| 94. Cures of Lepers. | ||||
AMONG The Sufferers Whom Jesus Healed, The leprous play a prominent paft, as might have been anticipated from the tendency of the climate of Palestine to produce cutaneous disease. When, accord-. ing to the synoptic writers, Jesus directs the attention of the Baptist's messengers to the actual proofs which he had given of his Messiahship (Matt. ix. 5), he adduces, among these, the cleansing of lepers; when, on the first mission of the disciples, he empowers them to perform all kinds of miracles, the cleansing of lepers is numbered among the first (Matt. x. 8), and two cases of such cures are narrated to us in detail. | ||||
One of these cases is common to all the synoptic writers, but is placed by them in two different connections: namely, by Matthew, immediately after the delivery of the sermon on the mount (viii.1ff.); .by the other evangelists, at some period, not precisely marked, at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus in Galilee (Mark i.40ff.; Luke v. 12 if.). According to the narratives, a leper comes towards Jesus, and falling on his knees, entreats that he may be cleansed; this Jesus effects by a touch, and then directs the leper to present himself to the priest in obedience to the law, that he may be pronounced clean (Lev. xiv.2ff.). The state of the man is in Matthew and Mark described simply by the word "leper"; but in Luke more strongly, by the words "full of leprosy." Paulus, indeed, regards the being thus replete with leprosy as a symptom that the patient was curable (the eruption and peeling of the leprosy on the entire skin being indicative of the healing crisis); and accordingly, that commentator represents the incident to himself in the following manner. The leper applied to Jesus in his character of Messiah for an opinion on his state, and, the result being favourable, for a declaration that he was clean, which might either spare him an application to the priest, or at all events give him a consolatory hope in making that application. Jesus expressing himself ready to make the desired examination, stretched out his hand, in order to feel the patient, without allowing too near an approach while he was possibly still capable of communicating contagion; and after a careful examination, he expressed, as its result, the conviction that the patient was no longer in a contagious state, whereupon quickly and easily the leprosy actually disappeared. | ||||
Here, in the first place, the supposition that the leper was precisely at the crisis of healing is foreign to the text, which in the {P.482} two first evangelists speaks merely of leprosy, while the third can mean nothing else than the Old Testament expression Mizra' kashaleg (Exod. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; 2 Kings v. 27), which, according to the connection in every instance, signifies the worst stage of leprosy. That the word KaOapifav in the Hebraic and Hellenistic use of the Greek language, might also mean merely to pronounce clean is not to be denied, only it must retain the signification throughout the passage. But that after having narrated that Jesus had said, "Be clean," Matthew should have added that thus the sick man was actually pronounced clean by Jesus, is, from the absurd tautology such an interpretation would introduce, so inconceivable, that we must here, and consequently throughout the narrative, understand the word kaqarisai of actual cleansing. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the expressions leproi kaqarizontai, "the lepers are cleansed," (Matt. xi. 5,) and leprouj kaqarizete cleanse the lepers (Matt. x. 8), where neither can the latter ord signify merely to pronounce clean, nor can it have another meaning than in the narrative before us. But the point in which the natural interpretation the most plainly betrays its weakness, is the disjunction of qelw, I will, from kaqarisqhti, be you clean. Who can persuade himself that these words, united as they are in all the three narratives, were separated by a considerable pause; that qelw was spoken during or more properly before the manipulation, kaqarisqhti after, when all the evangelists represent the two words as having been uttered by Jesus without separation, while he touched the leper? Surely, if the alleged-sense had been the original one, at least one of the evangelists, instead of the words, "Jesus touched him, saying, I will, be you clean," would have substituted the more accurate expression, "Jesus answered, I will; and having touched him, said: be you clean." But if kaqarisqhti was spoken in one breath with qelw, so that Jesus announces the cleansing simply as a result of his will without any intermediate examination, the former word cannot possibly signify a mere declaration of cleanness, to which a previous examination would be requisite, and it must signify an actual making clean. It follows, therefore, that the word a(ptesqai in this connection is not to be understood of an exploratory manipulation, but, as in all other narratives of the same class, of a curative touch. | ||||
In support of his natural explanation of this incident, Paulus appeals to the rule, that invariably the ordinary and regular is to be presupposed in a narrative where the contrary is not expressly indicated. But this rule shares the ambiguity which is characteristic of the entire system of natural interpretation, since it leaves undecided what is ordinary and regular in our estimation, and what {P.483} was so in the ideas of the author whose writings are to be explained. Certainly, if I have a Gibbon before me, I must in his narratives presuppose only natural causes and occurrences when he does not expressly convey the contrary, because to a writer of his cultivation, the supernatural is at the utmost only conceivable as a rare exception. But the case is altered when I take up an Herodotus, in whose mode of thought the intervention of higher powers is by no means unusual and out of rule; and when I am considering a collection of stories which are the product of Jewish soil, and the object of which is to represent an individual as a prophet of the highest rank as a man in the most intimate connection with the Deity, to meet with the supernatural is so completely a thing of course, that the rule of the rationalists must here be reversed, and we must say: where, in such narratives, importance is attached to results which, regarded as natural, would have no importance whatever, there, supernatural causes must be expressly excluded, if we are not to presuppose it the opinion of the narrator that such causes were in action. Moreover, in the story before us, the extraordinary character of the incident is sufficiently indicated by the statement, that the leprosy left the patient immediately on the word of Jesus. Paulus, it is true, contrives, as we have already observed, to interpret this statement as implying a gradual, natural healing, on the ground that eu)qewj, the word by which the evangelists determine the time of the cure, signifies, according to the different connections in which it may occur, in one case immediately, in another merely soon, and unobstructedly. Granting this, are we to understand the words eu)qewj ecebalen au)ton, which follow in close connection in Mark (v. 43), as signifying that soon and without hindrance Jesus sent the cleansed leper away? Or is the word to be taken in a different sense in two consecutive verses? | ||||
We conclude, then, that in the intention of the Gospel writers the instantaneous disappearance of the leprosy in consequence of the word and touch of Jesus, is the fact on which their narratives turn. Now to represent the possibility of this to one's self is quite another task than to imagine the instantaneous release of a man under the grasp of a fixed idea, or a permanently invigorating impression on a nervous patient. Leprosy, from the thorough derangement of the animal fluids of which it is the symptom, is the most obstinate and malignant of cutaneous diseases;. and that a skin corroded by this malady should by a word and touch instantly become pure and healthy, is, from its involving the immediate effectuation of what would require a long course of treatment, so inconceivable, that every one who is free from certain prejudices (as the critic ought always to be) must involuntarily be reminded by it of the realm of fable. And in the fabulous region of oriental and more particularly of Jewish legend, he sudden appearance and disappearance of leprosy presents itself the first thing. When the Lord {P.484} endowed Moses, as a preparation for his mission into Egypt, with the power of working all kinds of signs, amongst other tokens of this gift he commanded him to put his hand into his bosom, and when he drew it out again, it was covered with leprosy; again he was commanded to put it into his bosom, and on drawing it out a second time it was once more clean (Exod. iv. 6, 7.). Subsequently, on account of an attempt at rebellion against Moses, his sister Miriam was suddenly stricken with leprosy, but on the intercession of Moses was soon healed (Num. xii. 10 fF.). Above all, among the miracles of the prophet Elisha the cure of a leper plays an important part, and to this event Jesus himself refers (Luke iv. 27.). The Syrian General Naaman, who suffered from leprosy, applied to the Israelite prophet for his aid; the latter sent to him the direction to wash seven times in the river Jordan, and on Naaman's observance of this prescription the leprosy actually disappeared, but was subsequently transferred y the prophet to his deceitful servant Gehazi (2 Kings v.). I know not what we ought to need beyond these Old Testament narratives to account for the origin of the Gospel stories. What the first Goel was empowered to do in the fulfilment of the Lord's commission, the second Goel must also be able to perform, and the greatest of prophets must not fall short of the achievements of any one prophet. If then, the cure of leprosy was without doubt included in the Jewish idea of the Messiah; the Christians, who believed the Messiah to have really appeared in the person of Jesus, had a yet more decided inducement to glorify his history by such traits, taken from the mosaic and prophetic legend; with the single difference that, in accordance with the mild spirit of the New Covenant (Luke ix. 55 f.) they dropped the punitive side of the old miracles. | ||||
Somewhat more plausible is the appeal of the rationalists to the absence of an express statement, that a miraculous cure of the leprosy is intended in the narrative of the ten lepers, given by Luke alone (xvii.12ff.). Here neither do the lepers expressly desire to be cured, their words being only, Have mercy on us,' nor does Jesus utter a command directly referring to such a result, for he merely enjoins them to show themselves to the priests: and the rationalists avail themselves of this indirectness in his reply, as a help to their supposition, that Jesus, after ascertaining the state of the patients, encouraged them to subject themselves to the examination of the priests, which resulted in their being pronounced clean, and the Samaritan returning to thank Jesus for his encouraging advice. But mere advice does not call forth so ardent a demonstration of gratitude as is here decribed by the words "he fell down on his face;" still less could Jesus desire that because his advice hadhad a favourable issue, all the ten should have returned, and returned to glorify God-for what? that he had enabled Jesus to give them such good advice? No: a more real service is here {P.485} presupposed; and this the narrative itself implies, both in attributing the return of the Samaritan to his discovery that he was healed, and in making Jesus indicate the reason why thanks were to be expected from all by the words: "Were there not ten cleansed?" Both these expressions can only by an extremely forced interpretation be made to imply, that because the lepers saw the correctness of the judgment of Jesus in pronouncing them clean, one of them actually returned to thank him, and the others ought to have returned. But that which is most decisive against the natural explanation is this sentence: "And as they went they were cleansed." If the narrator intended, according to the above interpretation, merely, to say: "The lepers having gone to the priest, and showed themselves to him, were pronounced clean," he must at least have said: "having made the journey, they were cleansed, whereas the deliberate choice of the expression e)n tw e)lqein (while in the act of going), incontestably shows that a healing effected during the journey is intended. Thus here also we have a miraculous cure of leprosy, which is burdened with the same difficulties as the former story; the origin of which is, however, as easily explained. But in this narrative there is a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the former. Here there is no simple cure, indeed, the cure does not properly form the main object of the narrative: this lies rather in the different conduct of the cured, and the question of Jesus, were there not ten cleansed etc, (v. 17.) forms the point of the whole, which thus closes altogether morally, and seems to have been narrated for the sake of the instruction conveyed. That the one who appears as a model of thankfulness happens to be a Samaritan, cannot pass without remark in the narrative of the evangelist who alone has the parable of the Good Samaritan. As there two Jews, a priest an a Levite, show themselves pitiless, while a Samaritan, on the contrary, proves exemplarily compassionate: so here, nine unthankful Jews stand contrasted with one thankful Samaritan. May it not be then (in so far as the sudden cure of these lepers cannot be historical) that we have here, as well as there, a parable pronounced by Jesus, in which he intended to represent gratitude, as in the other case compassion, in the example of a Samaritan? It would then be with the present narrative as some have maintained it to be with the story of the temptation. But in relation to this we have both shown, and given the reason, that Jesus never made himself immediately figure in a parable, and this he must have done if he had given a narrative of ten lepers once healed by him. If then we are not inclined to relinquish the idea that something originally parabolic is the germ of our present narrative, we must represent the case to ourselves thus: from the legends of cures performed by Jesus on lepers, on the one and; and on the other, from parables which Jesus (as in that of the compassionate Samaritan) showed {P.486} individuals of this hated race as models of various virtues, the Christian legend wove this narrative, which is therefore partly an account of a miracle and partly a parable. | ||||