Mark 1:40-45
February 15, 2009
Patrick Preheim
Lepers and Leviticus
A couple of weeks ago a grade schooler from the congregation came up to me
between Sunday School and the worship service to talk about Bible reading. He
has set out to read through the entire Bible. Ah, I remembered my youthful
attempts at reading the Bible cover to cover. I can recall attempting such a
feat several times in high school and even once or twice in university. I
suppose our young Nutana lad was looking for affirmation, encouragement, and
possibly some hints to complete this daunting task. Duly impressed I affirmed
and encouraged. I have to be honest, though, my attempts to read through the
Bible prior to age 22 did not get me to my goal. Leviticus was a major stumbling
block for me. I loved the stories found in Genesis and the first half of Exodus.
In Exodus 25 the style of writing changes to guidelines for the priests. And
like most sermons from most priests on most Sundays, the material was mind
numbing. Unrelenting lists of measurements, animal sacrifice, and holiness
codes-- half of Exodus, all of Leviticus, and the first 10 chapters of Numbers.
It is tough stuff even for someone with a religious vocation! The priestly
guidelines in general and the specific guidelines for leprosy found in Leviticus
13-14, however, do provide a good background for today’s gospel story from Mark
1.
Two whole chapters of Leviticus are given to the issue of leprosy. This is quite
a bit of air time if you consider all the other topics the priests could have
addressed. In chapters 13-14 the priests are given a lot of direction about
checking and rechecking leprosy. Much of the attention to skin diseases and
mould emerged from concern about community, and holiness. J. Pilch writes that
“The sickness described in the O.T. as leprosy is simply not leprosy at all from
a biomedical perspective. But from the sociocultural perspective...this
condition called leprosy threatens communal integrity and holiness” (in Ched
Myers, Binding the Strong Man, p. 145). The leper is not holy, and so he must be
set outside a people who are to be holy. And yet the leper is a son of Israel
and his absence from the community leaves the people incomplete. Throughout
Leviticus it is the responsibility of the priest to stand between God and the
not quite so holy people. The priest offers atonement of personal and collective
sins. He would oversee individuals making sacrifice for their own guilt. In the
case of leprosy the priest is directed to be in contact with the leper-- maybe
offering sacrifices, perhaps prescribing something for healing, maybe simply
rechecking the leper’s progress toward re-entry into the community. Presumably
the leper and priests of Mark’s gospel knew these things, so why did the leper
of Mark chapter one seek out Jesus? Had he been neglected by the priests of his
region? Had he been scolded and told not to come back? Ched Myers speculates
that the leper has already been to the priests, been rejected, and is now trying
Jesus (Binding the Strong Man, 153). If this is the case the priests have fallen
down on their duty. And this makes Jesus mad. Or does it make Jesus pity the
man. The biblical texts are not clear on that point.
Most study bibles will footnote the reaction of Jesus to the leper. The footnote
will state that Jesus responded to the leper’s request with either “pity” or
“anger”. Many of the early manuscripts use the Greek word for pity. However,
other early codices and the tone of the story suggest that anger is the emotion
of Jesus. The linguistic key of the New Testament (the judge and jury of debates
such as this) says the choice is a tossup, and most translators go with “moved
by pity”. I join a minority position and think “anger” fits better with the
overall confrontational tone of the episode. In three other instances in this
story we find words that carry an angry edge. v. 43 reports Jesus “sternly
warning” the leper. Ched Myers says the tone of this particular word is
“snorting with indignation” (ibid). The next verb in v. 43 is translated “sent
out”, but most other usages and its cognates in the N.T. reflect a harsher
translation: cast out, eject, to expel to name a few options. It is not
inconsequential, I believe, that many of these other uses are in connection with
an exorcism. It seems Jesus is fired up about the leper’s request for healing
and is intent on sending him out with emphasis. And finally in v. 44 the leper
is told to go give “a testimony” to the priests. This phrase is a technical term
in the gospels for the giving of a testimony before a hostile audience (see Mark
6.11 & 13.9; Myers, 153). The debate about the pity or anger of Jesus may
actually go back to Aramaic. In Aramaic the spelling difference of the words
pity and enrage are minimal (Linguistic Key, p. 77). And maybe the Aramaic has
it right. Should there be much difference between pity and anger? Should not
those things that cause us to pity a person or a pity a situation also cause us
to be angry that such circumstances exist?
If Jesus is angry, then what is he angry at? I think he is angry at a system which makes some people second class citizens. I think he is angry at priests who fail to do their job. The assignment of the cleansed leper, you note, is not testifying to his friends and neighbours about his healing. “The cleansed leper’s task is not to publicize a miracle but to help confront an ideological system” (Myers, 153). Jesus is sending the leper back to the priests and a system which have failed in their job. The leper is less eager to take on the priests. Rather than return to the priests as Jesus instructs, he shares of his healing throughout the countryside. This exposition of the text allows for several applications of the story to our time and place.
First and foremost, Jesus is a high priest unlike any earthly priest (Hebrews 7-8) and he will always make time for us. Jesus will not avoid us because he would rather not look at our wounds. In fact, Jesus regularly comes to us wanting to explore our tender spots. More times than not it is we who shy from his gaze. We do not uncover our sores, or we refuse to look at the internal damage we have suffered. Jesus invites us to expose that which ails, is broken or a festering boil. Jesus is not afraid that our diseases are communicable. Rather, Jesus knows that his health is the contagious agent. Take time on the drive to work, or while doing dishes, or on a walk to open yourself to the high priest who wants to bring healing.
A second point flows from the high priesthood of Jesus. If we are a congregation of lepers (and I guess my role as pastor makes me chief leper), then our healing is meant for some systemic change. In this story from Mark’s gospel Jesus does not heal the leper only for the sake of the leper. He does not heal the leper so that others of the countryside can be healed. Jesus heals the leper so that the leper can confront and cure the broken system. If we privatize our experiences of healing and if we celebrate individuals who are lifted from the mire, we are missing the point of this story. A man or woman who survives cancer bears responsibility for pushing our society to look at the reasons there seems to be more cancer now than before. A homeless man or woman who secures an apartment bears responsibility to engage governments that permit any to be homeless. A businessman or woman who has made it in commerce bears responsibility to engage a community to make it more possible for young business operators to survive. I can tell you straight out why the leper didn’t return to the priests and why so many of us don’t approach failing systems-- it is hard work to engage the powers. Sadly, in this story, the leper’s action diffuses the power of Jesus because he is inundated with people of the countryside. The swarming crowds negate Jesus’ challenge on a broken system. The leper wanted to be healed; he didn’t want to be a disciple. When we experience wholeness it is so much easier to simply enjoy our healing rather than testify to a system. We live our calling most fully when we are able to use our past exclusions and ailments for the inclusion and healing of others. The healing we experience from God is a reason to give thanks in midst of the congregation, but the story of the leper does not let us rest there.
And finally, I must give a word about “the priests”. I raise the issue of the
priests with some trepidation because I am in the priestly caste overseeing a
cumbersome institution which never gets it quite perfect. Like Jesus, I invite
you to get angry with the priests, but stay engaged. Sometimes it will mean
becoming frustrated with the leaders of a church or school. Sometimes it will
mean becoming angry with the scientists, politicians, and lawyers who really
serve in the priestly role of 21st century North America. Be firm and yet gentle
with these people and we will be gentle with you. That is correct, each of us
gathered here this morning is a priest. One of the gifts of the Protestant
Reformation was the notion of the “priesthood of all believers”. This belief
holds that each Christian has unfettered access to Jesus and God. I affirm this
notion of the priesthood of all believers, but I also think that our society
needs people who are willing to act as an intermediary for the lepers of our
world. While the homeless, bankrupt, and abused have unfettered access to Jesus
and God, they do not carry sway with politicians, the courts, or other civil
servants. They need priests to help bring healing. We, as priests, are then to
send them back to address broken systems. We don’t need to be all working in the
same leper colony. And until you visit with another priest about the work he or
she is doing, don’t be too hasty to judge. My lepers may not be your lepers, and
that is fine. There certainly are enough lepers of our world for each priest
here and in all the churches. Each of us needs to take seriously the people, the
lepers if you will, that God places in our path. Take 30 minutes and have a cup
of coffee or lunch with the pan handler you walk past. Go sit and visit with the
student at school who sits all alone. Visit one other elderly person in the care
home in addition to your relative. Really talk to your neighbours. These
conversations might lead to some healing you can offer. Or equally as likely,
these conversations might lead to some healing we need or healing that a broken
system needs.
I asked the young Nutana lad how far into the good book he had gotten. “Most the
way through Genesis”, he said. Well, at least he has a few more stories before
all the rules, regulations and lists start. Somewhere in mid Leviticus his
resolve will be sorely tested. As it is for all of us who are living Leviticus;
people who are simultaneously lepers and priests. Amen.