Making His Hand Leprous and Whole Again
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Jesus healing the leper and the Purity Law in the Gospel of Matthew
Jesus se genesing van die melaatse en die reinheidswet in Matteus
Francois P. Viljoen
Faculty of Theology, North-W University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa
Correspondence
Abstract
Though, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explicitly states that he did not come to abolish the Police (Mt v:17-19), in the narrative that follows direct after this Sermon, he apparently neglects purity laws by healing a leper (Mt eight:1-three). Every bit an impure person, the leper was not supposed to come close to Jesus, but Jesus sympathetically reaches out and touches him. Furthermore, no mention is fabricated of Jesus undergoing whatever purification rites after coming into contact with this man. In one case the leper is healed, Jesus instructs him to perform merely the third phase of the prescribed purification rite for lepers. Jesus is thus described every bit having the power and authority to heal the person and to declare him healed. What remains for the leper is to show himself to the priest and to bring the advisable sacrifice, and so that he could exist accustomed into the gild over again. In this commodity it is argued that Jesus, equally the Holy 1 and miracle Healer, is not defiled by coming into contact with the leper. Purity flows from Jesus to heal the leper. As a teacher of the Police force, Jesus enacts the truthful intention of the Police, which is to establish a holy community of believers within the Kingdom of heaven. This healing activeness forms a step towards the coming of the Kingdom of heaven. Thus, the purity laws find their fulfilment in Jesus. As result of this action, cultic purity transforms into a moral activity for the followers of Jesus.
OPSOMMING
Hoewel Jesus in die Bergrede eksplisiet noem dat Hy nie gekom het om die Wet ongeldig te maak nie (Matt v:15-19), lyk dit asof Hy, in die vertelling wat direk op die Rede volg, die reinheidswette oortree het deur die manier waarop Hy 'n melaatse genees (Matt 8:one-3). As 'n onrein persoon was die melaatste nie veronderstel om naby Jesus te kom nie, maar Jesus het simpatiek na hom toe uitgereik en hom aangeraak. Hierbenewens give-and-take geen melding daarvan gemaak dat Jesus enige reinigingsrituele ondergaan het nadat hy in kontak met hierdie man was nie. Nadat die melaatse genees is, beveel Jesus hom om slegs die derde fase van die voorgeskrewe reinigingsrituele vir melaatses uit te voer. Jesus word sodoende beskryf every bit iemand wat dice mag en gesag het om 'n persoon te genees en gesond te verklaar. Wat oorbly, is dat die melaatse homself aan die priester moet gaan wys en die gepaste offering bring, sodat hy weer in die gemeenskap opgeneem kan word. Hierdie artikel argumenteer dat Jesus, as heilige persoon en wondergeneser, nie onrein word wanneer Hy in kontak met die melaatse kom nie. Reinheid vloei vanaf Jesus oor na dice melaatse. As leraar van die Wet beoefen Jesus die ware bedoeling van die Wet, wat ten doel het om die heilige gemeenskap van gelowiges in die Koninkryk van dice hemel te vestig. Hierdie genesingsaksie is nog 'n tree in die koms van dice Koninkryk van die hemel. Sodoende vind die reinheidswette hulle vervulling in Jesus. Equally gevolg hiervan verander kultiese reinheid na morele optrede vir die navolgers van Jesus.
Introduction
It seems that Matthew's Jesus is not concerned with becoming impure or pure once again after contracting impurity (Deines 2008:65). Matthew does not mention whatsoever purification rites in connection with Jesus and the disciples - not fifty-fifty earlier entering the temple. He only describes Jesus taking actions that seemingly contravene purity regulations found in the Hebrew Bible. These include regulations such equally refraining from contact with persons with skin diseases (Lv 13-14; Nm 5:2), but Jesus touches a leper (Mt 8:3), or avoiding contact with women with aberrant menstrual discharge (Lv 25-thirty), but Jesus does not object when such a woman touches him (Mt 9:20-22), or avoiding contact with a expressionless body (Nm 5:2; nineteen:eleven-thirteen) or entering the room of a dead person (Nm xix:14), simply Jesus enters the room of a dead daughter and touches her (Mt 9:25). In cases where such contact occurs accidentally or is necessary, the Hebrew Bible prescribes that the defiled person has to undergo specific purification rites (Nm nineteen). The neglect of such purification rites was reckoned equally prohibited and reason to be cutting off from the customs (Nm 19:thirteen, 20). Matthew, yet, makes no mention of Jesus undergoing such purification rites. Considering Matthew's readers were more often than not Jewish Christians, hearing of Jesus' credible negligence would immediately accept been reason for concern. Matthew also tells the story where Jesus criticises the tradition of the Pharisees about washing their easily before meals (Mt 15:10, 16-twenty). Furthermore, in the woe-sayings of Matthew 23, Jesus criticises the practice of cleaning utensils for eating whilst the people who eat are dirty within (Mt 23:25-27), referring to the status of their hearts. Israelites, specially during the Start one and Second two Temple period, normally observed the laws of purity (taharah) and impurity (tummy'a), as their identity was strongly divers by these laws (Hayes 2007:750; Westerholm 1992:127-131). The Jews definitely must take found Jesus' mental attitude towards purity regulations disturbing.
In this article, one of Jesus' apparent provocative actions against the Jewish purity regulations is investigated, namely that of Jesus touching a leper (Mt eight:3). iii Though Jesus emphasises that he did not come up to abolish the Law 4 (Mt five:17-19), he conspicuously demonstrates an alternative interpretation of the Purity Constabulary. The intention of this article is to establish what lite the story of Jesus healing the leper could cast on Jesus' relation to and interpretation of the Law. To do this, the commodity showtime investigates Jewish purity regulations with regard to leprosy and purification rites, followed by the textual context in Matthew of Jesus as instructor of the Police force. Jesus' healing of the leper will then exist evaluated in the low-cal of the Jewish purity laws and social values of those times. This comparison finally culminates in certain conclusions related to the identity of Matthew'southward community.
Purity and leprosy in the Hebrew Bible
Purity can be described as the condition that God requires of his people. Only those who are pure may come in contact with him. In the Hebrew Bible purity is linked with the requirement of righteousness (Chilton 2000:877). The psalms explicitly land this clan. five But the one who has clean hands and a pure heart may ascend the mountain of the Lord and stand up in his holy identify (Ps 24:3-4; cf. Ps 18:21; 26:4-7; 51:4, 8, 9, 12; 119:9).
Impurity results from coming into contact with annihilation that assumingly should not be, for example a corpse or what was considered a monstrous animate being (Chilton 2000:874). The priestly writings of the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Holiness Code (Lv 17-26), present a systematic legislation on the topic of purity and impurity. A person or object tin get tame [ritually impure] in several ways, including sexual immorality (Lv 18, xx), rules of nutrition (Lv eleven) and touching unclean objects or beings (e.g. Nm 19:22; Westerholm 1992:125-127; Wright 1992b:730-736). In the Jewish communities in the Second Temple menstruum, the concept of purity functioned every bit an identity marker and was regarded as an absolute binding inheritance from early on Judaism. This issue was directly related to the authority of the Mosaic Law (Hübner 1992:741). Biblical laws on purity take been extended in rabbinic halakhah, as at to the lowest degree i third of the Mishnah 6 deals with ritual purity (Hayes 2007:750). The importance of purity regulations is peculiarly evident in the writings of Qumran, with their strong accent on purity in their Purity Texts (4Q274-279; Q281-284; Q512-514). In these texts, laws are recorded that were promulgated to analyze and supplement the Mosaic code (cf. Bowley 2000). The identity of their customs was based on purity laws (Hübner ibid:742).
Leviticus 17-26 depict a wide spectrum of impurities: from those that are harmless and concluding for i solar day simply, upwards to those that are extremely severe (Hayes 2007:746; Wright 1992b:736-738). In this article, the focus is limited to the consequence of leprosy and the purification rites related to it.
Leprosy and impurity
Leprosy (tsara'at) was regarded as an impurity (Lv 13-14; Nm 5:2). Mod discussions on leprosy focus on the distinction betwixt the disease acquired by Hansen's Bacillus and superficially similar diseases. In the Bible, 'leprosy' is used to describe a diversity of pare diseases of varying severity (Hayes 2007:747; Wright & Jones 1992:277), and so that the translation of tsara'at as 'leprosy' for today's context might not always exist accurate. 'Leprosy' was used to describe all kinds of repulsive scaly and flaky conditions that afflicted people, clothing and houses (Pilch 1981).
Leprosy was highly dreaded in the ancient world. It was regarded a terrible and defiling disease, as those who were infected were physically and ceremonially regarded as unclean (Hagner 1993:198; Morris 1992:189; Talbert 2010:112; Wright & Jones 1992:281). In the Hebrew Bible, leprosy was usually viewed every bit God's punishment for sinful behaviour (cf. 2 Ki 5; 2 Chr 26:xvi-21; Nm 12:x-15). Leprosy was associated with decease and people perceived it as a living death (Nm 12:12; Job xviii:thirteen). The notion that lepers were living expressionless is reflected in several texts (e.g. Nm 12:12; two Ki 5:7; Job xviii:13; Davies & Allison 2004b:11). According to the rabbis, it was so hard to heal leprosy that they compared such healing with raising a person from the dead (Luz 2001:5; Marshall 1978:208; Witherington 2006:178).
Leprosy was associated with uncleanness and a nifty social stigma was attached to it (Ellingworth 1992:463; Pilch 1981). It was a socially devalued status with serious social consequences. People diagnosed with or suspected of leprosy were excluded from the community (Lv 13:45-46, Nm five:2-3). Contact with lepers had to be avoided and lepers had to warn others non to come close to them (Lv xiii:45).
Pharisees were as concerned near avoiding lepers, equally an unabridged tractate of the Mishnah, the Nega'im [blemishes], seven is devoted to this upshot (Chilton 2000:877). Lepers were regarded equally impure and unholy. This unholy condition was seen to violate God's volition: 'Y'all shall exist holy because I am holy' (Lv 11:44-45). The customs was concerned nearly pollution, rather than contagion, when coming into contact with lepers (Pilch & Malina 1998:104). Leprosy was regarded as highly symbolic inside the sphere of death (Senior 1998:97). Equally living dead, they were regarded equally existence nether God's judgement (Hagner 1993:198). Josephus confirms in his writings (37 to ca. 100 AD) that this was still the situation that lepers had to endure in the time of Jesus. Josephus wrote: 'Anyone who touches or lives under the aforementioned roof [with a leper] is regarded unclean' (Contra Apionem one.281) and that such people were kept away from normal society (Antiquitates Judaicae 9:74). 'As an attack on the pare [...] leprosy threatens or attacks [...] integrity, wholeness and completeness of the community and its members' (Carter 2000:199; cf. Pilch 1981:113). Roth (1994:108-109) points out that no control existed to take care of lepers. Lepers had to form their own colonies separate from the healthy communities and survive on their own (Lv 13:45; Davies & Allison 2004b:11; Morris 1992:188).
The Hebrew Bible reports two occasions where lepers are healed: Miriam's seven-day leprosy (Nm 12) and Elisha'south healing of Naaman (2 Ki five:1-15). This second story is of detail interest, as it describes the power to heal a leper equally the sign of a prophet (2 Ki five:8). Equally the rabbis regarded the cure of a leper as hard equally raising a person from the dead, the supernatural healing of lepers was expected as ane of the signs of the messianic historic period 8 (Ellingworth 1992:463; Hagner 1993:198). At the commencement of the series of healing stories in Mt 8-9, 9 the story of the healing of the leper thus presents Jesus as the messianic prophet (Davies & Allison 2004b:11).
Purification rites
Extensive purification rites were prescribed for persons who recovered from 'leprosy'. Information technology consisted of 3 phases (Wright & Jones 1992:280-281). For the first stage, bird blood and water had to be sprinkled on such a person and a live bird sent away to remove the impurity from the person (Lv fourteen:2-7). During the second stage the person had to bathroom, launder and shave at the commencement and end of a seven-day quarantine catamenia (Lv 14:eight-nine). During the 3rd phase the person had to bring sacrifices (Lv xiv:x-32) and claret and oil were placed on the ear, thumb and toe of the healed person (Lv 8:22-30). One time this had been done, the person could be alloyed into the community again.
The impurity resulting from contact with a contaminated person as well had to be dealt with (Wright 1992b:737-738). A person who helped to purify a person or business firm that has recovered from leprosy was regarded as polluted and had to launder and bath (Lv 14:ii-7, 49-53). However, if pollution could have been avoided or purification was delayed, such action was considered as sinful and required additional ablution (Lv 5:ii-three). Persons who advertently did non purify themselves would endure being karet [cut off], or expelled and extirpated (Lv eighteen:24-thirty; Nm 19:13, xx; Chilton 2000:874; Hayes 2007:749).
The impurity of leprosy and the religious space
As leprosy was associated with decease (Nm 12:12; Job eighteen:13), it was considered impure. Impurity threatens what is holy (Wright 1992a:237). Purity is related to holiness and impurity to profaneness (Lv 10:10). God, the 'Holy One of Israel' (Is 1:4; 5:19, 24), is the ideal manifestation and source of holiness. Every bit God is holy, he requires of his people to be holy too - as is echoed with the refrain: 'You are to exist holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy' (Lv 11:44-45; xix:2; 20:7-8, 24-26; 22:32-33).
The spaces in which God's people operate should reflect their holiness. The symbolic space for the religious community is demonstrated in Effigy 1.
The religious customs has two spheres: the generally pure area and the holy area. Within the holy area, no impurity is permitted. The religious community lives inside the more often than not pure expanse. Some impurities can be rectified within this sphere past way of proper adherence to specified purification rituals. Otherwise, such impurity must be cut out of the community (referring to the practice of karet) and exist expelled to the impure area. If impurity such as leprosy, threatens to pollute the mostly pure community, it should be removed from the community (Wright & Jones 1992:281). Lepers therefore had to abide outside the borders of the more often than not pure expanse.
Jesus and purity in Matthew
In the Matthean Gospel it seems as if Jesus, on several occasions, 10 does not observe these laws of purity. Jewish religious leaders found this conduct by Jesus offensive and objectionable. In the narrative, this theme leads to Jesus' dispute with Pharisees and scribes on purity regulations (Mt xv:twenty), and his very harsh woe-saying against the scribes and the Pharisees on their cleaning rites (Mt 23:25-26).
The question therefore arises of how this described behaviour of Jesus correlates with his explicit argument that his mission was not to abolish the Police force or prophets, simply to fulfil them (Mt 5:17-19). A secondary question arises as to what the Matthean Jesus then regards as pure and impure. With his description of these actions and arguments of Jesus, Matthew apparently intended to inform his readers of an culling interpretation and application of purity regulations, every bit demonstrated past Jesus. Jesus values purity highly, as he pronounces in the Beatitudes: 'Blest are the pure in middle, for they will see God' (Mt 5:8), but he clearly means something different from what was observed by the Jews of his day. According to this beatitude, a pure middle must grade part of the identity of a follower of Jesus.
When Jesus touches the leper (Mt eight:three), he patently transgresses purity regulations. This incidence is investigated below in guild to offering a proposal of how Jesus' interpretation of purity should be understood.
The instructor of the Law enacts the Law
When observing the story of Jesus' touching of the leper, it is important to consider the textual context of the Law in which this story is set.
Matthew ends his account of the Sermon on the Mount by telling that Jesus came down from the mountain, equally Moses once did from Mount Sinai (Ex 19:14; 32:1; 34:29). He thus draws a parallel betwixt Jesus and Moses, and the Mount of Jesus' sermon and Mount Sinai (Carter 2000:198; Davies & Allison 2004b:9; Luz 2001:5). 11 The impressive and authoritative teacher of the Law found in the discourse is subsequently presented in the narrative every bit going into activeness to demonstrate how the Law should exist adept. Jesus confirms his authority by performing 10 miracles. Grundmann (1971:111) fittingly describes the Sermon on the Mount equally 'das Wirken des Christus Jesus durch das Wort' ['the work of Christ Jesus through the word'] and the miracles that follow as 'das Wirken des Christus Jesus durch die Tat' ['the piece of work of Christ Jesus through the deed'] (Grundmann ibid:245).
The discourse (Sermon on the Mount) and the narrative (ten miracle stories) are linked by two summaries of the miracles that Jesus performed (Mt four:23-25; 12 Mt 9:35 13) to form some sort of compositional frame effectually them (Morris 1992:186; Senior 1998:94; Talbert 2010:109). Both these summaries refer to the Kingdom of God. With his inaugural announcement, 'Repent, for the Kingdom of sky is at hand' (Mt 4:17), 14 Jesus states that the future Kingdom of God is breaking into the present already (Duling 1992:57). The Kingdom does not only signify the territory where God rules, only likewise his activity as ruler, as envisioned in Deutero-Isaiah (Davies & Allison 2004a:389). For Jesus the coming of the Kingdom did not comprise of one moment, but realises through a series of events over a period of time. A like process is described in Jubilees 23, according to which the age of blessedness enters history step-by-pace. Similarly, the eschatological transition of the so-called 'Apocalypse of the Weeks' is a prolonged procedure (i En 93; 91:12-17). When Jesus announces that the Kingdom of heaven has come and is coming, he indicates that the process of the realisation of God's dominion has started, simply the completion lies in the future, when the last things will come. The coming of the Kingdom is beingness established by Jesus. His teaching (Sermon on the Mount) and activity (healing miracles) realise the blessings associated with the coming of the Kingdom step-by-step.
The healing narrative describes a series of 10 miracle stories. Matthew tells a series of nine healing miracles stories (Mt 8-ix) 15 and a nature miracle of Jesus stilling the storm (Mt 8:23-27) - making a total of x. As early as 1927, Klostermann (1927:72) argued that Jesus' 10 miracle stories allude to the 10 miracles of the exodus from Egypt (Ex 7-12). Some arguments can be identified in favour of Klostermann's argument. Micah prophesied that State of israel and Judah would feel a new exodus from exile: 'Every bit in the days when you came out of Arab republic of egypt, I will show them my wonders' (Mi 7:fifteen). Some early Christians applied this prophesy to the ministry of Jesus:
As Moses did signs and miracles, so also did Jesus. And in that location is no doubt only that the likeness of the signs proves him [Jesus] to exist that prophet of whom he [Moses] said that he should come up 'similar myself'. (Pseudo-Clementine, Recognitiones i.57)
Jesus is regarded as the new Moses. One could critique this stance, equally Jesus' acts of mercy are not directly comparable with the plagues in Egypt (Hagner 1993:195; Morris 1992:186), but one should also have into consideration that the contexts of these miracles are different. Further critique of such a correlation can exist offered, equally Matthew'south miracle stories are presented in triads of three each (Mt 8:2-17; 8:xviii-nine:17 and 9:18-34; Garland 2001:92; Talbert 2010:111). However, the story of the haemorrhage adult female is sandwiched in-between that of the reawakening of the dead girl, so that in that location are indeed 10 phenomenon stories. Interesting enough, Philo besides presents the plagues of Exodus 7-12 in terms of three triads (De Vita Mosis ane.97-139). Drawing a link between Moses and Jesus therefore seems to be plausible. As Moses in Exodus was involved in 10 miracles and giving of the Police, Jesus authoritatively interprets the Law (in the Sermon on the Mount) and so authoritatively performs his estimation of the Police force (in the miracle narratives).
Jesus touching a leper (Mt 8:3) xvi
Matthew begins the healing miracles with his start triad past telling how Jesus healed people in Israel:
• The man with leprosy (Mt 8:1-4).
• The servant of the centurion (Mt 8:5-13).
• Peter's mother in law (Mt viii:14-16).
These three healing stories are concluded with the remark that Jesus healed many demon-possessed people (Mt 8:16) as well every bit a reference to Isaiah 53:iv: 'He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases' (Mt 8:17; Senior 1998:96; Talbert 2010:111). Matthew alludes to the fact that Jesus should be identified with the retainer of the Isaiah songs and recognised as the promised Messiah (Hagner 1993:210).
With the first of these healings, Jesus is approached by a leper with the asking to exist apple-pie (Mt 8:2). The leper in the story acted contrary to the instructions, stipulated in Leviticus thirteen-14, of how persons with such skin diseases should human activity. Being contagious and unclean persons, lepers were supposed to isolate themselves from others, demonstrate their impurity and warn people of their disease. They had to article of clothing torn wearing apparel, let their pilus be unkempt, comprehend the lower part of their faces and shout 'Unclean! Unclean!' (tame' nosotros-tame'; Lv 13:45). The LXX version is: '
To understand the impact of this desired healing, 1 has to consider what healing implied in the ancient Mediterranean world - healing involved more than physical healing from a affliction. Even today, healing implies the restoration of the total wellbeing of a person (Pilch 1988). This includes the restoration of meaning of life and honour. A healed person can again fully participate in societal activities. Healing therefore is culturally synthetic. In this regard, ane has to consider the divergence between affliction and illness. A affliction causes sickness and is a pathological upshot. Sickness exists irrespective of whether a culture recognises it or not. Sickness is caused by viruses and germs. Disease, on the other hand, refers to misfortunes in wellbeing beyond a pathological state. An ill person is a socially disvalued person. Restoring pregnant of life for an sick person implies healing. The leper who approached Jesus had a disease that resulted in disease. He suffered a condition that was socially unacceptable. He was devalued and unwelcome in society. He was regarded every bit unclean and unholy. He had to live outside the community, equally he could pollute the people of the community. The threat he posed for the customs needed to exist demonstrated and alleged past his advent and shouting (Lv 13:45). When Jesus healed him, he restored the leper's social stance and gave him new meaning in life.
Matthew's healing story is offered in the course of a striking parallelism. Verses 2 and 3 are similarly constructed: Participle + finite verb + saying + directly speech, which accentuate the interaction between the leper and Jesus. The interaction can be illustrated in a graphic style (see Figure 2):
Jesus responds (Mt viii:iii) to the approaching leper (Mt 8:2) - not by resenting him or scaring him away, merely by stretching out his mitt towards him. Every bit the leper kneels before him, Jesus touches him. Instead of warning Jesus of his uncleanness, the leper makes a statement of faith and begs for healing. In response to the leper, Jesus answers that he is willing to heal the man, orders him to be healed and the man is healed.
This brief pericope lacks the first and last elements of a total version of such a healing pericope (Hagner 1993:197), 17 as no mention is fabricated of the condition of the leper (offset element) and no reaction of the onlookers (last element) is reported. All attention is focused on the interaction between the leper and Jesus.
Jesus' touching of the leper has special significance. As leprosy was regarded equally an unclean affliction, Jesus patently was not supposed to come close to this homo, let alone touch him. Neither Moses (Nm 12:9-xv) nor Elisha (2 Ki 5:1-14) touched the leper they healed. Nevertheless, Jesus reaches out and touches this man to heal him and thereby seemingly violates the Levitical Police force stated in Leviticus five:3. 18 The deed of Jesus to touch the leper is all the more than meaning, as the Greek phrase (
A significant element of the deed of touching should be considered. In the LXX, touching was a common gesture of a phenomenon healer in more than 80 occurrences (Luz 2001:half-dozen; Theissen 1983:62-63). Touching formed an of import office of ancient healing stories. Information technology was assumed that power and energy would menstruation from the holy person or healer to the ill one. When Jesus touched the leper, the leprosy and impurity did not spread to Jesus. Jesus is the Holy Ane and Healer. The ability to heal and cleanse, flows from Jesus to the leper to conquer the illness. Leprosy is unable to affect Jesus. The word used for 'to heal' (
Significantly, the story concludes with Jesus instructing the human to take his sacrifice and to show himself to the priests. It should be noted that the first and the second phases of the purification rituals, every bit prescribed in Leviticus 14:2-9, are left out. Jesus has already removed the impurity from the man (first phase of cleansing), and has already alleged the man clean (second stage). What remains is the sacrifice of the third phase, and then that the priest would allow him to be readmitted to the total communal and spiritual life. Jesus proves to have special power and authorisation. As Emmanuel, he is the Holy One. Purity flows from him to heal the infected person and he has the dominance to declare the purity of the cleansed person. Jesus did not see any need to undergo whatsoever purification activeness for himself. The Gospels do not record that Jesus ever personally underwent any form of ritual purification. As the Holy One, he could not be defiled by touching the leper. Evans (2012:183) remarks that, instead of Jesus being defiled by the leper, 'purity flows from Jesus to the leper, healing the disease and restoring the human to a country of purity'.
The prescribed purification rites have been fulfilled. They pointed to Jesus. With his healing ability, he assured that the true intention of the purity laws could exist realised (Gundry 1982:138). The messianic times have arrived - times of wellness and the absenteeism of all disease (Talbert 2010:112).
Purity required of the followers of Jesus
Co-ordinate to this healing narrative, it appears that ceremonial purity laws were no longer required in the Matthean customs. The community accustomed him equally Emmanuel - the holy God among them. As Healer, he has come to save his people from their sins (Mt one:21). He has purified and thus hallowed his followers. They at present have to live equally holy people. The concept of purity has been transposed from a cultic to an upstanding level. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands pure hearts from his disciples: 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will encounter God' (Mt 5:8). The phrase 'pure of heart' echoes the obligation described in Psalms 24:3-four: 'Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? The one who has clean hands and a pure center.' A pure heart counters mere external formalism cleaning (cf. Mt 23:25-26). Pure hearts should mark the identity of Jesus' disciples. Their external behaviour should exist based upon an internal ethical conviction.
Decision
This curt story about Jesus who heals a leper describes another step in the coming of the Kingdom of God towards the paradisiac country pictured in Deutero-Isaiah. Jesus is in the procedure of establishing God'due south rule. He is described as a compassionate Healer and amazing miracle worker. Though it seems as if Jesus is violating the Law by touching the leper, the story actually demonstrates Jesus' healing power. Significant of life is being restored for sick people. Whilst Jesus does not become impure when touching the leper, purity flows from him towards the leper. The purity laws observe their fulfilment in him.
Equally the leper was purified, all Jesus' followers are purified. Boundaries of purity laws to categorise and isolate others are no longer applicative to them. Ritual purity becomes a moral category. Their inner beings, their hearts, must be pure. Purity involves integrity of the whole person.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The writer declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
References
Avi-Yonah, M., 2007, 'Second temple', in F. Skoling & M. Berenbaum (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2d edn., vol. 19, pp. 608-611,Thompson Gale, Detroit/ New York/San Francisco/New Haven/Waterville/Maine/London. [ Links ]
Bowley, J.E., 2000, 'Purification texts', in C.A. Evans & South.E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Attestation Background, pp. 873-874, InterVarsity Printing, Downers Grove/ Leicester. [ Links ]
Carter, West., 2000, Matthew and the margins. A socio-political and religious reading, Bookish Printing, Sheffield. (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 204). [ Links ]
Chilton, B.D., 2000, 'Purity', in C.A. Evans & Southward.E. Porter (eds.), Dictionary of New Testament Background, pp. 874-882, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove/Leicester. [ Links ]
Davies, Westward.D. & Allison D.C., 2004a, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. (Matthew 1-7), vol. 1, T&T Clark International, London/New York. (International Critical Commentary). [ Links ]
Davies, W.D. & Allison D.C., 2004b, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. (Matthew 8-eighteen), vol. 2, T&T Clark International, London/New York, (International Critical Commentary). [ Links ]
Deines, R., 2008, 'Non the Law but the Messiah: Law and righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew - An ongoing debate', in D.M. Gurtner & J. Nolland (eds.), Built upon the Rock. Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 53-84, Eerdmans, Chiliad Rapids/ Cambridge. [ Links ]
Duling, D.C., 1992, 'Kingdom of God, Kingdom of heaven', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. four, pp. 56-69, Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland. [ Links ]
Ellingworth, P., 1992, 'Leprosy', in J.B. Green & South. McKnight (eds.), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 463-464, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove/Leicester. [ Links ]
Evans, C.A., 2012, Matthew, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). [ Links ]
Eisen, Y., 2004, Miraculous journeying: A complete history of the Jewish people from creation to the present, Targum Printing, Brooklyn. [ Links ]
Garland, D., 2001, Reading Matthew: A literary and theological commentary on the first Gospel, Smyth & Helwys, Macon. [ Links ]
Grintz, Y.M., 2007, 'First Temple', in F. Skoling & Grand. Berenbaum (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edn., vol. nineteen, pp. 601-603, Thompson Gale, Detroit/New York/San Francisco/New Haven/Waterville/Maine/London. [ Links ]
Grundmann, West., 1971, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 1, Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Berlin. [ Links ]
Gundry, R.H., 1982, Matthew: A commentary on his literary and theological fine art, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. [ Links ]
Hagner, D.A., 1993, Matthew 1-thirteen, Discussion Books, Dallas. (Word Biblical Commentary 33A). [ Links ]
Hagner, D.A., 1995, Matthew 14-28, Word Books, Dallas. (Word Biblical Commentary 33B. [ Links ] ).
Hayes, C., 2007, 'Purity and impurity, ritual', in F. Skoling & M. Berenbaum (eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edn., vol. 16, pp. 746-756, Thompson Gale, Detroit/New York/San Francisco/New Haven/Waterville/Maine/London. [ Links ]
Hübner, H., 1992, 'Unclean and make clean (New Testament)', in D.Due north. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Lexicon, pp. 741-745, Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland. [ Links ]
Klostermann, E., 1927, Das Mattäusevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, Mohr, Tübingen. [ Links ]
Luz, U., 2001, Matthew 8-20: A commentary, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. [ Links ]
Marshall, I.H., 1978, Commentary on Luke, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. (The New International Greek Testament Commentary). [ Links ]
Morris, L., 1992, The Gospel co-ordinate to Matthew, William Eerdmans, M Rapids/ Leicester. [ Links ]
Osborne, G.R., 2010, Matthew, Zondervan, Grand Rapids. (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary On The New Attestation). [ Links ]
Pilch, J.J., 1981, 'Biblical leprosy and body symbolism', Biblical Theology Message 11, 108-113. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1177/014610798101100403 [ Links ]
Pilch, J.J., 1988, 'Understanding Biblical healing: Selecting the appropriate model', Biblical Theological Message xviii, 60-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014610798801800204 [ Links ]
Pilch, J.J. & Malina, B.J., 1998, Handbook of Biblical social values, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody. [ Links ]
Roth, South.J., 1994, The blind, the lame and the poor: Character types in Luke-Acts, Academic Printing, Sheffield. (Journal for the Study of the New Attestation Supplement Series 144). [ Links ]
Senior, D., 1998, Matthew, Abingdon Press, Nashville. (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries). [ Links ]
Talbert, C.H., 2010, Matthew, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. (Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament). [ Links ]
Theissen, G., 1983, The miracle stories of the early on Christian tradition, Fortress Press, Philadelphia. [ Links ]
Viljoen, F.P., 2013, 'Jesus' halakhic argumentation on the truthful intention of the law in Matthew v:21-48', Verbum et Ecclesia 34(i), Art. #787, 12 pages. [ Links ]
Westerholm, S., 1992, 'Clean and unclean', in J.B. Green & S. McKnight (eds.), Lexicon of Jesus and the Gospels, pp. 125-132, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove/Leicester. [ Links ]
Witherington, B., 2006, Matthew, Smyth & Helwwys Bible Commentary, vol. 19, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Macon. [ Links ]
Wright, D.P., 1992a, 'Holiness (Old Testament)', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pp. 237-249, Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/ Auckland. [ Links ]
Wright, D.P., 1992b, 'Unclean and clean (Old Testament)', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Ballast Bible Lexicon, vol. five, pp. 729-741, Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Auckland. [ Links ]
Wright, D.P. & Jones, R.Northward., 1992, 'Leprosy', in D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Ballast Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, pp. 277-282, Doubleday, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/ Auckland. [ Links ]
Francois Viljoen
Private Bag X6001
Potchefstroom 2520, Due south Africa
viljoen.francois@nwu.ac.za
Received: 09 Sept. 2013
Accepted: 30 Jan. 2014
Published: xx May 2014
1.The offset temple was synthetic past Solomon in ca. 832 BCE and destroyed past the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar Two in ca. 586 BCE (Grintz 2007; Eisen 2004:54).
2.The Second Temple period lasted between ca. 530 BCE and 70 CE. The Second Temple period ended with the First Jewish-Roman War and the Roman devastation of Jerusalem and the temple (Avi-Yonah 2007).
3.Other examples include where Jesus does not resist when a woman with blood menstruation touches him (Mt 9:20-22) and where Jesus enters a room of a dead girl and touches her (Mt 9:25). These wil be discussed in a future commodity. Jesus' arguments on purity in Matthew xv and 23 are likewise significant in relation to the effect of purity, and the intention is to attend to these arguments in withal another article, with special attending to the applicative dietary laws.
four.The Hebrew term for the Law, Torah, included written and oral regulations of the Israelites and Jews. In a more restricted sense, information technology referred to the Constabulary of Moses -the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch includes a whole range of instructions almost loyalty, morality and purity. Whilst the Sadducees only held to the written Law of Moses (Pentateuch), the Pharisees likewise accepted the Prophets and the Writings as authoritative. Furthermore, they regarded the oral traditions of 'their fathers'.
five.This link betwixt purity and morality is pregnant, as it becomes a hermeneutical primal to Jesus' interpretation of purity regulations.
vi.The Mishnah consists of half-dozen orders (sedarim), each containing vii-12 tractates (masechtot). The sixth order is the longest of the orders, comprising 12 tractates. These tractates deal with tehorot [purities] pertaining to the laws of purity and impurity, including the impurity of the dead, the laws of food purity and bodily purity.
7.The Nega'im consists of 14 chapters. This tractate describes the various forms of leprosy that affected people, clothing and homes. Information technology describes the different symptoms of the illness and the various rituals involved in purifying someone who has been affected.
8.Information technology is due to this expectation that Jesus inter alia replied to the enquiry of John the Baptist: 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?' that 'those who have leprosy are cured' (Mt xi:3-4).
9.Matthew sets out a distinctive arrangement of the series of miracle stories parallel to those reported in Mark. He makes the dramatic healing of the leper the commencement miracle, whilst Mark (Mk ane:40-45) describes it as the final miracle of the first solar day of healing in Capernaum (Senior 1998:95).
ten.When approached by a leper, Jesus does not scare abroad - he fifty-fifty touches him (Mt eight:iii). He does not object when a woman with blood flow touches him (Mt ix:20), and he enters the room of a expressionless daughter and even takes her by the hand to heal her (Mt ix:25).
11.This correlation has been demonstrated in another article (Viljoen 2013).
12.'Jesus went throughout Galilee, instruction in their synagogues, proclaiming the practiced news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness amongst the people [... ] and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed; and he healed them' (Mt 4:23-25).
13.'Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the expert news of the kingdom and healing every affliction and sickness' (Mt 9:35).
14.'Kingdom of heaven' is seemingly used as equivalent of 'kingdom of God'. This periphrasis for God is probably a result of rabbinic influence to avoid the divine proper noun. Moreover, Matthew does not just use 'kingdom of sky' (e.g. Mt four:17; eighteen:ane; twenty:1; 25:1), but also 'kingdom of God' (east.g. Mt half-dozen:33; 12:28), 'kingdom of my Father' (Mt 26:29), 'kingdom of the Son of homo' (Mt 16:28) and the accented 'the kingdom' (Mt iv:23; 9:25).
15.The nine healings are that of the leper, the centurion's servant, Peter's mother-in-law, the Gaderene demoniacs, the paralysed homo, the ruler's girl, the adult female with blood menstruum, the blind men and the dumb human.
16.Matthew 26:half-dozen describes Jesus staying in the house of Simon, who was affected by leprosy. He was probably a leper that has been cured (by Jesus perhaps?). Information technology is highly unlikely that a leper who was still sick would human activity equally a host for a meal (Davies & Allison 2004a:197; Hagner 1995:757). Even so, it indicates that Jesus, yet again, befriended a (previously) social outcast.
17.Theissen (1983:72-80) identifies the diverse elements in miracles stories.
18.Chrysostom, in his homily on this passage, proposes that by this act, Jesus shows that he is ready over the Law, and that, henceforth, to the clean null is unclean.
Source: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-08532014000200004
0 Response to "Making His Hand Leprous and Whole Again"
Postar um comentário