[2339] Ber. 5 b.
[2340] The Midrash enumerates four as in that category: the poor, the blind, the childless, and the leprous.
[2341] Ber. 5 a.
[2342] Ber. 5 b.
[2343] Bemidb. R. 13.
[2344] From Zech. xiv. 12 it was inferred, that this leprosy would smite the Gentiles even in the Messianic age (Tanchuma, Tazria, end).
[2345] Tanch. on Hammetsora 4; ed. Lemberg ii. p. 24 a.
[2346] u. s., 2, p.23 a; Arach. 15 b; and in many passages.
[2347] Moed K.
[2348] u.s. 15 a.
[2349] Vayyik. R. 16. [Leprosy is there brought into connection with calumny].
[2350] And yet Jewish symbolism saw in the sufferings of Israel and the destruction of the Temple the real fulfilment of the punishment of leprosy with its attendant ordinances, while it also traced in the healing of that disease and the provisions for declaring the leper clean, a close analogy to what would happen in Israel's restoration (Vayyikra R. 15, 17; Yalkut i. par. 551, 563).
[2351] Moed. K 15 a.
[2352] On this term see the first note in this chapter.
[2353] This, however, as Godet has shown (Comm. on St. Luke, German transl., p. 137), does not imply that the event took place either in a house or in a town, as most commentators suppose. It is strange that the Speaker's Commentary,' following Weiss, should have located the incident in a Synagogue. It could not possibly have occurred there, unless all Jewish ordinances and customs had been reversed.
[2354] The Rabbinic ordinances as to the ritual in such cases are in Neg. xiv. See The Temple and its Services' pp. 315-317. Special attention was to be given, that the water with which the purified leper was sprinkled was from a pure, flowing spring (six different collections of water, suited to different kinds of impurity, being described in Miqv. i. 1-8). From Parah viii. 10 we gather, that among other rivers even the Jordan was not deemed sufficiently pure, because in its course other streams, which were not lawful for such purification, had mingled with it.
[2355] St. Luke v. 21.
[2356] St. Luke vi. 7.
[2357] St. Luke v. 30.
[2358] St. Luke v. 33. __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER XVI. THE RETURN TO CAPERNAUM - CONCERNING THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS - THE HEALING OF THE PARALYSED
(St. Matt. ix. 1-8; St. Mark ii. 1-12; St. Luke v. 17-26.)
It is a remarkable instance of the reserve of the Gospel-narratives, that of the second journey of Jesus in Galilee no other special event is recorded than the healing of the leper. And it seems also to indicate, that this one miracle had been so selected for a special purpose. But if, as we have suggested, after the Unknown Feast,' the activity of Jesus assumed a new and what, for want of a better name, may be called an anti-Judaic character, we can perceive the reason of it. The healing of leprosy was recorded as typical. With this agrees also what immediately follows. For, as Rabbinism stood confessedly powerless in face of the living death of leprosy, so it had no word of forgiveness to speak to the conscience burdened with sin, nor yet word of welcome to the sinner. But this was the inmost meaning of the two events which the Gospel-history places next to the healing of the leper: the forgiveness of sins in the case of the paralytic, and the welcome to the chief of sinners in the call of Levi-Matthew.
We are still mainly following the lead of St. Mark, [2359] alike as regards the succession of events and their details. And here it is noteworthy, how the account in St. Mark confirms that by St. John [2360] of what had occurred at the Unknown Feast. Not that either Evangelist could have derived it from the other. But if we establish the trustworthiness of the narrative in St. John v., which is unconfirmed by any of the Synoptists, we strengthen not only the evidence in favour of the Fourth Gospel generally, but that in one of its points of chief difficulty, since such advanced teaching on the part of Jesus, and such developed hostility from the Jewish authorities, might scarcely have been looked for at so early a stage. But when we compare the language of St. Mark with the narrative in the fifth chapter of St. John's Gospel, at least four points of contact prominently appear. For, first, the unspoken charge of the Scribes, [2361] that in forgiving sins Jesus blasphemed by making Himself equal with God, has its exact counterpart in the similar charge against Him in St. John v. 18, which kindled in them the wish to kill Jesus. Secondly, as in that case the final reply of Jesus pointed to the authority' (xousa) which the Father had given Him for Divine administration on earth, [2362] so the healing of the paralytic was to show the Scribes that He had authority' (xousa) [2363] for the dispensation upon earth of the forgiveness of sins, which the Jews rightly regarded as the Divine prerogative. Thirdly, the words which Jesus spake to the paralytic: Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,' [2364] are to the very letter the same [2365] which are recorded [2366] as used by Him when He healed the impotent man at the Pool of Bethesda. Lastly, alike in the words which Jesus addressed to the Scribes at the healing of the paralytic, and in those at the Unknown Feast, He made final appeal to His works as evidential of His being sent by, and having received of, the Father the authority' to which He laid claim. [2367] It would be utterly irrational to regard these as coincidences, and not references. And their evidential force becomes the stronger, as we remember the entire absence of design on the part of St. Mark. [2368] But this correspondence not only supports the trustworthiness of the two independent narratives in St. Mark and in St. John, but also confirms alike that historical order in which we have arranged the events, and the suggestion that, after the encounter at the Unknown Feast, the authorities of Jerusalem had sent representatives to watch, oppose, and, if possible, entrap Jesus.