CRITICAL NOTES
Matthew 8:2. And behold, etc.—The time of this miracle seems too definitely fixed here to admit of our placing it where it stands in Mark and Luke, in whose Gospels no such precise note of time is given (Brown). Leper.—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” (Deuteronomy 28:27). In the Egyptian legends of the Exodus, indeed, the Israelites were said to have been expelled because they were lepers (Jos., c. Apion, I. 26; Tacit., Hist., Matthew 8:3).
2. Its main features were the appearance of a bright spot on the flesh, whiter than the rest, spreading, inflaming, cracking; an ichorous humour oozing from the cracks; the skin becoming hard, scaly, “as white as snow” (Exodus 4:6; 2 Kings 5:27). One so affected was regarded as unclean; his touch brought defilement (Leviticus 13:3; Leviticus 13:11; Leviticus 13:15). He was looked upon as smitten with a Divine plague, and cases like those of Miriam (Numbers 12:10), Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27), and Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:20), 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” (Leviticus 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 (Leviticus 13:13), and in this state, therefore, the leper might return to his kindred, and take his place among the worshippers of the synagogue (Plumptre). Worshipped Him.—The leper regarded Jesus at least as a great prophet, though it is difficult accurately to define the measure of knowledge possessed by such believers. Hence the import of this worship, and of the designation “Lord,” differed under various circumstances (Gerlach).
Matthew 8:4. The gift.—See Leviticus 14. For a testimony unto them.—Either:
1. To the priests, or:
2. To the people who were following Jesus. In either case to show 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 (Carr).
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Matthew 8:1-4
Following up.—The story here told us is a fit sequel to the Sermon on the Mount. Its introduction is so (Matthew 8:1). Having gone up to the mountain (Matthew 5:1) for one purpose, the Saviour now “comes down” for another. Notwithstanding the faithfulness and even severity (in appearance) of much of His teaching, such was the power of it also (Matthew 7:28-29), that “great multitudes” follow Him still. In accordance with this, also, is the story itself. Alike in the leper’s request as described to us in it, and in the Saviour’s immediate reply, and in the parting injunction with which He concludes, we see that which follows up what has been told us before.
I. The leper’s request.—How remarkable this was in its nature. Leprosy before this time appears to have been regarded as a practically incurable thing. Only two instances of its cure—and those apparently miraculous ones—are mentioned before in the Bible (Numbers 12:11-15; 2 Kings 5.). Neither does the law of Moses, with its many injunctions about the detection and spiritual treatment of this sickness, say anything about its cure. If spoken of at all in those days it is only spoken of as a signal exercise of God’s power (2 Kings 5:3; 2 Kings 5:8; 2 Kings 5:15). It is all the more noticeable, therefore, that in this case we see a man coming out of his way in order to ask it. He “worships Him” (Matthew 8:2) because, already, he believes in Him as a “prophet.” How remarkable also, was the tone of the request. It is made in hope—in much hope—hope in every quarter but one. Given the requisite mercy, the man who asks has no doubt of the power. Great as the boon is, there is power to grant it, if there be only the will (Matthew 8:2). How evidently, therefore, in this condition of things we are pointed back to the past. Pointed back by the hope. Amongst the many widely-reported “healings” of “all manner of sickness” related in Matthew 4:23-24, some healings even of leprosy could hardly have been missing. Hence the “hope” in this case. If done for others, why not for me? Pointed back by the doubt. With all else that was admirable in the Sermon on the Mount, there was not conspicuous that fulness of love of which so much was afterwards shown. Therefore, apparently, in this poor leper’s case, this measure of doubt. Jesus had “come not to destroy the law, but fulfil it” (Matthew 5:17). Would He, after all, only treat him as was done by the law?
II. The Saviour’s immediate reply.—How striking its mercy! Its mercy in beginning with that of which the poor suppliant was not sure. “If Thou art willing?” I am willing. Know that, to begin. Be assured that your application will not be cast out. Be assured, though so exposed to contempt, that you will meet with none at My hands. I have just pronounced a blessing on the “poor in spirit,” and the “meek,” and the “mournful” (Matthew 5:2-5), and will deal in the same spirit with you. And see, I show this by putting My hand upon you (contrast 2 Kings 7:3, etc.). How striking also its power! The “power” in its form. Not the word of experiment (2 Kings 4:31; 2 Kings 4:35); nor the word of entreaty (ibid. 33; 1 Kings 17:20); nor yet of dependence on the name of another (Acts 3:6); but the word of direct authority—the word of command. “I will, be thou clean.” Also the “power” in its issue. How complete the cure—“he was cleansed.” How direct—by a word and a touch; not by going away even to wash in Jordan (2 Kings 5:10; 2 Kings 5:13). How immediate—as the word was spoken. All these special proofs of very great power. So we read everywhere of God’s works and servants. See as to completeness Deuteronomy 32:4; as to swiftness Ezekiel 1:14; as to directness Psalms 33:4; Psalms 33:9.
III. The Saviour’s parting injunction.—This has two aspects, a negative and a positive. The negative refers to Himself. The exceptional power of this miracle, to say nothing also of its exceptional mercy, was just the thing certain, if proclaimed abroad, to add to His fame. Just the thing also that the subject of this miracle, in his wonder and gratitude, would be likely to speak of with this view. But that, we find here, was just the very thing which the Saviour did not wish to have done. He did not desire, He rather strongly deprecated the mere praise of mankind. Hence the first part of His injunction. “See thou tell no man.” Hence in this also we see a further connection with the Sermon on the Mount. As He there taught His disciples to do (Matthew 6:1, etc.), so He here does Himself. The positive side refers to Moses. There were certain officials to whom the man was to tell what was done. He was to go to the “priests” whom Moses had appointed. He was to submit to the examination which Moses had enjoined. He was to make the offerings which Moses had ordered (Leviticus 14:3-4; Leviticus 14:10). In other words, whilst forbidding the man in any way to magnify Himself, Jesus bids him do that which shall magnify Moses in every way. Just in accordance, therefore (so we notice once more), with what He had said a little before. “I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.” So, on the mountain He had said to the multitudes. So here, on the plain, in a different way, He now says to this man.
Thus strikingly and fitly did this conspicuous miracle—for such it appears to have been—being wrought in the presence of the multitudes who had been listening to the Sermon on the Mount—succeed to that Sermon. Thus did it both add to and confirm its teaching, and, as being also apparently the first of a very remarkable series of similar works (Matthew 8:9.), prepare for teaching of a deeper and more advanced kind. That Sermon had shown Jesus to be “mighty in word”—a Man to be heard when he spoke. These miracles showed Him to be a Man “mighty in deed”—a Man to be believed when He spoke (John 3:2). The two together cover the whole field of what an inspired teacher requires (see Acts 7:22; Luke 24:19.)
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Matthew 8:2-4. The miracles of Jesus.—
I. Seals of His authority.
II. Exercises of His love to men.
III. Types of truth.—Conder.
The cleansing of the leper.—Let us describe:—
I. This particular instance of leprosy.—Attention is at once arrested by the leper’s faith. This is the first instance in which we are called specially to note that element. The cure of a fever patient or of a demoniac must take place with no reference to the sufferer’s state of mind. Friends, in some of these cases, brought the patients and showed faith in the Healer. Now one comes of his own motion, declaring his own confidence in the Saviour. From this point onwards the narratives are rich with references to the link between personal faith and the desired healing. This man’s faith is shown by his immediate and earnest application—“He came to Jesus, beseeching Him;” and by his rendering to Jesus something like Divine honours—“kneeling down to Him he worshipped Him.” Still more distinctly does the character of his faith come out in his words, made emphatic by their exact reproduction in all three Gospels: “Lord, if Thou wilt Thou canst make me clean.” This faith was:—
1. Original.—There had been no previous instance amid all the Judæan and Galilean healings of such a cure.
2. Courageous.—For this was no slight form of the malady. St. Luke notes that this man “was full of leprosy.” The patient honoured Jesus, therefore, in taking to Him such a case and in such a spirit. But what of this “if Thou wilt”? Usually, it is assumed that here was a defect in the man’s faith. It is at least as probable that it shows his entire and implicit trust. He says in effect, “I know not whether it is the purpose of God that under Thy mission any lepers should be cleansed. Of the power of God in Thee to do it, I have no doubt; for it is mightily witnessed; and as for the intention, I cast myself on Thy Godlike heart; if Thou wilt, Thou canst.” In most of these particulars, this man’s faith is a model for us of the faith which saves. We have not, indeed, his difficulty to overcome. We know it is our Lord’s intention to save sinners.
II. Our Lord’s method of dealing with it.—
1. St. Mark alone has the significant words, “And Jesus, moved with compassion.” We can see what an appeal there was to the Saviour-heart of Jesus in the case of such a man.
2. He “put forth His hand and touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean.” The act before the word. This was His immediate answer to the leper’s “if.” The doubt in the sufferer’s mind was mainly whether Jesus would have anything to do with outcasts from the church and commonwealth of Israel, and this was His reply. That touch was everything to the lonely outcast. It swept the barrier down that held him aloof from mankind. And this act reflected—how simply, yet grandly—the power as well as the grace of Jesus. He touched the polluted and took no pollution. Then the word; how apt! “I will;” exactly it meets and yet overpasses the leper’s prayer. He honours faith as faith honours Him. But He drives no bargain about its degree or kind. It is simply that He is trusted.—Prof. Laidlaw, D.D.
Cleansing the leper.—The Great Speaker is here the Great Healer.
I. Sorrow turns instinctively to the supernatural.—Leprosy was known among the Jews as “the finger of God.” The removal of leprosy was always considered a Divine act (2 Kings 5:7). When Christ sent an answer to John, He bade the disciples tell their master that “the lepers are cleansed,” etc. It is less easy to be an atheist in sorrow than in joy. Men are less courageous at midnight than noonday.
II. Christ is never deaf to sorrow’s cry.—“I will.” Did His “will” ever run counter to the sinner’s welfare? The will of man must concur with the will of God; he who would “find” must “seek.” The great difficulty is to persuade (not logically, but morally) men to have perfect faith in the Divine will, that it is not wise only, but loving. When they feel this they will pray, “Thy will be done,” etc.
III. Christ is superior alike to material contamination and legal restriction.—He could “touch” the leper and yet feel no injury. Others touched, and the touch meant death, but He touched and yet was uncontaminated. This is a type of His relation to sin. The ceremonial law forbade that the leper was to be touched. Christ superior to ceremonial limitations.—J. Parker, D.D.
The leprosy of Scripture.—The best experts now insist on distinguishing the leprosy of Scripture, or of the Hebrews, from the so-called “true leprosy” of mediæval and modern times. This disease is one of the most formidable and hopeless of known maladies, and finds its nearest analogue in scrofula or syphilis. It is irremediable by any known human means. Though not directly contagious, there is always the terrible risk to those who mingle much with the sufferers of at last falling under its power. This was the malady known from an early period of European civilisation for which the lazarettos, or lazar-houses of the middle ages were provided.… On the other hand, every probability, derived from the terms used in Scripture and in ancient medicine, from the very full description of its symptoms in the Old Testament, and from the whole strain of the narratives in which it occurs in the sacred text, goes to show that the leprosy there meant is a totally different malady. It was a skin disease of various and complicated forms, some of which may have had a resemblance to the symptoms of the modern terror. It was of repulsive aspect, indeed, but neither usually fatal nor absolutely irrecoverable. Whether the Hebrew leprosy was always, or ever, contagious is the second point of confusion which ought to be cleared. But here the true solution is not so evident. It involves the allied question, whether the Mosaic rules for its segregation were sanitary only, or were in no respect so, but only symbolic and religious. The truth seems to lie between the two. There is no need for the antithesis. There is fair ground for concluding that this leprosy was not necessarily infectious by contact; but that it was contagious in the wider sense of being communicable by social or family interchange; also that other similar diseases really infectious were not easy to distinguish from it. The Hebrew legislation, therefore, justifies itself at once on sanitary and on ceremonial grounds.—Prof. Laidlaw, D.D.
Leprosy a type of sin.—The use of leprosy as a type for sin is quite legitimate, but the analogy requires to be handled with greater accuracy and point than is usually applied to it. The usage in the Christian pulpit and commentary dates from the Fathers themselves, who no doubt had the proper Hebrew leprosy in view. But most theological or religious teaching on the subject has been coloured by the impression of “the deep-seated, all-pervading, corrupting, and mortal character of mediæval leprosy, rather than from anything said in the Bible.” (Sir Risdon Bennet, M.D.) Yet the figure presented in the Hebrew leprosy is full of significance, full of that peculiar aptness which marks the emblems of Scripture when truthfully interpreted. All diseases, especially those which Jesus healed, have their symbolic side, but Divine legislation itself emphasised the specialities of this one. These were:—
1. Its repulsiveness—We naturally shrink from skin diseases. So, could we see our own sinful nature and life as these appear in the sight of holy beings, above all of the Holiest, we should be appalled at its loathsomeness. Then:—
2. The suggestion of impurity or defilement in leprosy is most patent.—The appropriate and almost invariable word for its removal is “cleansing” in the narratives of our Lord’s cures. It is upon its uncleanness that the emphasis of the Bible representations of leprosy depend. And this leads to the kindred idea of:—
3. Isolation or separation.—An idea burned into the Hebrew mind by the sacred legislation. Here, then, is a sufficiently expressive symbolism. Sin, like leprosy, is hideous in the sight of all pure beings. It covers the soul, as that covers the body, with a universal taint of impurity. It is incurable by any ordinary human appliances. It separates from the camp of God’s Israel because it cuts off from the fellowship of God. The dead in trespasses and sins have no place in the true church of the living God. It is discovered by the law, but it is taken away only by the Son, who was manifest to do that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.—Ibid.
Matthew 8:4. The Saviour’s injunction.—The charge was twofold:—
1. To keep silence.—The injunction, “See thou say nothing to any man,” was not unusual with Jesus in His healing miracles. The reasons for it might lie partly in the circumstances of the Master Himself. Much noise about the cure hindered His work; and in this case it proved so according to St. Mark’s pointed detail (Mark 1:45). Yet it could not be absolute concealment of the healing that the Lord intended to enjoin in this case, for it was performed in public before a multitude of people (Matthew 8:1). Rather, then, the other reason for the commanded silence must be supposed the stronger one here, viz. that which concerned the moral effect upon the subject of the cure. The disposition of the man was evidently such that silence, for a time at least, was a needful discipline.
2. To go to the priest.—This throws the clearest light upon the Saviour’s intention (see Mark 1:43, R. V., and margin). It has all the effect of a paradox. The blessing hand, a moment before stretched out to the unclean, now thrusts him away when he is cleansed. This brings again into full view the precise religious significance of leprosy and its cure. Leprosy was a social and spiritual ban even more than it was a disease. Set free from the disease, this man must at once be also set free from the curse and isolation which his disease entailed. That the Lord held this essential to such cases is proved by the uniformity of His procedure (cf. the narrative of Luke 17). This miracle must have for the Worker its proper attestation, and for the subject its due legal, social, and religious fruits. These could only be attained in the way here so pointedly prescribed, by recourse to those in charge of the sacred legislation. The main design, doubtless, of this immediate despatch to the priest was to complete the benefit for the man himself. He was really not cured in the highest sense till he was socially and spiritually restored to the commonwealth of Israel, and that by obedience to the Divine requirements. So let all our spiritual work and the marvels of God’s grace among us be brought to the test of the Divine precept, to the law and to the testimony. Leprosy was a vivid type of sin in the social death which it entailed. The means appointed for its ceremonial cleansing were emblematic of a restoration which goes to the very root of the spiritual life. To honour these, as Jesus here did, was to set forth a deep truth of His salvation. His pardon, His pronouncement that the soul is clean, carries with it that complete removal of sin’s pollution and power, which the pure and impartial judgment of God’s law must attest (Psalms 51:7-8; Psalms 51:12).—Ibid.