The Gospel of Mark 1:40 – 2:12 - Life for the Walking Dead
The ministry of Jesus begins to take off, this time with a leper approaching Him. After performing an extreme miracle that would be considered like raising the dead, Jesus seems to rest for some time. Then as He teaches He is approached by four men with a man who needed healing. When this man was brought to Jesus by his friends Jesus responds to their faith and forgives his sins and then heals him.
Text
“And a leper came to him, imploring him, and kneeling said to him, “If you will, you can make me clean.” Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in desolate places, and people were coming to him from every quarter.”
Mark 1:40-45 (ESV)
Discussion:
This may not seem abnormal when we read the story, however, we must remember that the lepers were social outcasts. They were required to keep their distance and let their hair grow long and cover their upper lip and warn that they were unclean. Everything about them set them apart as an outsider, an outcast, someone who was unclean and could not be touched. Robert H. Stein explains that the leprosy that the Bible speaks of is probably not what we think of as leprosy; it was probably several skin diseases grouped into one category (Stein 2008, 105).
“The term “leper” (λεπρός, lepros), which today refers primarily to one having Hansen’s disease, was understood more broadly in biblical times and encompassed various kinds of skin diseases, of which Hansen’s disease was one. This is evident in that biblical leprosy was curable (Lev. 13–14; cf. Mark 1:44) whereas Hansen’s disease, apart from the use of sulfone drugs, is not (D. P. Wright and R. N. Jones, ABD 4:277–82). The disease resulted in one being “unclean” and ostracized from society (cf. Luke 17:12) and even from one’s own family and home (Lev. 13:45–46). Socially a leper was the equivalent of a corpse (Josephus, Ant. 3.11.3 §264). Since leprosy was often regarded as a punishment for sin (Num. 12:1–15; 2 Kings 5:25–27; 2 Chron. 26:16–21), such social ostracism was seen as having both prophylactic and moral grounds. Curing leprosy was seen as requiring a miracle equal to raising the dead (2 Kings 5:7; b. Sanh. 47a; cf. Luke 4:27).”
No matter what kind of disease it was, it did one thing; it made him an outsider. It set him apart in the worst of ways. He was an outcast from society and had no way to enter back in as long as he was unclean. Thus, his request to be made clean is a request to be able to enter back into society, to live among his people, to go to the temple and worship, to work a normal job.
The request though is exceptional! Who would ask a normal man to heal him of leprosy? Indeed, the later Rabbi’s associated leprosy with death. The only leper that had been healed was healed through immersion in the waters at the instruction of Elisha (2 Kings 5:1–14). Yet knowing that men do not heal lepers, the leper heard of Jesus’ miracles and believed that He could heal him. What faith! Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge explain the connection between being made clean and being healed (Collins and Attridge 2007, 179).
“The request of the leper is that Jesus “make me clean” (με καθαρίσαι). This verb is used in Lev 14:2*, 4*, not for the healing of a skin disorder but for the process by which the person is declared ritually “clean” or “pure” and thus reintegrated into society. Here, however, it is clear that the verb is used for the process of physical healing; v. 42* equates the man’s “being made clean” with “the leprosy leaving him.” After Jesus has healed the man, he instructs him to go to the priest to initiate the process described in Lev 14:1–32*.”
Jesus responds immediately and touches him to make him clean. This is more shocking than the man approaching Jesus, for NO ONE touched a leper! Yet Jesus did, He touched the man who had leprosy and healed him instantly. Jesus then responds with an interesting instruction, telling the man not to say anything to anyone but to simply go the priest and offer the sacrifice as had been commanded in the Torah – as a sign. But why would Jesus say this? Robert A. Guelich offers a unique possible explanation of this that is fascinating, Jesus may have been using a sign-language type gesture (Guelich 1989, 74-74).
“Silenced him” (ἐμβριμᾶσθαι). This verb conveys a strong emotional response of displeasure or anger in the LXX and other NT usages (cf. Note d). Yet taken in this manner here, 1:43 would stand in tension with what has just transpired by introducing an unexplainable note of harshness on Jesus’ part. Consequently, some have posited an underlying combination of more than one version of the story (Lohmeyer, 47), a doublet in 1:43 cf. 1:41 (Kertelge, Wunder, 68) or a redactional insertion in 1:43 in anticipation of the behavior in 1:45 (Koch, Wundererzählungen, 76–78). Furthermore, neither Matthew nor Luke carry this observation, although Matthew, who uses this pericope to open his collection of miracles in 8:1–9:38, does have a similar comment appended to his last Markan miracle (9:27–31 // Mark 10:46–52) in his collection (9:30–31; cf. Mark 1:43, 45).
In contrast to the other occurrences of ἐμβριμᾶσθαι, 1:43 and Matt 9:30 (under the influence of Mark 1:43?) offer no occasion for anger, personal agitation or even “prophetic frenzy” on Jesus’ part. The anger mentioned in 1:41 at the illness or situation (cf. John 11:33, 38) would hardly carry over, since the healing has been completed. And, despite the subsequent failure of those healed to comply with Jesus’ order for silence, one can hardly attribute his “feelings” in advance (1:43) to a premonition of their ensuing behavior (1:45).
Jeremias, in harmony with the context, follows a suggestion by E. E. Bishop (Jesus of Palestine [London: Lutterworth, 1955] 89), and interprets ἐμβριμᾶσθαι as “oriental sign-language” for silence. This sign consisted of the placing of one’s hand on the lips and blowing air in puffs through the teeth (Theology, 92, n. 1). Thus the verb would function somewhat like ἐπιτμᾶν in 3:12; 8:30; 10:48 (e.g., Pesch, 1:145). The command in 1:44 (cf. Matt 9:30) would make the sign explicit.”
I wanted to present this view because I read many disparate views on what Jesus is doing here and this was the most fascinating. At the end of the day it doesn’t change what He said or why, but it does offer us a unique possible view into the life of an ancient Jewish man.
Having sent the man away with clear instructions, the man, having been healed, responds with disobedience. It does not tell us why he did this, however, I do have an idea about his motivation. In the Ancient Near East, especially during the time of Jesus, the Jews and other nations lived in a patron/kinship relationship. Basically to understand it you have to understand that people didn’t have direct access to many goods and services. Instead, they gained access to these through relationships. A person would approach a broker, someone who knew the person who sold the good or offered the service that they desired. They would form a relationship with the person and become their client. The person offering the good or service was known as the patron. The patron provided what the client wanted and the client responded with loyalty and by speaking well of the person. In other words, this man who was healed was acting as if he were a client of Jesus. However, this was not in line with what Jesus wanted. He had directly asked the man to be silent. Perhaps it was this patron client relationship, or perhaps the man could not keep silent because of his exuberance. Whatever the case, he acted against Jesus’ desires and caused Jesus some hardship.
The command of Jesus to go to the priest and offer the sacrifice is interesting because Jesus sought to use this as a sign. The sacrifice is outlined in Leviticus 14:2–32 and involved a unique ritual with the release of a bird that has been dipped in the blood of another bird that was killed over running water. Jacob Milgrom explains that this was most likely designed to remove the bird, and thus the impurity, as far from the people as possible (Milgrom 2008, 834).
“Thus, birds are chosen … because they transport the assumed freight of impurity upward and outward, to far-off distances whence the impurity cannot return.”
It is not clear whether the man did offer the sacrifice or not, but it doesn’t seem likely. Thus, not only did the man hinder the work and ministry of Jesus but he also failed to offer the sign that Jesus wanted.
Text:
“And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”
Mark 2:1-12 (ESV)
Discussion:
Jesus did not stop with this great work but continued to perform great and mighty miracles! Time went by and things seemed to have calmed down, because the next event Mark records involves Jesus teaching at a house. R. T. France explains that the framing of the sentence indicates that some time has passed (France 2002, 122).
“The tension between this notice of Jesus’ return to Capernaum and the previous verse which said he could not openly enter any town is eased both by the phrase διʼ ἡμερῶν (‘sometime later’), implying a sufficient time lapse for the immediate excitement to die down, and also by the fact that he apparently succeeded in returning unnoticed (not φανερῶς, 1:45); with the discovery of his arrival the earlier enthusiasm revived.”
The story opens up with Jesus being “at home”. But what does this mean? Did He own a house in Capernaum, or was He staying with someone? As Joel Marcus explains, the Greek word here indicates that Jesus was at home (Marcus 2008, 215) see also (Collins and Attridge 2007, 184). Although scholars often argue that this was actually Peter’s house, I believe Matthew 4:13 could indicate that Jesus had a house that He stayed at in Capernaum. However, Luke 4:38 may also indicate that Jesus stayed with Peter. If this is so then both interpretations would be correct.
"at home. Gk en oikō̧. This could simply mean “in a house,” but en oikō̧ is a fixed idiom for “at home” from classical times onward (see BAGD‚ 560 [1aα]; cf. 1 Cor 11:34; 14:35).”
Either way, the house that Jesus was staying in, whether His or Peter’s, was filled with people so that there was no room to maneuver. Four men came with their friend to seek healing, however, they were unable to get inside to Jesus. However, they did not give up! They climbed up to the roof and dug through the mud and plaster to get to the beams and then removed the sticks opening up a hole in the roof as Mark L. Strauss explains (Strauss 2014, 120) also see (Marcus 2008, 216).
“Palestinian roofs were generally flat and made of wooden crossbeams covered with thatch and a layer of compact dirt. They were sturdy affairs and were used for work, storage, drying fruit, and sleeping on warm summer nights. An external staircase or ladder provided access. The four men go up to the roof by the external access and begin digging through2 the dirt and pulling aside the thatch.3 One can imagine the commotion below as dirt pours down on the heads of those trying to listen to Jesus.”
And they lowered the man down to be healed by Jesus. And here we hear something shocking, Jesus does not see the faith of the man who wants to be healed, He sees the faith of the men who brought him! Robert A. Guelich expounds on this (Guelich 1989, 85).
“The noun or verb appears in four healing narratives (2:1–12; 5:25–34; 5:21–24, 35–43; 10:46–52; cf. 6:5–6a). It always involves actions that transcend human obstacles or limitations and cross social boundaries (crowds—2:4 and 10:48; futility and shame—5:26–27, 33; death—5:35). And in each case faith is seen in the actions taken to receive Jesus’ help rather than on any specific Christological content. The woman’s actions in 5:25–34 prove to be an expression of her “faith” and a paradigm for similar efforts by others in 3:10 and 6:56 to “touch” Jesus (see Comment on 5:34). Yet Mark’s careful location of the story of Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth after a series of healing stories shows that more than conduct was involved in healing faith (see Comment on 6:5–6a). Faith denoted an attitude expressed in conduct (cf. Comment on 6:6).”
It was because of the faith of these men that Jesus forgives the sins of the man. Yet this forgiveness shocks those around Him. Who are you to forgive sins?! William L. Lane speaks of this forgiveness (Lane 1974, 94).
“Jesus’ response to their faith was the unexpected statement, “Son, your sins are forgiven!”9 The pronouncement was startling because it seemed inappropriate and even irrelevant to the immediate situation. It is intelligible, however, against the background provided by the OT where sin and disease, forgiveness and healing are frequently inter-related concepts.10 Healing is conditioned by the forgiveness of God and is often the demonstration of that forgiveness (cf. 2 Chron. 7:14; Ps. 103:3; 147:3; Isa. 19:22; 38:17; 57:18 f.). In a number of texts “healing” and “forgiveness” are interchangeable terms (Ps. 41:4, “heal me, for I have sinned against thee”; Jer. 3:22 and Hos. 14:4, God will “heal” his people’s backsliding).11 Healing is a gracious movement of God into the sphere of withering and decay which are the tokens of death at work in a man’s life. It was not God’s intention that man should live with the pressure of death upon him. Sickness, disease and death are the consequence of the sinful condition of all men. Consequently every healing is a driving back of death and an invasion of the province of sin. That is why it is appropriate for Jesus to proclaim the remission of sins. It is unnecessary to think of a corresponding sin for each instance of sickness; there is no suggestion in the narrative that the paralytic’s physical suffering was related to a specific sin or was due to hysteria induced by guilt. Jesus’ pronouncement of pardon is the recognition that man can be genuinely whole only when the breach occasioned by sin has been healed through God’s forgiveness of sins.”
In response Jesus asks them, which is easier, to claim to forgive sins or to heal a man who was physically ailed in such a way. As evidence that Jesus can forgive the man’s sins, He then heals the man. Although the greater miracle is the forgiveness of sin, because only God can forgive sins, Jesus performs yet another amazing miracle by healing a man that is clearly paralytic.
Summary
Thus, Jesus establishes Himself as a great miracle worker, like one that has not been seen before. He goes about healing diseases and illnesses that have not been healed before. His fame starts to increase and people follow after Him. Yet even with all this notoriety He continues to withdraw to the wilderness and seek the Father. He has come to heal us, physically, spiritually, and mentally. Yet more is to come, as He goes to call those who need Him most.
Life Application
How can we apply this to our life? I want to start by asking a question. Why did Jesus constantly instruct demons and people to be quiet, why did He tell them NOT to share the word of His great acts? David E. Garland explains that it is all too easy to see the miracles in such a way that we are blinded to the cross (Garland 1996, 77).
“Jesus does not trust a faith based on spectacles, and he knows that the clamor of the moment will not last. He also knows that God’s power is not revealed solely through miracles. It becomes clearest in the crucifixion, but those who want only miracles can see nothing.”
All too often we are tempted to pursue the next great spiritual thing in our life. Whether it is a prophecy conference, a miracles workshop, the next great teaching or book, or perhaps another revelation in the Bible. Either way we often do so and lose focus on the cross of Christ. I am not suggesting that we should only focus on the cross at the expense of everything else, or that these other things are bad. What I’m saying is that it is easy to distract ourselves and forget the real passion, the sacrifice that Christ made on a cross when He was tortured to death for our sake. We shouldn’t need a new book, teaching, revelation, or miracle to bring significance to the cross of Christ and His resurrection!
Questions to Consider
Before healing the paralytic, Jesus first forgave his sins. Are you focusing on the physical or practical while neglecting the spiritual?
Do you have four friends who would dig through a roof for your healing? If not, what are you doing to be that friend to someone?
Connections
Matthew 8:2-4, 9:2-8
Luke 5:12-14, 18-26
Outline
A leper approaches Jesus and kneels before Him, asking to be made clean.
Jesus healed him by touching him.
Jesus commands the healed man not to tell anyone.
Jesus commands that the man show himself to the priest and offer sacrifices as a sign to them.
The man disobeys and spreads the word about Jesus miracle.
Jesus is unable to minister as effectively because of the crowds.
Four men brought a paralytic to Jesus to be healed but could not gain entry into the house.
The four men dug a hole through the roof and moved the beams to let him down.
Jesus sees the faith of the four men and forgives his sins.
The people are offended by Him saying He can forgive sins.
Jesus heals the paralytic.
References-
Robert H. Stein, Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 105.
Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 179.
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 74–75.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 834.
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 122.
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 215.
Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark: A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), 184.
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 27, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 216.
Mark L. Strauss, Mark, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 120.
Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 85.
William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974), 94.
David E. Garland, Mark, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 77.
