a. The Leper (8:1–4)
The Greek lepra in biblical literature denotes a disfiguring skin condition¹⁷ which
was believed to be contagious and which, following the instructions of Lev 13–
14 (extensively developed in Mishnah Negaʿim), rendered the affected person
ritually unclean and thus excluded them from normal life and worship. Other
types of uncleanness, e.g. through contact with unclean creatures, dead bodies or
bodily discharges, were temporary, and once the prescribed period was past and
the appropriate offerings made the person concerned could re-enter normal life
without stigma. With this condition it was different: as long as the condition
persisted the person had no place in society and must contrive to exist away from
other people’s dwellings (Lev 13:45–46). No other disease carried this stigma,¹⁸
hence the horror with which the “leper” was regarded.¹
If the condition was
cured a careful examination by the priest and an appropriate offering and
cleansing ritual (described in detail in Lev 14:1–32) were required before they
could be pronounced clean and allowed back into society. The NT consistently
describes the cure of “lepers” as “making clean,” whereas other diseases are
“cured;” see especially 10:8; 11:5 where the two are carefully distinguished. The
terminology suggests that the physical suffering was not regarded as the most
serious aspect of a “leper’s” problem. OT accounts of “leprosy” indicate that it
was regarded as practically incurable by medical means (Exod 4:6–8; Num
12:9–15; 2 Kgs 5:1–27; 2 Chr 26:16–21; to cure it is on a par with raising the
dead, 2 Kgs 5:7); for lepers to be made clean is a mark of the Messiah’s coming
(11:5).
In comparison with Mark’s remarkably strong language about Jesus’ emotional
reaction to the “leper’s” approach (including his unexplained anger) Matthew’s
telling of the story is restrained. He says nothing of Jesus’ emotions nor of the
disobedience of the man to Jesus’ demand for silence (Mark 1:45). But even in
this more concise version it is a striking account when read against the cultural
setting described above. The man’s confident approach²
contrasts with the self-
isolation prescribed in Lev 13:45–46. His recognition of Jesus’ unique status is
reflected not only in his deferential approach (a “low bow,” “Lord”) but also in
his assumption that Jesus “can” make him clean. His uncertainty, derived no
doubt from the general attitude toward “lepers,” is whether this remarkable
healer will be willing to respond to his request. Jesus’ response is
straightforward, “I am willing,” but is reinforced when he breaks the biblical
taboo by touching the unclean man. The immediate disappearance of a long-
standing and disfiguring condition is clearly miraculous. And with that the story,
as an account of physical healing is complete. But Matthew was well aware that
there was more to “leprosy” than that, and Jesus’ instructions in v. 44 ensure that
the man is not merely cured but also restored to society through the proper
procedure. By recounting Jesus’ response to the most feared and ostracized
medical condition of his day, Matthew has thus laid an impressive foundation for
this collection of stories which demonstrate both Jesus’ unique healing power
and his willingness to challenge the taboos of society in the interests of human
compassion.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: