February 15 2009

Mark 1:40-45

Year B Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany

I have read this text many times, most often in the context of comparing it with Matthew's account (Matt.8: 1-4) as a teaching exercise for redaction analysis. Matthew chose to omit the reference to Jesus emotions as he responded to the leper. In Mark's gospel, however, we catch a glimpse of Jesus feelings as a dirty, disfigured and possibly disgusting-looking creature approached him.

The presence of a textual variant is recognised in the footnotes of the NRSV, which chooses to translate the Greek as "moved with pity". The NIV translates it as "filled with compassion" (1:41) while Robert Guelich opts for "Being angered" ("Mark 1-8:26" Word Biblical Commentary 34a, Word Books, Dallas 1989, 71) mainly because it is the more difficult reading, even if not widely supported.

As we have begun this walk with Jesus he has already healed many who are sick, and performed an exorcism (for Jesus that's just telling the demons to clear off) in the synagogue. Now he is
confronted by a leper. Those with a skin disease were to be isolated to prevent others being infected. If the skin did not heal they were ultimately to be separated from the community. They
were to live 'outside the camp', remain unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and call out
'unclean, unclean' (Lev 13:45-46).

The man who confronted Jesus took the initiative and approached Jesus. He put himself in the
way, rather than keeping his distance. The dialogue reveals faith in Jesus healing power, and he
was not disappointed.

This brief incident has other interesting aspects to it including the healing man's inability to keep
silent. Maybe that's an evangelical strategy the church could adopt.

But what of Jesus reaction as this leper knelt before him and begged for healing?
Moved with pity or filled with compassion we understand. The sight of suffering evokes that
reaction in most of us - or at last I hope it does. Our hearts go out to those in pain, or those
trapped by forces over which they have no control. Often we wish we could intervene, take away
their pain, offer freedom and restore fullness of life. All too often it is beyond us to do more than
bring a little comfort or momentary ease. Whatever we can do, we should.

Guelich's choice of the minority reading is interesting (and unique amongst the translations I
checked). Why would Jesus be angry? Could it be the interruption to his day, to his plans, to his 'peace and quiet'? I doubt it! I can imagine Jesus being angry about a system that excluded and isolated people. Lepers were separated from normal family, social and religious activities. The disease had taken their health away, and the regulations about their disease excluded them from employment and community. I can picture Jesus indignation and anger about the 'system' that isolated and excluded people.

What is our response to those around us who are suffering? I hope it is compassionate and caring
- but I wonder if we fail to get angry when we should...angry at injustice and abuse, angry at
oppression, angry systems that isolate and exclude, angry at all that is not right in the world.
When it comes to compassion a response is relatively straightforward - we give, help, support,
comfort or encourage. We walk alongside those who are struggling and seek to help them in that
struggle. When it comes to anger at injustice it is much harder to respond - yet action is still needed.

While Guelich's translation is of a minority reading it should still give us cause for reflection - and
perhaps also for action.