The Healing of the Leper
(Mk 1:40–45; Matt. 8:1–4; Luke 5:12–16).
Mark has included this narrative as a proof of the miraculous power by which Jesus continually supported his teaching activity. At the same time, however, he also wished to show that Jesus respected the existing order and demanded its observance. This was particularly worth noting at this point, since the episode closes the series of narratives that present a picture of the growing success of Jesus, while the opposition was kindled precisely by the alleged contradiction between Jesus’ activity and the Jewish ordinances. Just as Jesus, despite every avoidance of ostentation, was compelled to enjoy an ever more widely spreading fame, so, in spite of his reverence for the Mosaic Law, he was to experience an ever more vehement opposition, which claimed to be zealous for the Law.
We should also observe that this series begins with the world of spirits representing pagan idolatrous power and ends with leprosy, a disease indigenous among the Jews. In this we easily recognize the fine grouping of the narratives and the transition to the opposite group. Matthew, in order to demonstrate the messianity of Jesus for Jewish Christians, began with the leper; Luke, who, because of placing the visit to Nazareth earlier, postponed the calling of the disciples, must now, before passing over to the opposition that was also directed against the disciples, supply the calling and does so in a different form.
Mk 1:40.
The term λεπρός (“leper”); cf. Matthew, p. 248. Among the Jews, leprosy was regarded as a punishment from God, something one would not even wish upon one’s greatest enemy (2 Sam. 3:29; 2 Kings 5:27). The Persians likewise considered leprosy a punishment for sin, which one incurred through an offense against the sun (Herodotus 1.138).
The expression παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν αὐτόν (“entreating him and kneeling before him,” that is, begging him while falling at his feet) depicts, in Mark’s characteristic manner, the earnest supplication and thereby also the pitiable condition of the sick man. Matthew, in accordance with his linguistic style, writes προσεκύνει αὐτῷ (“he worshiped him”), from which Weiss, in conjunction with other considerations, concludes that Matthew has reproduced the apostolic source more precisely. I can see in this only proof that even from the standpoint of the critical principles of that school, the dependence of Matthew here cannot be made plausible. Mark, however, is more vivid also in this narrative, so that, once that standpoint is assumed, Holzmann is not unjustified in remarking against Weiss: “Strangely enough, one wants to discover in the individual stamp of Mk 1:41–44 traces of later revision.” For γονυπετῶν, compare Matt. 17:14 (p. 389).
The leper is a thoroughly resolute and vehement character; he allows himself to be deterred by no barriers from approaching the Lord, because he knows with certainty that Jesus is able to heal him. The whole address would be well suited to include the κύριε (“Lord”) of Matthew and Luke, but Mark has consistently omitted it, because it could have been offensive to his Roman readers. Only in Mk 7:28 does he retain κύριε, but there it is used by a pagan woman.
Mk 1:41.
The participle σπλαγχνισθείς (“moved with compassion”) is used here by Mark alone (cf. Matt. 9:36, p. 280), in order to emphasize the deep pity of the Lord. Nevertheless, I do not believe that Mark intends to derive the healing of the leper solely from Jesus’ compassion as its motive. It is understandable that precisely this aspect of the portrayal of Jesus’ person had to make a profound impression on sensitive hearts, but it is consistently taken into account only by Luke. Mark uses it more as a basis on which to build the proof of the all-conquering power of the Lord.
Mk 1:42.
In Matthew, ἐκαθαρίσθη (“was cleansed”) refers to the leprosy itself, whereas Luke writes only ἡ λέπρα ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ (“the leprosy departed from him”). This looks like a correction of ἐκαθαρίσθη, although in popular speech one can certainly say, for example, “the fever was healed” (Keim). Since Mark now chooses the correct expression, he can think only of the sick man as the subject of ἐκαθαρίσθη. Strictly speaking, this was unnecessary for him and is included merely for the sake of vivid description and with reference to the preceding καθαρίσθητι (“be cleansed”). Luke omits it, but agrees with Mark in ἀπῆλθεν ἡ λέπρα, so that Mark forms a kind of middle link between the two.
Mk 1:43.
For ἐμβριμησάμενος (“sternly warning”), compare Matt. 9:30 (p. 278). Here too I would not translate: “Jesus was angry with the healed man,” but rather: “he sharply admonished him, threatened him.” Jesus pressed him away from himself and sent him off decisively. The reasons that are adduced for an emotional agitation on Jesus’ part are very problematic. Given his energy and fiery character, it has been suggested that, in the event of healing, the sick man had formed plans and resolutions that were wholly contrary to Jesus’ intentions, and that Jesus, as knower of hearts, anticipated and countered these with wisdom (Schegg). But since neither the conduct of the healed man nor Matt. 9:30, where the same word is used in the narrative of the healing of the blind men, supports this, we must also here assume that Jesus issued a decisive prohibition against publicizing the miracle. Mark has included this to show that Jesus made so powerful an impression on the healed man that, despite the strictest prohibition, he was unable to refrain from proclaiming the praise of his benefactor.
The rebuke that befalls him for this cannot be great. For it is psychologically easy to explain that those who had been healed, in the feeling of their gratitude, regarded proclamation as their duty and understood the prohibition, whose higher purpose they did not grasp, merely as an outflow of excessive modesty. Therefore the sternness cannot be explained by a violation of the Law (Lev. 13:46; Num. 5:2), which forbade the leper to enter a house (as Meyer and Weiss suggest), for otherwise Jesus could not have healed him in the house at all. According to our account, Jesus was by no means in such haste to heal that one could still detect in it a concession to someone transgressing the bounds of the Law. Moreover, the stern warning is directed not at the leper as such, but at the healed man.
The explanation that Jesus’ agitation arose because, out of compassion, he had done something he ought not really to have done, because it did not belong to his vocation, presupposes a view of Jesus’ healing activity that contradicts the Gospels. The only kernel of truth in this interpretation is the conjecture already expressed by Ambrose (cf. Matt., p. 249, note 1), namely that Jesus forbade the spreading of the report because he valued faith arising from inner conviction more highly than faith prompted by beneficent deeds. If, finally, Keim (vol. 2, pp. 174 ff.), in order to strip the miracle of its supernatural character, interprets Jesus as merely performing, in place of the priest, the Levitical declaration of purity of someone already in fact healed, while leaving the final decision to the authorized priest, and assumes that Jesus forbade the spreading of the news and required the prior journey to Jerusalem in order to impress upon the sick man, who wished to bypass the legal route, the importance of having his still legally valid procedure recognized by the priests, indeed by Jerusalem itself—this interpretation is already excluded by θέλω (“I will”). That the prohibition was given chiefly (ἀλλά) because of the legally primary priestly inspection, and that the spreading of the report as such was not even forbidden, is not proved by ἀλλά; for it merely states, over against what he is not to do, what he is to do, without giving a reason for the prohibition.
The appeal to Chrysostom against most modern interpreters, according to which Jesus, through the priests, would be furnishing testimony to his law-abiding conduct, is entirely inappropriate. For Chrysostom indeed says that Jesus sent the healed man to the priests in order to ward off any accusation of unlawful action, but he also remarks just as clearly that Jesus forbade the spreading of the miracle, and that not because of the priests, but in order to show τὸ ἀκόμπαστον καὶ ἀφιλότιμον (“the absence of boastfulness and ambition”), a view in which all the Fathers agree.
Mk 1:44.
The construction ὅρα μή with the aorist subjunctive means “take care that … not,” “beware lest” (Matt. 8:4; Mt 18:10; 1 Thess. 5:15). Mark and Luke add περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου (“concerning your cleansing”), that is, the declaration of purity by the priest (cf. Luke 2:22). Gentile-Christian readers did not understand σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ (“show yourself to the priest”) as easily as Jewish Christians did.
Mk 1:45.
Mark alone relates, in this direct reference to the healed man who transgressed the command, what follows. Matthew reports nothing at all about it; Luke merely recounts the facts. ὁ δέ (“but he”) expresses the contrast to the Lord’s serious prohibition. ἐξελθών (“after he went out”) means after he had gone out of the house. ἤρξατο (“he began”) emphasizes that the healed man began to transgress the prohibition immediately upon leaving the house. διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον means “to spread the matter abroad.” λόγος here corresponds to Hebrew דָבָר (“thing, event”), not “story” (as Meyer and Volkmar suppose); the word of the gospel message (Mk 2:2, Weiss) is entirely out of place here. πολλά is adverbial: “often, widely, loudly” (Winer §54.1). μηκέτι (“no longer”) shows that earlier Jesus had been able to do this, and that his reputation in Galilee had already reached a high point. The fronting of the object αὐτόν emphasizes even more strongly the contrast with the behavior of the healed man.
The verb δύνασθαι expresses moral possibility; in fact it had become impossible for the Lord, because, in accordance with the whole of his mission, he wished and had to avoid any greater excitement among the crowds. ἐπ᾿ ἐρήμοις τόποις (“in deserted places”), not ἐν, indicates position with reference to such places. καί is simple coordination (“and”), not adversative (“and yet”), for it does not belong to the whole preceding clause but to ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω and what follows. The imperfect tense describes a continuing state in contrast to the earlier wandering through Galilee.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment