George F Somsel wrote:I don't see why you would come to that conclusion. The man asks to be cleansed and Jesus commands that he be cleansed — the same word, different form (of course).
Let me answer the question "How ... ?" corresponding to your "Why ...?" question. I don't have an answer for your "Why ... ?" question, I don't have a reason for wanting it to be read in that way, it is an old query.
The passive imperative does not have the agency of a subject in it. The man was asking for Jesus direct help Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς, δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι.. The help comes expressed without the subject / agency of Jesus himself Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι. It is not expressed as καθαρίζω σε, i.e. it doesn't mirror the subject involvedness of the δύνασαί
με καθαρίσαι. There is nothing that the man could do for himself to fix an incurable disease, so it fits at the very edge of the spectrum of subject-affected verbs. That edge of the spectrum is where the active voice could be used, but here it is not - there is room for a choice between active and subject-affectedness under these circumstances. If that was a significant choice, then it is perhaps one to distance the one doing the curing from the process of curing.
That is how. At a broader level, it is a question about passive imperatives.