Matthew 8:1. And when he had come down from the mountain. Matthew
now returns to the course of the history. He had formerly said, that Christ
went up into a mountain, (verse 1) then he threw, as it were, into one
heap, many leading points of the doctrine of Christ; and now he adds that,
about the time when he preached on the mountain, he healed a certain leper.
The same event is related by Mark and Luke, though they do not mention
the time. It was a striking display of the divine power of Christ, that,
by his word alone and a touch of his hand, he suddenly cleansed the man’s
leprosy. Now, though leprosy was a different kind of disease from elephantiasis,
(ejlefanti>asiv,) it is plain enough that it was difficult to cure. When
it had continued long and become deeply seated, it rarely happened that
any person recovered. Granting that physicians might, by their professional
skill, have given some relief, it is manifest that there was nothing human
about this miracle.
2. Approaching, worshipped. What is the meaning of the verb proskunei~n,
which is rendered in the Latin version, adorare, to adore or worship, may
be easily learned from this passage. For the exposition of it we may rely
on the other two Evangelists, of whom Mark says, that he fell on his knees,
and Luke, that he fell down on his face. The outward gesture of kneeling
was exhibited by the leper as a token of reverence. Now we know, that such
marks of respect were in general use among the Jews, as the people of the
East are more addicted to that kind of ceremonies. Many people accordingly
think, that the leper did not intend to render to Christ divine worship,
but gave him a respectful salutation as a distinguished prophet of God.
I enter into no dispute as to the feelings which moved the leper to
pay reverence to Christ. But I look at what he attributed to him, that
he was able to cleanse him, if he were willing. By these words he declared,
that he acknowledged a divine power in Christ: and when Christ replies,
I am willing, he shows that he claimed more for himself than belongs to
man. He who, by the mere expression of his will, restores health to men,
must possess supreme authority. Whether the leper believed that Christ
was the Son of God, or that he had received this power in the same manner
as Moses and the other prophets, he entertains no doubt that he held in
his hand, and in his power, the gift of healing. True, he speaks conditionally,
if thou art willing, thou art able. But this is not inconsistent with that
certainty of faith, which God demands in our prayers: for men ought not
to expect more than God promises. The leper had not learned by any inspired
communication, or any promise of God, what Christ would do. It would have
been improper in him, therefore, to go beyond these limits for though we
sometimes read that certain persons prayed without any condition, we ought
to believe that they were guided by special movements of the Spirit, which
must not be taken for a general rule. I am not even certain if we are at
liberty to say, strictly speaking, that the leper offered a prayer. He
only declares, that he is so fully convinced of the power of Christ, as
to entertain no doubt that it is in his power to cure leprosy; and then
presents himself to be healed, but uncertain as to the result, because
he did not yet know the will of Christ.
3. Having stretched out his hand, he touched. Under the Law, the touch
of a leper was infectious; but as Christ possesses such purity as to repel
all filth and defilement, he does not, by touching, either pollute himself
with leprosy, or become a transgressor of the law. When he took upon him
our flesh, he did not only deign to touch as with his hand, but was united
to one and the same body with ourselves, that we might be flesh of his
flesh, (Genesis 2:23.) Nor did he only stretch out his arm to us, but descended
from heaven even to hell, and yet contracted no stain from it, but, retaining
his innocence, took away all our impurities, and sprinkled us with his
holiness. By his word alone he might have healed the leper; but he applied,
at the same time, the touch of his hand, to express the feeling of compassion.
Nor ought this to excite our wonder, since he chose to take upon him our
flesh, that he might cleanse us from our sins. The stretching out of his
hand was therefore an expression and token of infinite grace and goodness.
What we indolently read, and coldly pass by, cannot be duly weighed without
great astonishment. The Son of God was so far from disdaining to talk to
a leper, that he even stretched out his hand to touch that uncleanness.
4. And Jesus saith to him, See that thou tell it not to any one. Some
persons, by way of excusing the leper, think that Christ did not seriously
forbid him to publish the miracle, but rather gave him an additional excitement
to do so. Others more justly consider the reason of the prohibition to
have been, that the full “time was not yet come,” (John 7:6.) I do acknowledge,
that to have suppressed this miracle would have been improper: but our
Lord had a particular reason for wishing that the report of it should not
be immediately spread, or, at least, not by the leper. The leper was so
far from deserving praise for the disorderly exhibition of his regard,
that he ought, in my opinion, to be condemned for not obeying Christ’s
injunction. If he wished to express his gratitude to him to whom he was
indebted for his cure, no better method could have been found than obedience,
which God prefers to all sacrifices, (1 Samuel 15:22,) and which is the
origin and foundation of lawful worship. This example shows us, that those
who allow themselves to be guided by inconsiderate zeal act improperly,
because the more eager they are to please God, the greater progress do
they make in rebellion to his commands.
Show thyself to the priest. As the ceremonies of the law had not yet
been repealed, Christ did not wish that they should be despised or neglected.
Now, God had commanded in the law that, if any man had been cleansed from
leprosy, he should present himself to the priest with a sacrifice of thanksgiving,
(Leviticus 14:2.) The design was, that the priest, by his decision, might
attest the benefit received from God; and that the person who had been
healed might give an expression of his gratitude. Christ, therefore, by
sending the leper to the priest, proves that he had no other object in
view than to display the glory of God. The showing to the priest was for
the purpose of examination, and the offering was the expression of thanksgiving.
He wishes that the priests should examine the man, to make the divine favor
manifest and undoubted; and that the leper, on the other hand, should acknowledge
that God had healed him. Meanwhile, as I have just mentioned, he commands
them to observe the ceremonies prescribed by the law, till the time when
it should be repealed.
The attempt of the Papists to produce this passage, as an authority
for their own confession, is highly foolish. Leprosy, they allege, is put
allegorically for sin; and the priests, who are consecrated by the Pope,
are the judges of spiritual leprosy. Even granting that this authority
was conferred on the priests under the law, for the purpose of informing
the people, that all their cleanness, and the decision respecting it, depended
on the priesthood, still this is impiously claimed for themselves by the
Popish priests. All the honor that belonged to the ancient priests is now
claimed by Christ alone as his own. He alone is appointed to be the judge
of spiritual leprosy, and entitled to receive, from those who have been
cured, the offering for their cleansing. Under the law, a sacrifice was
employed as the seal of cleanness, because satisfaction made by the shedding
of blood is the only way in which men are cleansed. To transfer to another
that right, which God has declared to be the prerogative of his own Son,
is a detestable sacrilege. When the ministers of the Gospel, by the command
of Christ, declare to sinners that they are cleansed from their sins, this
must not be tortured into the pretended jurisdiction, which the priests
imagine, of pronouncing a decision about leprosy.
Matthew 8:4; Mark 1:44. For a testimony to them. Some consider testimony
to mean here a law or statute, as it is said in the Book of Psalms, God
laid down this “for a testimony to Israel,” (Psalm 122:4.) But this appears
to me to be a poor exposition: for I have no doubt that the pronoun to
them refers to the priests. Christ said this, in my opinion, with a view
to the present occurrence: for this miracle was afterwards to be a sufficiently
clear proof for convicting them of ingratitude. There is nothing inconsistent
with this in the command which Christ gave to the leper to maintain silence:
for he did not intend that the remembrance of the miracle which he had
wrought should remain always buried. When the leper, at the command of
Christ, came into the presence of the priest, this was a testimony to them,
which would render them inexcusable, if they refused to receive Christ
as the minister of God; and would, at the same time, take away occasion
for slander, since Christ did not neglect a single point of the law. In
a word, if they were not past cure, they might be led to Christ; while,
on the other hand, so solemn a testimony of God was sufficiently powerful
to condemn them, if they were unbelievers.
Mark 1:45. So that Jesus could no longer enter openly into cities. Hence
we learn the reason why Christ did not wish the miracle to be so soon made
known. It was that he might have more abundant opportunity and freedom
for teaching. Not that his enemies rose against him, and attempted to shut
his mouth, but because the common people were so eager to demand miracles,
that no room was left for doctrine. He wished that they would all be more
attentive to the word than to signs. Luke accordingly says, that he sought
retirement in the deserts. He avoided a crowd of men, because he saw, that
he would not satisfy the wishes of the people, without overwhelming his
doctrine by a superfluity of miracles.
MATTHEW 8:5-13; LUKE 7:1-10
Matthew 8:5. And when Jesus had entered Those who think that Matthew
and Luke give different narratives, are led into a mistake by a mere trifle.
The only difference in the words is, that Matthew says that the centurion
came to him, while Luke says that he sent some of the Jews to plead in
his name. But there is no impropriety in Matthew saying, that the centurion
did what was done in his name and at his request. There is such a perfect
agreement between the two Evangelists in all the circumstances, that it
is absurd to make two miracles instead of one.
The band of soldiers, which the centurion had under his command, was
stationed, I have no doubt, in the town of Capernaum, in the same manner
as garrisons were usually appointed for the protection of the towns. Though
he perceived the morals of the people to be very vicious and depraved,
(for we know that Capernaum, being on the seacoast, must have been more
dissolute than other towns,) yet this did not prevent him from condemning
the superstitions of his country, and acquiring a taste for true and sincere
piety. He had not built a synagogue for the Jews without exposing himself
to some hatred and to some risk: and the only reason why he loved that
nation was, that he had embraced the worship of one God. Before Christ
healed his servant, he had been healed by the Lord.
This was itself a miracle. One who belonged to the military profession,
and who had crossed the sea with a band of soldiers, for the purpose of
accustoming the Jews to endure the yoke of Roman tyranny, submits willingly,
and yields obedience to the God of Israel. Luke says that this servant
was very dear to him; and thus anticipates a doubt which might have arisen
in the mind of the reader: for we know that slaves were not held in such
estimation, as to make their masters so solicitous about their life, unless
by extraordinary industry, or fidelity, or some other virtue, they had
secured their favor. By this statement Luke means, that this was not a
low or ordinary slave, but a faithful servant, distinguished by many excellencies,
and very highly esteemed by his master; and that this was the reason why
he was so anxious about his life, and recommended him so earnestly. From
both Evangelists it is evident that it was a sudden palsy, which, from
the first attack, took away all hope of life: for slow palsies are not
attended by severe pain. Matthew says, that he was grievously tormented,
and Luke, that he was near death. Both descriptions—pain or agony, and
extreme danger—serve to enhance the glory of the miracle: and for this
reason I am the more unwilling to hazard any absolute assertion as to the
nature of the disease.
Luke 7:5. For he loveth our nation. This was, no doubt, a commendation
given him by the Jews on account of his piety: for his love of a nation
universally hated could proceed only from zeal for the Law, and from reverence
for God. By building a synagogue, he showed plainly that he favored the
doctrine of the Law. The Jews had therefore good grounds for saying that,
as a devout worshipper of God, he had claims on Christ for receiving such
a favor. They discover, at the same time, a marvellous stupidity in admitting,
by their own acknowledgment, that a Gentile possesses that grace of God
which they despise and reject. If they consider Christ to be the minister
and dispenser of the gifts of God, why do they not receive the grace offered
to them before bringing foreigners to enjoy it? But hypocrites never fail
to manifest such carelessness and presumption, as not to hesitate to look
upon God as under some sort of obligations to them, and to dispose of his
grace at their pleasure, as if it were in their own power; and then, when
they are satisfied with it, or rather because they do not deign to taste
it, they treat it as useless, and leave it to others.
Matthew 8:8. Lord, I do not deserve that thou shouldest come under my
roof. Matthew’s narrative is more concise, and represents the man as saying
this; while Luke explains more fully, that this was a message sent by his
friends: but the meaning of both is the same. There are two leading points
in this discourse. The centurion, sparing Christ by way of honoring him,
requests that Christ will not trouble himself, because he reckons himself
unworthy to receive a visit from him. The next point is, that he ascribes
to Christ such power as to believe, that by the mere expression of his
will, and by a word, his servant may recover and live. There was astonishing
humility in exalting so highly above himself a man who belonged to a conquered
and enslaved nation. It is possible, too, that he had become accustomed
to the haughty pretensions of the Jews, and, being a modest man, did not
take it ill to be reckoned a heathen, and therefore feared that he would
dishonor a Prophet of God, if he pressed him to enter the house of a polluted
Gentile. However that may be, it is certain that he speaks sincerely, and
entertains such reverence for Christ, that he does not venture to invite
him to his house, nay, as is afterwards stated by Luke, he reckoned himself
unworthy to converse with him.
But it may be asked, what moved him to speak of Christ in such lofty
terms? The difficulty is even increased by what immediately follows, only
say the word, and my servant will be healed, or, as Luke has it, say in
a word: for if he had not acknowledged Christ to be the Son of God, to
transfer the glory of God to a man would have been superstition. It is
difficult to believe, on the other hand, that he was properly informed
about Christ’s divinity, of which almost all were at that time ignorant.
Yet Christ finds no fault with his words, but declares that they proceeded
from faith: and this reason has forced many expositors to conclude, that
the centurion bestows on Christ the title of the true and only God. I rather
think that the good man, having been informed about the uncommon and truly
divine works of Christ, simply acknowledged in him the power of God. Something,
too, he had undoubtedly heard about the promised Redeemer. Though he does
not distinctly understand that Christ is God manifested in the flesh, (1
Timothy 3:16,) yet he is convinced that the power of God is manifested
in him, and that he has received a commission to display the presence of
God by miracles. He is not therefore chargeable with superstition, as if
he had ascribed to a man what is the prerogative of God: but, looking at
the commission which God had given to Christ, he believes that by a word
alone he can heal his servant.
Is it objected, that nothing belongs more peculiarly to God than to
accomplish by a word whatever he pleases, and that this supreme authority
cannot without sacrilege be yielded to a mortal man? The reply is again
easy. Though the centurion did not enter into those nice distinctions,
he ascribed this power to the word, not of a mortal man, but of God, whose
minister he fully believed Christ to be: on that point he entertained no
doubt. The grace of healing having been committed to Christ, he acknowledges
that this is a heavenly power, and does not look upon it as inseparable
from the bodily presence, but is satisfied with the word, from which he
believes such a power to proceed.
Matthew 8:9. For I am a man subject to the power of another. This comparison
does not imply equality between the two cases, but is taken from the less
to the greater. He forms a higher conception of the divine power, which
is manifested in Christ, than of the authority which was possessed by himself
over servants and soldiers.
10. Jesus wondered. Wonder cannot apply to God, for it arises out of
what is new and unexpected: but it might exist in Christ, for he had clothed
himself with our flesh, and with human affections. Not even in Israel have
I found so great faith. This is not spoken absolutely, but in a particular
point of view. For, if we consider all the properties of faith, we must
conclude that the faith of Mary was greater, in believing that she would
be with child by the Holy Ghost, and would bring forth the only-begotten
Son of God, and in acknowledging the son whom she had borne to be her God,
and the Creator of the whole world, and her only Redeemer.
But there were chiefly two reasons why Christ preferred the faith of
a Gentile to the faith of all the Jews. One was, that a slight and inconsiderable
acquaintance with doctrine yielded so sudden and abundant fruit. It was
no small matter to declare, in such lofty terms, the power of God, of which
a few rays only were yet visible in Christ. Another reason was, that while
the Jews were excessively eager to obtain outward signs, this Gentile asks
no visible sign, but openly declares that he wants nothing more than the
bare word. Christ was going to him: not that it was necessary, but to try
his faith; and he applauds his faith chiefly on the ground of his resting
satisfied with the bare word. What would another have done, and he too
one of the Apostles? Come, Lord, see and touch. This man asks no bodily
approach or touch, but believes the word to possess such efficacy as fully
to expect from it that his servant will be cured.
Now, he ascribes this honor to the word, not of a man, but of God: for
he is convinced that Christ is not an ordinary man, but a prophet sent
by God. And hence may be drawn a general rule. Though it was the will of
God that our salvation should be accomplished in the flesh of Christ, and
though he seals it daily by the sacraments, yet the certainty of it must
be obtained from the word. Unless we yield such authority to the word,
as to believe that, as soon as God has spoken by his ministers, our sins
are undoubtedly forgiven, and we are restored to life, all confidence of
salvation is overthrown.
11. Many will come from the east and west. In the person of the servant,
Christ gave to the Gentiles a taste and a kind of first-fruits of his grace.
He now shows, that the master is an example of the future calling of the
Gentiles, and of the spread of faith throughout the whole world: for he
says that they will come, not only from the neighboring countries, but
from the farthest bounds of the world. Though this had been clearly foretold
by many passages of the prophets, it appeared at first strange and incredible
to the Jews, who imagined that God was confined to the family of Abraham.
It was not without astonishment that they heard, that those who were at
that time strangers, would be citizens and heirs of the kingdom of God:
and not only so, but that the covenant of salvation would be immediately
proclaimed, that the whole world might be united in one body of the Church.
He declares, that the Gentiles, who shall come to the faith, will be partakers
of the same salvation with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Hence we draw the
certain conclusion, that the same promise, which has been held out to us
in Christ, was formerly given to the fathers; for we would not have had
an inheritance in common with them, if the faith, by which it is obtained,
had not been the same. The word ajnakliqh>sontai, shall recline, contains
an allusion to a banquet: but as we know, that the heavenly life does not
require meat and drink, this phrase has the same meaning as if he had said,
they shall enjoy the same life.
12. But the children of the kingdom. Why does he call those persons
children of the kingdom, who were nothing less than children of Abraham?
for those who are aliens from the faith have no right to be considered
a part of God’s flock. I answer: Though they did not actually belong to
the Church of God, yet, as they occupied a place in the Church, he allows
them this designation. Besides, it ought to be observed that, so long as
the covenant of God remained in the family of Abraham, there was such force
in it, that the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom belonged peculiarly
to them. With respect to God himself, at least, they were holy branches
from a holy root, (Romans 11:16:) and the rejection of them, which afterwards
followed, shows plainly enough, that they belonged, at that time, to the
family of God. Secondly, it ought to be observed, that Christ does not
now speak of individuals, but of the whole nation. This was still harder
to endure than the calling of the Gentiles. That the Gentiles should be
admitted, by a free adoption, into the same body with the posterity of
Abraham, could scarcely be endured: but that the Jews themselves should
be driven out, to make way for their being succeeded by the Gentiles, appeared
to them altogether monstrous. Yet Christ declares that both will happen:
that God will admit strangers into the bosom of Abraham, and that he will
exclude the children. There is an implied contrast in the phrase, the darkness
that is without. It means that out of the kingdom of God, which is the
kingdom of light, nothing but darkness reigns. By darkness Scripture points
out that dreadful anguish, which can neither be expressed nor conceived
in this life.
13. Go away, and as thou believest, so may it be to thee. Hence it is
evident how graciously Christ pours out his grace, when he finds the vessel
of faith open. Though he addresses these words to the centurion, there
can be no doubt that, in his person, he invites us all to strong hope.
Hence we are also taught the reason why God is, for the most part, so limited
in his communications to us: it is because our unbelief does not permit
him to be liberal. If we open up the entrance to him by faith, he will
listen to our wishes and prayers.
