Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 8

Here we begin a series of events which, in St. Matthew's arrangement, follow the great discourse. These events are also found in St. Mark and St. Luke but, as the following table shows, are not narrated in the same order.

A comparison like this—especially considering the narratives in Mark and Luke that come between those Matthew places in close succession, and the apparent notes of sequence in each case—is enough to show, once and for all, the difficulty of harmonizing the Gospel narratives with any certainty.

Three conclusions can be accepted as nearly certain:

1. The independence of each record. It is scarcely conceivable that St. Mark or St. Luke would have departed so widely from St. Matthew’s order if they had his Gospel before them.
2. The derivation of all three from earlier records, written or oral, each embracing a few of our Lord's acts or discourses.
3. The absence of any direct evidence about the order of these events, which left each writer to his own discretion or to some internal principle of grouping.

Therefore, in dealing with such cases, while the parallel narratives in the other Gospels will be noted to the extent that they make this record more vivid and complete, there will seldom be any attempt to elaborately discuss the order in which they stand.

A leper — A full discussion of leprosy—regarding its nature, symptoms, and causes—would be both long and difficult. The word "leprosy," which is Greek in origin, has likely been used with a varying scope of meaning, sometimes including conditions like elephantiasis or even cancer. Even in its narrower meaning, as used by Hippocrates, leprosy was subdivided into three kinds—the mealy, the white, and the black—according to the appearance of the diseased flesh.

Focusing on the biblical form of the disease, we note two key aspects:

1. Its probable origin is in the squalor and wretchedness of slavery in Egypt. It was the botch, or plague, of Egypt (Deuteronomy 28:27). In Egyptian legends of the Exodus, the Israelites were said to have been expelled because they were lepers.
2. Its main features were the appearance of a bright spot on the flesh that was whiter than the rest, which would spread, become inflamed, and crack. A watery discharge would ooze from the cracks, and the skin would become hard, scaly, and as white as snow (Exodus 4:6; 2 Kings 5:27).

A person so affected was considered unclean; their touch brought defilement (Leviticus 13:3, 11, 15). A leper was looked upon as being stricken with a divine plague, and cases like those of Miriam and Gehazi reinforced this belief. He had to live apart from others, wear on his forehead the outward sign of his separation, and cry out the words of warning, Unclean, unclean (Leviticus 13:45).

The underlying reason for 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. By a strange contrast, at the stage where the disease reached its height and the whole body was covered with sores and scabs, the person was declared ceremonially clean (Leviticus 13:13). In this state, therefore, the leper could return to his family and take his place among the worshippers in the synagogue. In the case before us, the man would appear to have been in the intermediate stage. Luke, however, describes him as being full of leprosy.

Worshipped him — This means, as in St. Mark, "falling on his knees," or as in St. Luke, "falling on his face"—the highest form of Eastern homage. This act of homage emphasized at least one of the higher meanings of the word "Lord."

If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean — These words imply that the man had either seen or heard of our Lord’s works of healing, or that Jesus's words had impressed upon him the belief that the Teacher must also have power extending to actions. There does not appear to have been any previous case of leprosy being miraculously cleansed.

The man's words reveal a unique mingling of faith and doubt. He believes in Jesus's power but does not yet believe in His will. Could such power stoop to someone as foul as he was? If he shared the common belief that leprosy was the punishment for sin, he might have been asking himself, "Will He pity and relieve one so sinful?"

Jesus put forth his hand and touched him—The act itself was proof of both his will and his power to heal. He did not fear becoming unclean by that contact and was therefore not subject to the law that forbade the touch. And He met the one element of doubt in the sufferer’s mind with the words—and perhaps even more, with the tone or look that conveyed pity—I will; be clean. Mark adds that he had compassion on him.

Immediately his leprosy was cleansed—We may venture to picture the process to our minds: the skin cleansed, the sores closed, the diseased whiteness giving way to the tints and tones of health.

See that you tell no one — Mark adds, with his usual vividness, that Jesus “sternly charged” him and “immediately sent him away.” The reasons for this command are not given, but they are not hard to find:

1. The offering of the gift was an act of obedience to the Law (Leviticus 14:10, 21-22) and was therefore the right thing for the man to do. In this way, our Lord also showed that He had not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.
2. It was the appointed test of the reality and completeness of the cleansing work.
3. It was better for the man’s own spiritual life to cherish his gratitude than to waste it in many words.

This much is clear on the surface. But as the treatment of leprosy in the Mosaic code was clearly symbolic rather than sanitary—dealing with the disease as a special type of sin in its most malignant form—so in the healing of the leper, we can rightly see the symbol of our Lord’s power to purify and save from sin.

In His touching the leper, we also see the close fellowship into which He entered with our unclean nature, so that through His touch it might be made clean. The miracle, like most others, was also a parable in action.

In Luke, the narrative immediately follows the Sermon on the Plain; in Matthew (with the healing of the leper in between), it follows the Sermon on the Mount. The placement in both cases seems to imply a connection between the teaching and the miracle that had fixed itself on people's minds. The miracle was, indeed, primarily memorable for the teaching to which it led. A comparison of the two narratives suggests that Matthew records the miracle more in reference to its associated teaching, while Luke does so after a closer inquiry into the details and circumstances. For example, Matthew states that the centurion came to our Lord himself, but from Luke’s report, we learn that he never came in person at all, but first sent the elders of the Jews, and then his friends.

A centurion—The presence of a centurion (a word originally meaning the commander of a hundred soldiers, but, like most words of its kind, later used with a broader meaning) implied a garrison was stationed at Capernaum to preserve order. Thus, we find a centurion with his soldiers at Caesarea (Acts 10:1). In Jerusalem, it appears it was considered necessary to station a chiliarch, or “chief captain” of a thousand soldiers (Acts 21:31). We encounter the same word in connection with the birthday feast of the Tetrarch Antipas (Mark 6:21).

Here, as in the case of Cornelius, the faith and life of Judaism had made a deep impression on the soldier’s mind. We may well believe that this faith was seen to greater advantage in the villages of Galilee than amid the factions of Jerusalem. He found a purity, reverence, simplicity, and nobility of life that he had not found elsewhere. Therefore, he “loved the nation” (Luke 7:5) and rebuilt the town's synagogue. As mentioned previously, it is probable that among the ruins of Tell-Hûm, identified as Capernaum, we have the remains of the very structure he built.

In the same way, he had made a favorable impression on the Jews of that city. They felt his love for them and were ready to go on his errand, support his prayer with all earnestness, and attest to his worth. For someone like Luke, whose work was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, these incidents would have been precious. They were early signs of the breaking down of barriers and the brotherhood of humanity in Christ—a message that his companion, the Apostle Paul, was the great preacher of.