Chapter XXVIII.-Of the Raising of the Daughter of the Ruler
of the Synagogue, and of the Woman Who Touched the Hem of His Garment;
Of the Question, Also, as to Whether the Order in Which These Incidents
are Narrated Exhibits Any Contradiction in Any of the Writers by Whom They
are Reported; And in Particular, of the Words in Which the Ruler of the
Synagogue Addressed His Request to the Lord.
64. Still keeping by the order of time, Matthew next continues to the
following effect: "While He spake these things unto them, behold, there
came a certain ruler, and worshipped Him, saying, My daughter is even now
dead; but come and lay Thy hand upon her, and she shall live;" and so on,
until we come to the words, "and the maid arose. And the fame hereof went
abroad into all that land."284 The other two, namely,
Mark and Luke, in like manner give this same account, only they do not
keep by the same order now. For they bring up this narrative in a different
place, and insert it in another connection; to wit, at the point where
He crosses the take and returns from the country of the Gerasenes, after
casting out the devils and permitting them to go into the swine. Thus Mark
introduces it, after he has related what took place among the Gerasenes,
in the following manner: "And when Jesus was passed over again by ship
unto the other side, much people gathered unto Him: and He was nigh unto
the sea. And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by
name; and when he saw Him, he fell at His feet," etc.285
By this, then, we are certainly to understand that the occurrence in connection
with the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue did take place after Jesus
had passed across the lake again in the ship.286 It
does not, however, appear from the words themselves how long after that
passage this thing happened. But that some time did elapse is clear. For
had there not been an interval, no period would be left within which those
circumstances might fall which Matthew has just related in the matter of
the feast in his house. These, indeed, he has told after the fashion of
the evangelists, as if they were the story of another person's doings.
But they are the story really of what took place in his own case, and at
his own house. And after that narrative, what follows in the immediate
context is nothing else than this notice of the daughter of the ruler of
the synagogue. For he has constructed the whole recital in such a manner,
that the mode of transition from one thing to the other has itself indicated
with sufficient clearness that the words immediately, following give the
narrative of what actually took place in immediate consecution. For after
mentioning, in connection with the former incident, those words which Jesus
spake with respect to the new cloth and the new wine, he has subjoined
these other words, without any interruption in the narrative, namely, "While
He spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler." And
this shows that, if the person approached Him while He was speaking these
things, nothing else either done or said by Him could have intervened.
In Mark's account, on the other hand, the place is quite apparent, as we
have already pointed out, where other things [left unrecorded by him] might
very well have come in. The case is much the same also with Luke, who,
when he proceeds to follow up his version of the story of the miracle wrought
among the Gerasenes, by giving his account of the daughter of the ruler
of the synagogue, does not pass on to that in any such way as to place
it in antagonism with Matthew's version, who, by his words, "While He yet
spake these things," gives us plainly to understand that the occurrence
took place after those parables about the cloth and the wine. For when
he has concluded his statement of what happened among the Gerasenes, Luke
passes to the next subject in the following manner; "And it came to pass
that, when Jesus was returned, the people gladly received Him; for they
were all waiting for Him. And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and
he was a ruler of the synagogue, and he fell down at Jesus' feet," and
so on.287 Thus we are given to understand that the
crowd did indeed receive Jesus forthwith on the said occasion: for He was
the person for whose return they, were waiting. But what is conveyed in
the words which are directly added, "And, behold, there came a man whose
name was Jairus," is not to be taken to have occurred literally in immediate
succession. On the contrary, the feast with the publicans, as Matthew records
it, took place before that. For Matthew connects this present incident
with that feast in such a way as to make it impossible for us to suppose
that any other sequence of events can be the correct order.288
65. In this narrative, then, which we have undertaken to consider at
present, all these three evangelists indeed are unquestionably at one in
the account which they give of the woman who was afflicted with the issue
of blood. Nor is it a matter of any real consequence, that something which
is passed by in silence by one of them is related by another; or that Mark
says, "Who touched my clothes?" while Luke says, "Who touched me?" For
the one has only adopted the phrase in use and wont, whereas the other
has given the stricter expression. But for all that, both of them convey
the same meaning. For it is more usual with us to say, "You are tearing
me,"289 than to say, "You are tearing my clothes;"
as, notwithstanding the term, the sense we wish to convey is obvious enough.
66. At the same time, however, there remains the fact that Matthew represents
the ruler of the synagogue to have spoken to the Lord of his daughter,
not merely as one likely to die, or as dying, or as on the very point of
expiring, but as even then dead; while these other two evangelists report
her as now nigh unto death, but not yet really dead, and keep so strictly
to that version of the circumstances, that they tell us how the persons
came at a later stage with the intelligence of her actual death, and with
the message that for this reason the Master ought not now to trouble Himself
by coming, with the purpose of laying His hand upon her, and so preventing
her from dying,-the matter not being put as if He was one possessed of
ability to raise the once dead to life. It becomes necessary for us, therefore,
to investigate this fact lest it may seem to exhibit any contradiction
between the accounts. And the way to explain it is to suppose that, by
reason of brevity in the narrative, Matthew has preferred to express it
as if the Lord had been really asked to do what it is clear He did actually
do, namely, raise the dead to life. For what Matthew directs our attention
to, is not the mere words spoken by the father about his daughter, but
what is of more importance, his mind and purpose. Thus he has given words
calculated to represent the father's real thoughts. For he had so thoroughly
despaired of his child's case, that not believing that she whom he had
just left dying, could possibly now be found yet in life, his thought rather
was that she might be made alive again. Accordingly two of the evangelists
have introduced the words which were literally spoken by Jairus. But Matthew
has exhibited rather what the man secretly wished and thought. Thus both
petitions were really addressed to the Lord; namely, either that He should
restore the dying damsel, or that, if she was already dead, He might raise
her to life again. But as it was Matthew's object to tell the whole story
in short compass, he has represented the father as directly expressing
in his request what, it is certain, had been his own real wish, and what
Christ actually did. It is true, indeed, that if those two evangelists,
or one of them, had told us that the father himself spake the words which
the parties who came from his house uttered,-namely, that Jesus should
not now trouble Himself, because the damsel had died,-then the words which
Matthew has put into his mouth would not be in harmony with his thoughts.
But, as the case really stands, it is not said that he gave his consent
to the parties who brought that report, and who bade the Master no more
think of coming now. And together with this, we have to observe, that when
the Lord addressed him in these terms, "Fear not: believe only, and she
shall be made whole,"290 He did not find fault with
him on the ground of his want of belief, but really encouraged him to a
yet stronger faith. For this ruler had faith like that which was exhibited
by the person who said, "Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief."291
67. Seeing, then, that the case stands thus, from these varied and yet
not inconsistent modes of statement adopted by the evangelists, we evidently
learn a lesson of the utmost utility, and of great necessity,-namely, that
in any man's words the thing which we ought narrowly to regard is only
the writer's thought which was meant to be expressed, and to which the
words ought to be subservient; and further, that we should not suppose
one to be giving an incorrect statement, if he happens to convey in different
words what the person really meant whose words he fails to reproduce literally.
And we ought not to let the wretched cavillers at words fancy that truth
must be tied somehow or other to the jots and tittles of letters; whereas
the fact is, that not in the matter of words only, but equally in all other
methods by which sentiments are indicated, the sentiment itself, and nothing
else, is what ought to be looked at.
68. Moreover, as to the circumstance that some codices of Matthew's
Gospel contain the reading, "For the woman292 is not
dead, but sleepeth," while Mark and Luke certify that she was a damsel
of the age of twelve years, we may suppose that Matthew has followed the
Hebrew mode of speech here. For in other passages of Scripture, as well
as here, it is found that not only those who had already known a man, but
all females in general, including untouched virgins, are called women.293
That is the case, for instance, where it is written of Eve, "He made it294
into a woman;"295 and again, in the book of Numbers,
where the women296 who have not known a man by lying
with him, that is to say, the virgins, are ordered to be saved from being
put to death.297 Adopting the same phraseology, Paul,
too, says of Christ Himself, that He was "made of a woman."298
And it is better, therefore, to understand the matter according to these
analogies, than to suppose that this damsel of twelve years of age was
already married, or had known a man.299
_________________________
284 Matt. ix. 18-26.
285 Mark v. 21-43.
286 [The events can be arranged in the order of Mark,
with the exception of the passage, chap. ii. 15-22. This must be placed,
as Augustin says, after the return from "the country of the Gerasenes."
Comp. § 89.-R.]
287 Luke viii. 40-56.
288 [This is one of the rare cases where the order of
Matthew is more exact than that of Mark and Luke. But the former evangelist
has dislocated a long series of events in the same connection. See above.-R.]
289 Conscindis.
290 Luke viii. 50.
291 Mark ix. 24.
292 Mulier.
293 Mulieres.
294 Eam, her.
295 Gen. ii. 22.
296 Mulieres.
297 Num. xxxi. 18.
298 Gal. ii. 4.
299 [The curious variation, in text noted above was probably
due to the scribe's confounding the "damsel" with the "woman" who had just
been spoken of.-R.]
