Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

Matthew VIII. 1, 2. 339
the chronological connexion is undetermined. (See Matth. viii. 1^
5, compared with Luke v. 11, 16, 17.) Still as, according to Luke
(vii. 1), Christ heals the centurion's sen^ant at the conclusion of the
Sermon on the Mount, as Matthew likewise relates (viii. 5, fF.), the
position given to this event by Matthew may he chronologically correct,
and the healing of the leper may have happened immediately
after the Sermon on the Mount, on the'road to Capernaum. (Luke
[v. 12] says, iv fua rwv -rroAewv.) The narrative begins with the ob-
servation, that, immediately on the Saviour's descending from the
mountain, crowds gathered around him. Among them a leper ap-
proached. (Karafiaiveiv dirb rod opovg refers to ver. 1. The construction
is remarkable for the repetition of ai'-C)—a construction which
occurs in this same chapter, verses 5, 23, 28, and elsewhere in Mat-
thew. The first avrio looks like a dative absolute with Kara(idvri.
From this feeling, the various reading KaTa(3dvTog avrov may be accounted
for as a correction for the less usual dative.)
Ver. 2.—The leprosy shewed itself in several forms—some more
dangerous, others milder. The regulations of Moses respecting the
nyns leave no doubt on that point. (Lev. xiii. ; xiv.) The persons
afflicted with the dangerous leprosy (see on the subject Winer's
" Eealworterbuch," s. v.) were considered unclean according to the
Mosaic law, and could not be received into the congregation again
till their cure was ascertained. This leper, of whom Matthew tells
us, might already have heard of Christ's cures, or have seen some
of them. At any rate, he displays his faith in Christ by prostrating
himself, and by the express petition for heahng, which he supposes
Jesus able to accomplish for him also. (The word TrpooKwelv =
yovv7Teru)v in Mark = neacjv IttI Trpoacorrov in Luke, corresponds to the
Hebrew n^hnt-r. It is the general form of expressing respect in the
East, and has not in itself any religious reference.) But, with re-
spect to the nature ofthefaith/^ which we must suppose to exist in
the persons cured in this as in all similar cases (see note on Matth.
xiii. 58), we must first of all lay it down that 7ria-ig,faitli, viewed
in its religious bearing, in every case retains one and the same fundamental
signification. This is modified only by the different ob-
jects of faith, which again are determined by the different degrees
of its development. Now we must not make the essence of faith to
consist in Icnoivledge either of the divine in general in the Old Testament,
or of the divine in Christ in particular in the New. For
such knowledge, whether confused or clear in its conception, may
be united with a state of the soul, which is the opposite of believing.
Faith is rather rooted in a spiritual susceptibility to the divine,
which has its seat in the hearty Kapdia (see Eom. x. 9, 10), while
knowledge (yvioaig) depends upon the susceptibility to the divine
* Seo remarks on Rom. iii. 21.