Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 8

Matthew 8:1. καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ] Lachm. According to Z Codd. of the It. Hil.: καὶ καταβάντος αὐτοῦ, instead of which B C א** Curss. have καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ. A mere correction, like the similarly attested εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, Matthew 8:5, in Lachm. and Tisch. 8.

Matthew 8:2. ἐλθών] Lachm. and Tisch.: προσελθών, according to B E M Δ א and several Curss. as well as some Verss. and Fathers. Correctly, προς having dropped out owing to the final syllab. of λεπρός.

Matthew 8:3. ὁ Ἰησοῦς] is not found in B C* א, Curss. Verss. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. A common supplementary addition, and evidently such in the present instance, from its shifting position, for several authorities have it before ἥψατο.

Matthew 8:5. αὐτῷ] Elz.: τῷ Ἰησοῦ, contrary to decisive authorities.

Matthew 8:8. λόγῳ] Elz.: λόγον, against such decisive authority, that λόγῳ must not be regarded as introduced from Luke 7:7; but λόγον seems to be a correction through ignorance.

Matthew 8:9. After ἐξουσίαν Lachm. has τασσόμενος (B א, 4, 238, 421, Vulg. It. Chrys.); taken from Luke 7:8.

Matthew 8:10. οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον] Lachm.: παρʼ οὐδενὶ ποσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσρ. εὗρον, only according to B, Curss. and several Verss. and Fathers. The same reading, though not so well attested, is also found in Luke 7:9. An interpretation in which the meaning of οὐδέ has been missed, and the prefixing of ἐν τῷ Ἰσραήλ misunderstood (comp. Vulg.).

Matthew 8:12. ἐκβληθής.] Tisch. 8 : ἐξελεύσονται, on too slender authority; among the Codd. only א*.

Matthew 8:13. αὐτοῦ] wanting in B א and several Curss. and Verss. and in Basil. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Passed over as unnecessary. For what immediately follows Lachm. reads ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐχείνης, in accordance with less important authorities (C Δ). In conformity with Matthew 9:22, Matthew 15:28, Matthew 17:18.

Matthew 8:15. αὐτῷ] so also Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive authority. The αὐτοῖς of the Received text, defended by Griesb. and Fritzsche, is taken from Mark 1:31, Luke 4:39.

Matthew 8:18. πολλοὺς ὄχλους] Lachm.: ὄχλον, only according to B, but correct. Matth. would certainly have written ὄχλους πολλούς, as in Matthew 8:1; Matthew 13:2; Matthew 15:30, and all through; for only in Matthew 14:14 does he put πολύς first, where, however, the singul. occurs. Besides, the reading of the Received text might easily be a gloss to strengthen the expression.

Matthew 8:23. τὸ πλοῖον] The article is omitted in B C, Curss. Or., and is deleted by Lachm., but had been left out from not being understood. So also in Matthew 9:1, Matthew 13:2, in which cases it is deleted by Tisch. 8 as well.

Matthew 8:25. οἱ μαθηταί] The Received text inserts αὐτοῦ, which, however, is deleted, in accordance with decisive testimonies. Οἱ μαθηταί is also omitted in B א, Verss. as well as by Jerome, Bede. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. 8. But the omission may be accounted for from the fact that, similarly in the parallels of Mark and Luke, this, the obvious subject, is not expressed.

ἡμᾶς] is wanting in B C א 1, 13, 118, 209. Justly deleted by Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.; for, while there seemed to be no reason why it should have been omitted, the insertion of it, on the other hand, would naturally suggest itself, if it did not happen to be noticed how the mode of expression is suited to the feeling of the passage.

Matthew 8:28. ἐλθόνει αὐτῷ] Lachm. Tisch. 8 : ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ, according to B C א** and Curss. See Matthew 8:1.

Γερασηνῶν] Fritzsche and Scholz, also Tisch.: Γαδαρἠνῶν, according to B C M Δ, Curss. Syr. utr. Perss. Eus. Epiph.; Elz.: Γεργεσηνῶν, according to C*** E K L S U V X א*. See in general, Orig. iv. p. 140. The reading Γαδαρηνῶν, which Orig. found ἐν ὀλίγοις, has topographical reasons in its favour; Γερασηνῶν, however, is supported by Origen’s statement, that in his time it was the prevailing reading.[429]

Matthew 8:29. σοί] Elz. and Scholz insert Ἰησοῦ, which is not found in B C L א, Curss. Codd. It. Copt. Cypr. Or. Taken from Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28.

Matthew 8:31. ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν] Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.: ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς, according to B א, Curss. Syr. and the majority of Verss. Correctly; the reading of the Received text is adopted from Luke 8:32 (where several authorities have ἀπελθεῖν instead of εἰσελθεῖν). Had it been a correction from Mark 5:12, we should have found πέμψον instead of ἀπόστειλον in the present passage.

Matthew 8:32. εἰς τοὺς χοίρους] as Lachm. and Tisch. 8, according to B C* א, Curss. and most Verss. But the Recept. εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων is to be preferred all the more that the adoption of εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, from the parallels in Mark and Luke, was favoured by the greater definiteness of meaning (into the bodies of the swine).

After Ἡ ἈΓΈΛΗ Elz. inserts ΤῶΝ ΧΟΊΡΩΝ. It is wanting, indeed, in B C* M Δ א, Curss. and the majority of Verss., and is deleted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. and Tisch. 8. But how easily may it have been omitted as quite unnecessary, owing to the parallels in Mark and Luke! In a case where the meaning was so obvious, there was no motive for inserting it.

[429] Γερας. is still found in the Syr. p. on the margin, Sahid. Sax. It. Vulg. Hilar. Nyss. Ath. Juv. Prud. Adopted by Lachm. For the decision, see exegetical notes.—*א has Γαζαρηνῶν, which is only another way of pronouncing Γαδαρ.; see Grimm on 1Ma 4:15.

Matthew 8:1. Αὐτῷ … αὐτῷ] as in Matthew 5:40, and frequently in Matthew as well as in classical writers. See Bornemann, ad Xen. Symp. iv. 63; Winer, p. 139 f. [E. T. 275].

The healing of the leper occurs in Luke (Matthew 5:12 ff.) before the Sermon on the Mount, and in Mark (Mark 1:40 ff.) and Luke not till after the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. It is not to be regarded as the earliest of all the miracles of healing.

Matthew 8:2. Λεπρός] λέπρα, צָרַעַת, a most dangerous, contagious disease, descending to the fourth generation, which lacerated the body with scales, tetter, and sores; Trusen, bibl. Krankh. p. 103 ff.; Kurtz in Herzog’s Encykl. I. p. 626 ff.; Furer in Schenkel’s Bibellex. I. p. 317 ff.; Saalschutz, M. R. p. 223 ff.

κύριε] To express the reverence that is founded on the recognition of higher power.

ἐὰν θέλῃς] entire resignation to the mighty will of Jesus.

καθαρίσαι] from the disease that was polluting the body; Plut. Mor. p. 134 D.

ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα] and immediately his leprosy was cleansed (John 11:32), Matthew 13:25, Matthew 22:13, Matthew 25:41. The leprosy is spoken of as cleansed, according to the idea that the disease experiences the healing—that the disease is healed (Matthew 4:23). Differently and more correctly expressed in Mark 1:42.

On θέλω, Bengel aptly observes: “echo prompta ad fidem leprosi maturam.” In answer to Paulus, who understands the cleansing in the sense of pronouncing clean,—as also Schenkel, Keim,—see Strauss, II. p. 48 ff., and Bleek.

Matthew 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. Matthew 12:15 with Mark 1:43; Mark 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 Mark 1:45 (Luke 5:15), actually took place through a disregard of this injunction. Comp. Matthew 9:30, Matthew 12:16; Mark 3:12; Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36; Mark 8:26; Mark 8:30; Matthew 16:20; Matthew 17:9. The miracle was no doubt performed (Matthew 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. Matthew 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 Isaiah 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 Matthew 12:17.

σεαντόν] thyself. Instead of making a talk about the matter, go and present yourself in person before the proper authorities.

τῷ ἱερεῖ] Leviticus 14:2.

τὸ δῶρον] the offering prescribed in Leviticus 14:10; Leviticus 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 Leviticus 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 (Luke 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 John 2:11. In exercising His supernatural power of healing, the usual though not always (Matthew 8:5 ff.; John 4:47 ff.; Matthew 9:23 ff.; Luke 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 (Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:5 f.; comp. Julius Müller, II. p. 17); but Christ’s heart-searching look (John 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 (Romans 15:19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:4), and a χάρισμα of the apostolic church (1 Corinthians 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.

Matthew 8:5. The centurion was a Gentile by birth, Matthew 8:10, but connected with Judaism (Luke 7:3), probably from being a proselyte of the gate, and was serving in the army of Herod Antipas. The narrative is, in the main, identical with Luke 7, differing only in points of minor importance. The question as to which of the two evangelists the preference in point of originality is to be accorded, must be decided not in favour of Matthew (Bleek, Keim), but of Luke, whose special statements in the course of the incident (misinterpreted by Strauss and Bruno Bauer, comp. de Wette) cannot, except in an arbitrary way, be ascribed to an amplifying tendency; they bear throughout the stamp of historical and psychological originality, and nothing would have been more superfluous than to have invented them for the sake of giving greater prominence to the man’s humility, which is brought out quite as fully and touchingly in Matthew’s narrative. Comp. Neander, Krabbe, Lange. For the points of difference in the account John 4:47 ff., see note on that passage.

Matthew 8:6. Ὁ παῖς μου] not son (Strauss, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Keim), but slave (Luke 7:7; Matthew 14:2); yet not: my favourite slave (Fritzsche, comp. Luke 7:2); but either the centurion had only the one, or else he refers to that one in particular whom he had in view. From Matthew 8:9, the former appears to be the more probable view.

βέβληται] is laid down. Comp. Matthew 9:2. The perf. as denoting the existing condition. The description of the disease is not at variance with Luke 7:2, but more exact.

παραλυτ.] see on Matthew 4:24.

Matthew 8:7. And Jesus (perceiving, from his mode of address and whole demeanour, the centurion’s faith in His divine miraculous power) answered him: I (emphatically) will come, and so on. Fritzsche puts it interrogatively. But (καί, by way of coupling an objection, Porson, ad Eur. Phoen. 1373) said Jesus to him, Am I to come and heal him (θεραπ. conj. aor.)? This is refining more than is necessary, and not in keeping with the simple character of the passage. Bengel well says, “Divina sapientia Jesus, eos sermones proponit, quibus elicit confessionem fidelium eosque antevertit.”

Matthew 8:8. Λόγῳ] Dat. of the means and instrument, as in Luke 7:7; speak it, i.e. command, with a word, that he become whole. This is by way of expressing a contrast to the proffered personal service. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 525.

Here again the ἵνα does not represent the infinitive construction, but: I am not sufficient (worthy enough) for the purpose that Thou shouldst go (John 1:27) under my roof (Soph. Ant. 1233). As a Gentile by birth, and loving, as he does, the Jewish people (Luke 7), he feels most deeply his own unworthiness in presence of this great miracle-worker that has arisen among them, and “non superstitione, sed fide dixit, se indignum esse,” Maldonatus.