Mark 1:40-45 (NRSV)
40 A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, you can make me clean.” 41 Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” 42 Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. 43 After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, 44 saying to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” 45 But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.
Mark 1:40-45 is a story of a healing and a pronouncement concerning a leper. Mark connects this passage to the previous one by a summary transitional statement, common in the gospel of Mark (1:39). There, Mark emphasizes Jesus’ travel throughout Galilee, not just in Capernaum (1:21; cf. 2:1) or the wilderness (1:35, 45). Jesus identifies “proclamation” (NRSV) or “preaching” (NASB, NIV) as his main purpose (1:38), and Mark extends this purpose of the ministry of Jesus to include exorcisms as well (cf. 1:21-27), which fits with Jesus’ overall perception of the dawning of the reign of God (1:15; cf. 3:23-27). The narrative does not seem to fit the typical healing story, which may mean it comes from a time when the form was not set, and thus from oral tradition.[1]
40 A leper, instead of one possessed of a demon (1:39), the distressing skin disease characterized by bright white spots on the skin and white hair and the spreading of the scab. The leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, “If you choose, putting the focus on the choice or will of Jesus, and not his ability to cleanse or heal, you can make me clean (rather than heal).” Discussions of what Jesus is able or unable to do dominate the gospel of Mark. This passage contrasts two things that Jesus is or is not “able” to do. While he may be able to heal the leper, due to the leper’s proclamation, he becomes unable to travel “openly” (v. 45). The following passage, the healing of the paralytic at Capernaum (2:1-10), is all about the ability of Jesus compared to that of God: Who can forgive sins? (2:7). Furthermore, sometimes the lack of faith by people prevents Jesus from fully acting in his ministry, as in his hometown of Nazareth (6:5). The most interesting parallel to the plea of the leper for cleansing, however, is from the father of an epileptic, demon-possessed child (9:14-29). In this passage, the father cries, “if you are able … help us!” (9:22). The difference between questioning the ability of Jesus, as the father does here (9:22), and offering him the choice, as the leper does (1:40), is the difference between the immediate pity of Jesus (1:40) and exhorting Jesus to have pity (9:22). Even though “[a]ll things can be done for the one who believes” (9:23), the responses of Jesus, dependent on the emotions Mark describes, seem strikingly different in each interaction. Immediately after the leper begs Jesus to heal him, Mark tells us that Jesus was 41 moved with pity[2] (σπλαγχνισθεὶς or compassion), recognizing that only rarely does Mark describe the emotions of Jesus or his reaction to persons. Gospel writers rarely give their audiences insight into the emotions of Jesus; this is more of an interest of modern biography than ancient. This Greek verb refers to being moved in what the Greeks thought was the seat of one’s emotions: one’s intestines, or as we might say, one’s “guts.” The modern equivalent of this expression would locate the seat of one’s emotions most often in the heart. It indicates a strong depth of positive feeling, which Jesus has for the crowds in the gospel of Mark (cf. 6:34; 8:2), and to which the father of the epileptic boy exhorts him (9:22). At the same time, this pity is not the only emotion of Jesus that Mark describes in this narrative. Thus, out of compassion, Jesus ignored the sad rule regarding lepers and did something no one else would have considered doing. Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, Mark taking special interest in Jesus touching those who suffer. This touch is particularly significant due to the skin disease the man had and his unclean status.
Let us pause for a moment and reflect upon what this little comment from Mark regarding the emotion of Jesus means for us today. The love and compassion of God for us becomes visible to us in Jesus. Jesus is the embodiment of divine love in the world. God comes to us in Jesus because our suffering pain moved God to do so. God fully participates in our struggles. The response of Jesus to the ignorant, hungry, blind, lepers, widows, and all those who came to him with their sufferings flowed from divine compassion that led God to become one of us. The Incarnation certainly means this in the New Testament and in Christian teaching. We need to pay close attention to the words and actions of Jesus if we are to gain insight into the mystery of this divine compassion. We misunderstand many miraculous stories in the gospels if the only thing that impresses us is the liberation of people from their pains. If that were the focus, the cynic could respond that Jesus cured only some of the sick, while many others still suffered and died. Rather, what needs to capture our attention is that deep compassion motivated Jesus.[3]
Jesus said[4] to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!” J. Weiss thought that what Jesus said indicates, “To declare clean,” and that the story originated from when someone sought such a declaration from Jesus rather than the priest. 42 Immediately, the leprosy left him, and he received cleansing. This distinction between cleansing and healing is significant, particularly based on where the passage concludes, appealing to “what Moses commanded”. Since the issue is “cleansing,” it must relate to regulations concerning purity, found in Leviticus 13-14 (for leprosy, in particular). While “leprosy” is a term that could relate to a variety of skin diseases in the ancient world, scriptural texts agree that there is no cure for it, except God’s healing (cf. II Kings 5:7). The leper’s interactions with others would have been severely restricted because of the contagious nature of the disease, and its impurity. Thus, the leper seeks cleansing, not just healing, so that he may enter public society again. 43After sternly warning him, we must note that Mark uses the same verb in 14:5 to describe the scolding that the disciples give the woman who anoints the feet of Jesus. However, the gospel of John also uses it to describe Jesus as being “greatly disturbed [in spirit]” (11:33, 38) at Lazarus’ tomb. This stern warning is a bit surprising, particularly in the context of the deep pity that moved Jesus to heal the man originally. The stern warning fits, however, in the context of purity laws. Thus, Jesus sent him away at once, 44 saying[5] to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone. One ought not to isolate this command to silence from the charge to show himself to the priest. Some scholars put too much stress on the messianic secret. In this case, one can explain the command to silence by Jesus’ withdrawal from Capernaum and his desire to devote himself to preaching ministry.[6] According to Mark, Jesus tried to stop people from talking about his deeds or magnifying his person. Since the days of W. Wrede it has been customary to trace these features to Mark and to find in them the theory of a messianic secret that traces back to the post-Easter knowledge by the community of the majesty of Jesus to non-messianic traditions of his earthly appearance. Mark, however, refers to the regard that the work of Jesus evoked and that led to the post-Eater awareness of his divine sonship. He thinks that such an account contains traces of a traditional realization that Jesus was aware of the ambivalence into which his message thrust him and that he tried to counteract it.[7] Jesus commands go, show yourself to the priest, which may mean that the incident occurred in Judea,[8] and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” What Jesus tells him is important for reintegration into the community, as in Leviticus 14. Mark does not attempt to supply local references or references to time. In any case, Jesus will later seek to redefine the applicability of the purity laws, as in 7:19. Here, he upholds the regulations of Moses, acknowledging the authority of the priest to verify the cleansing. The story indicates that Jesus recognizes the validity of the Mosaic Law. Again, the fact that Jesus was a religious man is on full display.
45 Nevertheless, Mark tells us that he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word. Thus, for a change, Jesus is not the one proclaiming. This proclamation marks a shift in the gospel’s narrative, as the cleansed leper is the first person besides John the Baptist or Jesus who “proclaims” anything about God’s activity. The disciples will join in this proclamation only after Jesus’ commission, in 3:14. Later, the cleansed leper has more “healed” company who also proclaim the action of God: the man who was possessed by a legion of demons (5:20); the crowds who witnessed the healing of a deaf-mute man (7:36); and the future promise that people will proclaim the good news to “all the nations” (13:9-10; cf. 14:9). Mark pairs these wide proclamations with his striking emphasis on the secrecy of Jesus (cf. 1:34), which sometimes others follow his command and in other, as here, they do not.
The response of this man is interesting to me. Mark does not say that this man experienced conversion in the religious sense of the word. In the Bible, the Hebrew word for conversion is shub, which means “to turn” or “to return,” and the Greek word is metanoia, which means, “to turn around.” In the case of the man Jesus declared clean, there was clearly a return, in that he could now go back to his family and community, but there was also a turning around. Conversion means shifting the direction of one’s life in such a way that it points toward God.[9] That would seem to be what happened to this man. Excitement, zest, intensity, and eagerness to tell others accompany any conversion. One wants to share the significant turning point one has made in one’s life. Deep feelings, a sense of calling, and telling others, are all part of conversion. Today, such dramatic opening of ourselves to new possibilities become the moment when some can identify that moment that one became a Christian. That moment made all the difference. I should hasten to say that the lack of a conversion story is no shortcoming in terms of our acceptance by God and Christ.
The theory of evolution suggests that change takes time and is difficult. Much individual change happens imperceptibly, with much trial and error. We instinctively resist mutation. We may live in a swamp, but we are familiar with our swamp. We know where everything is. We know the bogs and marshes. To leave the swamp means venturing into the unknown and falling into an even worse swamp. Therefore, we stay in the swamp. The point is that we have choices to make. We usually choose to stay with the familiar. It takes much courage to open oneself to significant and dramatic change.[10]
The result is that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter. The consequence of the cleansed leper breaking the secrecy of this healing, however, is ironic. While before his healing, the leper could not enter towns, now, Jesus cannot enter the towns. While the man can proclaim “freely,” Jesus cannot go about “openly” (1:45; cf. 4:22). Nevertheless, unlike Jesus’ previous experiences in the wilderness or in “deserted places” (1:12-13, 35), he is not alone. People are coming to him.
[1] Vincent Taylor, Mark.
[2] As the NRSV text note to verse 41 indicates, some manuscripts write, “moved with anger,” instead of “[m]oved with pity.” While the former reading would be the more difficult text, and thus possibly the more original text (e.g., it is difficult to imagine a scribe changing the text to “anger” over “pity”), the latter reading is more consistently supported by a variety of manuscripts. Therefore, the best reading, particularly given the context of this passage, describes Jesus as being “[m]oved with pity.” From Lindsey Pherigo, in his article, “The Gospel According to Mark,” in The Interpreters One Volume Commentary to Mark, (Alberhouse: Staten Island, NY, 1968) William Willimon got the insight on Mark’s use of the word anger. Vincent Taylor, in his The Gospel According to St. Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966) began his speculation on the motives and reasons for Jesus’ anger. Taylor tells us that this word anger also can mean “snorts” or “boils over.” Willimon loves that image of Jesus snorting and boiling over at seeing the effects of this illness upon this poor man. He thinks Jesus was filled with anger, but not at the breaking of the ancient law, or because of the way this sick man approached him. Rather, he was angry because of the man’s sickness, because of what this sickness had done to the man, ravaging his body so, and because of the way his illness had isolated him from the warmth of human community.
[3] (Henri J. M. Nouwen, Show Me the Way: Readings for Each Day of Lent [New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994], p. 104.)
[4] Jesus Seminar says the words of Jesus are the invention of Mark.
[5] Jesus Seminar says Mark invents these words of Jesus for the purpose of the story.
[6] Vincent Taylor, Mark.
[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 336.
[8] Vincent Taylor, Mark.
[9] The Dictionary of Bible and Religion.
[10] Jerold Kreisman and Hal Straus, I Hate You – Don’t Leave Me (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1989), 89.
No comments:
Post a Comment