Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 8:4
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
4. the gift that Moses commanded ] “two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet and hyssop.” And on the eighth day “two he lambs without blemish, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish, and three tenth deals of fine flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil.” Lev 14:4; Lev 14:10.
for a testimony unto them ] Either (1) to the priests, or (2) to the people who were following Jesus; in either case to shew that Jesus came to fulfil the law. Christ enjoins the cleansed leper to tell no one, thus instructing us that He would not have people converted by His miracles. Christ addresses Himself to men’s hearts not to their eyes or ears. He will not fling Himself from the height of the temple to persuade men.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See thou tell no man – This command is to be understood as extending only to the time until he had made the proper representation to the priest. It was his duty to hasten to him immediately Lev 14:2; not to delay by talking about it, but, as the first thing, to obey the laws of God, and make proper acknowledgments to him by an offering. The place where this cure was performed was in Galilee, a distance of 40 or 50 miles from Jerusalem; and it was his duty to make haste to the residence of the priest, and obtain his sanction to the reality of the cure. Perhaps, also, Christ was apprehensive that the report would go before the man if he delayed, and the priest, through opposition to Jesus, might pronounce it an imposition.
And offer the gift that Moses commanded – That Moses directed to be offered by a leper when he was cured. That gift consisted of two birds alive and clean, cedar-wood, scarlet, and hyssop, Lev 14:4.
For a testimony unto them – Not to the priest, but to the people. Show thyself to the priest, and get his testimony to the reality of the cure, as a proof to the people that the healing is genuine. It was necessary that he should have that testimony before he could be received to the congregation or allowed to mingle with the people. Having this, he would be, of course, restored to the privileges of social and religious life, and the proof of the miracle, to the people, would be put beyond a doubt.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. Jesus saith – See thou tell no man] Had our Lord, at this early period, fully manifested himself as the Messiah, the people in all likelihood would have proclaimed him King; this, however, refused by him, must have excited the hatred of the Jewish rulers, and the jealousy of the Roman government; and, speaking after the manner of men, his farther preachings and miracles must have been impeded. This alone seems to be the reason why he said to the leper, See thou tell no man.
Show thyself to the priest] This was to conform to the law instituted in this case, Le 14:1, c.
Offer the gift] This gift was two living, clean birds, some cedar wood, with scarlet and hyssop, Le 14:4, which were to be brought for his cleansing and, when clean, two he lambs, one ewe lamb, three tenth deals of flour, and one log of oil, Le 14:10; but if the person was poor, then he was to bring one lamb, one tenth deal of flour, one log of oil and two turtle doves, or young pigeons, Le 14:21-22. See the notes on Lev. 14.
Now all this was to be done for a testimony to them; to prove that this leper, who was doubtless well known in the land, had been thoroughly cleansed; and thus, in this private way, to give full proof to the priesthood that Jesus was the true Messiah. The Jewish rabbins allowed that curing the lepers should be a characteristic of the Messiah; (see Bishop Chandler’s Vindication;) therefore the obstinacy of the priests, &c., in rejecting Christ, was utterly inexcusable.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Some think that our Saviour only commanded him silence until he had showed himself unto the priest, and he, according to the law, Lev 13:1-59, should have pronounced him clean, lest their envy upon hearing of it should have caused them to have obscured the miracle, by delaying to pronounce him clean; but it is observable that this was not the only time when Christ commanded those upon whom he had wrought miracles to say nothing of it: see Mat 9:30; 12:16; 17:9. It is therefore more probable, that this precept was not to be understood with that limitation, but that Christ did it, either that he might not be thought to seek his own glory, or rather, because Christ judged it not yet time by his miracles to be publicly made known: but he sends him to the priest, both to teach him obedience to the law, and that the truth of the miracle might by a public record be confirmed. He also commands him to
offer the gift appointed by the law, Lev 14:1-57, thereby both acknowledging his cure to be from God, and testifying his thankfulness.
That Moses commanded; to show that he came not to oppose Moses.
For a testimony unto them; that hereafter it may be a testimony unto them, that I am more than the Son of man, Joh 5:36.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. And Jesus“straitlycharged him, and forthwith sent him away” (Mr1:43), and
saith unto him, See thou tellno manA hard condition this would seem to a grateful heart,whose natural language, in such a case, is “Come, hear, all yethat fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul”(Ps 66:16). We shall presentlysee the reason for it.
but go thy way, show thyselfto the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded (Le14:1-57).
for a testimony unto themapalpable witness that the Great Healer had indeed come, and that “Godhad visited His people.” What the sequel was, our EvangelistMatthew does not say; but Mark thus gives it (Mr1:45): “But he went out, and began to publish it much, andto blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openlyenter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they cameto Him from every quarter.” Thusby an over-zealous, thoughmost natural and not very culpable, infringement of the injunction tokeep the matter quietwas our Lord, to some extent, thwarted in Hismovements. As His whole course was sublimely noiseless (Mt12:19), so we find Him repeatedly taking steps to prevent mattersprematurely coming to a crisis with Him. (But see on Mr5:19, 20). “And He withdrew Himself,” adds Luke (Lu5:16), “into the wilderness, and prayed”; retreatingfrom the popular excitement into the secret place of the Most High,and thus coming forth as dew upon the mown grass, and as showers thatwater the earth (Ps 72:6). Andthis is the secret both of strength and of sweetness in the servantsand followers of Christ in every age.
Mt8:5-13. HEALING OF THECENTURION’S SERVANT.( = Lu 7:1-10).
This incident belongs to a laterstage. For the exposition, see on Lu7:1-10.
Mt8:14-17. HEALING OFPETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAWAND MANY OTHERS.( = Mar 1:29-34; Luk 4:38-41).
For the exposition, see on Mr1:29-34.
Mt8:18-22. INCIDENTSILLUSTRATIVE OFDISCIPLESHIP. ( = Lu9:57-62).
The incidents here are two: in thecorresponding passage of Luke they are three. Here they areintroduced before the mission of the Twelve: in Luke, when our Lordwas making preparation for His final journey to Jerusalem. But toconclude from this, as some good critics do (as BENGEL,ELLICOTT, c.) that one ofthese incidents at least occurred twicewhich led to the mention ofthe others at the two different timesis too artificial. Takingthem, then, as one set of occurrences, the question arises. Are theyrecorded by Matthew or by Luke in their proper place? NEANDER,SCHLEIERMACHER, andOLSHAUSEN adhere to Luke’sorder while MEYER, DEWETTE, and LANGEprefer that of Matthew. Probably the first incident is here in itsright place. But as the command, in the second incident, to preachthe kingdom of God, would scarcely have been given at so early aperiod, it is likely that it and the third incident have their trueplace in Luke. Taking these three incidents up here then we have,
I. The Rash or PrecipitateDisciple (Mat 8:19; Mat 8:20).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Jesus saith unto him, see thou tell no man, c] Not that this fact could be concealed, if it was done publicly, before the multitude nor was it Christ’s design that it should be; only it was his counsel to this man, that whilst he was on the road to Jerusalem, and when he was come there, that he would speak of it to no man, before he came to the priest, or priests: lest out of ill will to Christ, they should refuse to pronounce him clean:
but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. The man was now in one of the cities of Galilee; from hence Christ orders him to make the best of his way, directly to Jerusalem; and present himself to one of the priests, by him to be examined, whether he was free of his leprosy; and then offer what was ordered by the law of Moses in such cases: for as yet the ceremonial law was not abolished: and therefore, as Christ was subject to it himself, so he enjoins others the observance of it. There was a two fold offering, according to the law of Moses, on account of the cleansing of the leper;
Le 14:1 the one was on the first day of his cleansing, when he first showed himself to the priest, and consisted of two birds, alive and clean, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop; the other, and which was properly the offering on the eighth day, was, if the man was able, two he lambs and one ewe lamb, with a meat offering; but if poor, one lamb, with a meat offering, and two turtle doves, or two young pigeons. The Jewish canons, concerning this matter, are as follow f:
“when a leper is healed of his leprosy, after they have cleansed him with cedarwood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and the two birds, and have shaved all his flesh, and bathed him; after all this he enters into Jerusalem, and numbers seven days; and on the seventh day he shaves a second time, as he shaved at first, and bathes–and on the morrow, or eighth day, he bathes a second time, and after that they offer his offerings–he bathes on the eighth day in the court of the women, in the chamber of the lepers, which is there–if it is delayed, and he shaves not on the seventh day, but he shaves on the eighth, or some days after, on the day that he shaves, he bathes, and his sun sets; and on the morrow he brings his offerings, after he hath bathed a second time, as we have declared: how do they do unto him? The leper stands without the court of Israel, over against the eastern gate, in the gate of Nicanor and his face to the west: and there stand all they that want atonement; and there they give the bitter waters to the suspected women: and the priest takes the leper’s trespass offering, while it is alive, and waves it with the log of oil, towards the east, according to the way of all wave offerings; and if he waves this by itself, and this by itself, it is right: after that he brings the leper’s trespass offering to the door, and he brings it in both his hands into the court, and layeth them upon it; they slay it immediately, and two priests receive its blood: the one receives it in a vessel, and sprinkles it upon the top of the altar; and the other, in his right hand, and pours it into his left hand, and sprinkles with his finger the right hand; and if he repeats it, and receives it in his left hand first, it is unlawful. The priest that receives some of the blood in a vessel, carries it, and sprinkles it upon the altar first; and after that comes the priest, who receives the blood in the palm of his hand, to the leper, the priest being within, and the leper without; and the leper puts in his head, and the priest puts of the blood that is in the palm of his hand, upon the tip of his right ear; after that he puts in his right hand, and he puts of it on the thumb of his hand; and after that he putteth in his right foot, and he puts of it upon the toe of his foot, and if he puts of it upon the left, it is not right; and after that he offers his sin offering, and his burnt offering: and after that he hath put the blood upon his thumb and toe, the priest takes of the log of oil, and pours it into the left hand of his fellow priest; and if he pours it into his own hand, it will do: and he dips the finger of his right hand into the oil, which is in his hand, and sprinkles it seven times towards the most holy place: at every sprinkling there is a dipping of the finger in the oil; and if he sprinkles, and does not intend it, over against the holy place, it is right; and after that, he comes to the leper, and puts of the oil upon the place of the blood of the trespass offering, on the tip of the ear, and on the thumb of his hand, and toe of his foot; and that which is left of the oil, that is in his hand, he puts it on the head of him that is to be cleansed; and if he puts it not, atonement is not made; and the rest of the log is divided among the priests; and what remains of the log is not eaten, but in the Court, by the males of the priests, as the rest of the holy things; and it is forbidden to eat of the log of oil, until he has sprinkled it seven times, and has put of it upon the thumb and toe; and if he eats, he is to be beaten, as he that eats holy things before sprinkling.”
Now these were the things which, as the other evangelists say, this leper was ordered to offer for his cleansing, “for a testimony unto them”; meaning either to the priests; for the Syriac and Persic versions read the former clause, “show thyself to the priests”, in
Lu 17:14 that they being satisfied of the healing and cleansing of this man, and accordingly pronouncing him clean, and accepting his offerings, this might be either a convincing testimony to them, that Jesus was the Son of God, and true Messiah, and that he did not deny or oppose the law given by Moses; or might be a standing testimony against them, should they continue in unbelief; or else to the Jews, who saw the miracle, and heard the orders Christ gave to the man after he had healed him; or to the lepers that they were cleansed; or this law of Moses was for a testimony or statute to be always observed by them in such cases.
f Maimon. Hilchot Mechosre Capporah, c. 14. per totum.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “And Jesus saith unto him,” (kai legei auto ho lesous) “And Jesus said (directly) to him,” to the trusting and pleading former leper whom he had just instantly healed, similar to other occasions, Mat 9:30; Mr 5:43.
2) “See thou tell no man;” (hora medeni lipes) “See to it that you tell no one;” This was imperative of both mood and tone, Mr 1:43. The healing announcement was not to be made by the former leper. Such was restricted as a duty and privilege of a priest under the law, Lev 14:4-32; Isa 42:21.
3) “But go thy way, shew thyself to the priest,” (alla hupage seatuon diekson to hierei) “But go (instead) and show yourself to the priest,” Note our Lord came to fulfill the law of Moses, not to bypass its requirements, Luk 5:14.
4) “And offer the gift that Moses commanded,” (kai prosenegkon to doron ho prosetaksen Mouses) “And offer the gift which Moses mandated,” directed under the law, Lev 14:3; Deu 24:8; Luk 5:14. When the leper did not keep the matter quiet, or “low-key,” Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, Mr 1:45.
5) “For a testimony unto them.” (eis marturion autois) “With reference to a testimony to them,” that the priests might officially certify, as legal health officers of the Mosaic system, that the leper had been made clean, Mat 5:17-19. Jesus respected the civil and religious laws He was under. This is an example of how He honored the law He was then fulfilling.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. And Jesus saith to him, See that thou tell it not to any one Some persons, by way of excusing the leper, think that Christ did not seriously forbid him to publish the miracle, but rather gave him an additional excitement to do so. Others more justly consider the reason of the prohibition to have been, that the full “time was not yet come,” (Joh 7:6.) I do acknowledge, that to have suppressed this miracle would have been improper: but our Lord had a particular reason for wishing that the report of it should not be immediately spread, or, at least, not by the leper The leper was so far from deserving praise for the disorderly exhibition of his regard, that he ought, in my opinion, to be condemned for not obeying Christ’s injunction. If he wished to express his gratitude to him to whom he was indebted for his cure, no better method could have been found than obedience, which God prefers to all sacrifices, (1Sa 15:22,) and which is the origin and foundation of lawful worship. This example shows us, that those who allow themselves to be guided by inconsiderate zeal act improperly, because the more eager they are to please God, the greater progress do they make in rebellion to his commands.
Show thyself to the priest As the ceremonies of the law had not yet been repealed, Christ did not wish that they should be despised or neglected. Now, God had commanded in the law that, if any man had been cleansed from leprosy, he should present himself to the priest with a sacrifice of thanksgiving, (Lev 14:2.) The design (492) was, that the priest, by his decision, might attest the benefit received from God; and that the person who had been healed might give an expression of his gratitude. Christ, therefore, by sending the leper to the priest, proves that he had no other object in view than to display the glory of God. The showing to the priest was for the purpose of examination, and the offering was the expression of thanksgiving. He wishes that the priests should examine the man, to make the divine favor manifest and undoubted; and that the leper, on the other hand, should acknowledge that God had healed him. Meanwhile, as I have just mentioned, he commands them to observe the ceremonies prescribed by the law, till the time when it should be repealed.
The attempt of the Papists to produce this passage, as an authority for their own confession, (493) is highly foolish. Leprosy, they allege, is put allegorically for sin; and the priests, who are consecrated by the Pope, are the judges of spiritual leprosy. (494) Even granting that this authority was conferred on the priests under the law, for the purpose of informing the people, that all their cleanness, and the decision respecting it, depended on the priesthood, still this is impiously claimed for themselves by the Popish priests. All the honor that belonged to the ancient priests is now claimed by Christ alone as his own. He alone is appointed to be the judge of spiritual leprosy, and entitled to receive, from those who have been cured, the offering for their cleansing. Under the law, a sacrifice was employed as the seal of cleanness, because satisfaction made by the shedding of blood is the only way in which men are cleansed. To transfer to another that right, which God has declared to be the prerogative of his own Son, is a detestable sacrilege. When the ministers of the Gospel, by the command of Christ, declare to sinners that they are cleansed from their sins, this must not be tortured into the pretended jurisdiction, which the priests imagine, of pronouncing a decision about leprosy. (495)
(492) “ Le but de ce commandement;” — “the end of that commandment.”
(493) Those who wish to make themselves acquainted with Calvin’s views on the whole subject of what the Papists call auricular confession, will find them stated in the Institutions of the Christian Religion (B. III. c. iv. sec. 19.) — Ed
(494) “ Doivent avoir le jugement et la cognoissance de la ladrerie spirituelle;” — “ought to have the judgment and discernment of spiritual leprosy.”
(495) “ De discerner entre ladrerie et ladrerie;” — “of distinguishing between leprosy and leprosy.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) See thou tell no man.St. Mark adds, with his usual vividness, straitly charged, or vehemently urged him, and forthwith sent him away. The reasons of the command are not given, but are not far to seek. (1.) The offering of the gift was an act of obedience to the Law (Lev. 14:10; Lev. 14:21-22), and was therefore the right thing for the man to do. In this way also our Lord showed that He had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil. (2.) It was the appointed test of the reality and completeness of the cleansing work. (3.) It was better for the mans own spiritual life to cherish his gratitude than to waste it in many words.
So much lies on the surface. But as the treatment of leprosy in the Mosaic code was clearly symbolical rather than sanitary, and dealt with the disease as the special type of sin in its most malignant form, so in the healing of the leper we may fairly see the symbol of our Lords power to purify and save from sin, and in His touching the leper, the close fellowship into which He entered with our unclean nature, that through His touch it might be made clean. The miracle, like most other miracles, was also a parable in act.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. Tell no man Our Lord on many occasions forbade the subjects of his beneficent miracles to speak of them; and on others he directed them to be proclaimed abroad.
Readers are puzzled to know the reasons from which he acted. Perhaps the following views will make this clear:
1. Our Lord did not wish to avoid the full confession of his deeds of mercy on the part of their objects. This is fully illustrated in the case of the woman healed of the issue. See on Mar 5:33.
2. Why, in this case of the leper, and similar cases, he commanded silence, is fully and conclusively explained by Mark in his account of this miracle. The man cured of this leprosy did not obey our Lord; and the inconvenient consequences show what the evils were which our Lord wished to avoid. (Mar 1:45.) He went out and began to publish it loudly, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more enter into the city, but was without in desert places. How our Lord was incommoded by crowds, will appear from many passages. See Mar 3:9; Mar 3:20. The thoughtless populace were, moreover, liable, in some fit of enthusiasm, to attempt to make him a temporal king, and so embroil him with the government. See notes on Mat 12:16-21.
3. Our Lord most wisely desired to be the selecter of his own preachers and proclaimers. He justly esteemed it not according to a divine order, that devils should be the free testifiers to his divinity. Nor was every man who was the object of his mercy well qualified by dignity, prudence, understanding, or accuracy, to give a correct impress of his divine power and mission. His own apostles even, after long training and more than one trial, did he find scarce fit to utter his truth or proclaim his deeds and character. His only proper expositor, except in peculiar cases, was himself.
4 . Why he bade the demoniac of Gadara publish his deliverance abroad is explained in our comment on the place. (See on Mar 5:19.) Our Lord was about leaving that country, and so was not liable to the inconveniences mentioned above; he was leaving many traducers, and so needed one outspoken defender and preacher.
But show thyself to the priest Some commentators suppose that the Saviour silenced him until he had seen the priest, in order that the priest might pronounce him clean, uninfluenced by any rumour of his miracles.
But our Lord utters no until. He gives the man no permission to proclaim it after he has seen the priest. A testimony unto them That they may know that a mighty cleanser is here. It was a most suitable case to present to the priesthood, because it came by law under their notice, (Lev 14:2; Lev 14:10; Lev 14:21,) because of its peculiar symbolical significance, and because of its demonstrative character. It was a problem which they would be at a loss how to solve, but by admitting his divine mission.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘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.”
But one more thing was required before the man could fulfil his dream and mix with other people. He must be certified as clean by the priests, in accordance with the Law. That was essential. In Jewish society until that had happened he would still be isolated and forbidden to approach men and women. He would still be a social pariah, whether healed or not. And so Jesus bids him to go and show himself to the priest, and then once he has been examined and pronounced clean he must offer the offering commanded by Moses, as a testimony to ‘them’ (see Lev 14:2-32 for the full details). ‘Them’ is probably to be seen as signifying ‘the congregation of Israel’, that is, the whole people, as represented by the priests who acted on behalf of the congregation of Israel. None would want to come in contact with such a man until he had been certified as clean. In fact it was forbidden. Thus it had to be certified to all.
Why does Matthew tell us this? One reason was because it was one further indication that Jesus had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfil it, as He has just been making clear at great length in His sermon (Mat 5:17). Jesus was not replacing the teaching of the Scriptures, He was fulfilling it to the full. And this is one good reason why this account is placed immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. It illustrates Jesus’ obedience to the Law of God. On top of this it was also drawing out gratitude from the man to the One Who had healed him, and reminding him that from now on he had a duty to worship God truly.
‘See you tell no man.’ Jesus calls on him to say nothing of his healing. This probably indicated keeping silent before the priest as well. There was no need for anyone to know. All that the priest had to do was the necessary tests. It was in that sense irrelevant how the healing had taken place. Possibly Jesus did not want every leper in the land coming to Him, for it would deeply have affected His ministry. Possibly He was wanting to prevent an even greater accumulation of ‘great crowds’ coming to see wonders. Possibly He did not want to draw the attention of the priesthood in the Temple on Himself. Possibly He did not want to arouse the crowds to fever-pitch so that they sought to make Him a king (compare Joh 6:15). But it is important to note that in the end it was because Jesus did not want men to believe in Him simply because of the miracles that He did (see also Mat 9:30; Mat 12:16; Mat 17:9; Mar 1:34; Mar 5:43; Mar 7:36; Mar 8:26; Joh 2:23-25). He wanted them to believe in Him because He brought the truth. It was only to those who already believed that His miracles were cited as a testimony, evidencing Who He was (Mat 11:4-5).
‘Moses.’ Surprisingly Moses is mentioned less by Matthew than in any other Gospel (only in five passages – Mat 17:3-4; Mat 19:7-8; Mat 22:24; Mat 23:2 – thus seven times, and apart from at the Transfiguration only ever as the source of the Law). Apart from at the Transfiguration when it is made clear that both the law and the prophets point to Him Matthew makes no attempt to compare or contrast Moses with Jesus. (This would be very surprising if he was trying to present Him as another Moses).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 8:4. See thou tell no man Jesus commanded the leper without all delay to haste to Jerusalem, lest, if the report of his cure should arrive before him, the priests, through envy, might refuse to pronounce him cleansed; for it was the province of the priest to judge of and to determine concerning the leprosy. For a testimony unto them, means to the Jews, and particularly to the priests and Pharisees, who withstood the doctrine of Christ. The sense of the passage is, “that the sacrifice offered by the leper may be a proof of the reality of this miracle, and consequently of my divine mission.” These words may also be rendered, that it may be a testimony against them: compare Mar 6:11. Luk 9:5. The plain meaning seems to be, “Go without delay, and shew yourself, cleansed as you are, to the priest, and present the sacrifices which the law requires for your purification, that we may convince them of the reality of the cure, and yet not give them any occasion of calumny.” But though our Saviour here might enjoin secresy on the leper only till he had shewn himself to the priest; yet he commanded many others to tell none of the miracles he had wrought upon them. It was not in our Lord’s plan to be universally received as the Messiah during his abode upon earth in the flesh. Those who had even then sufficient evidence proposed to them of our Lord’s divine mission, and notwithstanding rejected it, were utterly inexcusable; but who those were, He alone in most instances could determine, who judges the heart. He was indeed to fulfil all the prophetical characters of the Messiah, that, when the time appointed for his erecting his kingdom arrived, the foundation on which it was to rest might want nothing of the strength and solidity which was necessary to support so great a fabric as the faith of the world. But all those prophetical characters of the Messiah, Jesus fulfilled, and appropriated to himself, when in his own lifetime on the earth he proved his divine mission; and by miracles communicated to a competent number of disciples every thing necessary in order to their propagating it through the world; and in the conclusion, by his sufferings and death, not only confirmed his doctrine, but made atonement for the sins of men. The wisdom of his plan was therefore worthy of its author.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 8:4 . The injunction, not to mention the matter to any one , cannot be regarded as an evidence of Matthew’s dependence on Mark (Holtzman; comp. Mat 12:15 with Mar 1:43 ; Mar 3:7 ff.), because the connection in Mark is supposed to be somewhat more appropriate, but is only to be taken as expressing a desire on the part of Jesus to prevent any commotion among the people with their fanatical Messianic hopes, at least as far as, by discouraging publicity, it was in His own power to do so (Chrysostom) to prevent what, according to Mar 1:45 (Luk 5:15 ), actually took place through a disregard of this injunction. Comp. Mat 9:30 , Mat 12:16 ; Mar 3:12 ; Mar 5:43 ; Mar 7:36 ; Mar 8:26 ; Mar 8:30 ; Mat 16:20 ; Mat 17:9 . The miracle was no doubt performed (Mat 8:1 ) before the people (in answer to Schenkel), and in the open air; but, in the first place, only those standing near would be in a position to hear or see the course of the miracle with sufficient minuteness; and, secondly, in giving this injunction, Jesus was also keeping in view the fact of the leper’s being about to visit Jerusalem, and to sojourn there. Consequently we must reject the view of Maldonatus, Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, Kuinoel, Paulus, Glckler, to the effect that He wished to provide against any refusal on the part of the priests to pronounce the man clean. Equally inadmissible is that of Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Keim, that at present, above all, He insisted on the more important duty, that, namely, of the man’s subjecting himself to the inspection of the priests, which is not in accordance with the occasional (comp. Mat 9:31 ); nor can we accept Olshausen’s view, that the motive for the injunction is to be sought in the man himself. Baur holds that the injunction is not to be regarded as historical, but only as the product of tradition, arising out of the application to Jesus of Isa 42:1 ff. But the truth is, that prohibition is not once mentioned in Isa 42 , which contains only a general description of the Messiah’s humility . Moreover, it would not be apparent why the passage from Isaiah is not quoted here, when the injunction in question occurs for the first time, but afterwards in Mat 12:17 .
] thyself . Instead of making a talk about the matter, go and present yourself in person before the proper authorities.
] Lev 14:2 .
] the offering prescribed in Lev 14:10 ; Lev 14:21 . See Ewald, Alterth . p. 210 f.; Keil, Archol . 59.
] as an evidence to them, i.e . to the people, that thou hast been healed. This reference of follows contextually from , , and that of (evidence that thou art cleansed ) from a consideration of the object of the legal prescription in question; see Lev 14:57 . It is importing a foreign element, to suppose that the testimony was further meant to show that “I am not abrogating the law” (Chrysostom, Theophylact; see what follows); comp. also Fritzsche, who looks upon the words as containing a remark by Matthew himself: “Haec autem dixit, ut turbae testaretur, se magni facere Mosis instituta.” As decisive against the latter view, we have the fact that both Mark and Luke record the words , and that, too, in such a way as to make it evident that they formed part of what was spoken by Jesus (Luk 5:14 ). Chrysostom and Fathers understand as referring to the priests , in which case the testimony is regarded as intended to show either (what is in itself correct) Jesus’ respect for the law (Euth. Zigabenus, Bengel, Keim), to which the person cleansed was expected to bear witness before the priests (Chrysostom: , , , , or the reality of the cure , “si sc. vellent in posterum negare, me tibi sanitatem restituisse” (Kuinoel, Erasmus, Maldonatus, Grotius), and at the same time the Messiahship of Jesus (Calovius). According to Olshausen, it is a testimony borne by the priests themselves that is meant; inasmuch as, by pronouncing the man clean, they become witnesses to the genuineness of the miracle, and at the same time condemn their own unbelief (a confusion of two things that are no less erroneous than foreign to the purpose). If referred to the priests, then of course could only be understood as meaning an evidence or proof that the cleansing had taken place (Grotius). However, the offering was not meant to furnish such evidence to the priests , but to the people , who were now at liberty to resume their intercourse with the person who had been healed.
REMARK.
Attempts of various kinds have been made to divest the miracles of Jesus [430] of their special character, and to reduce them to the order of natural events (Paulus), partly by accounting for them on physiological or psychological grounds, and partly by explaining them on certain exegetical, allegorical, or mythical principles of interpretation. Some, again, have sought to remove them entirely from the sphere of actual fact, and to ascribe their origin to legends elaborated out of Old Testament types and prophecies (Strauss); to the influence of religious feeling in the church (B. Bauer); to narratives of an allegorical character (Volkmar); to the desire to embody certain ideas and tendencies of thought in historical incidents (Baur); as well as to mistakes of every sort in the understanding of similitudes and parables (Weisse). To admit the supernatural origin of Christianity is not inconsistent with the idea of its historical continuity (Baur); but the denial of miracles involves both an avowed and a covert impugning of the evangelic narrative, which, as such, is in its substance conditioned by miracles (Holtzmann, p. 510), and consequently does away almost entirely with its historical character. As a further result, Christianity itself is endangered, in so far as it is matter of history and not the product of the independent development of the human mind, and inasmuch as its entrance into the world through the incarnation of the Son of God is analogous to the miracle of creation (Philippi, Glaubensl . I. p. 25 ff., Exo 2 ). The miracles of Jesus, which should always be viewed in connection with His whole redeeming work (Kstlin, 1860, p. 14 ff.), are outward manifestations of the power of God’s Spirit, dwelling in Him in virtue of His Sonship, and corresponding to His peculiar relation to the world (Hirzel), as well as to His no less peculiar relation to the living God; their design was to authenticate His Messianic mission, and in this lay their telic necessity , a necessity, however, that is always to be regarded as only relative (Schott, de consilio, quo Jesus mirac. ediderit, Opusc . I. p. 111 ff.). And this according to Joh 2:11 . In exercising His supernatural power of healing, the usual though not always (Mat 8:5 ff.; Joh 4:47 ff.; Mat 9:23 ff.; Luk 22:51 ) indispensable condition on which He imparted the blessing was faith in that power on the part of the person to be healed; nothing, however, but positive unbelief prevented this power from taking effect (Mat 13:58 ; Mar 6:5 f.; comp. Julius Mller, II. p. 17); but Christ’s heart-searching look (Joh 2:25 ) enabled Him to detect those cases where the attempt would be fruitless. Moreover, the miracles of Jesus are not to be regarded as things that contradict or violate the laws of nature, but rather as comprehended within the great system of natural law, the harmonious connection of which in all its parts it is not for us to fathom. In this respect the phenomena of magnetism furnish an analogy, though a poor and imperfect one; and the more that is known of the laws of nature, the idea of any annulling or suspension of these laws only appears the more absurd. See Kstlin, 1860, p. 59 ff., 1864, p. 259 ff.; Rothe, p. 34 ff. The miracles, therefore, are “reflections in nature” of God’s revelation of Himself (Beyschlag), “something strictly in accordance with law” (Nitzsch), which, in the sphere of nature, appears as the necessary and natural correlative of the highest miracle in the spiritual world viz. the accomplishment of the work of redemption by the incarnate Son of God. As this work has its necessary conditions in the higher order of the moral world established and ruled by the holy God in accordance with His love, so the miracles have theirs in the laws of a higher order of nature corresponding to the loving purposes of the Creator, inasmuch as this latter order, in virtue of the connection between nature and spirit, is upheld by that Being whose spiritual power determines all its movements. Comp. Liebner, Christologie , I. p. 351: “The miracles of Christ are occasional manifestations of the complete introduction, through the God-man, of that relation between nature and spirit which is to be perfected in the end of the world” means by which the reveals Himself in His human impersonation and work, so that they are always of a moral nature, and have always a moral aim in view, unfolding, in their essential connection with His preaching, the miracle of the incarnation on which His whole work was based (Martensen, Dogm . 155 [E. T. p. 301]). Observe, moreover, how the power to work miracles was a gift and of the apostles (Rom 15:19 ; 2Co 12:12 ; Heb 2:4 ), and a of the apostolic church (1Co 12:9 f.), a fact which warrants us in assuming, indeed in inferring a minori ad majus , the reality of the miracles of Jesus Himself in general, we mean, and without prejudice to the criticism of the narratives in detail. At the same time, in the application of such criticism, the hypothesis of legendary embellishments should be treated with great caution by a modest exegesis, and all the more that, in the fourth Gospel, we have a series of miracles bearing the attestation of one who was an eye-witness , and which, in their various features, correspond to many of those recorded by the Synoptists.
[430] See Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 206 ff.; Julius Mller, de miraculor. J. Ch. natura et necessitate , I. II. 1839, 1841; Kstlin, de miraculor. quae Chr. et primi ej. discip. fecerunt, natura et ratione , 1860; Rothe in d. Stud. u. Krit . 1858, p. 21 ff., and zur Dogmat . p. 104 ff.; Beyschlag, ub. d. Bedeut. d. Wunders im Christenth . 1862; Dorner, Jesu sindlose Vollkommenh . 1862, p. 51 ff.; Hirzel, b. d. Wunder , 1863; Gder, b d. Wunder , 1868; Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr . I. 1866; Baxmann in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th . 1863, p. 749 ff.; Kstlin, ibid . 1864, p. 205 ff.; Bender, d. Wunderbeg. d. N. T . 1871. On the synoptic accounts of the miracles, see Holtzmann, p. 497; and on the various kinds of miracles, Keim, II. 125 ff.; on the miracles of healing, see Weizscker, p. 360 ff.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
Ver. 4. See thou tell no man ] Christ despised popular applause, accounting it no other than a little stinking breath. Some do all for a name. But we have not so learned Christ. His treasures were hidden, Col 2:3 . He sought not himself, but to set up him that sent him, Joh 8:50 .
Show thyself to the priest ] That they may see that I am He that should come, that Jehovah the physician, that “Sun of righteousness with health under his wings,” &c.; that I came not to destroy the law, as they slanderously give out, but to fulfil it, that God may be glorified and the mouth of malice stopped.
Offer the gift, &c. ] This is that peppercorn a we pay to God, who is content that we have the benefit of his favours, so he may have the glory of them. Not lepers only, but all sorts, after sickness, were bound to offer to God the ransom of their lives, Exo 30:11-16 . Hezekiah made a song and left it to posterity, for a seal of his thankfulness. Heathens in this case would consecrate something to their gods, to their Teraphim. The very word in Greek that signifies to heal (framed from Teraphim) signifies first to worship and serve God ( ), so showing us what they were wont to do in case of cure. But today sciopato il morbo, fraudato il santo, as the Italian proverb hath it. Sick men recovered, deal as shipwrecked men escaped; they promise God, as he in Erasmus’ Naufragium did the Virgin, a picture of wax as big as St Christopher, but when he came to shore would not give a tallow candle. This is a cursed kind of deception, Mal 1:14 .
a The dried berry of Black Pepper. Formerly often, and still sometimes, stipulated for as a quit-rent or nominal rent D
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4. ] Either (1) these words were a moral admonition, having respect to the state of the man ( , Chrysost.), for the injunction to silence was not our Lord’s uniform practice (see Mar 5:19 , [97] Luke), and in this case they were of lasting obligation, that the cleansed leper was not to make his healing a matter of boast hereafter; or (2) they were a cautionary admonition, only binding till he should have shewn himself to the priest, in order to avoid delay in this necessary duty, or any hindrance which might, if the matter should first be blazed abroad, arise to his being pronounced clean, through the malice of the priests; or (3), which I believe to be the true view, our Lord almost uniformly repressed the fame of His miracles, for the reason given in ch. Mat 12:15-21 , that, in accordance with prophetic truth, He might be known as the Messiah not by wonder-working power, but by the great result of his work upon earth: , , , . Thus the Apostles always refer primarily to the Resurrection, and only incidentally, if at all, to the wonders and signs. (Act 2:22-24 ; Act 3:13-16 .) These latter were tokens of power common to our Lord and his followers; but in His great conflict, ending in His victory, He trod the winepress alone.
[97] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
. . . .] Read Lev 14:1-32 . This command has been used in support of the theory of satisfaction by priestly confession and penance. But even then (Trench on the Miracles, p. 221) the advocates of it are constrained to acknowledge that Christ alone is the cleanser. ‘Ut Dominus ostenderet, quod non sacerdotali judicio, sed largitate divin grati peccato emundatur, leprosum tangendo mundavit, et postea sacerdoti sacrificium ex lege offerre prcepit.’ (Gratian de Pnitentia, Dist. 1, c. 34, p. 1529 Migne.) ‘Dominus leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus quia etsi aliquis apud Deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie Ecclesi solutus habetur, nisi per judicium sacerdotis. In solvendis ergo culpis vel retinendis ita operatur sacerdos evangelicus et judicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui contaminati erant lepra qu peccatum signat.’ (Peter Lombard. Sent. iv. dist. 18. 6, p. 887 Migne.) It is satisfactory to observe this drawing of parallels between the Levitical and (popularly so called) Christian priesthood, thus completely shewing the fallacy and untenableness of the whole system; all those priests being types, not of future human priests, but of Him, who abideth a Priest for ever in an unchangeable priesthood, and in Whom not a class of Christians, but all Christians, are priests unto God.
] A testimony both to , and against them: the dativus both commodi and incommodi .
The man disobeyed the injunction, so that our Lord could no more enter the city openly: see Mar 1:45 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 8:4 . , see to it! Look you! imperative in mood and tone ( vide Mark’s graphic account). Christ feared the man would be content with being well without being officially pronounced clean physically healed, though not socially restored. Hence , , etc.: speak of it to nobody, but go at once and show thyself ( ), , to the priest who has charge of such matters. What was the purpose of this order? Many good commentators, including Grot., Beng. and Wetstein, say it was to prevent the priests hearing of the cure before the man came (lingering on the road to tell his tale), and, in spite, declaring that he was not clean. The truth is, Jesus desired the benefit to be complete, socially, which depended on the priest, as well as physically. If the man did not go at once, he would not go at all. : vide Lev 14:10 ; Lev 14:21 ; all things to be done according to the law; no laxity encouraged, though the official religion was little worthy of respect ( cf. Mat 5:19 ). , as a certificate to the public ( ) from the constituted authority that the leper was clean. The direction shows Christ’s confidence in the reality of the cure. The whole story is a picture of character. The touch reveals sympathy ; the accompanying word, “I will, be clean,” prompt, cordial, laconic, immense energy and vitality; the final order, reverence for existing institutions, fearlessness, humane solicitude for the sufferer’s future well-being in every sense ( vide on Mk.).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
no man = no one.
go. To Jerusalem.
shew thyself, &c. See Lev 14:4.
Moses. The first of eighty occurrences of “Moses” in the N.T. Thirty-eight in the Gospels (see the first occurrence in each Gospel (Mat 8:4. Mar 1:44. Luk 5:14. Joh 1:17); nineteen times in Acts (see note on Act 3:22); twenty-two times in the Epistles (see note on Rom 5:14; once in Revelation (Rev 15:3). See App-117.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4. ] Either (1) these words were a moral admonition, having respect to the state of the man ( , Chrysost.), for the injunction to silence was not our Lords uniform practice (see Mar 5:19, [97] Luke), and in this case they were of lasting obligation, that the cleansed leper was not to make his healing a matter of boast hereafter; or (2) they were a cautionary admonition, only binding till he should have shewn himself to the priest, in order to avoid delay in this necessary duty, or any hindrance which might, if the matter should first be blazed abroad, arise to his being pronounced clean, through the malice of the priests; or (3), which I believe to be the true view, our Lord almost uniformly repressed the fame of His miracles, for the reason given in ch. Mat 12:15-21, that, in accordance with prophetic truth, He might be known as the Messiah not by wonder-working power, but by the great result of his work upon earth: , , , . Thus the Apostles always refer primarily to the Resurrection, and only incidentally, if at all, to the wonders and signs. (Act 2:22-24; Act 3:13-16.) These latter were tokens of power common to our Lord and his followers; but in His great conflict, ending in His victory, He trod the winepress alone.
[97] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
. …] Read Lev 14:1-32. This command has been used in support of the theory of satisfaction by priestly confession and penance. But even then (Trench on the Miracles, p. 221) the advocates of it are constrained to acknowledge that Christ alone is the cleanser. Ut Dominus ostenderet, quod non sacerdotali judicio, sed largitate divin grati peccato emundatur, leprosum tangendo mundavit, et postea sacerdoti sacrificium ex lege offerre prcepit. (Gratian de Pnitentia, Dist. 1, c. 34, p. 1529 Migne.) Dominus leprosum sanitati prius per se restituit, deinde ad sacerdotes misit quorum judicio ostenderetur mundatus quia etsi aliquis apud Deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie Ecclesi solutus habetur, nisi per judicium sacerdotis. In solvendis ergo culpis vel retinendis ita operatur sacerdos evangelicus et judicat, sicut olim legalis in illis qui contaminati erant lepra qu peccatum signat. (Peter Lombard. Sent. iv. dist. 18. 6, p. 887 Migne.) It is satisfactory to observe this drawing of parallels between the Levitical and (popularly so called) Christian priesthood, thus completely shewing the fallacy and untenableness of the whole system; all those priests being types, not of future human priests, but of Him, who abideth a Priest for ever in an unchangeable priesthood, and in Whom not a class of Christians, but all Christians, are priests unto God.
] A testimony both to, and against them: the dativus both commodi and incommodi.
The man disobeyed the injunction, so that our Lord could no more enter the city openly: see Mar 1:45.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 8:4. , to no one) sc. before you have gone to the priest, lest the priests, if they had heard of it before, should deny that the leprosy had been really cleansed; sc. to no one of those who had not witnessed the miracle.-, thyself) not by means of another.- , for a testimony) See Joh 5:36. Thus the LXX. use the word in Rth 4:7.[356] The priests did not follow our Lord: He sends the leper to them from Galilee to Jerusalem: He was much in Galilee at that time.-, to them) that a testimony might he exhibited to them of the Messiahs presence, and of His not derogating from the law, and that they too might thus be enabled to give testimony to these facts.
[356] Sc. – .-E. V. And this was a testimony in Israel.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
See: Mat 6:1, Mat 9:30, Mat 12:16-19, Mat 16:20, Mat 17:9, Mar 1:43, Mar 1:44, Mar 5:43, Mar 7:36, Luk 5:14, Joh 5:41, Joh 7:18, Joh 8:50
show: Mat 3:15, Mat 5:17, Lev 13:2-46, Lev 14:2-32, Isa 42:21, Luk 17:14
for: Mat 10:18, 2Ki 5:7, 2Ki 5:8, Mar 1:44, Mar 6:11, Mar 13:9, Luk 5:14, Luk 21:13, Joh 10:37, Joh 10:38
Reciprocal: Lev 14:10 – take Deu 24:8 – General Mat 5:23 – thou Mat 6:3 – let Mat 8:13 – Go Mar 8:26 – Neither Luk 8:56 – he charged Eph 5:15 – See Heb 12:25 – See
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
8:4
There was no medical cure for leprosy known to the ancients but sometimes a leper was cured miraculously. And after the physical cure had been accomplished, a ceremonial cleansing was required under the law .which included certain sacrifices. (See Leviticus 14) The Mosaic law was in force in the time of Christ, hence he commanded this man to comply with that ordinance pertaining to leprosy. For a testimony unto them. When the former leper presented himself before the priest to perform this service, it was proof that a miraculous cure had been done and hence another bit of evidence would be furnished of the power of Jesus.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
[Go, shew thyself to the priest, etc.] I. Our Saviour would not have the extraordinary manner whereby he was healed discovered to the priest, that he might pay the ordinary duty of his cleansing. And surely it deserves no slight consideration, that he sends him to the priest. However now the priesthood was too degenerate both from its institution and its office, yet he would reserve to it its privileges, while he would reserve the priesthood itself. Corruption, indeed, defiles a divine institution, but extinguishes it not.
II. Those things which at that time were to be done in cleansing of the leprosy, according to the Rubric, were these: “Let him bring three beasts: that is, a sacrifice for sin, a sacrifice for transgression; and a burnt-offering. But a poor man brought a sacrifice for sin of birds, and a burnt-offering of birds. He stands by the sacrifice for transgression, and lays both his hands upon it, and slays it: and two priests receive the blood; the one in a vessel, the other in his hand. He who receives the blood in his hand goes to the leper in the chamber of the lepers”: this was in the corner of the Court of the Women, looking north-west. “He placeth him in the gate of Nicanor,” the east gate of the Court of Israel; “he stretcheth forth his head within the court, and puts blood upon the lowest part of his ear: he stretcheth out his hand also within the court, and he puts blood upon his thumb and his foot, and he puts blood also upon his great toe, etc. And the other adds oil to the same members in the same place,” etc. The reason why, with his neck held out, he so thrust forth his head and ears into the court, you may learn from the Glosser: “The gate of Nicanor (saith he) was between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel: but now it was not lawful for any to enter into the Court of Israel for whom there was not a perfect expiation: and, on the contrary, it was not lawful to carry the blood of the sacrifice for transgression out of the court.” Hence was that invention, that the leper that was to be cleansed should stand without the court; and yet his ears, his thumbs, and his toes, to which the blood was to be applied, were within the court. We omit saying more; it is enough to have produced these things, whence it may be observed what things they were that our Saviour sent back this healed person to do.
The cure was done in Galilee, and thence he is sent away to Jerusalem; silence and sacrifice are enjoined him: See thou tell no man; etc.: and offer the gift; etc. And why all these things?
First, Christ makes trial of the obedience and gratitude of him that was cured, laying upon him the charge of a sacrifice and the labour of a journey.
Secondly, He would have him restored to the communion of the church (from which his leprosy had separated him), after the wonted and instituted manner. He provides that he himself give no scandal, and the person healed make no schism: and however both his words and gestures sufficiently argue that he believed in Christ, yet Christ will by no means draw him from the communion of the church, but restore him to it. Hence is that command of his to him; “See thou tell no man, but offer a gift for a testimony to them”: that is, ‘Do not boast the extraordinary manner of thy healing; think not thyself freed from the bond of the law, in case of a leper, because of it; thrust not thyself into the communion of the church before the rites of admission be duly performed: but, however you have no business with the priest in reference to the purification and cleansing, go to the priest nevertheless, and offer the gift that is due, for a testimony that you are again restored into communion with them.’ This caution of our Saviour hath the same tendency with that, Mat 17:27; “That we be not an offence to them,” etc.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 8:4. See thou tell no man i.e., do not stop to blaze it abroad, but go thy way, go directly and show thyself to the priest. The telling was forbidden until this duty was fulfilled. It is said that the first inspection was performed by the priest of the district, then a second one after seven days, then after purification a visit was made to the temple, where it was the duty of the leper to offer the gift which Moses commanded. (See Lev 14:30-31.) Our Lord adds: for a testimony to them; i.e., a testimony to the people that the cleansing had taken place.Reasons for the command to be silent: Our Lord had in view the welfare of the person healed; He did not wish to hinder the duty Moses had commanded, nor to prejudice the priests who would inspect the man; He thus sought to prevent a concourse of the people, and the enmity of the rulers. The command also implies a caution against making too much of the external miraculous acts of our Lord; a kind of materialism, no less than the denial of the possibility of such miracles.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 8:4. Jesus saith, See thou tell no man Although our Lord was now followed by a great multitude of people, yet it seems not many of them were witnesses of this miracle, Jesus, probably, taking the person aside from the people before he wrought it, otherwise, as Doddridge observes, it does not appear that there could have been room for this charge of secrecy; the meaning of which undoubtedly was, Tell no man that thou wast healed by me; that is, as some suppose, till thou hast offered thy gift to the priest; and he, by receiving it, hath owned thee to be clean from thy leprosy; lest they, hearing that thou wast cleansed by me, should, out of envy to me, refuse to acknowledge thy being cleansed. It must be observed, however, that he commanded many others absolutely to tell none of the miracles he had wrought upon them. And this he seems to have done, chiefly for one or more of these reasons: 1st, to prevent the multitudes from thronging him, in the manner related Mar 1:45; Mark 2 d, to fulfil the prophecy, (Isa 42:1, &c.,) that he would not be vain or ostentatious: this reason St. Matthew assigns, Mat 12:17, &c.; 3d, to avoid being taken by force and made a king, Joh 6:15; John , , 4 th, that he might not enrage the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees, who were the most bitter against him, any more than was unavoidable, Mat 16:20-21. But show thyself to the priest That is, to any one of the priests to whom the rest have committed the office of examining cases of leprosy. Here it is well observed by Dr. Lightfoot, that, though the priesthood was much degenerated from its primitive institution, and many human inventions were added to Gods law, touching the priests examination of the lepers who pretended to be cleansed; yet Christ sends this leper to submit to all these human inventions, as knowing that, though they indeed corrupted, yet they did not destroy the divine institution, and annihilate the office. For a testimony to them That is, offer thy gift for a testimony that thou art cleansed from thy leprosy. Dr. Campbell, by the them here mentioned, understands, the people, and therefore translates the clause, Make the oblation prescribed by Moses for notifying [the cure] to the people. The them here, says he, could not be the priests, for it was only one priest, (namely, the priest then intrusted with that business,) to whom he [the man cleansed] was commanded to go. Besides, the oblation could not serve as an evidence to the priest. On the contrary, it was necessary that he should have ocular evidence, by an accurate inspection in private, before the man was admitted into the temple, and allowed to make the oblation; but his obtaining this permission, and the solemn ceremony consequent upon it, was the public testimony of the priest, the only legal judge, to the people, that the mans uncleanness was removed. This was a matter of the utmost consequence to the man, and of some consequence to them. Till such testimony was given, he lived in a most uncomfortable seclusion from society. No man durst, under pain of being also secluded, admit him into his house, eat with him, or so much as touch him. The antecedent, therefore, to the pronoun them, though not expressed, is easily supplied by the sense. To me it is equally clear: that the only thing meant to be attested by the oblation was, the cure. The suppositions of some commentators on this subject are quite extravagant. Nothing can be more evident, than that the person now cleansed was not permitted to give any testimony to the priest, or to any other, concerning the manner of his cure, or the person by whom it had been performed. , See thou tell nobody. The prohibition is expressed by the Evangelist Mark in still stronger terms. Prohibitions of this kind were often transgressed by those who received them; but that is not a good reason for representing our Lord as giving contradicting orders.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Verse 4
Go show thyself to the priest. As the leprosy was a highly contagious disease the leper was forbidden, by the law of Moses, to mingle with the community, until he had obtained the testimony of the priest, that he was really cured, according to the directions given in Leviticus 14:1-57.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Why did Jesus tell the cleansed leper to tell no one about his cleansing? Probably Jesus did not want the news of this cleansing broadcast widely because it would have attracted multitudes whose sole interest would have been to obtain physical healing. [Note: Tasker, p. 87.] In other words, He wanted to limit His purely physical appeal since He came to provide much more than just physical healing. [Note: Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, p. 62.] A corollary of this view is that by keeping quiet the leper would have retarded the opposition of Jesus’ enemies who were hostile to Him and who resented His popularity.
More significant is why Jesus told the man to present himself to the priests at the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus was encouraging the man to obey the Mosaic Law concerning the cleansing of lepers (Lev 14:2; cf. Talmudic tractate Negaim 14). However by sending him there to do that Jesus was notifying the religious authorities in Israel that someone with messianic power was ministering in Galilee. Since no leper had received cleansing since Elisha had cleansed Naaman the Aramean, the priests should have wanted to investigate Jesus. (Moses had previously cleansed Miriam’s leprosy.)
"Jesus in effect was presenting His ’calling card’ to the priests, for they would have to investigate His claims." [Note: Barbieri, p. 37.]
This investigation by Israel’s leaders-who, we have observed, were surprisingly uninterested in Messiah’s birth-was something Jesus initiated by sending the leper to the temple with his offering. When the priests examined the cleansed leper closely, they would have had to certify that Jesus had genuinely healed the man. Their certification should have convinced everyone in Israel of Jesus’ power.
Matthew evidently recorded this miracle to show that Jesus’ ability to heal leprosy marked Him as the Messiah to all who would pay attention in Israel.
"By recounting Jesus’ response to the most feared and ostracized medical condition of his day, Matthew has thus laid an impressive foundation for this collection of stories which demonstrate both Jesus’ unique healing power and his willingness to challenge the taboos of society in the interests of human compassion." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 306.]