Sermon on a Gospel Text
©Cynthia Serio
Intro to Preaching/Spring
2009
Dr. John C.
Holbert
“Unclean! Unclean! Crossing Unjust Social Boundaries” (from Mark 1:40-45)
SERMON EXEGESIS
In his book, Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel, David Rhoads states, “The New
Testament is a profoundly social document.”[1] Rhoads encourages the reader to realize that
“we encounter phenomena that are strange to us”[2]
as we enter the narrative. In simply
reading the text, the modern reader crosses the threshold into a cross-cultural
experience to find “that the forces of purity and pollution pervaded the whole
culture”[3]
of early Christianity. The core value in
the purity system was holiness manifested by the perfection, or wholeness of
creation.[4]
This is a righteous endeavor until it
becomes a glorified way of determining who is in and who is out by creating
elaborate social boundaries. In order
to read the text in the appropriate context, one should pause at the threshold
with anticipation and respect in order to understand the culture and the social
boundaries within which Jesus and the leper lived and both ultimately
confronted.
When
the leper approached Jesus, he crossed a social boundary. The word translated leprosy is “3014 le,pra
lepra {lep'-rah} which is a most offensive, annoying,
dangerous, cutaneous disease, the virus of which generally pervades the whole
body, common in Egypt and the East.”[5] In her book, A Healing Homiletic, Kathy Black
indicates that many common non-contagious
skin diseases, such as psoriasis or eczema, would have been considered leprosy in biblical
times. Because the condition of impurity
was passed to others and because leprosy was
specifically considered to be a result of sin, a “divine curse”[6], the leper was shunned by the community and highly
restricted in his movements.[7] The leper was barred from the temple and the
camp, was not able to interact with his family, was supposed to tear his
clothes, mess up his hair, and shout “unclean, unclean” as he walked near the
people. He was an outcast, living on the
margins longing desperately to live within the community that had cast him out
because of his leprosy. Living in emotional
isolation and abject poverty the man was looking for more than alms[8]
when he violated purity laws and gave Jesus the healer a “choice” to make him
clean.
The leper challenged Jesus to action. The leper says “If you choose.” The word translated as choose is 309 qe,lw thelo {thel'-o} which can also be translated as “will” or
“want to” means “to be resolved or determined.”[9] The
TDNT says this word
also “expresses resolve as free or weighted decision, sometimes with the idea
of choice or preference, and religiously with the nuance of resolute willingness.”[10] Jesus replies, “I do choose.” When the word translated as “choose” is used
in regard to the actions of Jesus, it can denote the will that commands God’s
rule and purpose in creation and history[11]
Jesus
chooses to “stretch out his hand and touch” the leper in order to heal him,
which is one of only three places that Jesus speaks and touches to heal (Mark
5:41 & 7:33).[12] When he “stretches out his hand” we can see
the hand of God in the Greek 5495 cei,r cheir {khire} which means
figuratively applied to God symbolizing might, activity, and power.[13] Join that to the word translated
as touched 680 a[ptomai haptomai {hap'-tom-ahee}which is a
rather intimate word which means to
adhere or to cling[14] and one
can envision the very emotional human Jesus making a choice in the sense of
doing the will of God. He makes the
leper clean. The word translated “make”
or “made clean” is 2511 kaqari,zw katharizo {kath-ar-id'-zo} which means to make clean … a
leper, to cleanse by curing.[15]
When
Jesus made a choice to touch the leper in order to make him clean, he crossed a
social boundary. When he touched the leper he became impure,
“polluted … unclean” [16] according
to the ritual purity system. With his
healing touch, there is a reversal of social fortune. Jesus enters the life of the leper and
becomes the outcast. Rather than obeying
Jesus and presenting himself to the priests in order to become accountable to
the system that had cast him out, the healed man ignores the directive. He begins
to proclaim his experience of healing and liberation. Ophelia Ortega says, “The
leper is the first of the evangelists.”[17] When the people hear the word, they come to
Jesus and “the social order is disrupted.”[18] Not
only disrupted, Gary W. Charles says that Jesus “shatters the traditional
boundaries of purity and in the process rewrites the book on the nature of
God’s beloved community.”[19] These are strong words referring to what many
scholars simply consider to be “a basic healing narrative.”[20]
Mike Graves argues with those scholars as he says
that “on the surface, we see a leprous man with a measure of faith approach
Jesus. Jesus moved with pity, restores
the man with a touch … [but] for those who have studied the story closely,
there are so many questions.”[21] Graves addresses several of these questions in
his article, but for the purpose of the sermonic exploration of this text, I
will concentrate on an unusual textual variant in verse 41 which causes the
reader to wonder about Jesus and what he is feeling and thinking as those
social boundaries are crossed.
That
textual variant in verse 41 revolves around the commonly translated Greek: 4697 splagcni,zomai
splagchnizomai {splangkh-nid'-zom-ahee} which is
translated “moved with pity” or “filled with compassion.” Strong’s Dictionary agrees with this
translation: to be moved in the inward
parts, i.e. to feel compassion.[22] The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament (TDNT) also agrees: Although
in a few instances this verb refers to human emotions, “elsewhere
in the Synoptics the verb has messianic significance, for it is only Jesus who
shows compassion, as in Mk. 1:42; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Mt. 14:14; 20:34. In each case what we have is not so much the
description of a human emotion as a messianic characterization.”[23] However,
there are many other sources in which human emotion are believed to play an
integral part in the translations.
Contemplating these emotions impacts the way we read and understand this
seemingly simple yet deeply complex healing episode.
Only a few translations acknowledge, with a footnote, that
some of the early manuscripts use the Greek: 430 avne,xomai ¿avne,cwÀ anechomai {an-ekh'-om-ahee} instead of splagchnizomai. Anechomai
is translated “moved with anger.” It may not seem important, but as Pheme
Perkins states in the New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, “how [the verbs in
this passage] are translated plays an important role in the tone of the
passage”[24] and
leads us to many questions that Graves believes are worth exploring if we’ll
look and listen to the text.
·
Is Jesus moved with pity for the leper or
anger with him?
·
If Jesus is angry,
why?
·
Could he be angry that the unclean leper
dared to approach him?
·
Could he be angry that he knows he’ll be
unclean and be forced to stay in uninhabited areas?
·
What about anger at a religious system
that declares some people in and some people out?
These questions and other like them help the reader delve
more deeply into this moving passage in which Jesus makes a choice to cross an
unjust social boundary, heal by touch, and accept the consequences.
SERMON
MANUSCRIPT
(Enter
dressed as an Outcast – In character as the leper)
UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!
Yes, there once was a time that I was unclean … impure … untouchable … separated
from my family …
cast
out from my community …
destined
to wander in the desert places.
It
started with a small rash.
I
tried to hide it but before long I was covered with open sores.
I
suffered every day with the searing pain of my leprous skin.
But
it was nothing compared to losing everything
and
everyone I ever loved.
Then
one day … I met a man named Jesus and everything changed!
Unfortunately
for Jesus … I couldn’t keep my mouth shut.
A
man named Mark wrote a story about Jesus and me …
You’ll
find it at the end of Chapter 1... in verses 40-45.
This
is what he wrote:
A leper came to him begging him, and
kneeling he said to him, ‘If you choose, you
can make me clean.’ Moved
with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched
him, and said to him, ‘I do choose. Be made clean!’ Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. After sternly warning him he
sent him away at once, saying
to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the
priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to
them.’ But he went
out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town
openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every
quarter.
This
is the word of God for the people of God …
Thanks
be to God!
At first glance, this seems like a basic healing narrative …
As a matter of fact, that is why I chose this passage. (One hand) Leper approaches Jesus. (Other hand) Jesus heals leper. (Hands together) One idea!
The only problem is that this is not your basic healing narrative. This passage is about crossing unjust social
boundaries.
When the leper comes to Jesus, he is
begging but he’s not asking for healing.
He is asking Jesus to make him clean.
This is an issue of ritual purity.
It isn’t about pain and suffering, at least not physical pain and
suffering. If it was, the leper would
simply ask for healing. It is about isolation and separation. It is about a system that has expressly created
isolation and separation. The unjust
social boundaries created by the ritual purity system allowed some people, like
the good Jewish rabbi Jesus, IN and kept other people, like our disgusting
sinful leper, OUT.
When the leper comes to Jesus, he crosses that unjust social
boundary. He should never have
approached Jesus. He should have been
shouting “unclean, unclean” and should have kept his distance. But he didn’t. Instead, he presents Jesus with a choice and
a challenge. “If you choose, you can
make me clean.”
“If you choose
…” can also be translated “If you are willing …” This is Jesus. Of course he’ll be willing … He has been
“moved with pity.” Some translations
say he is “filled with compassion.” Why wouldn’t this compassionate Jesus that
we all know and love be willing to heal this man and restore him to the
community? This encounter just isn’t as simple as “Leper
approaches Jesus. Jesus heals
leper.” The footnotes say, instead of
pity or compassion, Jesus was “moved with anger.”
Why in the
world would Jesus be angry when he stretches out his hand, touches the leper
and says, “I do choose. Be made
clean.” Does anger make sense?
Remember this is an issue of ritual purity. Jesus crosses an unjust social boundary when
he stretches out his hand and touches the leper. Do you know what happens when Jesus, who is
clean, touches the leper, who is unclean?
There is a reversal of fortune. The unclean leper is made clean through the
healing of his disease … but at the moment Jesus crosses that unjust social
boundary and touches the leper, he becomes unclean according to the ritual
purity system of his day.
This ritual
purity system sounds like a harsh way of categorizing people. It didn’t start out that way. The core value in the
purity system was holiness … a gift of God … manifested by the wholeness of
creation made in the image of God. The
pursuit of holiness is a good and honorable journey unless it becomes a
glorified way of determining who is in and who is out by creating elaborate
social structures with unjust boundaries.
While we mock these ancient written laws which define the
boundaries of clean and unclean, we ourselves have unwritten purity laws with
which to keep the “good” people in and the “bad” people out. We often draw invisible unjust social
boundaries along cultural, racial, economic, sexual, gender, generational,
political and religious lines, just to name a few. Let’s face it: our unwritten boundaries make
us feel safe because people who are different, people who don’t fit our
standards are encouraged to be compliant.
Or they are rejected and encouraged to leave.
Once upon a time, I had a friend. He was an incredibly talented young man. And he was one of the most loving persons I
have ever known. But he was different. Consciously, I didn’t know what was “wrong”
with him. However, I think unconsciously
I did. You see, my friend was gay. He never told me that. He never told anyone as far as I know.
It was 1978 and you
didn’t talk about things like that … it was an unwritten unmentionable thing. I knew he had problems with his parents but I
didn’t know why. I knew they kicked him
out of the house after high school but I didn’t know why. I only knew they told him not to come
back. I heard that he went to New
York. One day he did come back. His parents, who really were good people,
took care of him as he lied dying of AIDS.
I have heard that his dying was very beautiful and he was surrounded by the
love of his parents. I have always been
very sad that we couldn’t talk about his homosexuality. And I have always been very angry that we
couldn’t talk about his homosexuality.
Is it possible that Jesus was filled with compassion for the
leper and also moved by anger? I think
it is. Is it possible that we will be
confronted by unwritten unjust social boundaries in our ministries? I think it is. Is it possible we will struggle with
compassion and anger just like Jesus did?
I think it is.
In the end, I think it
doesn’t matter how we feel.
In the end, I think it
only matters that we stretch out our hand and we touch the untouchable.
That’s the real
miracle.
[1]
David Rhoads, Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2004), 140.
[2] Rhoads, 153.
[3] Rhoads, 153.
[4] John C. Holbert, “Levitical
Holiness Code” in The New Interpreter’s
Handbook of Preaching, ed. Paul Scott Wilson, et al eds. (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2008), 88.
[5] Strong’s Dictionary in
BibleWorks™ Copyright © 1992-2005 BibleWorks, LLC.
[6] Pheme Perkins, “Mark” in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume
VIII, Leander C. Keck, et al eds. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 545.
[7] Kathy Black, A Healing Homiletic: Preaching and
Disability (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1196), 130.
[10] Kittel,
Gerhard ; Friedrich, Gerhard ; Bromiley, Geoffrey William: Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans, 1995,
c1985, S. 1068
[11]TDNT
[12] Black, 134-135.
[16] Ophelia Ortega,
“Mark 1:40-45 HomileticalTheological Perspective” in Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year
B Volume 1, ed. David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor, et al eds. (Louisville:
John Knox Press, 2008), 360.
[17] Ortega, 360.
[18] Ortega, 360.
[19] Gary
W. Charles, “Mark 1:40-45 Exegetical ” in Feasting
on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B Volume 1, ed.
David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor, et al eds. (Louisville: John Knox
Press, 2008), 359.
[20] Black, 132.
[21] Mike Graves,
“Mark 1:40-45 Homiletical Perspective” in Feasting
on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B Volume 1, ed.
David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor, et al eds. (Louisville: John Knox
Press, 2008), 357 & 359.
[22]
Strong’s Dictionary
No comments:
Post a Comment