Mark 1:40-45
“A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, ‘If you choose, you can make me clean.’”
Maybe it’s just because of the narrow range of commentaries I look to, but I was surprised that I didn’t read much about the odd formulation of the leper’s question. How one understands “[i]f you choose” will significantly affect one’s choice in the textual variant in v. 41. Is the leper being presumptuous, or is he truly concerned about Jesus’ desire to purify him? I’ll talk more about this in the next verse. However, something that many of the commentaries and articles I read about this passage seemed to miss is that he is not asking for healing. Instead, he wants to be restored to purity, presumably so he can enter the Temple.
“Moved with anger, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I do choose. Be made clean.’”
Although there’s a lot of debate over the textual variant here (pity/anger), I tend to go with anger because, of course, the more unuasual reading is more likely to be authentic. Even though there is at least one other place (3:5) in Mark where Jesus shows anger, in that case the anger has an obvious legitimate cause (the hard-hearted crowd). Here, the anger can be too easily seen to be directed at the leper, which does, in fact, seem very un-Jesus-like.
So, if I dismiss that Jesus is angry at the leper for being uncharacteristic, then what is the cause of Jesus’ anger? I think the key to understanding this is in the odd formulation of the leper’s question. This man has come from a church in which he thinks it possible that a man of God, a son of God, in Mark’s words, might choose not to make him clean. I think Jesus’ anger is directed at the Temple/Pharisaic system, which teaches that God might choose to allow someone to suffer. More than just being angry that the Temple would reject this man, who is faithful enough at least to recognize Jesus (and, as I read this, he’s the first individual who isn’t a disciple to do so in Mark), Jesus is angry that the system teaches that God has rejected him, too.
For many contemporary left-leaning Christians, we might see a parallel to this man in our homosexual friends, who are surprised that we don’t reject them. For me, the strongest parallels I see are in some friends I have made recently. I met the whole group through involvement at a play, so they got to know me at the same time. Even after knowing them for two months, even though we’d gone out for drinks after rehearsals, they still weren’t sure what to make of me. My wife and I wanted to host a cast party, so I sent a letter to the director asking her if she didn’t mind.
Here’s what I wrote:
I don’t want to step on your toes, but Misty and I would like to host a cast party on opening night. Nothing fancy; just a half hour or so of silent prayer followed by sharing our favorite scripture verses. Actually, we were thinking of drinks and snacks. Is that all right?
In her reply, she aid it sounded like a great idea, but she didn’t realize I was kidding at first and had to stop and think, “How should I handle this?” Although this is certainly not that significant an event, I’m still a little angry that the church presents itself as something that detached from reality. No wonder people are leaving the church in droves if what we offer is so irrelevant to their lives.
This is not, of course, to suggest that scripture study and prayer are irrelevant to people’s lives, but it does suggest that the image of the church is of a separate, holy place, a place that most people would need to be made clean before they could enter. We are not an open and accepting place but a place that makes ridiculous demands of purity. More than once I’ve invited someone to church only to hear that the person would like to start coming but “I need to get my life together first.” We are closer to the Temple that rejected the leper than the Messiah who cleansed him.
“Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.”
Not much to say about this, except that one of the reasons I love Mark so much is that everything happens immediately. It’s not a process. (Sorry, Cobb, you magnificent bastard.) Opening up to God’s love as presented through Jesus brings about the immediate blossoming of the Kingdom.
“After sternly warning him, he sent him away at once, 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.’”
In case anyone was worried that I was getting supersessionistic, we have this verse to balance it out. Jesus is affirming the Torah of Moses, even if some of it’s contemporary promoters are missing the point. Again, this is a reminder that the Torah is about shalom, mishpat, and freedom from oppression, not rules to determine who is good and who is bad. Like some of Jesus’ contemporary Jews, we modern Christians have forgotten that the Word of God frees people; it doesn’t bind them. It is meant to welcome us all into God’s love, not set boundaries on who is in and who is out. It just takes someone like Jesus to remind us of that.
Oh, and again, “at once”. Immediate.
I also find it interesting that Jesus does not take on the role of the priest. While Jesus can bring about the requirements for being declared clean, he himself cannot make the public declaration. He does not usurp the role of the priest. This has some interesting implications for call and ordination that are beyond the scope of this brief commentary.
Another problem I have as I try to live out a scripturally-based Christianity is what implications for evangelism the Messianic Secret has. If Jesus, at least in Mark, warns people again and again not to tell others what he has done for him, is it a violation of his commandments to testify to what God has done in our lives? I’m probably being too literalistic here. After all, this is not an eternal commandment to all people everywhere, but one specific commandment to a specific person. Isn’t it? Maybe following this now is like Brian’s disciples lifting their sandals above their heads or arguing that because Jesus was male, then pastors/priests must be male, as well. A simple case of historical specificity can’t be taken as the norm for all times.
“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.”
Maybe this is the explanation I need for the challenge to evangelism I discussed above; the pre-resurrection Jesus had limits and could not do all things for all people, limits perhaps not shared by the post-resurrection Christ.
Beyond that, I wonder if this verse doesn’t hint at a selfishness that lies behind faith; I believe because of what God has done for me, not because God has freed the slave, exalted the lowly, and overthrown the oppressor. One’s relationship with God must be personal, but this seems one-sided. I suppose the real question is whether God was glorified through the ex-leper’s proclamation. Ultimately, it increased Jesus’ fame, and Jesus, of course, glorified God with his words and his actions, so the more people who experienced him, the more God was glorified.
The question I think I will struggle with most as I prepare to preach on this passage is this: How do we glorify God when we look to God for personal miracles but are unwilling to obey God’s commandments once our needs are met? The leper treated Jesus like a vending machine. (I feel weird now because I sound like I’m making the leper the bad guy.) God, as always, sought an I-Thou relationship with the leper, but the leper, in his refusal to obey Jesus’ commandment after his needs were met, responded with an I-It relationship. With this in mind, how do we testify to a living God?