of the Leper (1:40–45)
With this story Mark hints at the religious ramifications of Jesus’ ministry, especially his healings, and how these may lead to conflict with the religious authorities.
What is known as leprosy in the Bible is not Hansen’s disease. Instead the term is used to refer to a variety of skin diseases. Leviticus 13:45–46 shows the lengths to which someone afflicted with it has to go to avoid contaminating others: he had to wear torn clothes, leave his hair unkempt, wear a mask to cover the lower part of his face, and cry out, “Unclean! Unclean!” in order to ward people off. He also had to live in colonies, separated from society. More burdensome was the religious meaning of such a dreaded disease. It was regarded as incurable, being a result of God’s judgment (see Num 12:9–15; 2 Chron 26:16–21; cf. also the telling remark in 2 Kings 5:7). Such a person could not appear before God in the Temple. With this background, we can understand the desperation that drove the leper to meet Jesus and thus violate some social customs. Instead of standing afar and calling to Jesus, this leper goes to him, falls poignantly on his knees and beseeches Jesus to heal him (v. 40).
Jesus shows his compassion (see excursus) and does the surprising thing by touching him, thus breaking a taboo. Moreover, Jesus declares him clean. To show the efficacy of Jesus’ declaration, Mark uses his favorite word “immediately.” If Jesus can declare someone clean, what becomes the role of the priest, since in the OT he is the only one who can pronounce a leper clean (Lev 13:2–6)? With this, we come to the ominous note in vv. 43–44.
Excursus: Was Jesus Incensed or Compassionate?
The attitude of Jesus towards this breaking of an important social custom is occluded by a textual uncertainty: whether Jesus was incensed or compassionate (v. 41). Many commentators choose to follow the reading orgistheis,62 found in manuscript D (Codex Bezae) and supported by some old Latin manuscripts. Their decision is based mainly on the consideration that it is the harder reading and splanchnistheis63 is therefore to be construed as introduced by later scribes to ameliorate a difficult reading. The reading adopted by NA28 (splanchnistheis) and followed by the NRSV is not without its strengths. First of all, an overwhelming majority of manuscripts support this reading. This weight of external attestation, which is early and wide, should not be easily dismissed. Secondly, D is a rather eccentric manuscript.64 When D is the only Greek manuscript that offers support, we should be wary of the reading. Thirdly, elsewhere in Mark 3:5 and 10:14, the potentially embarrassing description of Jesus’ anger has not been tampered with in the manuscript tradition. If scribes purportedly introduced an “easier” reading at 1:41 because of the potentially embarrassing reference to Jesus’ anger, one would have expected them to do the same in the later two passages. But this did not happen. Finally, orgistheis could be the “easier” reading after all, in that it chimes in better with embrimēsamenos65 just two verses down. We will adopt the reading splanchnistheis in our commentary.
The word embrimaomai in v. 43 is often used to describe the uncontrollable rage or fury of animals. Why is this word used of Jesus? Was it the failure of the leper to follow an express order that Jesus in his prescience saw? Was it the ravages of disease? Was it the temple authorities? Mark does not tell us, but what may be instructive here is to think of the narrative function of such a tantalizing description of Jesus’ emotion. Mark is probably foreshadowing unpleasant conflict to come in his narrative. The phrase “testimony to them” (v. 44) may be discussed in this connection. The word “them” may possibly bring together Moses and the priest to form one group. More probably, it refers to the entire group of priests, without implicating Moses.66 What is more crucial is the determination of the force of the Greek dative autois. Is it to be construed as a dative of advantage (i.e., “to them”) or disadvantage (i.e., “against them”)? If it is the former, the testimony is meant to show that all the regulations of the priests have been complied with (see Lev 13–14).67 If the latter, the testimony is meant to indict them.68 The two other occurrences of such a phrase in Mark are found in 6:11 and 13:9, and they are all used in contexts of opposition. This prompts us to treat the dative here as a dative of disadvantage. So the healing of the leper becomes damning evidence either for the priests’ unbelief in Jesus’ ministry (but Mark has not said anything about this yet) or the failure (whoever these people are) to effect true purity in Israel.
Why is there a need for silence in v. 44? The next verse gives the effect of the leper’s failure to keep Jesus’ injunction, and this may be regarded as a partial explanation of Jesus’ charge: the resultant publicity prevented Jesus from entering villages openly. However, it has also been suggested that Jesus does not want to be misconstrued as challenging the Temple authorities, since it is their function to make ritual purity possible.69 But such a proposal is problematic, because the priest does not play the role of a miracle worker but a certifier. Accordingly, Jesus’ healing would not have been perceived as challenging the priest’s authority. It may be better to look at the immediate Markan context, and at the larger interest Mark has in Jesus’ commands to silence (i.e., the secrecy motif).70 As the Markan narrative unfolds, it will be seen that this motif has an important theological function. The meaning of Jesus’ identity and ministry (incorporating here the spectacular healings and miracles) can only be grasped fully in the light of the cross.
Conflict with Religious Authorities (2:1—3:6)
Up to this stage, Mark has shown the reader the critical significance of Jesus’ ministry. He has also narrated the increasing popularity of Jesus. However, Jesus does not have the requisite social credentials. This sets the stage for conflict. Mark 2:1—3:6 brings together five controversy stories to paint with a broad brush the key issues between Jesus and the religious leaders. These stories also foreshadow the final conflict in Jerusalem.
Mark uses structural devices, so as to help his audience better to appreciate and remember the critical points. An influential proposal suggests that a concentric (chiastic) structure may be found. In this scheme, the first story corresponds with the last, or fifth in this case, the second with the fourth, and the third stands as the center piece (see Diagram 1).71 The center piece reveals the real cause for the disagreements between Jesus and the religious leaders (i.e., the coming of the new demands and the abandoning of the old).
The correspondence between the first and the fifth, the second and the fourth, appears to be forced, as the main points of the stories lie elsewhere. A linear structure is more cogent. The first will then be linked with the second by the theme of sin and forgiveness, the third stands alone as the center and explanatory piece.72 The fourth and the fifth correspond through the Sabbath theme (see Diagram 2).
There also appears to be an intensification of hostility as the stories progress, climaxing in the plot to put Jesus to death by widely-divergent groups.
Healing of the Paralytic 2:1–12
This first conflict story may be regarded as setting the tone for the other conflict stories. The main issue between Jesus and the religious authorities revolves around his claims, which they think threatened their inherited traditions. In some ways, the story also foreshadows the final conflict with the religious authorities in Jerusalem. In the passage about the Jewish hearing of Jesus (14:55–65), the twin themes of blasphemy and the Son of Man are found (14:62, 64), just as they are in this episode. Notably, Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of Man” for the first time. This is Jesus’ preferred way of referring to himself, and carries important christological freight.
Capernaum is the setting. Depending on how the Greek phrase en oikō (v. 1) is construed, it may refer either to Jesus’ home73 (so NRSV) or Peter’s house (cf. 1:29).74 As usual, a crowd gathers. Roofs of houses in first-century Galilee might be reached easily by the wooden ladder outside.75 Since they were thatched and
