Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 8:4 - 8:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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, Glöckler, 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 ὅρα (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 Isaiah 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.
σεαντόν ] thyself. Instead of making a talk about the matter, go and present yourself in person before the proper authorities.
τῷ ἱερεῖ ] Lev_14:2.
τὸ δῶρον ] the offering prescribed in Lev_14:10; Lev_14:21. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 210 f.; Keil, Archäol. § 59.
εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς ] as an evidence to them, i.e. to the people, that thou hast been healed. This reference of αὐτοῖς follows contextually from ὅρα , μηδενὶ εἴπῃς , and that of μαρτύριον (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 εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς , 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 αὐτοῖς 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: εἰς ἔλεγχον , εἰς ἀπόδειξιν , εἰς κατηγορίαν , ἐὰν ἀγνωμονῶσιν ,—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 αὐτοῖς referred to the priests, then of course μαρτύριον 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., ed. 2). The miracles of Jesus, which should always be viewed in connection with His whole redeeming work (Köstlin, 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 Müller, 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 Köstlin, 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 λόγος 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 σημεῖον of the apostles (Rom_15:19; 2Co_12:12; Heb_2:4), and a χάρισμα 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 Müller, de miraculor. J. Ch. natura et necessitate, I. II. 1839, 1841; Köstlin, 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 süindlose Vollkommenh. 1862, p. 51 ff.; Hirzel, üb. d. Wunder, 1863; Güder, üb d. Wunder, 1868; Steinmeyer, Apolog. Beitr. I. 1866; Baxmann in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1863, p. 749 ff.; Köstlin, 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 Weizsäcker, p. 360 ff.