σπλαγχνισθείς. See Lightfoot on Philippians 1:8. The verb in N.T. is found in the Synoptists only, and (except in parables) it is used of no one but Christ. It is the moving cause of His mighty works (Mark 9:22; Matthew 9:36; Matthew 14:14; Matthew 15:32; Matthew 20:34; Luke 7:13). The outstretched hand (a Hebraistic fulness of writing which is in all three) expresses this compassion and confirms the faith which secured the cleansing. It was owing to His compassion for mankind that He had a hand with which to lay hold. Euthymius points out that Christ healed sometimes with a touch, sometimes with a word, sometimes, as here, with both. Cf. Mark 1:31; Mark 1:41; Mark 5:41; Mark 6:5; Mark 7:34; Mark 8:23. Theophylact says that He touched the leper to show that He was Δεσπότης τοῦ νόμου, and that τῷ καθαρῷ οὐδὲν�. The latter is nearer the truth. It indicates that the greatest pollution will not make Christ shrink from one who desires to be freed from his pollution, and comes to Him believing that He can free him. That Christ was asserting His sacerdotal character (priests were allowed to handle lepers) is less probable. Priests pronounced lepers, when healed, to be clean, and this Christ pointedly abstained from doing. On the combination of participles see Mark 1:15.

D, a ff2 r have the strange reading ὀργισθείς for σπλαγχνισθείς. Ephraem had both words in his text, and he thinks that Christ was angry because the leper doubted His willingness to heal. Seeing that the σπλάγχνα were regarded as the seat of anger as well as of pity, it is possible that ὀργισθείς was a marginal gloss, to produce harmony with Mark 1:43, and that it was afterwards substituted for σπλαγχνισθείς. But see Nestle, Textual Criticism of N.T. p. 262; he suggests a different meaning for ὀργισθείς or a difference of translation. Nowhere in N.T. has ὀργισθείς any other meaning than “being angry,” and the Latin texts which support this reading have iratus.

Continues after advertising
Continues after advertising

Old Testament