Lange Commentary - Mark 1:40 - 1:45

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Mark 1:40 - 1:45


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

2. The Touching of the Leper, and the Return into the Wilderness. Mar_1:40-45

(Parallels: Mat_8:1-4; Luk_5:12-16)

40And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and41saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean. 42And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was 43, 44 cleansed. And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away; And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimonyunto them. 45But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Respecting this narrative, and the leper, see on Mat_8:1-13. The occurrence follows the Sermon on the Mount; and this is here intimated by the return of Jesus to Capernaum, Mar_2:1.

Mar_1:43. And He straitly charged him.—The ἐìâñéìçóÜìåíïò is the opposite of the preceding óðëáã÷íéóèåßò . Probably the leper had overstepped the limits of his discipline (lepers were not suffered to intrude into others houses) and of the law, and had penetrated to the house where Jesus might have been tarrying in one of the towns. This Meyer reasonably infers from the ἐîÝâáëåí —He forthwith sent him away. First of all, Jesus regarded the misery of the case, and, seized with compassion, healed the sick man. But then He proceeded to guard the legal obligation under which the sick man stood, and household rights and general order. Mark gives us a vivid view of the sending away of the healed man, and exhibits the scene in his own lively expressions.

Mar_1:44. To the priest.—The Vulgate, romanizing, explains: Principi sacerdotum. But it only means the priest in general, whose function concerned the man.—For a testimony unto them.—The actual cleansing must be confirmed in a Levitically legal manner.

Mar_1:45. To blaze abroad the matter, ôὸí ëüãïí —Fritzsche: The word of Jesus. De Wette: The matter. Meyer: The narrative of what had passed. There is implied, perhaps, a distinction between his narrative and the embellished report of the event which was spread abroad, and to which it gave occasion.—Could no more openly enter.—The reason of this withdrawal was not merely to obviate the increase of the crowd, but the fact that Jesus had touched the leper, which, according to the law, made a man unclean for a season. See Leben Jesu, ii. 2, 639. Moreover, this solitude imported a new withdrawal for a new advance.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

See Com. on Matthew, in loc.

1. Wherefore does Mark close the delineation of Christ’s first manifestation in public with the healing of the leper? This narrative is, first, a witness that Christ entered into the fellowship of sinners in order to suffer for them; and so far was a prelude of the end. Secondly, it marked His relation to traditionalism, the offence and assaults of which now follow.

2. The present withdrawal of Jesus took place under the presentiment of His conflicts with traditionalism, and as a preparation to meet them.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The healing of the leper a testimony of the mightily cleansing purity of Christ.—Christ even in the influence of His purity the Lion of Judah.—Redemption, like creation, an omnipotent Let there be! (He speaks, and it is done: “I will, be thou clean.”)—The need of deliverance breaking through the law. The leper presses into the house, like the paralytic through the roof, and the sinner into the Pharisee’s house.—The leper a pattern of those who seek help, but not of those who give thanks: 1. His perfect trust and humble submission (If Thou wilt, etc.); 2. regardlessness of his friends, lack of docility towards the ceremonial law and of discipline.—Christ’s interchange with the leper a symbol of His interchange with the sinner: He makes the leper clean, and contracts Levitical defilement. So Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made righteousness in Him.—The compassion of our Lord the source of our salvation.—The miraculous hand of Christ the instrument of all heavenly healing: 1. As delivering, 2. as distributing, 3. as consummating.—The disobedience of the leper; or, lack of ceremonial discipline in the reception of healing: 1. Excusable as far as it was the interchange of illegality and freedom; 2. blamable, because he constrained the Lord (even in His Church) to atone for transitory illegality by the legalities of prudence.—Christ in the wilderness and everywhere the centre of a wretched and needy world.—Christ, through His divine compassion, involved with human traditions.—A new collectedness of the spirit, a new blessing and victory.

Starke:—The spiritual leper.—Quesnel:—Prayer, humility, and faith as the source (the organs for the reception) of all righteousness.—We are directed to keep all right ordinances, etc. Abide by the public service of God.—Deliverance from misery demands its right and peculiar offerings of praise.—The more a servant of God withdraws himself from the world, the more highly does the world esteem him.

Gerlach:—The healed leper was like those who, out of thankfulness of heart indeed, but yet inconsiderately, neglect the inward commandment of the Holy Spirit, and make too much talk about the grace of God, to their own and others’ hurt.—Schleiermacher:—The Redeemer by His touch took away the ban which sundered the leper from all human intercourse.—Likeness between leprosy and sin.—The one leper and the ten.—Bauer:—How Jesus respected the ordinances of His people.

Footnotes:

Mar_1:38.—The Rec. omits ἀëëá÷ïῦ after ἄãùìåí : it is supported by B., C., L., Copt., Tischendorf.

Mar_1:39.—“Into their:” åἰò ôáò in A., B., D., Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf. The Textus Receptus reads ἐí ôáῖò óõíáãùãáῖò ,—an emendation, says Meyer.

Mar_1:40.—The omission of êáὶ ãïíõðåôῶí áὐôüí in B., D., and Lachmann and Tischendorf, is not sufficiently supported.

Mar_1:41.—‘ Ï äὲ ’ Éçóïῦò omitted in B., D., &c. So Lachmann, Tischendorf. Meyer explains this omission, as also the dropping out of åἰðüíôïò áὐôïῦ , Mar_1:42, from an intention to conform the text with Matthew and Luke. So also with the ìçäÝí Mar_1:44.