CLEANSING OF THE LEPER
Mark 1:40-45
Since this narrative of the leper is recorded by the three Synoptics (Matt 8:2; Luke 5:12), it must be considered to have been frequently presented in apostolic preaching. Indeed, there shines forth in it both such faith in the petitioner and such power and kindness in the Savior as to be worthy of all commendation and most fit for the instruction of souls. Regarding the timing of this healing, Mark and Luke agree in such a way that both place it while Christ was traveling through Galilee preaching, having called some disciples to Himself before the election of the apostles and the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew, however, places it after the Sermon on the Mount; but from his very manner of narrating, it is clear that he does not intend to imply that the healing took place on that specific occasion (see on Matt 8:4). Luke records that it was performed in one of the cities; from verse 43, some conclude that the leper had entered a house in which Christ was then staying (Patr. Schegg, Bisp. Weiss). Christ went about, as Peter says, doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38). Mark commemorates this in verse 39 and brings forward an example of it in the healing of the leper.
Mk 1:40 This disease, as it is in itself exceedingly troublesome and excludes a man from the society of others, was thus considered in a peculiar way as a plague inflicted by the Lord (cf. Num 12:10 seq.; 2 Kings 3:29; 4 Kings 5:27; Isa 53:4). Therefore, in this healing is seen both a great benefit and the singular power of Jesus. Verse 40: And a leper came to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down said to him: "If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." Victor says he was indeed infected with leprosy in body, but pure in mind because of faith and hope; for he did not doubt the power of Jesus, but declared that all things were established in His will alone: "I know Thou art able; but I am not entirely worthy; for by the judgment of God I suffer what I suffer; if Thou wilt not, I do not contradict." Thus, in the Lord the authority of power is declared, and in the man the constancy of faith; he did not doubt the Lord's will as if incredulous of His piety, but as one conscious of his own filth, he did not presume (Bede). In Matthew and Luke, the address Kyrie ("Lord") is placed (and in some codices here as well; see variant readings); Schanz thinks this title was omitted by Mark because it would have been an offense (anstössig) to those to whom he was writing. But since he himself establishes that Mark wished to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God and God (p. 51), how could it have been an offense for Jesus to be greeted as Lord?
Mk 1:41 By such a humble prayer and one full of faith and the man's misery, Jesus is moved to mercy; Mark alone adds Verse 41: And Jesus, having compassion on him (splangchnistheis), as if moved in his bowels—for the bowels were believed to be the seat of mercy and love. In the countenance and bearing of Christ, this inward pity was perceived, and Peter, as a witness, did not remain silent in his sermons about this example of charity toward the wretched, which is why Mark also explicitly commemorates it; he stretched forth his hand and touching him, or rather: stretching out his hand, he touched him. Victor asks why He touched him, since according to the law he who touched an unclean person would himself become unclean? He answers: to show that the Savior is touched by no uncleanness, that He is not under the law but is the Lord of the law, and that He heals as the Lord, not in the manner of a servant (just as Elisha did not look upon Naaman the Syrian but sent him to the Jordan). He touches him to affirm the virtue of the human nature in Himself, while He is not defiled but cleanses the leprosy by His touch (Caj.); He saith to him: "I will; be thou clean." And at the same time, it is wonderful that He healed him by the very manner in which he had been besought; you have the will, and you also have the effect of piety; therefore (as most of the Latins think), it should not be joined and read "I will to cleanse," but separated, so that first He says "I will," then He commands "be thou clean" (Bede).
Mk 1:42 Nothing stands between the work of God and His command, because the work is in the command; finally, "He spoke and they were made" (Ps 32:9; Bede). Verse 42: And when he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed. Ekatharisthē, namely the leper; this is added so that the narrative of the healing may agree with the command of Christ. In Matt 8:3 it is read: "his leprosy was cleansed"; but since here it is prefaced "the leprosy departed," it must altogether be explained and translated as "he was cleansed." In Luke 5:13 only the first member is read: "and immediately the leprosy departed from him." All three emphasize that the cleansing was effected immediately, i.e., simultaneously with the command of Christ. Therefore, it is arbitrary and against the clear narrative to establish with Weiss that the healing was effected gradually while he proceeded to the priest, and that because he was still infected with leprosy, he was cast out of the house by Jesus with a threat.
Mk 1:43-44 Jesus strictly commands him not to spread the miracle among the common people and orders him to depart immediately. Verse 43: And he strictly charged him (embrimēsamenos autō), cf. Matt 9:30, namely to inculcate the command more severely, and immediately sent him away, i.e., dismissed him quickly or even against his will (Caj. Erasmus). With grave words He commanded him to depart; regarding this use of the word ekballein, see Matt 9:25, Mark 5:40, Acts 9:40, 16:37. Mark alone records that this command was enjoined with severity and that he was ordered to leave immediately; here too, one may detect Peter as a witness of the event, who accurately considered the Lord's countenance, the sound of His voice, and His whole manner of acting, and expressed it in his account. Verse 44: And saith to him: "See thou say nothing to any man; take heed thou tell no one anything." Christ wished, for His part, to prevent the incitement of popular expectation by the divulging of miracles—the belief that the Son of David was coming to crush enemies and restore a temporal Davidic kingdom. Perhaps that leper intended in his mind to preach Jesus as the one who, by His power, could as much as possible restore the ancient splendor of the Davidic kingdom, to whom many should therefore be led and whom they should appoint as king.
Why Jesus acted in this way is conceived in various ways. Certainly, it is not enough only to say, as most of the ancients do, that Christ wished to warn us to zealously avoid all ostentation, and explained to us His own true and urgent inward desire to flee the fuels of human glory (cf. Vict. Bede, Cat. Aur., Cai. Lap.), wishing to give an example of His modesty (Caj.). While these things can be truly said and piously considered with profit, they should be placed neither alone nor in the first place. Rather, it is necessary to observe, especially from the beginning of Christ's public life, that it was essential for Christ to avoid every appearance and shadow by which He might seem to nourish or foster that popular hope concerning the Messiah. Therefore, whenever a sharper popular commotion arose, He repressed it, avoided it, and fled, taking zealous care not to add fuel to that hope; by His doctrine and the required amendment of morals, He also clearly declared for what He had come and what was by no means to be expected from Him. When the reason for His office was sufficiently made clear, then He also openly and gravely appealed to His works, by which He proved He was sent by the Father and provided the most brilliant divine testimony to His doctrine; cf. Comment. Matt. I p. 311.
It is plainly perverse to explain Jesus' indignation with Klostermann by saying that, carried away by pity, He had done what He properly ought not to have done because it was not necessarily required for the true reason of His office. Nor can it be said that Christ threatened him because, being a leper, he had entered a house against the command of the law (cf. Lev 13:46; Num 5:2). For it is not clearly evident that he had entered a house; furthermore, Jesus threatens him after He healed him. But who would think that verse 43 records only then what, if it happened, ought to have been recorded and happened before verse 41? The same applies, among other things, against the opinion devised by Volkmar, that Jesus was indignant because the leper lay at the feet of Jesus in adoration! Others better explain Christ's manner of acting from the condition of the leper, for whom it was useful and necessary to quietly reflect upon the benefit received and to increase faith in Jesus in his soul, lest he should suffer harm to his soul through the tumult and admiration of men on account of the recovery of his bodily health; or that he had conceived in his mind various plans which, having been restored to health, he wished to put into execution, but which Christ, the knower of the heart and thoughts, by no means approved and from which He deterred him with His words (cf. Schegg, Fil. Keil).
Since the Mosaic law was still in force, Jesus commanded him to act according to its precepts: "But go, show thyself to the high priest", tō hierei ("to the priest")—the high priest is not mentioned in the law, but: "he shall be brought to the priest" (Lev 14:2; see variant readings)—"and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded", namely Lev 14:4 etc., "for a testimony unto them"; for thus, according to the law, he was restored by priestly authority, once his healing was recognized by the priest, to the commerce and society of men and was freed from that seclusion to which lepers were reduced. Because, therefore, that leper was known as such, it was necessary that he be admitted to common life with others by the declaration of the priest (cf. Vict. Theoph.). Furthermore, that event was for a testimony to the priests, the adversaries of Christ, that Jesus was not a despiser of the law; the miracle of healing itself testified that He was sent and approved by God; see on Matt 8:4.
Mk 1:45 The leper, however, out of joy and an affection of a grateful mind, cannot suppress the benefit received from Jesus in silence; Verse 45: But he being gone out, began to publish (to celebrate much) and to blaze abroad the matter (ton logon). Certainly, ho logos is not said here only of Christ's words "I will; be thou clean" (as Vict. Euth. Volkmar wish to say), but it must be understood as the narrative of the salvation received, or: he divulged the event, so that logos is used just as dabar (cf. Mald. Calm. Schanz, Fil.). And it is recorded how great a popular commotion arose from this, so that now he could not openly go into the city, but was without in desert places, and they flocked to him from all sides. Christ, therefore, withdrew into solitary regions, remained there for some time, and taught the crowds that flowed to Him from everywhere. Since the leper, by the impulse of a grateful mind, made known the benefit and the benefactor, they generally excuse him of disobedience. He could also have understood Christ's command to be valid only until, presenting himself to the priest, he was declared clean by him; which sense the words "tell no one, but go etc." can have. Moreover, it is clear that it could not be entirely hidden that he had been healed.
Comments
Post a Comment