6th Sunday after Epiphany
Mark 1:40-45
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
Does the church try and control Jesus? Should he have touched the
unclean leper?
Mark 1:40-45
6 Epiphany B
6 Epiphany B: Mark 1:40-45 -- exegetical notes
LARGER CONTEXT
Two weeks ago, I presented the following as part of an outline of these
opening chapters of Mark. In this arrangement our text is related more
closely with what precedes it than with what follows. Jesus has left
Capernaum. Our text takes place outside of that city. He returns in 2:1.
Jesus’ Authority Over Demons and Illness (1:21-45)
a) The Beginnings in Capernaum (1:21-28)
b) Healing Peter’s Mother-in-law (1:29-31)
c) Other Healings (1:32-34)
d) Departure from Capernaum (1:35-39)
e) Healing a Leper (1:40-45)
Jesus’ Authority Over Sin and the Law (2:1-3:6)
a) Healing and Forgiving the Paralytic (2:1-12)
b) The Call of Levi (2:13-14)
c) Association with Sinners (2:15-17)
d) Jesus and Fasting (2:18-22)
e) Sabbath Violations (2:23-28)
f) Healing the Withered Hand (3:1-6)
Donald Juel, (Mark, Augsburg Commentary) connects our text with what
follows. He puts Mark 1:40-3:6 together and titles the section
“Transgressor of the Boundaries.” He states: “Jesus’ healing of the
leper is the first of several stories that deal with Jesus’ violation
of ritual boundaries” [p. 43].
Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story
of Jesus) also includes our text with what follows under the erudite
title: “Challenging the Ideological Hegemony of Priest and Scribe
(1:40-2:15)” [p. 152]. (I challenge anyone to use that in a sentence in
a sermon—and have it understood by anyone in the pews.)
In some ways our text relates to what goes before it. It is another
healing story and there appears to be no opposition to Jesus’ miracles
in these stories. Jesus has already broken a few boundaries. Two of his
healings were on the sabbath day. In our text, he touches the unclean
leper—an act that makes him unclean. Boring (Mark) describes the plight
of the man (based on Leviticus 13-14) as “physically and socially a
living death” (p. 71). Jesus does more than heal him, he restores his
life.
In other ways our text relates to what follows it. Jesus may be putting
himself in opposition to the priests in our story. In the miracle that
follows, Jesus is certainly in opposition to the scribes. The events
after that have the “scribes of the Pharisees” questioning Jesus’
actions.
THE LEPER’S (ILLEGAL) ACTIONS
Why does the leper come to Jesus? By doing so, he breaks the rules of
Leviticus 13-14.
The person who has the leprous disease shall wear torn clothes and let
the hair of his head be disheveled; and he shall cover his upper lip
and cry out, “Unclean, unclean.” he shall remain unclean as long as he
has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall
be outside the camp. [Leviticus 13:45-46, NRSV]
This particular leper does not cry out, “Unclean, unclean,”—a cry to
have people stay away—most literally he “is calling him [Jesus] to his
side” (παρακαλέω parakaleō—a present tense participle—it was an ongoing
or continuous or repeated calling). This word is used as a summons or
prayer or plea for help. The leper is the first one to cross the ritual
boundaries. He approaches Jesus. He calls on him to come and help.
Witherington (The Gospel of Mark) writes: “As Hooker [The Gospel
according to Mark] suggests, the story is presented in a fashion which
intimates that we are to think of this man has having an apparently
incurable disease who is driven by desperation to violate the social
codes in order to find a cure.” [p. 102]
Should people with terminal illness be allowed to step outside the
boundaries of normal health care to try and find a cure, e.g., using
drugs that are not yet approved by the FDA?
What he asks for is a present general condition in Greek. The
translation of some of the words can influence the meaning.
The Protasis: If you are wishing / willing / wanting / desiring / etc.
The Apodosis: You are able to cleanse me / to declare me clean.
Especially if the translation “declare me clean” is used, this leper is
approaching Jesus as a priest—one who had the power and authority to
declare lepers clean and thus restore them to normal society.
Myers (Binding the Strong Man) writes about this: “The leper appears
aware that his approach to Jesus, a non-priest, was itself in violation
of the symbolic system, which is why he gives Jesus a chance to refuse.
It is almost as if he says, “You could declare me clean if only you
would dare (1:40).”
Witherington (The Gospel of Mark) also notes: “...the primary concern
is with being clean so that he can reenter Jewish society, being a
whole person. This is a very Jewish way of looking at disease, by
focusing on its ritual effects, whereas a pagan would have simply said,
‘If you will, you can make me well.’” [p. 103]
I had mentioned in an earlier note that “faith” is not mentioned in any
of these healings until 2:5 -- and then it is not the faith of the one
who is healed. Yet, can we not say that the leper’s approach to
Jesus—his disregard for the social and ritual rules—his belief that
Jesus had the power and authority to cleanse him or declare him clean,
if Jesus should want to do so—are actions of faith?
In many ways, Mark’s understanding of faith is that it is a
determination that will not let rules, customs, or even buildings stand
in one’s way of getting to Jesus.
Witherington expresses well the plight of this man: “A man with this
disease was among the living dead—untouchable (cf. Num. 12:12; Job
18:13; 11QTemple 45.17-18).” (p. 103)
JESUS’ EMOTIONS
Verse 41 presents a textual difficulty. Some ancient manuscripts have
σπλαγχνισθείς (splagchnistheis) = “having pity”. Others have ὀργισθείς
(orgistheis) = “being angry”.
Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament) writes about
this variant reading:
It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original
text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why ὀργισθείς [orgistheis]
(“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter
it to σπλαγχνισθείς [splagchnistheis] (“being filled with compassion”),
but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a
majority of the Committee was impressed by the following
considerations. (1) The character of the external evidence in support
of ὀργισθείς [orgistheis] is less impressive than the diversity and
character of evidence that supports σπλαγχνισθείς [splagchnistheis].
(2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry
(3:5) or indignant (10:14), have not prompted over scrupulous copyists
to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading ὀργισθείς
[orgistheis] either (a) was suggested by embrimesamenos [”warn
sternly”] of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words
in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, “he had pity,” with ethra‘am, “he
was enraged”). [pp. 76-77]
R. T. France (The Gospel of Mark) dismisses the argument about scribes
not changing Jesus’ anger in Mark 3:5 & 10:14. He notes that
“unlike here, there was obvious cause for anger” (p. 115).
Most translations have gone with the emotion of “pity” (or
“compassion”). Sometimes there is a footnote about the “anger” reading,
sometimes not. Matthew (81-4) and Luke (5:12-16) omitted these
“emotional” terms in their accounts. The new Common English Bible uses
“incensed” in the text with a footnote giving “filled with compassion”.
Ched Myers (Binding the Strong Man) opts for the angry reading. After
his comment about the leper daring Jesus to heal him, he writes:
Jesus does indeed dare, but Mark tells us he is angry (orgistheis,
1:41). Then, after the declaration of wholeness has been delivered,
Jesus, “snorting with indignation” (embrimesamenos), dispatches the man
back to the priests (the probable meaning of exebalen). How are we to
make sense of these strong emotions?
They only make sense if the man had already been to the priests, who
for some reason had rejected his petition. Deciding to make an issue
out of it, Jesus sternly gives the leper these orders:
See that you say nothing to anyone! Rather, go back and show yourself
to the priest and make the offering prescribed by Moses for your
cleansing as a witness against them [1:44]
The cleansed leper’s task is not to publicize a miracle but to help
confront an ideological system: the change in object (from “priest” to
“them”) suggests a protest against the entire purity apparatus, which
the priests control. He is to make the offering for the purpose of
“witnessing against them” (eis martyrion autois). This is a technical
phrase in the Gospel for testimony before hostile audiences (6:11;
13:9). [p. 153]
I agree with most of his word studies. I like the word ἐμβριμάομαι
(embrimaomai). It originally referred to the snorting noise horses
made—and I think they tried to duplicate the sound with this word. The
same word is used later in Mark concerning the disciples’ reaction to
the woman who wastes her ointment on Jesus. They scold her, because the
ointment could have been sold for about year’s wages and the money
given to the poor (Mark 14:5).
I’m not convinced that ἐξέβαλεν (exebalen) in v. 43 means to “send
back”. It usually means “to send or cast out.” It is most often used of
Jesus or disciples “casting out” demons or evil spirits. The prefix ἐκ
(ek) or ἐξ (ex) means “out” or “away”. It is ironic, that when he was
unclean and supposed to stay away from people, he comes to Jesus. Now
that he is clean, Jesus sends him away.
Witherington suggests a different approach quoting Guelich:
“’Therefore, Jesus’ anger is a “righteous anger” that recognizes the
work of the Evil One in the sick as well as the possessed....’ This
makes good sense in light of the use of the term ‘cast out,’ which also
occurs in this narrative.” [p. 103]
After looking and dismissing some reasons for the anger, France
concludes:
Mark certainly wants us to understand that Jesus emotionally affected
by the encounter, but does not explain why. The most likely explanation
is, perhaps, that the suffering caused by the disease, both physically
and socially, moved Jesus not only to compassion but to anger at the
presence of such evil in the world; perhaps also over the insensitivity
of the social taboo. That the anger was not directed against the man
himself is implied by the immediate compassionate response. [pp.
117-118]
I imagine that most of us have felt such anger when a painful or deadly
disease afflicts a loved one. While we have compassion for the person,
there is anger at the cancer or the infection or the addiction that is
sapping life away from the person. There was anger at the cystic
fibrosis in the confirmation student. He died as a teenager. There is
anger at the leukemia that has attacked a 40-something friend. There is
anger at the diseases that have kept a young mother in the hospital,
away from her children, for weeks.
In spite of his anger (at what we aren’t sure), Jesus heals him.
Witherington then writes:
...we are told quite specifically that he touched him, which stands in
contrast to what we find in 2 Kings 5:10. This would certainly render
Jesus unclean, but the issue of Jesus’ view of the Levitical laws is
not really fully broached until Mark 7. One could argue that Jesus was
willing to incur uncleanness in order to help others, but this seems an
inadequate assessment because we are nowhere told that Jesus, like the
man he heals, ever went through the ritual cleansing after this
encounter. What Mark will suggest in chapter 7 is that Jesus believed
that with the inbreaking of God’s dominion these rules about clean and
unclean, and indeed also various Sabbath rules, were obsolescent. Such
rules had fulfilled their purpose, but now the Holy One of God had
appeared and a new state of affairs was at hand. [pp. 103-4]
The change from the singular “priest” to the plural “them” in v. 44 is
interesting. Who are “they”? What is the “witness”
(μαρτύριον—martyrion) that the former-leper is to give them? It seems
to me that his witness is to indicate to “them” that his healing and
the declaration of his cleansing took place outside of their
jurisdiction. Someone, namely Jesus, is undermining their (God-given)
authority in the community. This also means that Jesus is undermining
the Law as given by Moses.
COMMAND OF SILENCE
Jesus commands him to say nothing to anyone, but to go to the priests.
Was he to tell the priests what happened? Could he share the news after
performing the proper sacrifices?
Because the leper disobeyed and began proclaiming all over the place,
Jesus is no longer able to enter cities openly. Why? One answer is that
he became too popular with the people. I was at a high school
basketball game where a well-known professional football player was in
the audience. During half time he was mobbed by fans wanting his
autograph, which he gave. However, when the second half began, he
shooed everyone away. “I came to watch the game,” he told them.
Celebrities have a problem with going about openly. They can be mobbed.
The crowds can keep them from doing what they really want to do. That
seldom happens to us pastors.
There is another possible reason for Jesus staying outside the cities
in the wilderness places—he had become unclean by touching the leper.
As the now-clean leper tells everyone what happened to him, it would
have been clear to all the people that Jesus had become unclean. It was
against the rules for anyone to associate with Jesus—but see quote from
Witherington above.
A third possibility is suggested by Malina and Rohrbaugh
(Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels) which they call
“gossip backlash”. They write:
Among nonliterate peoples (only 2 to 4 percent could read or write in
agrarian societies), communication is basically by word of mouth. Where
reputation (honor status) is concerned, gossip informed the community
about (and validated) ongoing gains and losses and thereby provided a
guide to proper social interaction. Its effects could be both positive
(confirm honor, spread reputation, shape and guide public interaction)
and negative (undermine others), though overall it tended to maintain
the status quo by highlighting deviations from the norm. It thus
functioned as an important mechanism of informal social control. For
example, in cases where a person sought to claim more honor than his
birthright provided (an action considered stealing in a limited-good
society in which gain for one automatically meant loss for someone
else), the gossip network could trigger a backlash that cut the
claimant down to size very quickly. That may be the reason for Mark’s
note here (1:45) that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town. Since
he is in his home region and his reputation is growing, backlash may
have started. [p. 185]
The phrase, “getting too big for his britches” seems to capture some of
the sense of this interpretation. Was Jesus, a carpenter’s son from
Nazareth, acting too big for his britches by declaring a leper
clean—actions that were limited by law to the priests?
Whatever the reasons, the leper’s disobedience made life more difficult
for Jesus. Have you ever thought that talking about your positive
experiences with Jesus could be counter-productive? I maintain that
proper evangelism begins with silence and listening. For news to be
“good” for the hearer, it has to address their needs and concerns. I
also think that one reason many Lutherans are skeptical of evangelism
is because they have seen it done badly by too many people (usually on
TV).
Witherington suggests that this man bore witness about the wrong thing
in the wrong way and that the results of his witnessing were all wrong.
[p. 104]
SUMMARY
I wonder if Jesus’ negative emotions could have been caused by the fact
that this leper put him between a rock and a hard place. The leper
presented himself before Jesus with sufficient trust for a miracle to
happen, but for Jesus to perform the miracle, Jesus had to bring the
sick man’s uncleanliness and unsociability upon himself. This would
make open entrances into the towns and synagogues more difficult, if
not impossible. Jesus was forced to make a change in the way he had
planned to minister to the people. Yet, the crowds continued to come to
Jesus out in the deserted places.
James Edwards (The Gospel According to Mark) gives this story the
title, “Jesus Trades Places with a Leper.” He concludes his comments
with:
Mark began this story with Jesus on the inside and the leper on the
outside. At the end of the story, Jesus is “outside in lonely places.”
Jesus and the leper have traded places. Early in his ministry Jesus is
already an outsider in human society. Mark casts him in the role of the
Servant of the Lord who bears the iniquities of others (Isa 53:11) and
whose bearing of them causes him to be “numbered with the
transgressors” (Isa 53:12). (p. 72)
Perhaps those who have watched some of those “trading places” TV shows
will find a way to tie them into this interpretation of Jesus’ acts in
this text.
Witherington suggests: “It has been said that the capacity for
righteous anger is essential to being a minister or servant of God.”
[p. 105] If we are not angry about some sort of evil in society, and
doing something about it, how well are we listening to God’s word?
Could that be a way of looking at cheap grace – a grace that doesn’t
produce anger within us at the injustices and evils and unfairness in
society; a grace that doesn’t motivate us to do something to seek to
remove such problems from people’s lives?
Witherington offers this summary:
...in the main [Jesus] came to proclaim the good news of the inbreaking
of God’s dominion, not primarily to give temporary respite from a human
condition that is eventually terminal anyway. Jesus is certainly not a
reluctant healer, but on the other hand healing is not the focus of his
mission.
...It is perhaps Jesus’ firm belief in resurrection that in turn makes
him take a more limited view of the value of temporary cures for
creatures who will one day did in any case.
This is not to say that healing in this life is not a very good thing.
It is simply to say that it is at most a foreshadowing, not really a
full foretaste, of the life to come. Jesus the healer of temporal
illnesses and difficulties, according to the earliest Evangelist, must
be exegeted in the context of Jesus the proclaimer of something greater
than temporary solutions—the inbreaking of the dominion of God. [pp.
106-7]
ADDITIONAL SERMONIC IDEAS
What is the relationship between personal encounters with Jesus and
rituals in our worship services? I strongly believe that Jesus comes to
us in the Word and Sacraments. Participating in them is essential for
the Christian life. At the same time, I hear people talking about very
real, personal experiences with the divine; sometimes through dreams
and visions; sometimes through miraculous healings; sometimes through
other events. How do we clergy deal with such experiences that may have
taken place outside our authority and control? How do we counsel such
people if they have concluded that they no longer need the rituals of
“organized religion,” which they feel are empty of the Jesus they have
experienced?
I wonder, does the church try to control Jesus? Which of our church
“rules” might Jesus break if he were walking around today? Which of our
church “rules” might we need to break in order to get close to Jesus?
Who are like lepers in our communities? What is our congregation’s
relationship to such people? Are there people whom we wouldn’t want to
touch? Would Jesus touch them? Do we ever feel like this leper? Have we
ever experienced Jesus like this leper? How has Jesus healed and
restored us to wholeness? Are we ever the priests in this story? Are
our congregations the “them” who need a witness about the power and
authority of Jesus?
When is it time to witness? When is it time to be silent? Most
Lutherans have no trouble being quiet about their faith. They can
easily follow Jesus’ command to say nothing to anyone. Yet, the leper
was called by Jesus to be a witness to others—not necessarily with his
words, but by his actions. I maintain that every Christian is a
witness—their witness may be good or it may be bad—but their actions,
their words witness to who they are as people—and people of God.
In a former congregation, we had a bulletin board with pictures of our
members on it. Frequently at weddings or funerals when there are many
non-members in the building, they will look over the pictures. Nearly
always someone points to a picture and says something like, “I didn’t
know they went to this church.” I wonder what the speaker thinks about
our congregation from their contact with that person, whom they now
know belongs to this congregation.
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
Copyright © 2012 Brian Stoffregen, All rights reserved.