solid piece of cloth, say, a foot and a half wide and four feet long. The edge was fringed on all the four sides, and in the fringe was run a blue thread, and the object of the fringe and of the blue thread also was to make them remember the commandments of God. The statute is repeated in Deu 22 . Again in Deu 6 is the additional law of phylacteries, or frontlets little pieces of leather worn between the eyes on which were inscribed the commandments of God. The people were taught to instruct their children in the commandments of God: “And they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes, and thou shalt put them upon thy door posts, and when thou goest out and when thou comest in, and when thou sittest down and when thou gettest up, and when thou liest down, thou shalt at all times teach thy children the Word of God.” Now, because of these statutes a superstitious veneration began to attach to the fringe and to the phylacteries. So we learn in Mat 23 , as stated by our Saviour, that the Pharisees made broad the phylacteries between their eyes and enlarged the fringe of the outer garment. They made the fringe or tassel very large. They did it to be seen of men. The law prescribed that when the wearer should see this fringe on his garment he should remember the commandments of the Lord his God. But these Pharisees put it on that others might see it, and that it might be an external token to outsiders of their peculiar sanctity and piety. What was intended to be a sign to the man himself was converted by superstition into a sign for other people. Hence this woman said within herself, “If I but touch that sacred fringe the border of his garment.” She could not go up and touch the phylactery between his eyes, in case he wore one, but he did wear the Jewish costume with the fringe or border on his outer garment, and she could reach that from behind. She would not have to go in front of him. She argued: “Now, if I can in the throng get up so that I can reach out and just touch that fringe, I shall be saved.” We see how near her thought connected the healing with the fringe of the garment, because by the double statute of God it was required on the Jewish garment to signify their devotion to his Word the matchless Word of Jehovah. Mark tells us that she was not the only woman, not the only person healed by touching the border of his garment (Mar 6:56 ). Her sentiment was not an isolated one. It was shared by the people at large. Multitudes of people came to touch the fringe of his garment that they might be healed.

The question arises, Why should Christ select that through contact with the fringe on his outer garment healing power should be bestowed? He did do it. The question is, why? There shall be no god introduced unless there be a necessity for a god. There shall be no special miracle unless the case demands it. Why? Let us see if we cannot get a reason. I do not announce the reason dogmatically, but as one that seems sufficient to my own mind. Christ was among the people speaking as never man spake, doing works that no man had done. He was awakening public attention. He was the cynosure of every eye. They came to him from every direction. They thronged him. And right here at this juncture Jairus had said, “Master, my little girl, twelve years old, is even now dead. Go and lay thy hand upon her that she may live.” He arose and started, the crowd surging around him and following him, and all at once he stopped and said, “Who touched me?” “Master, behold the crowd presseth thee on every side, and thou sayest, who touched me?” Here was a miracle necessary to discriminate between the touches of the people. “Who touched me?” Hundreds sin sick touched him and were not saved. Hundreds that had diseases touched him and were unhealed. Hundreds that were under the dominion of Satan looked in his face and heard his words and were not healed. It was touch and not touch. They touched, but there was no real contact. They rubbed up against salvation and were not saved. Salvation walked through their streets and talked to them face to face. The stream of life flowed right before their doors and they died of thirst. Health came with rosy color and bright eye and glowing cheek and with buoyant step walked through their plague district) and they died of sickness. But some touched him. Some reached forth the hand and laid hold upon the might of his power. This woman did.

Poor woman! What probably was her thought? “I heard that ruler tell him that he had a little girl twelve years old that was just dead, and he asked him to go and heal her, she twelve years old, and for twelve years I have been dead. For twelve years worse than death has had hold on me and I have spent all my money; have consulted many physicians. I have not been benefited by earthly remedies, but rendered worse. Twelve years has death been on me, and if he can heal that, girl that died at twelve years of age, maybe he can heal me twelve years dead. If that ruler says, ‘If you will but go and lay your hand upon her even now she will revive,’ what can I do? In my timidity, in the ceremonial uncleanness of my condition, in my shame, I dare not speak. I cannot in this crowd, for if they knew that I were here they would cast me out; for if any of them touch me they are unclean in the eyes of the law. I cannot go and kneel down before him, and say, ‘Master, have mercy on me.’ The ceremonial law of uncleanness forbids my showing my face, and if I come in contact with his power it must be with a touch upon the garment. And I beg for that. I say within myself, that if I but touch the fringe with its blue thread in it that reminds him of God’s commands, I shall be healed.”

There was the association of her healing with the memento of the Word of God. There was the touch of her faith, that came into contact with that Word of God and with him. So her faith reasoned, and virtue going out from him responded to her faith. And she felt in herself that she was healed. Well, he healed her and there it stands out one of the most beautiful lessons in the Word of God. Oh, what a lesson! Some will say at the judgment, “Lord Jesus, thou hast taught in our streets and we have done many wonders in thy name,” and he will say, “I never knew you.” “You were close to the Saviour. You did not touch him. You were his neighbor. You did not touch him.” There were many lepers in Israel in the days of Elisha, the prophet lepers that could have been healed of leprosy by an appeal to the power of God in Elisha. They died in leprosy, but Naaman came from afar and touched the healing power of the prophet and was healed. There were many widows in Israel whose staff of life was gone, whose barrel of meal was empty, whose cruse of oil had failed, and here was the prophet of God, who by a word could supply that empty barrel, that failing cruse, but they did not touch him. They did not reach out in faith and come in contact with that power. The widow of Sarepta did, and her barrel of meal never failed, and her cruse of oil never wasted. Now, the special miracle: It was designed to show that if there be a putting forth of faith, even one finger of faith, and that one finger of faith touches but the fringe, the outskirts of salvation only let there be a touch, though that touch covers no more space than the point of a cambric needle “let there be the touch of faith and thou art saved.”

In the midst of this stir about the woman the news of the death of Jairus’ daughter burst forth upon them with the request to trouble not the Master any further. But that did not stop our Lord. He proceeded immediately to the house to find a tumult and many weeping and wailing, for which he gently rebuked them. This brought forth their scorn, but taking Peter, James, and John, he went in and raised the child to life and his praise went forth into all that land.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the general theme of this division of the Harmony?

2. What common errors of interpretation of the kingdom? Illustrate.

3. What was the offspring of these errors respectively and who the most liable to each?

4. What, perhaps, was the most unprofitable sermon and what was the most stubborn skepticism?

5. How does such disappointment find expression?

6. Give the author’s statements relative to the kingdom,

7. Where do we find the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecies relative to the kingdom?

8. What specific prophecy in Isaiah fulfilled in Matthew?

9. Where do we find the principles of the kingdom disclosed?

10. What great office did our Lord fill besides teacher and wonder worker and what proof did he submit to John the Baptist?

11. What thing most worthy of special consideration in connection with the kingdom?

12. What the opening incident of the Galilean ministry, what its importance, what its great lesson and what its effect?

13. Give an account of our Lord’s rejection at Nazareth.

14. Why was he thus rejected?

15. By what incidents in the lives of the prophets does he illustrate the folly of their unbelief?

16. What is the church responsibility and ministerial agency in the proclamation of mercy?

17. Where does Jesus make his home after his rejection at Nazareth and what his first work in this region?

18. Recite the incident of the call of the four fishermen and its lessons.

19. What was Christ’s first case of healing a demoniac and what the meaning of the term “demoniac”? Illustrate.

20. What was the lesson of this miracle and what was its effect?

21. Recite the incident of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and give its lessons.

22. What were the great results of this miracle and why would not Christ allow the demons to speak?

23. How did Peter try to work a “corner” on salvation and how did our Lord defeat the plan?

24. How many and what journeys did Jesus make about Galilee?

25. Give the four special prayers of Jesus here cited and the occasion of each.

26. Describe the incident of the healing of the paralytic and its les sons.

27. What issue arises here between our Lord and the Pharisees and what was the final culmination?

28. Give an account of the call of Matthew, his entertainment, the second issue between our Lord and the Pharisees and how Jesus met it.

29. What question here arises, how was it brought up, how did our Lord reply and what the meaning of his parables here?

30. What double miracle follows and what was the usual method of miracles?

31. What was the law of fringes and phylacteries and what were their real purpose?

32. Why should Christ select that through contact with the fringe on his outer garment healing power should be bestowed?

33. What, probably, was the thought of this woman as she contemplated this venture of faith?

34. What was the great lesson of this incident of her healing?

35. Describe the miracle of raising Jairus’ daughter and its effect.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Ver. 2. And, behold, there came a leper ] This leprosy was most rife in our Saviour’s time; God so ordering that Judea was sickest when her Physician was nearest. The Jews are still a nasty people; and this kind of leprosy seems to have been proper to them, as Plica Polonica, Morbus Gallicus, Sudor Anglicus. No stranger in England was touched with this disease, and yet the English were chased therewith, not in England only, but in other countries abroad; which made them like tyrants, both feared and avoided wherever they came. So were these Jewish lepers. Hence that fable in Tacitus, that the Israelites were driven out of Egypt for that loathsome disease. This, said one malevolent heathen, is the cause why they rest every seventh day. Bodinus observes it for a special providence of God, that in Arabia (which bordereth upon Judea) there are no swine to be found, lest that most leprous creature, saith he, should more and more infest and infect that people, who are naturally subject to the leprosy. a And another good author is of the opinion that God did therefore forbid the Jews to eat either swine’s flesh or hare’s flesh, quod ista caro facile in male affectis corporibus putrescat, because in diseased bodies it easily corrupts and turns to ill humours.

And worshipped him ] Which he would hardly ever have done, haply, had he not been a leper. Morbi sunt vlrtutum officina: diseases, saith St Ambrose, are the shop of virtues. King Alfred found himself ever best when he was worst; and therefore prayed God to send him always some sickness; Gehazi’s leprosy cured him, his white forehead made him a white soul.

If thou wilt, thou canst, &c. ] So another came with, “If thou canst do anything, help us.” We never doubt of Christ’s will to do us good (saith a great divine), but, in some degree, we doubt also his power. True faith doubts neither, but believes against sense in things invisible, and against reason in things incredible. Sense corrects imagination, reason corrects sense, but faith corrects both.

a Summa Dei bonitate id factum est, ne populos ad lepram proclives, animal leprosissimum magis, ac magis infestaret. Jo. Bodin.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2. ] This same miracle is related by St. Luke without any mark of definiteness, either as to time or place, , . In this instance there is, and can be, no doubt that the transactions are identical: and this may serve us as a key-note, by which the less obvious and more intricate harmonies of these two narrations may be arranged. The plain assertion of the account in the text requires that the leper should have met our Lord on His descent from the mountain, while great multitudes were following Him. The accounts in St. Luke and St. Mark require no such fixed date. This narrative therefore fixes the occurrence. I conceive it highly probable that St. Matthew was himself a hearer of the Sermon, and one of those who followed our Lord at this time. From St. Luke’s account, the miracle was performed in, or rather, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of, some city: what city, does not appear. As the leper is in all three accounts related to have come to Jesus ( implying it in Luke), he may have been outside the city, and have run into it to our Lord.

] The limits of a note allow of only an abridgment of the most important particulars relating to this disease. Read Lev 13:1-59 ; Lev 14:1-57 . for the Mosaic enactments respecting it, and its nature and symptoms. See also Exo 4:6 ; Num 12:10 ; 2Ki 5:27 ; 2Ki 15:5 ; 2Ch 26:19 ; 2Ch 26:21 . The whole ordinances relating to leprosy were symbolical and typical. The disease was not contagious: so that the view which makes them mere sanitary regulations is out of the question. The fact of its non-contagious nature has been abundantly proved by learned men, and is evident from the Scripture itself: for the priests had continually to be in close contact with lepers, even to handling and examining them. We find Naaman, a leper, commanding the armies of Syria ( 2Ki 5:1 ); Gehazi, though a leper, is conversed with by the king of Israel ( 2Ki 8:4-5 ); and in the examination of a leper by the priest, if a man was entirely covered with leprosy, he was to be pronounced clean ( Lev 13:12-13 ). The leper was not shut out from the synagogue (Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 513), nor from the Christian churches (Suicer, Thesaurus Patrum, under ). Besides, the analogy of the other uncleannesses under the Mosaic law, e.g. having touched the dead, having an issue, which are joined with leprosy ( Num 5:2 ), shews that sanitary caution was not the motive of these ceremonial enactments, but a far deeper reason. This disease was specially selected, as being the most loathsome and incurable of all, to represent the effect of the defilement of sin upon the once pure and holy body of man. “Leprosy was, indeed, nothing short of a living death, a poisoning of the springs, a corrupting of all the humours, of life; a dissolution, little by little, of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away.” (Trench on the Miracles, p. 213.) See Num 12:12 . The leper was the type of one dead in sin: the same emblems are used in his misery as those of mourning for the dead: the same means of cleansing as for uncleanness through connexion with death, and which were never used except on these two occasions. Compare Num 19:6 ; Num 19:13 ; Num 19:18 , with Lev 14:4-7 . All this exclusion and mournful separation imported the perpetual exclusion of the abominable and polluted from the true city of God, as declared Rev 21:27 , . And David, when after his deadly sin he utters his prayer of penitence, ‘Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean,’ Psa 51:7 , doubtless saw in his own utter spiritual uncleanness, that of which the ceremonial uncleanness that was purged with hyssop was the type. Thus in the above-cited instances we find leprosy inflicted as the punishment of rebellion, lying, and presumption. ‘I put the plague of leprosy in an house’ ( Lev 14:34 ), ‘Remember what the Lord thy God did to Miriam’ ( Deu 24:9 ), and other passages, point out this plague as a peculiar infliction from God. “The Jews termed it ‘the finger of God,’ and emphatically ‘the stroke.’ They said that it attacked first a man’s house; and if he did not turn, his clothing; and then, if he persisted in sin, himself. So too, they said, that a man’s true repentance was the one condition of his leprosy leaving him.” Trench, p. 216. The Jews, from the prophecy Isa 53:4 , had a tradition that the Messiah should be a leper.

] , Luk 5:12 ( , Mar 1:40 ). These differences of expression are important. See beginning of note on this verse.

] Not here merely a title of respect, but an expression of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. “This is the right utterance of , which will never be made in vain.” Stier. When Miriam was a leper, , , , , Num 12:13 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

behold. Figure of speech Asterismos (App-6), for emphasis.

leper. See note on Exo 4:6.

worshipped = did homage. See App-137. The variations in Mar 1, and Luk 5, are due to the fact that they do not record the same miracle. See App-97.

Lord. App-98. This is the first time that Jesus is called “Lord”. In this second period of His ministry, His Person is to be proclaimed as Messiah, both Divine (here), and in Mat 8:20 human. When once they begin to call Him “Lord”, they continue. Compare verses: Mat 8:8, Mat 8:6, &c.

clean. See note on Mat 8:3. Not the same miracle as in Mar 1:40 and Luk 5:12. Here both without the city (Capernaum, App-169); there, both within (probably Chorazin), for the leper was “full” and therefore “clean” (Lev 13:12, Lev 13:13). Here, the leper obeys and is silent; there, he disobeys, so that the Lord could no more enter the city (Chorazin). The antecedents were different, and the consequents also, as may be seen from the two records.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2.] This same miracle is related by St. Luke without any mark of definiteness, either as to time or place,- , . In this instance there is, and can be, no doubt that the transactions are identical: and this may serve us as a key-note, by which the less obvious and more intricate harmonies of these two narrations may be arranged. The plain assertion of the account in the text requires that the leper should have met our Lord on His descent from the mountain, while great multitudes were following Him. The accounts in St. Luke and St. Mark require no such fixed date. This narrative therefore fixes the occurrence. I conceive it highly probable that St. Matthew was himself a hearer of the Sermon, and one of those who followed our Lord at this time. From St. Lukes account, the miracle was performed in, or rather, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of, some city: what city, does not appear. As the leper is in all three accounts related to have come to Jesus ( implying it in Luke), he may have been outside the city, and have run into it to our Lord.

] The limits of a note allow of only an abridgment of the most important particulars relating to this disease. Read Lev 13:1-59; Lev 14:1-57. for the Mosaic enactments respecting it, and its nature and symptoms. See also Exo 4:6; Num 12:10; 2Ki 5:27; 2Ki 15:5; 2Ch 26:19; 2Ch 26:21. The whole ordinances relating to leprosy were symbolical and typical. The disease was not contagious: so that the view which makes them mere sanitary regulations is out of the question. The fact of its non-contagious nature has been abundantly proved by learned men, and is evident from the Scripture itself: for the priests had continually to be in close contact with lepers, even to handling and examining them. We find Naaman, a leper, commanding the armies of Syria (2Ki 5:1); Gehazi, though a leper, is conversed with by the king of Israel (2Ki 8:4-5); and in the examination of a leper by the priest, if a man was entirely covered with leprosy, he was to be pronounced clean (Lev 13:12-13). The leper was not shut out from the synagogue (Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 513), nor from the Christian churches (Suicer, Thesaurus Patrum, under ). Besides, the analogy of the other uncleannesses under the Mosaic law, e.g. having touched the dead, having an issue, which are joined with leprosy (Num 5:2), shews that sanitary caution was not the motive of these ceremonial enactments, but a far deeper reason. This disease was specially selected, as being the most loathsome and incurable of all, to represent the effect of the defilement of sin upon the once pure and holy body of man. Leprosy was, indeed, nothing short of a living death, a poisoning of the springs, a corrupting of all the humours, of life; a dissolution, little by little, of the whole body, so that one limb after another actually decayed and fell away. (Trench on the Miracles, p. 213.) See Num 12:12. The leper was the type of one dead in sin: the same emblems are used in his misery as those of mourning for the dead: the same means of cleansing as for uncleanness through connexion with death, and which were never used except on these two occasions. Compare Num 19:6; Num 19:13; Num 19:18, with Lev 14:4-7. All this exclusion and mournful separation imported the perpetual exclusion of the abominable and polluted from the true city of God, as declared Rev 21:27, . And David, when after his deadly sin he utters his prayer of penitence, Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean, Psa 51:7, doubtless saw in his own utter spiritual uncleanness, that of which the ceremonial uncleanness that was purged with hyssop was the type. Thus in the above-cited instances we find leprosy inflicted as the punishment of rebellion, lying, and presumption. I put the plague of leprosy in an house (Lev 14:34), Remember what the Lord thy God did to Miriam (Deu 24:9), and other passages, point out this plague as a peculiar infliction from God. The Jews termed it the finger of God, and emphatically the stroke. They said that it attacked first a mans house; and if he did not turn, his clothing; and then, if he persisted in sin, himself. So too, they said, that a mans true repentance was the one condition of his leprosy leaving him. Trench, p. 216. The Jews, from the prophecy Isa 53:4, had a tradition that the Messiah should be a leper.

] , Luk 5:12 (, Mar 1:40). These differences of expression are important. See beginning of note on this verse.

] Not here merely a title of respect, but an expression of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. This is the right utterance of , which will never be made in vain. Stier. When Miriam was a leper, , , , , Num 12:13.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 8:2. , a leper) The most grievous diseases were leprosy (cf. with this passage 2Ki 5:7), paralysis (cf. Mar 2:3 with Mat 8:6) and fever (see Mat 8:14). It is probable that the leper[355] had listened to our Lords discourse from a distance.-, …, if, etc.) the leper does not doubt our Lords power, but he humbly rests the event upon His will alone. Faith exclaims, if Thou wilt, not, if Thou canst; see Mar 9:22.-, Thou canst) At the commencement of His ministry, the chief object of Faith was the omnipotence of Jesus. This faith the leper might have conceived from His discourse.

[355] Whose cure Matthew places, in the correct order, between the Sermon on the Mount and the cure of the centurions servant.-Harm., p. 252.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

behold, there came a leper

The King, having in Matthew 5-7. declared the principles of the kingdom, makes proof, in Matthew 8, 9, of His power to banish from the earth the consequences of sin, and to control the elements of nature.

Lord

Gr. Kurios. The first occurrence of the word is applied to Jesus with His evident sanction. In itself the word means “master,” and is so used of mere human relationships in, e.g. Mat 6:24; Mat 15:27; Mar 13:35; Eph 6:9 Both uses, divine and human, are brought together in Col 4:1. It is the (Greek – Heb). “Adonai.” (See Scofield “Gen 15:2”), and is so used by Jesus Christ in Mat 22:43-45. In the N.T. the distinctive uses of Kurios (Lord) are:

(1) As the N.T. translation of the Heb. Jehovah (Lord), e.g. Mat 1:20; Mat 1:22; Mat 2:15; Mat 3:3; Mat 4:7; Mat 4:10; Mat 11:25; Mat 21:9; Mar 12:29; Mar 12:30; Luk 1:68; Luk 2:9

(2) Jesus Himself so uses Kurios, e.g. Mat 4:7; Mat 4:10; Mat 11:25; Mar 12:11.

(3) But the great use of Kurios is as the divine title of Jesus, the Christ. In this sense it occurs in the N.T. 663 times. That the intent is to identify Jesus Christ with the O.T. Deity is evident from Mat 3:3; Mat 12:8; Mat 21:9; Psa 118:26; Mat 22:43-45; Luk 1:43; Joh 8:58; Joh 14:8-10; Joh 20:28; Act 9:5; Act 13:33. (Psalms 2.). (See Scofield “Joh 20:28”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

The Leper

And behold, there came to him a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was cleansed.Mat 8:2-3.

1. The disease of leprosy is scarcely known, except in a mild form, among ourselves; only those who have seen it in Eastern lands can realize its full horror and loathsomeness. And not even then unless they place themselves in intelligent sympathy with the ancient Hebrew point of view, and understand the mysterious dread and utter abhorrence which surrounded the person so afflicted. He was an accursed thing, under the ban of God, the pariah, the unapproachable. Writhing under the dread disease, he was lost to the world. His home was the caves among the rocks, his food the scanty pittance which he could gather in the fields or by the roadsides. Leprosy was held to be the mark of awful sin, the manifestation of Gods special displeasure. Even if he recovered, he could not be restored without an elaborate ritual, which was supposed to cleanse him from the taint of disease, and to reconcile him to God. How horrible this all seems as we read and think about it. Yet we must realize it if we desire to appreciate fully all that the Saviours touch and healing implied.

2. To approach the leper, to look upon him, to bend over him, to reach out the hand and touch him, required no common courage. There was such pollution in the act that the one doing it became ritually unclean. For a man to step across the awful chasm which yawned between the leper and society, to minister to his wants, to show him the way back to health and home, was braver than to face death on the battlefield. To the beholder it would be an evidence of utter recklessness, an open defiance of all tradition and all law. Yet Christ, the Son of Man, did not hesitate for a moment. He did not come to set at naught the law, made sacred by Moses decree and by long ages of use. It was not that. It was only a declaration, of which His wonderful life was so full, of the higher law which was from henceforth to govern the world; that higher law of the sympathy of the great Father with all manner of suffering and sorrow, that higher law which was to take the place of the narrow rule of Hebrew ritual, of the possibility of the restoration of every outcast by the acceptance of the help of the Saviour.

Christ did not disregard the prohibition to touch the leper because He wanted to show His contempt for the statute. For Him the wealth of His own life repealed the statute. He was like a vessel riding the deep sea; all underlaid with rocks the sea may be, but for that vessel there are no rocks; the vastness of the deep waters on whose surface its course is swung practically obliterates the rocks, and bears the vessel forward in the confidence of infinite security.1 [Note: C. H. Parkhurst, A Little Lower than the Angels, 43.]

The Cry for Cleansing

Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

1. This is a confession of faith rather than a direct prayer. It expresses faith in the power of Christ. It is a grand thing when a leper can believe in anything besides his own misery. Probably this man had heard only at a distance (owing to the disabilities of his loathsome disease) of Christs deeds of power, and had never been near enough to Him to hear the tender tones of that voice which had melting pity in it, or to trace the lines of gentleness and grace in His loving countenance. Besides, men learn sooner to trace power than to trace tenderness. The Red Sea and Sinai revealed Gods power, but it took a millennium and a half longer for Calvary to reveal His love. The plea of the leper therefore is, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst. Did he accept the general belief that only God could heal the leper? Then there was the more faith in this admission of Christs power.

What a consciousness of might there was in Jesus! Others, prophets and apostles, have healed the sick, but their power was delegated. It came as in waves of Divine impulse, intermittent and temporary. The power that Jesus wielded was inherent and absolute, deeps which knew neither cessation nor diminution. Christs will was supreme over all forces. Natures potencies are diffused and isolated, slumbering in herb or metal, flower or leaf, in mountain or sea. But all are inert and useless until man distils them with his subtle alchemies, and then applies them by his slow processes, dissolving the tinctures in the blood, sending on its warm currents the healing virtue, if haply it may reach its goal and accomplish its mission. But all these potencies lay in the hand or in the will of Christ. The forces of life all were marshalled under His bidding. He had but to say to one Go, and it went, here or there, or anywhither; nor does it go for nought; it accomplishes its high behest, the great Masters will.1 [Note: H. Burton, The Gospel of St. Luke, 267.]

2. Now the exercise of faith must always precede healing. A certain moral temper there must be in the recipient, a certain spiritual outlook, a movement of trust, a personal desire of living interest that will go out from the soul towards the presence of Him who draws it into His mastery. These there must be if any virtue is to go out from Him. He moves along in silence, but His silence has power in it that can be felt, and it acts as a spiritual test of those on whom it falls. If they are in a moral condition to be helped, they become aware of the succour that is at hand. They feel about for what it means, they detect His personal supremacy. They have an impulse that goes out to Him; they put up a cry; they thrust out a hand to touch, if it may be, the hem of His garment. That act of theirs releases His force. Instantaneously and inevitably His life has passed into theirs. They are invaded by His strength; they are permeated by His vitality; they are quickened by His energy; they find themselves, by sheer and natural necessity, rising, walking, seeing, hearing. They could not do anything else. Surprise vanishes and wonder is slain. It is as simple as any other natural effect. They perfectly understand Him as He tells them that they had but to be in that condition and the thing is bound to happenThy faith hath made thee whole.

Oft had the Master to pass inactive and helpless as poor maimed men sat in moody silence by the roadside, and never asked who He was, and never hoped for a hand to save. He saw many a leper go by engulfed in his own shame, never lifting his eyes to beg of Him a boon. He had to watch the stupid indifference of those whom misery had dulled and hardened into despair, and still He might not speak. He might not shake them out of their torpor; His mouth was closed; His hope must hold itself back. Why will not they understand? Why cannot they cry out? Just one whisper, Jesus of Nazareth, have mercy upon us, and in a moment He would be free. He would be there at their side; His hand would have leaped out; His touch would have been upon them. The words would have rushed out willingly from his tongue, I will; go in peace, for thy faith hath made thee whole.

Just as the amazing resources of electricity lie all about us, quivering and inactive until we call out their capacities, so the vast pardon of God waits, and through its obedience to natural law must wait until the Masters touch has on it a human pressure. The leper must discover it, must draw upon it, must open himself to it, and then the power long repressed leaps out in an instant, rushes forward in free haste, in liberated gladness. It pours itself out upon him, it bathes him round, it seizes upon him, it possesses him. Not a moment is lost. Before his own appeal has died off his lips, Lord, if thou wilt, the answer is upon himit has already done its full workI will; be thou clean.1 [Note: Canon Scott Holland.]

Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean is a prayer lovely in the simplicity of its human pleadingan appeal to the power which lay in the man to whom he spoke: His power was the mans claim; the relation between them was of the strongestthat between plenty and need, between strength and weakness, between health and diseasepoor bonds comparatively between man and man, for mans plenty, strength, and health can only supplement, not satisfy, the need; support the weakness, not change it into strength; mitigate the disease of His fellow, not slay it with invading life; but in regard to God, all whose power is creative, any necessity of His creatures is a perfect bond between them and Him; His magnificence must flow into the channels of the indigence He has created.2 [Note: George MacDonald, The Miracles of Our Lord, 86.]

3. Why does the leper question the Saviours will? It does not appear as if our Lord had as yet healed any leper; this man is at any rate the first leper mentioned as coming to Him for healing. Then the poor man no doubt regarded his leprosy as a just judgment for the sins of which his conscience was afraid, and went about so humbled and ashamed that he hardly dared pray for deliverance. Besides, he might think (for so the Jews commonly thought) that there was no healing of leprosy except by miracle, by the immediate act of God Almighty Himself; and this again would make his request seem bolder. And so the wonder is, not that he questioned Jesus will, but that he believed in His power. By believing in His power he threw himself upon the innermost tenderness of Christs nature; and the whole being of our Lord answered to the call. There was no question of power to be solved or proved; the method of the appeal left no room for argument; the lepers words, as they passed into the depths of Christs loving nature, which alone was invoked, cut a passage for themselves, through which the healing waters could flow. The response was instantif thou wiltI will.

Jesus did not treat slight ailments, only the most profound, obstinate, ghastly maladies. He did not concern Himself with simple aches and pains, but proved His Divine authority and efficacy in distinguishing leprosy, palsy, fever, blindness, and terrible psychic derangements. Numbers of reformers are prepared to deal with the superficial ailments of humanitywith its toothaches, sores, and scratches; but only One dares attack the deep, stubborn, chronic diseases of our nature, the fundamental evils of the race. He alone is the grand physician of the world-lazaretto, the healer of the incurable, despairing of no man. Let me, then, seek in Him for the grace that shall root out the most malign morbid humours of the soul. The darkest and deadliest elements of evil He can rebuke and expel. Lord, that I might be clean!1 [Note: W. L. Watkinson.]

The Healing Touch

And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou made clean.

1. Touch is the sense which love employs. It means the annihilation of distance between one who loves and that which he loves, so that mere nearness is replaced by contact. Our sense of the significance of touch finds expression in such phrases as getting into touch, or living in touch, with people. They stand for sympathetic contact, the sympathy which seeks contact, and does not keep others at arms length. Children learn it in their mothers laps, and are never content to be merely near those they love without actually touching them.

A very little thing was this touch, even as an indication of kindly purpose, but it was just the little thing that a sensitive sick man needed. It is, after all, little things that indicate either sympathy or antipathy. I will buy with you, says Shylock, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following; but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. Had Jesus held aloof from the afflicted they never would have trusted Him. Nothing so pains a sick person as the sign of shrinking from him. Wear your gloves in any room you like, but not in the sick-room. Bend your ear to the trembling dying lips, and shun not to lay your hands on the diseased, if you are to do them any good, either as nurse or as spiritual adviser and Christian friend.

We may be allowed to insert here a few words from an account sent to us of Dollings influence with the rough youths of Landport by a lady (then Miss Nance, now Mrs. Cator) who managed a club for those fellows, under his sanction, when he was at S. Agathas: Mr. Dolling and S. Agathas Mission was the only kind of religion that ever appealed to them, and I feel sure I could never have persuaded them to go and talk about their lives to anyone else. They said, Oh, hes different; we dont mind him. I could tell of miracles of healing under Mr. Dollings touch. One young soldier said to me, He laid his hand on my head, and, I dont know why, I told him all I had ever done. 1 [Note: O. E. Osborne, The Life of Father Dolling, 269.]

2. It would have been quite possible for our Lord to heal this leper by a word alone. It would be quite possible for God Almighty to say to all the moral lepers of the world, Be thou clean! and the cure would be Divinely perfect. Why, then, does He not? Just because the cure would be Divinely perfect. God wants it to be humanly perfect, and this can be effected only by a touch. Elijah in the desert may be fed by ravens or he may be fed by mans philanthropy. The physical effect will be the same, but not the moral effect. Elijah fed by the ravens is not a whit nearer to his kind than Elijah faint and hungry; but Elijah fed by human hands becomes himself more human. The greatest calamity of a leper was not his leprosy; it was his divorce from his fellow-men. It was not his physical disease that divorced him; it was the belief in his moral contagion. His greatest cry was for some one to touch himto bridge the river of separation. It was easy to get the touch after he was healed. But the hard thing was to get contact before healingto receive the touch before receiving the mandate, Be thou clean! His fellow-men would not grant him that boon. Doubtless they prayed for his recovery, but they would not touch him un-recovered. God could have healed him in answer to their prayers, but He wanted to heal him in answer to their contact.

Social reformers are discovering that they can do little good for people of any sort while they hold them at arms length. I have learned, says a worker in one of the University settlements, that you can get access to the people who need you only by living with them. They will not come to you; but Jew and Gentile will make you welcome if you come to them. Our meetings for their benefit are a failure. Our personal intercourse with them, man to man, has been promising great good. It is of no use to come once or twice to see them; you must live with them if you are to do anything for them.1 [Note: R. E. Thompson, Nature, the Mirror of Grace, 81.]

The hand, more than any other limb or organ, differentiates man, begotten in the image of his Father, from the whole series of animal creations. No other animal has a hand. The corresponding organ in the anthropoid ape, which is the most like a hand, is not really a hand; it can fashion nothing, it is fit for nothing but to cling to a branch or convey food to the mouth. Only man has a hand, and as with it he stamps his impress upon nature, and founds his sovereignty of civilization, and performs his deeds of heroism, so, when he would caress, or soothe, or comfort, or encourage, or bless, or stimulate, or welcome his fellow human being, in obedience to some secret instinct, he invariably automatically lays his hand upon him.2 [Note: B. Wilberforce, The Power that Worketh in Us, 56.]

Jesus could have cured the leper with a word. There was no need He should touch him. No need, did I say? There was every need. For no one else would touch him. The healthy human hand, always more or less healing, was never laid on him; he was despised and rejected. It was a poor thing for the Lord to cure his body; He must comfort and cure his sore heart. Of all men a leper, I say, needed to be touched with the hand of love. Spenser says, Entire affection hateth nicer hands. It was not for our master, our brother, our ideal man, to draw around Him the skirts of His garments and speak a lofty word of healing, that the man might at least be clean before He touched him. The man was His brother, and an evil disease cleaved fast unto him. Out went the loving hand to the ugly skin, and there was His brother as he should bewith the flesh of a child. I thank God that the touch went before the word. Nor do I think it was the touch of a finger, or of the finger-tips. It was a kindly healing touch in its nature as in its power. Oh, blessed leper! thou knowest henceforth what kind of a God there is in the earthnot the God of the priests, but a God such as Himself only can reveal to the hearts of His own.1 [Note: G. MacDonald, The Miracles of Our Lord, 88.]

III

The Greater Gift

The physical cure is the pledge and promise of a still greater blessing. For leprosy was singled out by God Himself from the vast catalogue of human diseases and sufferings to keep before the eyes of His people of old a perpetual memorial of the vileness and awfulness of moral evil. The outer body was made by Him a mirror of the far deeper and darker taint in the soul. It was a silent preacher in the midst of the theocratic nation and to the end of time, testifying to the virulence of a more inveterate maladythat from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in us, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores. Although it by no means invariably followed that the lepers of Israel were afflicted with their dire plague in consequence of personal sin, yet we know that this was the case in some instances, such as those of Miriam, Gehazi, and Uzziah. And at all events the disease was regarded by the Jews as a mark of the Divine displeasure. They spoke of it as the finger of God. It was considered an outward and visible sign of inward disorganization, guilt, and impurity.

It is clear that the same principle [of the law of Moses] which made all having to do with death, as mourning, a corpse, the occasions of a ceremonial uncleanness, inasmuch as all these were signs and consequences of sin, might consistently with this have made every sickness an occasion of uncleanness, each of these being also death beginning, partial deathechoes in the body of that terrible reality, sin in the soul. But instead of this, in a gracious sparing of man, and not pushing the principle to the uttermost, God took but one sickness, one of these visible outcomings of a tainted nature, in which to testify that evil was not from Him, could not dwell with Him. He linked this teaching with but one; by His laws concerning it to train men into a sense of a clinging impurity, which needed a Pure and a Purifier to overcome and expel, and which nothing short of His taking of our flesh could drive out. And leprosy, the sickness of sicknesses, was throughout these Levitical ordinances selected of God from the whole host of maladies and diseases which had broken in upon the bodies of men. Bearing His testimony against it, He bore His testimony against that out of which every sickness grows, against sin; as not from Him, as grievous in His sight; and against the sickness also itself as grievous, being as it was a visible manifestation, a direct consequence of sin, a forerunner of that death which by the portal of disobedience and revolt had found entrance into natures created by Him for immortality.1 [Note: R. C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, 226.]

1. Salvation provides free access to God. When the Lord said, I will; be thou made clean, when He had put forth His healing hand, from that moment the man had a right of approach to the place where Gods honour dwelthe might again tread the courts of the Temple; he might again offer his gifts; he might once more worship with the worshippers. And this is the great fruit of the sacrifice of Christof the I will; be thou made clean, pronounced concerning each and all of usthat it procures us admission into the holiest, into the presence of God, and so brings us under the mighty healing influences which are ever going forth from Him, that having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, purged from dead works, we are able to draw near in faith, and henceforth to serve the living God.

The Son of God, at once above our life and in our life, morally Divine and circumstantially human, mediates for us between the self so hard to escape, and the Infinite so hopeless to reach; and draws us out of our mournful darkness without losing us in excess of light. He opens to us the moral and spiritual mysteries of our existence, appealing to a consciousness in us that was asleep before. And though He leaves whole worlds of thought approachable only by silent wonder, yet His own walk of heavenly communion, His words of grace and works of power, His strife of Divine sorrow, His cross of self-sacrifice, His reappearance behind the veil of life eternal, fix on Him such holy trust and love, that, where we are denied the assurance of knowledge, we attain the repose of faith.1 [Note: Life and Letters of James Martineau, i. 286.]

2. Salvation links men together in a holy fellowship. As the Lord sent this suppliant, before an outcast, back to the society of his fellows, a cleansed man, no longer obliged to cover his lips in shame, no longer with a miserable sense of something that separated him from all his race, even so He gives unto His redeemed and sanctified a ground of true communion and fellowship one with anotherHe takes away the middle wall of partition that was between each man and his brethren, having slain the enmity and the selfishness by His cross.

I have endeavoured in my tracts to prove that if Christ be really the head of every man, and if He really have taken human flesh, there is ground for a universal fellowship among men (a fellowship that is itself the foundation of those particular fellowships of the nation and the family, which I also consider sacred). I have maintained that it is the business of a Church to assert this ground of universal fellowship; that it ought to make men understand and feel how possible it is for men as men to fraternize in Christ; how impossible it is to fraternize, except in Him.2 [Note: The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice, i. 258.]

3. It will be said that in any case the days of isolation are gone, and gone for ever. Nation can no longer hold itself aloof from nation, and people from people, as if they did not share a common humanity, hardly as if they lived in the same world. We are daily being forced into closer contacts, welded into closer unities. Well, what is to be the consequence of all this? Without the touch, the healing, cleansing, life-giving touch of Christ and His gospel, without the higher life of a genuinely Christian civilization, it may mean a disaster fearful to contemplate, whose proportions we can scarcely imagine. On the one side it can mean only destruction to the races of heathendom. It is a well-known law of ethnology that, unless there be some assimilating, unifying power such as the gospel alone can furnish, the weaker always perishes rapidly before the stronger. The contacts of trade, commercialism, and militarism bring invariably in their train contagion and infection. The heathen are apt pupils of evil. With a fatal facility they learn the new vices of the soldiers, sailors, and traders of so-called civilized and Christian peoples, and add them to their own native vices and diseases. And the combination means nothing less than destruction.

There are consequences that run in the other direction also. With these ever closer relations of commerce and conquest which are fast knitting all the world into one come new and fearful dangers to ourselves. Up from the uncleansed life of heathendom shall sweep mighty plagues, both physical and moral. That life has diseases to give us whose horror we never dreamed of. It has sins to teach us which even in the depths of our depravity we have not imagined. And soldiers and sailors, traders and merchants, wanderers in far lands, away from the restraints of home, acquaintance, and familiar associations, are apt pupils in such things. That is what contact without Christ is bound to mean. If, through that inevitable touch of people upon people, virtue does not go out from us to them, then contagion and infection are sure to pass from them to us and us to them. If we will not share with them our highest life, our nobler ambitions, our blessings, above all, our gospel, then they will share with us their plagues of soul and body. Therefore alongside the warehouse, the barracks, and the saloon, which always mark the first wave of an advancing Western civilization, must be built the Christian school, the hospital, and the church.

During Sunday afternoons in June 1888, Professor Drummond delivered a series of religious addresses at Grosvenor House, London. After distinguishing between religion and theology, he said that the truth of Christianity is manifest in the fact that there is no real civilization without it, and that the purer the form of Christianity the greater the development of civilization. Show me, he said, with Matthew Arnold, ten square miles outside of Christianity where the life of man or the virtue of woman is safe, and Ill throw over Christianity at once.1 [Note: G. A. Smith, The Life of Henry Drummond, 279.]

Chalmers address at the Exeter Hall meeting of the London Missionary Society in 1886 was the climax of his public work during this visit home. Exeter Hall was crowded, and the main interest of the meeting centred in Tamates unpolished but thrilling eloquence. To recall a few of the most striking passages: I have had twenty-one years experience amongst natives. I have seen the semi-civilized and the uncivilized; I have lived with the Christian native, and I have lived, dined, and slept with the cannibal. I have visited the islands of the New Hebrides; I have visited the Loyalty Group, I have seen the work of missions in the Samoan Group, I know all the islands of the Society Group, I have lived for ten years in the Hervey Group, I know a few of the groups close on the line, and for at least nine years of my life I have lived with the savages of New Guinea; but I have never yet met with a single man or woman, or a single people, that your civilization without Christianity has civilized. For Gods sake let it be done at once! Gospel and commerce, but remember this, it must be the Gospel first. Wherever there has been the slightest spark of civilization in the Southern Seas it has been because the Gospel has been preached there, and wherever you find in the Island of New Guinea a friendly people or a people that will welcome you, there the missionaries of the Cross have been preaching Christ. Civilization! The Rampart can only be stormed by those who carry the Cross.2 [Note: R. Lovett, James Chalmers, 276.]

The Leper

Literature

Burrell (D. J.), Christ and Men, 168.

Calthrop (G.), The Future Life, 256.

Davies (D.), Talks with Men, Women and Children, i. 21.

Gilbert (M. N.), in Sermons on the Gospels: Advent to Trinity, 119.

Howatt (J. R.), Jesus the Poet, 57.

Keble (J.), Sermons for the Christian Year: Christmas and Epiphany, 463.

Macduff (J. R.), Memories of Gennesaret, 51.

Mackennal (A.), Christs Healing Touch, 1.

McNeill (J.), Regent Square Pulpit, iii. 313.

Magee (W. C.), Growth in Grace, 271.

Matheson (G.), Thoughts for Lifes Journey, 16.

Parkhurst (C. H.), A Little Lower than the Angels, 39.

Power (P. B.), The I Wills of Christ, 67.

Raymond (G. L.), The Spiritual Life, 33.

Thompson (R. E.), Nature, the Mirror of Grace, 69.

Trench (R. C.), Westminster and Other Sermons, 15.

Wilberforce (B.), The Power that Worketh in Us, 54.

Williams (C. D.), A Valid Christianity for To-Day, 20.

Wilmot-Buxton (H. J.), By Word and Deed, 21.

Christian World Pulpit, liii. 48 (H. S. Holland); lxxx. 56 (H. E. Selwyn).

Churchmans Pulpit: Third Sunday after the Epiphany, iv. 52 (E. Palmer).

Fuente: The Great Texts of the Bible

behold: Mar 1:40-45, Luk 5:12

a leper: Mat 10:8, Mat 26:6, Lev 13:44-46, Num 5:2, Num 5:3, Num 12:10, Deu 24:8, Deu 24:9, 2Sa 3:39, 2Ki 5:1, 2Ki 5:27, 2Ki 7:3, 2Ki 7:4, 2Ki 15:5, 2Ch 26:19-21, Luk 4:27, Luk 17:12-19

worshipped: Mat 2:11, Mat 4:9, Mat 14:33, Mat 15:25, Mat 18:26, Mat 28:9, Mat 28:17, Mar 1:40, Mar 5:6, Mar 5:7, Luk 5:12, Joh 9:38, 1Co 14:25, Rev 19:10, Rev 22:8, Rev 22:9

if: Mat 9:28, Mat 9:29, Mat 13:58, Mar 9:22-24

Reciprocal: Lev 14:2 – He shall Jos 5:14 – fell on his 2Ki 5:3 – he would Mat 9:18 – worshipped Mat 20:20 – worshipping Act 10:25 – and fell

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE SIGNIFICANT UNIT

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him, saying, Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean.

Mat 8:2

I. Alone with the Saviour.Out of the great multitude there came a leper. Here we have a broad pluralthe great multitude, and the significant unita leper from out of the midst. Out of the multitudethey always make room for him. There is always room for the leper. He was avoided by everybody, that is the natural tendency; there is a solitariness about him. We are absolutely alone in our own sins, and that is why we should be alone with our own Saviour. So the man forced his way through the multitude, and came to the feet of the Saviour.

II. The lepers prayer.There was no difficulty about his prayer. Leprosy sharpens wit; leprosy gives point to prayer. The lepers prayer, Lord, if Thou wilt, is like the Lords prayer, Who became sin for us, when he said, Father, if it be possible Thy Will, not Mine, be done. If Thou wilt: you cannot add one touch of beauty to this short prayer. It is the depth of misery crying to the depth of mercy. Take away the personal petition, and put our own in. Let us fill up the form with our own need. What shall we say? Lord, if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me strong penitent happy.

III. Trouble drives to the supernatural.The great, big, strong, healthy man cannot help the poor leper. No; what we want is the Man of Sorrows acquainted with grief to help us in our trouble. It is not Gods will that there should be sin and sicknesss, and suffering and death. It is not Gods will that there should be a loathsome leper. Sickness and sorrow, repentance and death, are here judicially. They cannot be dispensed with; without them the world would go mad. They are Gods constables, and they cannot be dispensed with. This is the answer to the strange frequent question, Why does God allow leprosy, suffering, and death? We shall see these things when we stand on the steps of eternity.

IV. The Lord touched him.His healing touch, could it be contaminated? No. Would the Lord Jesus ever say No to a leper who asked to be cleansed? He has said No to Scribe, Pharisee, Sadducee, and Herodian. But the poor leper came to Him in trust and trouble, and got Yes. So we see Him, and so He is always. Go to Him in whatever trouble you have.

The Rev. A. H. Stanton.

Illustration

Our Lord wills in heaven all that is done on earth in His name by His Church, which is His Body; but He, nevertheless, or rather for that very reason, puts forth the hand of His Body upon earth, the ministers and stewards of His mysteries, and by them touches and heals the leprous soul.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

8:2

The leper worshiped Jesus which would mean only that he assumed a position of respect. See the long definition of the word at chapter 2:2. The law of Moses required a leper to maintain a safe distance from others (Lev 13:45-46), hence the conduct of this man could be only one of courtesy. Leprosy was incurable except by miraculous power, and Jesus had previously proved his ability to cure bodily ailments by his miraculous power (Mat 4:23-24).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

[Thou canst make me clean.] The doctrine in the law concerning leprosy paints out very well the doctrine of sin.

I. It teacheth, that no creature is so unclean by a touch as man. Yea, it may with good reason be asked, whether any creature, while it lived, was unclean to the touch, beside man? That is often repeated in the Talmudists, that “he that takes a worm in his hand, all the waters of Jordan cannot wash him from his uncleanness”; that is, while the worm is as yet in his hand; or the worm being cast away, not until the time appointed for such purification be expired. But whether it is to be understood of a living or dead worm, it is doubted, not without cause, since the law, treating of this matter, speaketh only of those things that died of themselves. See Lev 11:31; “Whosoever shall touch them when they be dead,” etc.: and Mat 8:32; “Upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, shall fall,” etc. But whether he speaks of a living worm, or a dead, uncleanness followed by the touch of it for that day only: for “he shall be unclean (saith the law) until the evening”: but the carcase of a man being touched, a week’s uncleanness followed. See Numbers_19.

II. Among all the uncleannesses of men, leprosy was the greatest, inasmuch as other uncleannesses separated the unclean person, or rendered him unclean, for a day, or a week, or a month; but the leprosy, perhaps, for ever.

III. When the leper was purified, the leprosy was not healed: but the poison of the disease being evaporated, and the danger of the contagion gone, the leper was restored to the public congregation. Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, was adjudged to perpetual leprosy; and yet he was cleansed, and conversed with the king (2Ki 8:5); cleanse, not healed. Thus under justification and sanctification there remain still the seeds and filth of sin.

IV. He that was full of the leprosy was pronounced clean; he that was otherwise, was not. Lev 13:12; “If the leprosy shall cover the whole body from head to foot, thou shalt pronounce him clean,” etc. A law certainly to be wondered at! Is he not clean, till the whole body be infected and covered with the leprosy? Nor shalt thou, O sinner, be made clean without the like condition. Either acknowledge thyself all over leprous, or thou shalt not be cleansed.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

XXXIV.

JESUS HEALS A LEPER AND CREATES MUCH EXCITEMENT.

aMATT.VIII. 2-4; bMARK I. 40-45; cLUKE V. 12-16.

c12 And it came to pass, while he was in one of the cities [it was a city of Galilee, but as it was not named, it is idle to conjecture which city it was], behold, bthere cometh {acame} bto him a leper [There is much discussion as to what is here meant by leprosy. Two diseases now go by that name; viz., psoriasis and elephantiasis. There are also three varieties of psoriasis, namely, white, black and red. There are also three varieties or modifications of elephantiasis, namely, tubercular, spotted or streaked, and ansthetic. Elephantiasis is the leprosy found in modern times in Syria, Greece, Spain, Norway and Africa. Now, since Lev 13:1-59., in determining [176] leprosy, lays great stress on a white or reddish-white depression of the skin, the hairs in which are turned white or yellow, and since it also provides that the leper who is white all over shall be declared clean, and since in the only two cases where lepers are described– Num 12:10, 2Ki 5:27–they are spoken of as “white as snow,” scholars have been led to think that the Biblical leprosy was the white form of psoriasis. But the facts hardly warrant us in excluding the other forms of psoriasis, or even elephantiasis; for 1. Leviticus xiii. also declares that any bright spot or scale shall be pronounced leprosy, if it be found to spread abroad over the body; and this indefinite language would let in elephantiasis, cancer and many other skin diseases. In fact, the law deals with the initial symptoms rather than with the ultimate phases of the fully developed disease. 2. Elephantiasis was a common disease in our Saviour’s time, and has been ever since, and would hardly be called leprosy now, if it had not been popularly so called then. The word “leprosy” comes from “lepo,” which means to peel off in scales. It is hereditary for generations, though modern medical authorities hold that it is not contagious. However, the returning Crusaders spread it all over Europe in the tenth and eleventh centuries, so that according to Matthew Paris there was no less than nine thousand hospitals set apart for its victims. The facts that the priests had to handle and examine lepers, and that any one who was white all over with leprosy was declared clean, led scholars to think that the laws of Moses, which forbade any one to approach or touch a leper, were not enacted to prevent the spread of a contagion, but for typical and symbolic purposes. It is thought that God chose the leprosy as the symbol of sin and its consequences, and that the Mosaic legislation was given to carry out this conception. Being the most loathsome and incurable of all diseases, it fitly represents in bodily form the ravages of sin in the soul of a man. But there must also have been a sanitary principle in God’s laws, since we still deem it wise to separate lepers, and since other people besides the Hebrews (as the Persians) prohibited lepers from mingling with other [177] citizens. Elephantiasis is the most awful disease known. The body of its victim disintegrates joint by joint, until the whole frame crumbles to pieces. Psoriasis is milder, but is very distressing. Mead thus describes a case: The “skin was shining as covered with flakes of snow. And as the furfuraceous or bran-like, scales were daily rubbed off, the flesh appeared quick or raw underneath.” In addition to the scaly symptoms, the skin becomes hard and cracks open, and from the cracks an ichorous humor oozes. The disease spreads inwardly, and ends in consumption, dropsy, suffocation, and death], ca man full of leprosy [Some have thought that Luke meant to indicate one so completely covered with leprosy as to be clean ( Lev 13:28, Lev 13:29, Lev 13:36, Lev 13:37). But the fact that Jesus sent him to the priest, shows that he was not such a clean leper. Luke meant to describe a leper in the last stages of the disease–a leper past all hope]: and when he saw Jesus, bbeseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying to him, che fell on his face, aand worshipped him, cand besought him, saying, bunto him, cLord [The Jews, in addressing any distinguished person, usually employed the title “Lord.” They were also accustomed to kneel before prophets and kings. It is not likely that the leper knew enough of Jesus to address him as the Son of God. He evidently took Jesus for some great prophet; but he must have had great faith, for he was full of confidence that Jesus had power to heal him, although there was but one case of leper-cleansing in the Scriptures– 2Ki 5:1-19, Luk 4:27], if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. [The leper believed in the power of Jesus, but doubted his willingness to expend it on one so unworthy and so unclean. In temporal matters we can not always be as sure of God’s willingness as we can be of his power. We should note that the man asked rather for the blessing of cleanness than for health. To the Jew uncleanness was more horrible than disease. It meant to be an outcast from Israel, and to be classed with swine, dogs and other odious and abhorrent creatures. The leper, therefore, prayed that the Lord would remove his shame [178] and pollution.] b41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him [Mark habitually notes the feelings, and hence also the gestures of Jesus. It was not an accidental, but an intentional, touch. Popular belief so confused and confounded leprosy with the uncleanness and corruption of sin, as to make the leper feel that Jesus might also compromise his purity if he concerned himself to relieve it. The touch of Jesus, therefore, gave the leper a new conception of divine compassion. It is argued that Jesus, by this touch, was made legally unclean until the evening ( Lev 13:46, Lev 11:40). But we should note the spirit and purpose of this law. Touch was prohibited because it defiled the person touching, and aided not the person touched. In Jesus’ case the reasons for the law were absent, the conditions being reversed. Touching defiled not the toucher, and healed the touched. In all things Jesus touches and shares our human state, but he so shares it that instead of his being defiled by our uncleanness, we are purified by his righteousness. Moreover, Jesus, as a priest after the order of Melchizedek ( Heb 5:6), possessed the priestly right to touch the leper without defilement– Heb 4:15], and saith unto him, {csaying,} I will; be thou made clean. [The Lord’s answer is an echo of the man’s prayer. The words, “I will,” express the high authority of Jesus.] b42 And straightway the {ahis} cleprosy departed from him, {awas cleansed.} band he was made clean. [“Luke says, ‘departed’, giving the merely physical view of the event. Matthew says, ‘was cleansed’, using ceremonial language. Mark combines the two forms”–Godet.] 43 And he strictly charged him, cto tell no man [The language used indicates that Jesus sternly forbade the man to tell what had been done. The man’s conduct, present and future, shows that he needed severe speech. In his uncontrollable eagerness to be healed he had overstepped his privileges, for he was not legally permitted to thus enter cities and draw near to people ( Num 5:2, Num 5:3); he was to keep at a distance from them, and covering his mouth, was to cry, “Tame, [179] tame–unclean, unclean” ( Lev 13:45, Lev 13:46, Luk 17:12, Luk 17:13). The man evinced a like recklessness in disregarding the command of Jesus]: band straightway sent him out, a4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; {bsay nothing to any man:} [Several reasons are suggested why the Lord thus commanded silence: 1. It may have been better for the man not to mention his cure ( Joh 9:34). 2. He required the decision of the priest to make him legally clean; and too much talk might so prejudice the priests as to lead them to refuse to admit his cure. 3. But the best reason is that it accorded with our Lord’s general course, which was to suppress excitement, and thus prevent too great crowds from gathering about him and hindering his work. To take this view is to say that Jesus meant to prevent exactly what happened] cbut go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, bthe things which {athe gift that} Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. [Though healed of his leprosy, the man was not legally clean until declared so by the priest. The priest alone could readmit him to the congregation. The local priest inspected the healed leper, and if he was found clean or cured, he was purified by the use of two birds, cedar wood, scarlet and hyssop, razor and bath. After seven days he was again inspected, and if still cured the priest repaired with him to the temple, where he offered the gift for his cleansing, which was three lambs, with flour and oil; or if the leper was poor, one lamb and two doves or pigeons, with flour and oil ( Lev 14:19-22.). The healed leper was a testimony that Messiah, the great Physician, had come, and that he respected the law of Moses. This testimony was given both to priests and people.] 45 But he went out [from the presence of Jesus and from the city], and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, {c15 But so much the more went abroad the report concerning him:}. [The leper was so elated that he could scarcely refrain from publishing his cure, and he must also have thought that this was what Jesus really [180] wanted–that in commanding him not to publish it he did not mean what he said] and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of their infirmities. binsomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city [Not a natural or physical inability, but the inability of impropriety. Jesus could not do what he judged not best to do. The excitement cause by such an entry was injurious in several ways: 1. It gave such an emphasis to the miracles of Jesus as to make them overshadow his teaching. 2. It threatened to arouse the jealousy of the government. 3. It rendered the people incapable of calm thought. Two things constantly threatened the ministry of Jesus, namely, impatience in the multitude, and envious malice in the priests and Pharisees. Jesus wished to add to neither of these elements of opposition. Thus the disobedience of the leper interrupted Jesus, and thwarted him in his purpose to visit the villages. Disobedience, no matter how well-meaning, always hinders the work of Christ], c16 But he withdrew himself in the deserts, {bwas without in desert places:} [That is, the the remote grazing-lands like that desert in which he afterwards fed the five thousand. Such was our Lord’s unexampled meekness that he preferred the silent deserts to the applause of multitudes. His meekness was as high above the capacity of a merely human being as were his miracles] cand prayed. [Luke’s gospel is pre-eminently the gospel of prayer and thanksgiving] band they came to him from every quarter.

[FFG 176-181]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Verse 2

A leper. The disease here intended was one of the most loathsome maladies to which the human frame is subject. It was highly contagious; and, though patients sometimes recovered, the disease was considered generally incurable.–Worshipped him; prostrated himself before him, in token of respect and veneration.–Make me clean; heal me.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

8:2 {1} And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

(1) Christ in healing the leprous with the touch of his hand, shows that he abhors no sinners that come unto him, be they ever so unclean.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Matthew typically used the phrase kai idou ("and behold," not translated in the NIV) to mark the beginning of a new section, not to indicate the next event chronologically.

The exact nature of biblical leprosy is unknown. Apparently it included what we call leprosy today, Hansen’s disease, but it involved other skin diseases too (cf. Leviticus 13-14). [Note: A Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. "Leprosy," by R. K. Harrison, 2:363-66; Rebecca A. and E. Eugene Baillie, "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy," Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.] A leper not only had some loathsome skin disease that made him repulsive to others, but he also was ritually unclean because of his illness. This precluded contact with other people and participation in temple worship. The Jews regarded leprosy as a curse from God (Num 12:10; Num 12:12; Job 18:13), and healings were rare (Num 12:10-15; 2Ki 5:9-14). The Jews thought that healing a leper was as difficult as raising the dead (2Ki 5:7; 2Ki 5:14).

The leper in this story knelt (Gr. prosekynei) before Jesus. The same word describes worshippers in the New Testament. However, Matthew probably just described him kneeling leaving his readers to draw their own conclusions about Jesus’ worthiness to receive worship (cf. Mat 7:22-23).

The man had great faith in Jesus’ ability to heal him. Evidently he had heard about and perhaps seen others whom Jesus had healed (Mat 4:24). His only reservation was Jesus’ willingness to use His power to heal him. The leper probably supposed that a Jewish teacher like Jesus would probably not want to have anything to do with him since to do so would render Jesus ritually unclean.

"In most cases . . . the purpose of the minor characters [in Matthew’s story] is to function as foils for the disciples." [Note: Kingsbury, Matthew as . . ., p. 27.]

Probably the crowd gasped when Jesus graciously extended His hand and touched the unclean leper. Lepers had to avoid all contact with other people, but Jesus compassionately reached out to him in his helpless condition. Jesus expressed His willingness with His word, and He expressed His power with His touch.

"Whatever remedies, medical, magical, or sympathetic, Rabbinic writings may indicate for various kinds of disease, leprosy is not included in the catalogue. They left aside what even the Old Testament marked as moral death, by enjoining those so stricken to avoid all contact with the living, and even to bear the appearance of mourners.

"In truth, the possibility of any cure through human agency was never contemplated by the Jews." [Note: Edersheim, The Life . . ., 1:491, 492.]

"There is a sense in which leprosy is an archetypal fruit of the original fall of humanity. It leaves its victims in a most pitiable state: ostracized, helpless, hopeless, despairing. The cursed leper, like fallen humanity, has no options until he encounters the messianic king who will make all things new. . . . As Jesus reached out to the leper, God in Jesus has reached out to all victims of sin." [Note: Hagner, p. 200.]

"When Jesus touched the leper, He contracted the leper’s defilement; but He also conveyed His health! Is this not what He did for us on the cross when He was made sin for us? (2Co 5:21)" [Note: Wiersbe, 1:33.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles