Mark 1:40 And there came a leper to him,; Once he was approached by a leper--NEB; beseeching him, and kneeling down to him,; who knelt before him, begging his help--NEB; appealing to him on his knees--Gspd; beseeching him on bended knee--Mof; and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.; If you are willing, he said, you are able to cleanse me--Wey; saying to Him, If you want to, you can cure me--Wms; Oh, if only You will, You can make me clean--Nof; And there cometh unto him, a leper, beseeching him [and kneeling],--saying unto him-- /If thou be willing\ thou canst cleanse me; and there doth come to him a leper, calling on him, and kneeling to him, and saying to him--'If thou mayest will, thou art able to cleanse me.' TRNTyeager596,7,8 - kai erchetai pros auton lepros parakalwn auton (kai gonupetwn) kai legwn autw hoti ean thelAs dunasai me katharisai. kai (continuative conjunction). erchetai (3d.per.sing.pres.ind.of erchomai, historical). pros (preposition with the accusative of extent). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, extent). lepros (nom.sing.masc.of lepros, subject of erchetai). parakalwn (pres.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of parakalew, adverbial, modal). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of parakalwn). kai (adjunctive conjunction). gonupetwn (pres.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of gonupetew, adverbial, modal). legwn (pres.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of legw, adverbial, modal). autw (dat.sing.masc.of autos, indirect object of legwn). hoti (recitative). Ean (conjunction introducing a third-class condition). thelAs (2d.per.sing.pres.act.subj.of thelw, third-class condition). dunasai (2d.per.sing.pres.ind.of dunamai, third-class condition). me (acc.sing.masc.of egw, direct object of dunasai). katharisai (aor.act.inf.of katharizw, complementary). Translation: "And a leper came to Him falling on his knees, begging Him and saying to Him, 'If you are willing you are able to make me clean'" COMMENT: The three modal participles, parakalwn, gonupetwn and legwn, all in the present tense, are simultaneous to the action of the main verb erchetai. They describe the leper's action. He came to Jesus, begging on his knees. They describe his physical action, but they say nothing about the leper's faith, which was very great. This fact is revealed in the third-class condition with which he formulated his request. The third-class condition (ean with the present subjunctive in thelAs) indicates that the leper was not at all certain that Jesus wanted to heal him. There was no doubt that if Jesus wished to do so, He could heal him. The contingency is in the protasis (Ean thelAs) not in the apodosis (dunasai me katharisai). The leper had no doubt as to Jesus' ability to heal. He did not know with certitude that Jesus would do so. This is the essence of victorious prayer. Faith in prayer means faith in the sovereign wisdom of the God to Whom we pray. Had the leper used a first-class condition, which indicates no doubt, either in protasis (if clause) or apodosis (result clause), we would be forced to translate "Since you are willing, you can heal me" and this would indicate that the leper was very sure about what the Sovereign Lord wished to do. This attitude would preempt Christ's position on the throne. Presumptuous christians commit this crime constantly in what they refer to as their "prayer life." Many christians are very certain all of the time that they know that the will of Christ is identical to their own will. Thus, they say that they pray in faith. The only way we can know that our prayer is heard is that we are asking something according to His will. If so, then He hears us, and if He hears us, then we know that the answer is forthcoming (I Jn.5:14,15). Is it always the will of God to heal the leper at the time when he asks for healing? It would be presumptuous to answer this question in the affirmative. The older the writer gets the less certain he is that he understands the will of God in regard to many things. Thus the only safe way to pray and be sure that the answer is coming is to pray in terms of I Jn.5:14,15. "Lord perform your total will in this matter." We can be certain that He is going to hear that prayer and that, hearing it, He will do just that. Otherwise He is not sovereign, and if not sovereign, He is a tin god Who is no God at all. Cf. Mt.8:2; Lk.5:12. Cf.#709 for other passages on cleansing, particularly those that apply to spiritual cleansing. Many valuable preaching suggestions will be uncovered. Cham198,9 - Conditions That Are Undetermined. 1. Third class conditions. a. The protasis will always have the subjunctive mode, and will usually be introduced by ean (an) but occasionally, by ei.... Since the subjunctive mode alone is used, the tense is limited to present and aorist. b. The apodosis may have any mode or any tense. .... The third class condition is usually hopeful but hesitant: ean thelAs dunasai me katharisai (here), 'If tou art willing, thou art able to cleanse me.' The leper is hopeful, but not certain, that Jesus wants to cleanse him. A first class condition would have indicated that the leper was confident that Jesus wanted to heal him. ... if the leper had used a fourth class conditional sentence which is even more doubtful he would have been expressing pessimism as to Jesus' desire to heal him, and probably never would have come to him to be healed. Ear114 - Moved with Compassion. The Greek has the aorist passive participle here, splangchnistheis. To bring out the force of the aorist we should translate it "gripped with compassion." This was Jesus' instant reaction to human need. He was deeply moved in His heart at the sight of suffering. MitGNTwuest40 - "There came a leper." The verb is the historic present, picturing a past event with the vividness of a present reality. "And there comes a leper." "To Him," "to" is pros, face to face with Jesus. The leper confronts Him. "Beseeching," parakalew, an urgent appeal, "I beg of you, please." "If thou wilt." There are two words in Greek meaning "to be willing, to desire," thelw, "a desire that comes from one's emotions," and boulomai, "a desire which comes from one's reason." The first is used here. The leper appeals to the tenderheartedness of the Messiah. "Thou canst," dunamai, "to have power, to be able." The leper does not doubt the ability of the Lord to heal. He has heard of His Capernaum ministry. But "he doubts the will." Expositors says, "naturally from the nature of the disease, especially if it be the first cure of the kind, or the first so far as the man knows." Translation: "And there comes to Him a leper, begging Him and kneeling, saying to Him, If you are willing, you have power to cleanse me." TNICotNT-MARKlane84,5,6 - The identification of the man who came to Jesus as "a leper" is not as precise as at first glance it may seem. Leprologists who have examined the biblical data in Lev. 13-14 feel certain that the biblical term "leprosy" is a collective noun designating a wide variety of chronic skin diseases, one of which may have been interpreted in the modern sense of the word. Nevertheless, any man who was identified as a leper was reduced to a most pitiful state of existence. In addition to the physical ravages of the disease, his cultic impurity was graphically described in the Levitical provision: "The leper who has the disease shall cover his upper lip and cry, 'Unclean, unclean'. He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone in a habitation without the camp" (Lev.13:45f.). Rabbinic refinement of the biblical legislation imposed many practical difficulties upon the leper, for even a chance encounter between the leper and the nonleper could render the latter unclean. Lepers were allowed to live unhampered wherever they chose, except in Jerusalem and cities which had been walled from antiquity. They could even attend the synagogue services if a screen was provided to isolate them from the rest of the congregation. In spite of these two provisions, however, leprosy brought deep physical and mental anguish for both the afflicted individual and the community in which or near which he lived. It is against this background that the significance of the cleansing of a leper by Jesus can be appreciated, whether the man in Mdark's account had true leprosy or some other frightful skin disease. The leper, who had either seen Jesus' mighty works or had heard about them, came beseeching Jesus to remove from him the ravages and stigma of this dreadful disease. In the firm conviction, "If you will you can make me clean," he is asking for healing, not for the pronouncement that he is clean ritually, which only a priest could declare. It may be assumed that the man had shown himself to a priest once or several times already. His appeal was for Jesus to do what was believed impossible by human means, to cure him of his disease. It is impossible to tell whether he regarded Jesus as an itinerant miracle-worker, or perceived more deeply that he was one through whom the power of God was directed. [footnote 145] - The leper was not permitted to enter any house, for his presence conveyed uncleanness to both men and vessels in the house....On the chance encounter ...:"If an unclean man [afflicted with leprosy] stood under a tree and a clean man passed by, the latter becomes unclean. If a clean man stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean." NTC-MARKhendriksen77,8 - "And a leper came up to him, on his knees begging him..." Exactly when and where the miracle here recorded occurred is not stated anywhere. Most natural, however, is the view that it took place on the Galilean circuit to which Mark has just now referred (vs.39). In support of this consider also "Let us go elsewhere, to the next towns" (vs.38); cf. "to the other cities" (Lk.4:43), followed by the statement that the cleansing of the leper occurred while Jesus was "in one of the cities" (Lk.5:12). If this conclusion is correct, the incident probably occurred before the calling of The Twelve to the apostleship (Mk.3:13-19; Lk.6:12-16) and before the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5:1-8:1); Lk.6:12-16). In connection with "And a leper came up to him" there are those who deny the correctness of the rendering "leper" and "leprosy." They maintain that not leprosy proper (Hansen's disease) but vitiligo, leucoderma, and/or other skin sicknesses are meant. On the other hand Dr. L. S. Huizenga, having received both a theological and a medical training, and basing his conclusion upon a detailed study of all the pertinent biblical material and on his own experience with lepers, states: "I believe that Moses describes a definite disease--a disease which corresponds to what we today call leprosy, though the symptoms may not be the same" ... One matter must be made perfectly clear: Jesus did not hold anybody in low esteem for being a leper, not any more than for being blind, deaf, etc. He came into the world to help, to heal, and to save. The unkind and harsh judgment of those who ascribed individual physical afflictions to the particular wickedness of the person so afflicted--as if, for example, a physical leper would of necessity also be a moral leper--was condemned by him in no uncertain terms (Lk.13:1-5; Jn.9:1-7). Moreover, the healing ministry of Christ should be an encouragement to all those persons and organizations that are genuinely involved in providing help and care for those in need: deacons and deaconates, relief workers and societies, medical missionaries, nurses, voluntary helpers in hospitals, etc. From this the inference must not be drawn that the responsibility for providing help and care rests only on certain groups of specialists; no, it rests on everyone, and certainly on every believer (Prov.19:17; Mt. 10:8; 25:31-46; Mk.9:41; II Cor.8:8, 9; 9:7; Gal.6:10; Eph. 4:32-5:2; Phil.4:17; I Tim.5:4). This leper "came up to" Jesus, up close enough to be touched by the Master. This is remarkable, especially in view of Lev.13:45,46: "...Alone shall he dwell; outside the camp shall be his habitation." With this compare "ten lepers who stood at a distance" (Lk.17:12). This man must have heard enough about Christ's deeds of power coupled with sympathy to understand that here was someone who could be hopefully approached. Of course, he did not know whether the help he craved would be given even to him...a man "full of leprosy" (Lk.5:12). But there was nothing wrong with asking. He does this in a most humble manner: he "drops to his knees" (thus Mark), then lowers his face to the ground ("fell on his face," Lk.5:12), begging, "If you will, you can cleanse me." According to Mt.8:2 he even addressed Jesus as "Lord." By this he must have meant far more than "Sir." Otherwise, how could he have made the confession that he made. "You can cleanse me," he says. Of this power on the part of Jesus he is sure. "If you will." Of this willingness he is not sure, but he submits himself to Christ's sovereign disposition. He does, however, beg or implore that he, too, may be the recipient of Christ's healing power and mercy. MARKd&j55,6 - III. Healing The Leper-- "There came a leper to him." This account is also given in Mt.8:2-4, and in Lk.5:12,13. Matthew places it after the Sermon on the Mount, but he does not aim to follow the chronological order closely, and we are only to infer that it came soon after the descent from the mountain, after he entered "a certain city" and before his return to Capernaum. Luke says that the leper was healed at a "certain city" but does not say what one. Luke says, "A man full of leprosy" (Lk.5:12). This disease is nothing short of a foul decay, arising from the total corruption of the blood. It was a living death, as indicated by bare head, rent clothes, and covered lip. In the middle ages, a man siezed with leprosy was "clothed in a shroud, and the masses of the dead sung over him." In its horrible repulsiveness it is the gospel type of sin.-- Farrar. Leprosy began with little specks on the eyelids and on the palms of the hands, and gradually spread over different parts of the body, bleaching the hair white wherever it showed itself, crusting the affected parts with shining scales, and causing swellings and sores. From the skin it slowly ate its way through the tissues, to the bones and joints, and even to the marrow, rotting the whole body piecemeal. The lungs, the organs of speech and hearing, and the eyes, were attacked in turn, till at last consumption or dropsy brought welcome death. The dread of infection kept men aloof from the sufferer; and the law proscribed him as above all men unclean. The disease was hereditary to the fourth generation.--Geikie. The leprosy. We find that nearly everywhere the disease is most common on the seashore, and that, when it spreads inland, it generally occurs on the shores of lakes or along the course of large rivers.--Medical Press. Is the leprosy contagious? A review of the evidence led the speaker to the conclusion that this disease was not contagious by ordinary contact; but it may be transmitted by the blood and secretions. It is a well- established fact that when leprosy has once gained for itself a foothold in any localtiy, it is apt to remain there and spread. Being the worst form of disease, leprosy was fixed upon by God to be the especial type of sin; and the injunctions regarding it had reference to its typical character. It was accompanied by the emblems of death. (Lev. 13:45, comp. with Num. 6:9. Ezek. 24:17). It involved ceremonial uncleanness (see Num.19:13; Ezek.45:25); and the exclusion of the leper from the congregation (Lev.13:44-46. Num.5:1-3; 12-14,15. II Chron.24:19-21) strikingly typified the separation of the sinner from God's presence. "Kneeling down". Not an act of worship, but a gesture of entreaty. There is no contrivance of our body but some good man in Scripture hath hallowed it with prayer. The publican standing, Job sitting, (Job 2:8), Hezekiah lying on his bed, (II Kgs.20:2), Elijah with his face between his legs, (I Kngs.18:42). But of all postures give me St. Paul's: "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Eph. 3:12; Acts 7:60.--Thomas Fuller. "If thou wilt, thou canst." If thou art willing, thou art able. The leper had faith in the miraculous power of Jesus, but had a doubt about his willingness to exercise it on such an object as him, on one so unclean. Here was (1) a thorough consciousness of his own misery and helplessness; (2) he knew it was not too bad for Christ's power. it has been well said that the language of faith always is, not if thou canst, but if thou wilt. He is willing to leave the whole matter in Christ's hands. (3) Let us pause on this little word IF. "If" embodies doubt; and faith, in its earlier stages, almost always involves doubt, but, when the sould can use "if," it has made great progress in faith. "Cleanse me." He felt the impurity of his desease, not merely ceremonial, but actual,--as we should feel the impurity of sin, and pray not merely, forgive, but cleanse. MARKbarclay35,6 - In the NT there is no disease regarded with more terror and pity than the disease of leprosy. When Jesus sent out the Twelve He commanded them, "Heal the sick, cleanse the leper." (Mt.10:8). The fate of the leper was truly hard. E.W.G.Masterman in his article on leprosy in the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, from which we have drawn much of the information that follows, says, "No other disease reduces a human being for so many years to so hideous a wreck." Let us look first of all at the facts. There are three kinds of leprosy. (i) There is nodular or tubercular leprosy. It begins with an unaccountable lethargy and with unaccountable pains in the joints. Then there appears on the body, especially on the back, symmetrical discoloured patches. On them little nodules form, at first pink, then turning brown. The skin is thickned. The nodules gather specially in the folds of the cheek, the nose, the lips and the forehead. The whole appearance of the face is changed till the man loses his human appearance and looks, as the ancients said, like a lion or a satyr. The nodules grow larger and larger; they ulcerate and from them there comes a foul discharge. The eye-brows fall out; the eyes become staring; the voice becomes hoarse and the breath wheezes because of the ulceration of the vocal chords. The hands and the feet always ulcerate. Slowly the sufferer becomes a mass of ulcerated growths. The average course of the disease is nine years, and it ends in mental decay, coma and ultimately death. The sufferer became utterly repulsive both to himself and to others. (ii) There is anaesthetic leprosy. The initial stages are the same; but in this kind of leprosy the nerve trunks are affected. The infected area loses all sensation. This may happen without the sufferer knowing that it has happened; and he may not realize that it has happened until he suffers some burning or scalding and finds that there is no pain and no feeling whatsoever where nerves causes discoloured patches and blisters. The muscles waste away; the tendons contract until the hands become like claws. There is always disfigurement of the finger nails. There ensues chronic ulceration of the feet and of the hands. There comes the progressive loss of fingers and toes, until in the end a whole hand or a whole foot may drop off. The duration of the diseases anything from twenty to thirty years. It is a kind of terrible and progressive death of the body. (iii) The third kind of leprosy is a type--the commonest of all--where nodular and anaesthetic leprosy are mixed. That is leprosy proper, and there is no doubt that there were many lepers like that in Palestine in the time of Jesus. Leprosy is described in Lev. 13, and from that description it is quite clear that in NT times the term leprosy was also used to cover other skin diseases. It seems to have been used to include psoriasis, a disease which covers the body with white scales, and which would give rise to the phrase "a leper as white as snow." It seems also to have included ring-worm which is still very common in the East. The Hebrew word that is used in Leviticus for leprosy is tsaraath. Now Leviticus 13:47 speaks of a tsaraath of garments, and a tsaraath of houses is dealt with in Lev. 14:33. Such a blemish on a garment would be some kind of mould or fungus; and on a house it would be some kind of dry-rot in the wood or destructive lichen on the stone. The word tsaraath, leprosy in Jewish thought seems to have covered any kind of creeping skin disease. Very naturally, with medical knowledge in an extremely primitive state, diagnosis did not distinguish between the different kinds of skin disease and included both the deadly and incurable and the non-fatal and comparatively harmless under the one inclusive title. Any such skin disease rendered the sufferer unclean. He was banished from the fellowship of men; he must dwell alone outside the camp; he must go with rent clothes, bared head, a covering upon his upper lip, and as he went he must give warning of his polluted presence with the cry, "Unclean, unclean!" We may see the same thing in the Middle Ages, which merely applied the Mosaic law. The priest, wearing his stole and carrying a crucifix, led the leper into the church, and read the burial service over him. The leper was a man who was already dead, though still alive. He had to wear a black garment that all might recognize and live in a leper or lazar-house. He must not come near a church service but might peer through the leper "squint" cut in the walls while the service went on. The leper had not only to bear the physical pain of his disease; he had to bear the mental anguish and the heart-break of being banished from human society and shunned literally like the plague. TCGTC-MARKcranfield90,1,2 - lepros. The Hebrew word which is translated 'leprosy' in Lev. 13-14 (sAra'at) covered various skin diseases, not just what is called leprosy today; and it is quite likely that this man was suffering from one of these other diseases.??? But persons suffering from any of the diseases covered by the term sAra'at had to keep away from their fellows: they were forbidden by the law to enter a dwelling, and, if anyone approached, they had to cry 'Unclean, unclean!' as a warning (Lev.13:45f.). kai gonupetwn, ... should be read. According to Lohmeyer the fact that the leper is represented as kneeling to Jesus means that he is represented as knowing already that Jesus is more than a mere man.???? (He argues similarly with reference to v. 22 and x. 17.) But, while it is true that among the Hebrews kneeling is characteristically the mark of man's humility before God (both in OT and NT), it is also an act of homage to a king (I Chron.29:20 (LXX), and a postue of supplication before a man of God (II Kgs.1:13). So here it expresses earnest entreaty and respect, not more--though, no doubt, Mark and his readers may have seen a special appropriateness in his kneeling before the one whom they knew to be the Son of God. ean thelAs dunasai me katharisai. The leper is sure that Jesus is able to heal him, if he is willing do do so. The stress no doubt is more on dunasai than on thelAs: this is more an expression of confidence in Jesus' ability than of doubt about his willingness. But nevertheless it is an entreaty (perhaps approaching 'Do cleanse me, for thou canst!') and the section directs attention here and in the next verse to Jesus' will to heal. With the believing dunasai contrast the ei ti dunA of 9:22f. katharizein in this section must mean 'make clean', so 'heal', as is clear from v.42 (apAlthen ap' autou hA lepa), and not 'pronounce clean' in the sense in which it is used in Lev.13f. The suggestion that the original story was of a recovered leper who wanted Jesus, instead of a priest, to pronounce him clean is fanciful. The use of katharizein to denote the healing of leprosy is natural, since the disease rendered the sufferer ritually unclean. Mark 1:41 And Jesus, moved with compassion,; Jesus was filled with pity for him--Phi; put forth his hand, and touched him,; he stretched out his hand, and touched him--RSV; and stretched out his hand and placed it on the leper--Phi; and saith unto him, I will; be thou clean.; ...be thou made clean--ASV; and says to him, I will; be cleansed--ABUV; saying, Of course I want to--you are clean--Phi; and /moved with compassion\ he stretched forth the hand, and touched him, and saith unto him-- I am willing, Be cleansed! And Jesus having been moved with compassion, having stretched forth the hand, touched him, and saith to him, 'I will; be thou cleansed;' TRNTyeager598 - kai splagchnistheis ekteinas tAn cheira autou hAphato kai legei autw, Thelw, katharisthAti. kai (inferential conjunction). splagchnistheis (aor.pass.part.nom.sing.masc.of splagchnizomai, culminative). ekteinas (aor.act.part.nom.sing.masc.of ekteinw, adverbial, temporal). tAn (acc.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with cheira). cheira (acc.sing.fem.of cheir, direct object of ekteinas). autou (gen.sing.masc.of autos, possession). hAphato (3d.per.sing.aor.mid.ind.of haptw, constative). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining verbs). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). autw (dat.sing.masc.of autos, indirect object of legei). thelw (1st.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of thelw, aoristic). katharisthAti (2d.per.sing.aor.pass.impv.of katharizw, command). Translation: "Therefore, because He felt sorry for him, He reached out His hand and touched him and said to him, 'I want to. Be cleansed.'" COMMENT: Cf.Mt.8:3; Lk.5:13. splagchnistheis and ekteinas are aorist participles, antecedent in time to the main verbs hAphato and legei. The former can be taken as causal or circumstantial. The latter is temporal. Jesus' statement is simple and direct. "I am willing" or simply "I want to heal you." All that was required was His Word. It is always the Word that cleanses leprous sinners (Eph.5:26; I John 1;7,9). Review #'s 835, 710 for other situations in which Jesus felt compassion and for other instances of the outstretched hand in ministry. Many preaching leads will occur to the diligent student. It is noteworthy that Jesus Christ is always willing to cleanse from the leprosy of sin, either in the unbeliever or the Christian. Typologists may sometimes go too far in imagining that leprosy is a type of sin. But sin is an incurable disease, if only human healing power is available. Only divine power is able to heal the sinner from his sin, even though God might, for reasons sufficient unto Himself, and for which reasons He is not accountable to mortals, choose to allow the sinner to remain physically leprous. There is altogether too much presumption among christians that leads them to assume that since a condition is reprehensible to them, as indeed the leper's disease was to him, that it is God's will to rid them of it. This particular leper did not make that mistake. Perhaps that is why Jesus experienced the onset of compassion which the text reveals. MitGNTwuest41,2 - "Jesus, moved with compassion," splagchnizomai, passive voice. The pitiful state of the leper aroused in our Lord's heart the feeling of pity and love. Expositors says, "Watch carefully the portraiture of Christ's personality in this Gospel, Mark's specialty." Luke, describing the same incident, does not have the words "moved with compassion," but has the same construction that Mark uses "having stretched out His hand," an aorist participle, and "touched him," an aorist verb, but instead of using the finite verb "saith" of Mark, he uses the present participle "saying." This gives us a wonderful truth. The rule of Greek grammar that governs this construction is that the action of the present tense participle goes on simultaneously with the action of the leading verb. That is, Jesus was saying "I will" at the time He was touching the leper. But the thought "I will," the determination to follow out His desire to cleanse the leper, and the act of cleansing him, all preceded the spoken words and the outstretched hand. All of which means that our Lord did not touch the leper in order to cleanse him, but to show him and the people around, that he was cleansed of his leprosy. The Levitical law forbad a Jew to touch a leper. Our Lord lived under that law and obeyed it. The first kind touch of a human hand that leper ever experienced, was the gentle touch of the Son of God. How all this illustrates the sweet old story of the gospel. Leprosy is a type of sin. The sinner comes crying, "Unclean, unclean, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." And the Lord Jesus, moved with compassion, stretches out His hand touches him, saying, "I will, be thou clean." And, as in the case of the leper, He cleanse us from sin before He touches us. In Jn.1:12, justification precedes regeneration in the divine economy. Mercy is only given on the basis of justice satisfied. So it is, "But as many as appropriated Him, to them gave He a legal right to become born ones of God, to those who put their trust in His name." And so, as the sinner recognizes the Lord Jesus as the One who through His outpoured blood on the Cross, procured for sinful man a legal right to the mercy of God, he becomes the recipient of regeneration and of all the other parts of salvation. "Be thou clean." The verb is in the aorist passive imperative. That is, "be cleansed at once." It was an immediate cure. Translation: "And having been moved with compassion, having stretched out His hand, He touched him; and He says to him, I desire it. Be cleansed at once." TNICotNT-MARKlane86,7 - Adopting the reading of the so-called Western text, "moved with indignation," it is necessary to determine the subject of the phrase. The proposal that the subjectis the leper, who became so overwhelmed with his virtually hopeless plight that in blind rage he touched Jesus, is grammatically possible. The admonition in 1:43 would then have specific reference to this act after the leper had been made whole and was in a frame of mind to receive the rebuke. This would remove the difficulties posed by the strong words in 1:41 and 43. It is not likely, however, that this interpretation is correct, for it too easily removes the offense that later scribes clearly sensed in the text, and which gave rise to the predominantly attested reading, "moved with compassion." Assuming that Jesus is the subject, the anger can be understood as an expression of righteous indignation at the ravages of sin, disease and death which take their toll even upon the living, a toll particularly evident in a leper. As such, Jesus' encounter with the leper brings him once more into the sphere of the demonic. It is, perhaps, in this perspective that elements in the narrative which seem more appropriate to an exorcism narrative than to an account of healing are to be explained. The treatment of Jesus consisted of a gesture and a pronouncement. The touch of Jesus was significant from two points of view. From the perspective of the leper it was an unheard-of act of compassion which must have moved him deeply and strengthened him in his conviction he had not asked for help in vain. From the perspective of Jesus' relationship to the cultic and ritual system, it indicated that he did not hesitate to act in violation of its regulations when the situation demanded: "the ceremonial law gives place to the law of love when the two come into collision." Jesus' touch and his sovereign pronouncement mean the same thing: "I will, be clean." This was not a priestly pronouncement, as is made clear in vs.43-44, but a declaration that healing would follow immediately and completely. The text describes an instantaneous radical healing which was visible to all who met the man. NTC-MARKhendriksen78,9,80 - "So, while his heart went out to him"....It is Mark alone who mentions this. Literally, the translation would have to be "having been moved in his inner being" (his "entrails"). On this active sympathy of Jesus, a compassion that expressed itself in deeds, see also Mt.9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Mk.6:34; 8:2; Lk.7:13. However, it is not enough to study only such passages in which the very same verb occurs. See also passages of similar import and at times synonymous phraseology; for example, "He has taken our infirmities upon himself and carried our diseases" (Mt.8:17; cf. Mk.2:16; 5:19, 34, 36, 43; 6:31, 37; 7:37; 9:23, 36, 37,42; 10:14-16, 21, 43-45, 49; 11:25; 12:29-31, 34, 43, 44; 14:6-9, 22-24 (!); 16:7. Similar passages could be added from Luke and John. One stand amazed at the number of times this compassion of Jesus, this tenderness or outpouring of his heart in words and deeds of sympathy, is mentioned in the Gospels. He is constantly taking the condition of the afflicted ones "to heart." Living in the midst of a people who were placing all the emphasis on legal trivialities, which was true especially of the leaders, he stands out as the One whose emphasis is on "the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and fidelity" (Mt.23:23). The sorrows of the people are his own sorrows. He dearly and intensely loves the burdened ones, and is eager ot help them. "...he [Jesus] stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, I will; be cleansed." Repeatedly and in varying phraseology the Gospels speak of the healing touch of Christ's hands. To Mark 1:41 add 7:33; cf. Mt.8:3, 15; 9:29; 17:7; 20:34; Lk.5:13;7:14;22:51. Sometimes, however, the sick touched Jesus (Mk.3:10; 5:27-31; 6:56). Either way the afflicted ones were healed. Evidently in connection with such physical contact healing power issued from the Savior and was transmitted to the person in need of it (Mk.5:30; Lk.8:46). This, however, was no magic! The healing power did not originate in his fingers or his garment. It came straight from the divine and human Jesus, from his almighty will and infinitely sympathetic heart. There was healing power in that touch because he was, and is, "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb.4:15). It should not escape the reader that according to Mk.1:41 Jesus was "moved with compassion" when he stretched out his hand touched the leper. The leper's need and faith found an immediate response in the Savior's eagerness to help. And this readiness was one in which his power and his love embraced each other. It is sometimes said that between the words of the leper and those of Jesus there is perfect correspondence. This is correct in the sense that the two statements do not clash but are in full harmony, revealing even a partial identity of phraseology. One could also say, however, that the words of the Lord excel mere "correspondence." To be sure, the leper's "you can cleanse me" is answered by Christ's I can, indeed!" implied in his act of healing. But the leper's "if you will" is superseded by the Master's swift and splendid "I will." Here the will joins the power, and the subtraction of "if" conjoined with the addition of "Be cleansed" transforms a condition of hideous disease into one of hardy health. MARKj&d56 - "Moved with compassion." Jesus felt for the leper what he and his Father feel for all sinners, an unutterable compassion and love. "Touched" him--To have touched him was, in the eyes of a Jew, to have made himself unclean, but he had come to break through the deadly externalism that had taken the place of true religion, and could have shown no more strikingly how he looked on mere rabbinical precepts than by making a touch, which, till then, had entailed the worst uncleanness, the means of cleansing. Slight though it seemed, the touch of the leper was the proclamation that Judaism was abrogated henceforth.--Geikie. His hand became not unclean from the leprosy, but the leprous body was made clean by his holy hand.--Chrysostom. TCGTC-MARKcranfield92,3 - splagchnistheis. Read orgistheis... It is easy to see why an original orgistheis should have been altered to splagchnistheis, but not why an original splagchnistheis should have been changed to orgistheis. Moreover, neither Mt. nor Lk. has splagchnistheis here, which would be surprising if it was original in Mk. Why was Jesus angry? Was it (i) because the leper was breaking the Law (Lev.13:45f.) by approaching him, perhaps even coming into the house--exebalen; or (ii) because of the interruption of his preaching ministry; or (iii) because of the implied doubt about his will to heal ...; but it was surely right for the man to recognize Jesus' freedom and not take his response for granted--see Mt.6:10b; Mk.14:36c; or (iv) was his anger in a general way his reaction to the foul disease; or (v) was it anger with Satan at his disfigurement of God's creature? The last seems the most likely. Not only demon-possession but all disease was the devil's work (cf. Lk.13:16); and in his healing miracles Jesus was waging war on Satan's power. ekteinas tAn cheira autou. Lagrange compares Ex.7:19 and comments, 'a gesture of authority'; but it is better to regard the action simply as the necessary preliminary to touching him. hApsato. autou quite probably should be read after hApsato as well as before it: so D it vg. But anyway the sense is the same. According to the Law, to touch a leper was to incur defilement. (The Rabbis took extraordinary precautions to avoid even the remotest possibility of such defiling contact.) So Jesus' action is in line with his egw de legw humin (Mt.5:22, etc.). But, as in Mt.5 the egw de legw humin is counterbalanced by vv.17-19, so here his action is followed by the command of v.44b. His touching the leper does not imply disrespect for the Law, but rather reflects his consciousness of being the Son. Penetratingly Victor comments: 'But why does He touch the leper instead of effecting the cure by a word?...because defilement naturally does not touch the Saviour...and because He is Lord of His own Law.' His action expresses compassion. 'By His word alone He might have healed the leper,' says Calvin, 'but He applied...the touch of His hand, to express the feeling of compassion.' For Jesus' touching sufferers cf. 7:33; 8:22, and for their touching him 3:10; 5:27f., 30f; 6:56. katharisthAti. Cf. II Kgs 5:13 (the LXX has the same form exactly). When the priest pronounced a recovered leper clean, he used a similar expression, tAhartA (=kekatharisai) ...(Is there here a hint of the idea of Christ as priest?) Mark 1:42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him,; And immediately the leprosy left him--RSV; and he was cleansed.; and he was cured--Gspd; the man was healed-- Nor; and /straightway\ the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed; and he having spoken, immediately the leprosy went away from him, and he was cleansed. TRNTyeager599 - kai euthus apAlthen ap' autou hA lepra, kai ekatharisthA. kai (inferential conjunction). euthus (adverbial). apAlthen (3d.per.sing.aor.ind.of aperchomai, constative). ap' (preposition with the ablative of separation). autou (abl.sing.masc.of autos, separation). hA (nom.sing.fem.of the article in agreement with lepra). lepra (nom.sing.fem.of lepra, subject of apAlthen). kai (continuative conjunction). ekatharisthA (3d.per.sing.aor.pass.ind.of katharizw, culminative). Translation: "Therefore immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed." COMMENT: Cf.Mt.8:3; Lk.5:13 for comment. euthus emphasizes the instantaneity of the cure. Suddenly a loathsome, scaly leper, malodorously offensive to all, hopelessly caught in a web of misfortune that would drag him down to death, stood before our Lord, completely healed. MitGNTwuest42 - "And as soon as He had spoken." These words are not in the best texts. "The leprosy departed." The verb is apAlthon, literally, "to go off from," the prefixed preposition signifying separation. The man was completely separated from his leprosy. Translation: "And immediately there left him completely the leprosy, and he was cleansed. NTC-MARKhendriksen80 - "At once the leprosy left him and he was cleansed." Lk.5:13 refers to the departure of the leprosy; Mt.8:3, to the cleansing; Mark has both. The healings brought about by Jesus were complete and instantaneous. Peter's mother-in-law did not have to wait until the following day to be cured of her fever. The paralytic immediately begins to walk away, carrying his pallet. The withered hand is restored at once. The demoniac, wild a moment earlier, cutting himself with sharp stones, all at once is fully cured. The same holds with respect to the woman who touched Christ's garment. Even the dead daughter of Jairus is in one moment restored to life, so that she arises and starts walking. Let the healers of today imitate this! Let them cure every illness immediately. Yes, let them even raise the dead, for if their claim to be able to do what Jesus did and what he commanded his apostles to do, is valid, they should certainly also raise the dead (Mt.10:8). So far, however, they have not succeded in doing this. In fact, they have not even succeeded in getting rid of death by denying its existence. MARKj&d56 - "The leprosy departed." At the touch and command, the leprosy immediately departed and the man was well. TCGTC-MARKcranifield93 - euthus indicates the instantaneousness of the cure. ekatheristhA. Cf. II Kngs. 5:14. (For the spelling see Moulton, ... ). On the miracle see the concluding note on 1:29-31. Mark 1:43 And he straitly charged him,; ...strictly...--ASV; ...sternly...--RSV; and then Jesus, after sternly warning him--TCNT; and forthwith sent him away; immediately...-- TCNT; and sent him away at once--RSV; Then he dismissed him--NEB; and //strictly charging him\\ /straightway\ he urged him forth; And having sternly charged him, immediately he put him forth, TRNTyeager599 - kai embrimAsamenos autw euthus exebbalen auton. kai (continuative conjunction). embrimAsamenos (aor.mid.part.nom.sing.masc.of embrimaomai, adverbial, temporal). autw (dat.sing.masc.of autos, indirect object of embrimAsamenos). euthus (adverbial). exebalen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of ekballw, constative). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, direct object of exebalen). Translation: "And when He had sternly given him orders. He forthwith ordered him to leave." COMMENT: The content of Jesus' order is found in vs.44. The emotional essence of it is found in the participle embrimAsamenos. Cf.#831 and comment on Mt.9:30. Just why Jesus should have shown impatience or disgust is not clear. Just as the participle indicates to some degree the feelings of our Lord, so the verb exebalen is too strong a word for the usual act of sending someone on his way. Cf.#649 for other uses. Our Lord certainly was not eager for publicity. There are other reasons to be pointed out in comment on the next verse. Some have thought that Jesus was rebuking the leper for coming into the crowd, thus endangering others with his infection. Or that Jesus did not wish the leper in His presence. This is fanciful. It is rather to be supposed that Jesus wanted the leper to follow the instructions of vs.44, and forbade the action of vs.45. Cham139 - en 'within,' forms only fifty-five compounds, but these are very frequently used. ... Such compounds as embrimaomai (here) 'I have strong feeling within myself,' 'I am indignant,' ... have clearly the idea 'within.' Ear114 - Straitly Charged. The Greek participle embrimAsamenos expresses very strong feeling. In classical Greek it suggested snorting in anger. But most authorities agree that the idea here is that of "sternly warned" (NASB). "Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning" (NIV). probably captures the correct picture. But why did Jesus do this? Vs.44-45 furnish the answer. The Master did not want His miraculous healing ministry spectacularly publicized, because it hindered Him from His far more important preaching and teaching ministry. Then, as now, people were more concerned for their bodies than for their souls. MitGNTwuest42,43 - "He straightly charged him." The verb is embrimaomai from brimaomai "to be moved with anger." The word Mark uses means "to snort," and was used of horses. In the classics it meant "to be very angry, to be moved with indignation." In the Bible it has a use unknown to profane authors, "to charge with earnest admonition, sternly to charge, threateningly to enjoin." "Sent him away," ekballw "to throw out." Our Lord thrust the leper out from the crowd that was surrounding Him. Vincent says, "The reason for this charge and dismissal lay in the desire of Jesus not to thwart His ministry by awaking the premature violence of His enemies; who, if they should see the leper and hear his story before he had been officially pronounced clean by the priest, might deny either that he had been a leper or had been truly cleansed." Expositors says, "He (Mark) does not mean to impute real anger to Jesus, but only a masterful manner dictated by a desire that the benefit should be complete --, away, out of this, to the priest; do what the law requires, that you may be not only clean but recognized as such by the authorities, and so received by the people as a leper no longer." Robertson says that embrimaomai "expresses powerful emotion as Jesus stood here face to face with leprosy, itself a symbol of sin and all its train of evils." TNICotNT-MARKlane - The difficulty confronting the interpreter in the reference to anger in 1:41 recurs in vs.43. The language is very strong, and seems more appropriate in an address to a demon than to a man whom Jesus has just healed: "he inveighed against him and drove him away." While it is possible to give a milder translation of the terms used, the statement is intelligible as an expression of Jesus' exasperation because he foresaw the disobedience of the man. It is explicitly stated in verse 45 that Jesus was hindered from entering any further towns as a result of the man's failure to heed Jesus' injunction. As a consequence, the preaching mission within the synagogues of Galilee, reported in 1:39, was interrupted. TNICotNT-MARKlane84 - [footnote 142] There is a note of harshness in the term embrimAsamenos which is better expressed by the RSV, "he sternly charged him." NTC-MARKhendriksen80 - The verb "sternly warned (or: charged)" is interesting. Starting, perhaps, from the idea of the snorting of an impatient horse, or simply in general from the idea of making noise in anger, it is easy to see how readily this develops into "charge or warn sternly," as here and in Mt.9:30; and into "reproached" or "scolded." In this manner the disciples rebuked Mary of Bethany when they failed to understand that the language of love is lavishness (Mk.14:5). In Jn.11:33,38 the context indicates that a very broad meaning must be assigned to the verb: Jesus "was deeply moved in the spirit." MARKj&d56 - "Straitly charged him." Strictly and positively charged him. TCGTC-MARKcranfield93,4 - embrimAsamenos. The simple verb brimaomai is used rarely in classical Greek with the meaning 'be enraged with'. The compound embrimaomai is used by Aeschylus of horses snorting and in LXX (Dan.11:30; cf. Lam.2:6) of anger. By derivation (en + brimA, 'strength') it should denote strong feeling within oneself. In Jn.11:33,38 'groan' is a possible translation. In the other three places where it occurs in the NT (14:5; Mt.9:30; here) it has an indirect object. In 14:5 the meaning is perhaps 'upbraid'. The present instance and Mt.9:30 are more difficult. There is a close similarity between them. In both the verb is used of Jesus and the indirect object is someone whom he has healed. Some have seen here a reference to Jesus' anger at the leper's infringement of the Law; others a reference to the deep emotion he felt toward the leper (perhaps to be connected with his warfare with Satan and reflecting the great strain of the conflict and the costliness of the miracle); others connect the word closely with the injunction to silence. Perhaps the last is the most probable. The word would then refer to the stern and urgent admonition with which Jesus drove home the seriousness of his request for secrecy. The maintenance of his messianic veiledness was indeed an urgent matter. euthus exebalen auton. It is often maintained that ekballein here must mean something like 'thrust out', 'drive out', and it is sometimes suggested that the meaning is that Jesus thrust the man out of the house, which as a leper he should never have entered. But ekballein is sometimes used in the NT without any suggestion of force (e.g. Mt.7:4f.; 12:35; 13:52), and Jas.2:25 it probably means simply 'send away', 'dismissed'. Some idea of urgency is however present in euthus, and this haste is probably to be connected with Jesus' desire to avoid unnecessary publicity for his miracles. Mark 1:44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man:; Be sure you say nothing to anybody--NEB; and said to him: Be careful not to say anything to any one--TCNT; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest,; but go show thyself to the priest-- ASV; but begone! show yourself...--Gspd; but go, let the priest examine you--Beck; and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded,; and make the offering laid down by Moses for your cleansing--NEB; and make the offerings for your recovery which Moses prescribed--Phi; for a testimony unto them.; for a proof to the people--RSV; that will certify the cure--NEB; as evidence to the authorities-- Phi; so that the people might be notified--Rieu; and saith unto him-- Mind! //unto no one\\ say /aught\,--but withdraw, //thyself\\ show unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing what things Moses enjoined /for a witness unto them\. and saith to him, 'See thou mayest say nothing to any one, but go away, thyself shew to the priest, and bring near for thy cleansing the things Moses directed, for a testimony to them. TRNTyeager - kai legei autw, Hora mAdeni mAden eipAs, alla hupage seauton deixon tw hierei kai prosenegke peri tou katharismou sou ha prosetaxen MwusAs, eis marturion autois. kai (continuative conjunction). legei (3d.per.sing.pres.act.ind.of legw, historical). autw (dat.sing.masc.of autos, indirect object of legei). Hora (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of horaw, command). mAdeni (dat.sing.masc.of mAdeis, indirect object of eipAs). mAden (acc.sing.neut.of mAdeis, direct object of eipAs). eipAs (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of erw, command). alla (alternative conjunction). hupage (2d.per.sing.pres.act.impv.of hupagw, command). seauton (acc.sing.masc.of seautos, direct object of deixon). deixon (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv of deiknumi, command). tw (dat.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with hierei). hierei (dat.sing.masc.of hiereus, indirect object of deixon). kai (adjunctive conjunction, joining verbs). prosenegke (2d.per.sing.aor.act.impv.of prospherw, command). peri (preposition with the genitive of reference). tou (gen.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with katharismou). katharismou (gen.sing.masc.of katharismos, reference). sou (gen.sing.masc.of su, possession). ha (acc.pl.neut.of hos, direct object of prosenegke). prosetaxen (3d.per.sing.aor.act.ind.of prostassw, constative). MwusAs (nom.sing.masc.of MwusAs, subject of prosetaxen). eis (preposition with the accusative, purpose). marturion (acc.sing.neut.of marturion, purpose). autois (dat.pl.masc.of autos, personal interest). Translation: "...and He said to him, 'Take care that you say nothing to anyone, but go away, show yourself to the priest and bring those things which Moses commanded with reference to your cleansing, in order to witness to them." COMMENT: For Hora with the imperative mode Cf.Mt.9:30; 24:6. mAdeni mAden - a double negative - literally in English, "say not one thing to not one person." hupage is abrupt, as He said to Satan, "Get out of here" in Mt.4:10. Goodspeed properly translates, "Begone." The imperatives follow thick and fast - hupage,...deixon...prosenegke - "Go...show yourself...offer." Note the genitive of reference with peri. Also eis with the accusative to show purpose. Ch.#'s 173,140. Cf.Mt.8:4 for comment. Also Lk.5:14. The prohibition that Jesus placed upon the man is explained in the next verse. R619 - The preposition peri here implies a causal notion (cf. BD229[1]). MT124 - In this verse, hora is only a sort of particle adding emphasis to the imperative, "see that you say nothing to anyone." DM109 - Peri. Remote meanings: (1) in behalf of. (here). MitGNTwuest43 - "For a testimony unto them." This refers to the testimony of the priests to the people, to the effect that the leper was officially pronounced clean. Translation: "And sternly charging him, He immediately thrust him out, and says to him, See to it that you say nothing to anyone, but, go, show yourself to the priest, and present that offering with reference to your cleansing which Moses commanded, for a testimony to them." TNICotNT-MARKlane87,8 - Jesus commanded the former leper to be silent concerning his healing, and instructed him to show himself to the priests, who alone could declare him clean, and to offer the sacrifices prescribed in the Mosaic Law. The procedure to be followed was set forth in Lev.14:2-31, and involved different offerings depending on whether the man was poor or prosperous. In the first century the man had first to show himself to a priest in his place of residence, after which he must go to Jerusalem to be pronounced clean and to make the prescribed sacrifices. Jesus' demand that the man comply with Mosaic regulation is qualified by the words "for a testimony to them." This phrase may be interpreted differently depending on whether the testimony is considered to be positive or negative in character, and whether the people or the priests are in view. In keeping with the somber tone of the narrative it seems necessary to interpret the phrase in the negative sense demanded in the second instance where it occurs (1:39): "as a testimony against them." H. Strathmann's investigation has shown that the concept "testimony" or "witness" here, as in many passages, has the meaning of incriminating testimony which may serve as evidence for the prosecution. "Testimony" means a piece of proof which may be recalled and which can become an accusation. It is better to understand "them" as the priests, for it is they who must examine the man to determine whether the leprosy has been removed. Jesus' statement then means that if the priests establish that healing has taken place and accept the sacrifice for cleansing but fail to recognize the person and power through whom healing has come, they will stand condemned by the very evidence which they have supplied. The healing of the leper demonstrated that God had done something new. If they neglect this sign or deliberately refer this gracious act to an evil origin, the accomplished sacrifice will testify against them on the day of judgment. It was, therefore, imperative that the man comply with Jesus' instruction. It was necessary on his own behalf, but more important, he was to provide the evidence of the new thing God was doing, which if met with unbelief would serve as incriminating evidence against the priests. [footnote 155] - H. van der Loos ... where a number of varying interpretations are reviewed: the offerings which Moses prescribed will serve to authenticate the recovery to the people, or will indicate that Jesus does not subvert the Law, or that he who makes lepers clean has appeared. [footnote 156] - TWNT IV (1942) ... On p. 509 Strathmann interprets 1:44 to mean, if the priest should presently establish that the healing has taken place this will form for the people highly incriminating evidence against the unbelief in which they persist. It will militate against them and accuse them on the day of judgment. NTC-MARKhendriksen80,1 - Jesus does not want the man to publicize how and by whom he was cleansed. The reason(s) for this prohibition have not been revealed. Perhaps one reason was that the Master wanted to be known as "a bringer of good tidings," not most of all as "a miracle worker." It is, after all, the word, the message, which, applied to the heart by the HS, saves. See 1:38. Also, enthusiasm about Jesus as a miracle worker could have led to a premature crisis. This, too, he wishes to avoid. He is going to die for his people. But the "hour" decreed for this has not yet arrived. So, what the man was ordered to do was to go to Jerusalem and show himself to the priest. This implied that he must bring the required offering (Lev.14:1-7). That offering consisted of two clean, living birds. One had to be killed. In its blood the other bird had to be dipped and then released. The blood of the slain bird was also sprinkled over the healed man; inf fact, seven times. He was then pronounced cured. When the priests hear that it was Jesus who had so completely and instantly cured this man, they will have received an irrefutable testimony to Jesus' power and love. They will also know that even though Jesus condemns human traditions that make void God's holy law, he does not disobey that law. MARKj&d57 - "Say nothing to any man." Our Lord almost uniformly repressed the fame of his miracles, for the reason given in Mt.12:15-21, that, in accordance with prophetic truth, he might be known as the Messiah, not by wonder-working power, but by the great result of his work upon earth. See 12:16- 19. Thus the apostles always refer primarily to the resurrection, and only incidentally, if at all, to the wonders and signs. Another reason, perhaps, was that the Lord wished him to obtain the legal certificate of cleanness from the priest before too much was said. It might be refused through prejudice. "Show thyself to the priest." At Jerusalem. "Those things which Moses commanded." Viz., (1) two birds, "alive and clean" (Lev.14:4; (2) cedar wood, (3) scarlet, (4) hyssop; this was for the preliminary ceremony (Lev.14:4-7). On the eighth day further offerings were to be made--(1) two he-lambs without blemish, (2) one ewe-lamb, (3) three tenth deals of fine flour, (4) one log of oil. If the leper was poor, he was permitted to offer one lamb and two doves or pigeons, with one-tenth deal of fine flour. The law was still in force and the Lord strictly enjoins that it be observed. MARKmcgarvey272 - "for thy cleansing". -- The man had already been cleansed in the sense of being cured of his unclean disease, but that cleansing is not the one here referred to. According to the law of Moses a leper was still unclean, in the legal sense of the term, after the leprosy had entirely departed from him. When the disease had departed he was to be examined by a priest, to see if this were a fact, and then he was to procure two birds, one of which was to be slain and its blood caught in a vessel of running water; he was to be sprinkled seven times with this bloody water; was to wash his clothes, shave off his hair, and bathe his body in water, both on that day and the seventh day thereafter; and after all this he was clean. He was then allowed to approach the altar, where certain other offerings were to be presented. (See Lev.14:1-20.) it is this legal cleansing that is referred to in the text, and the offerings were in order to this cleansing, not, as some have supposed, because of the cleansing which had been already effected by the touch and the word of Jesus. "for a testimony." -- While the uncleanness from leprosy continued the unfortunate victim of it was excluded from all society, and compelled to remain outside the camp or city. (See the law on the subject, Lev.13:45,46; and an example of its enforcement, II Kings 7:3,4). When the offerings were presented these were a testimony that the person had been pronounced by the priest both physically and legally clean. MARKbarclay38 - If ever a leper was cured--and real leprosy was incurable, so it is some of the other skin diseases which must be referred to--he had to undergo a complicated ceremony of restoration which is described in Lev. 14. He was examined by the priest. Two birds were taken and one was killed over running water. In addition there was taken cedar, scarlet and hyssop. These ghings and the living bird were dipped in the blood of the dead bird and then the live bird was allowed to go free. The man washed himself and his clothes and shaved himself. Seven days then elapsed and he was re-examined. He had then to shave his hair, his head, his eye-brows. Certain sacrifices were made--two male lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb; three tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil and one log of oil. The amounts were less for the poor. The restored sufferer was touched on the tip of the right ear, the right thumb and the right great toe with blood and oil. He was finally examined and, if he was clear of the disease, he was allowed to go with a certificate that he was clean. Here is one of the most revealing pictures of Jesus. (i) He did not drive away a man who had broken the law. The leper had no right to have spoken to Him at all. Jesus met the desperation of human need with an understanding compassion. (ii) Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him. Jesus touched the man who was unclean. To Jesus he was not unclean; he was simply a human soul in desperate need. (iii) Having cleansed him, Jesus sent him to fulfil the prescribed ritual. Jesus fulfilled the human law and human righteousness. He did not recklessly defy the conventions, but, when need be, submitted to them. Here we see compassion, power and wisdom all conjoined. TCGTC-MARKcranfield94,5 - hora. For this use of the present imperative of horan followed asyndetically by a command or prohibition cf. 8:15; Mt.8:4; 9:30; 18:10; 24:6; I Thess.5:15. mAdeni mAden. In Greek two or more negatives of the same kind regularly strengthen one another provided the last is a compound, as here. For the command to tell no one see on 1:25. With seauton deixon tw lepei cf. Lev.14:2f., and with prosenegke k.t.l. cf. Lev.14:4-32. notice Jesus' attitude to the Law. Even the ritual Law is for him holy and to be respected. (On Jesus' attitude to the Law see further on 7:1-23; 10:1-12, 19-21.). peri here means 'in respect of'. katharismou here is better understood (pace Taylor) not of Jesus' cleansing (i.e. healing) the leper, but rather of the ritual cleansing prescribed in Lev.14:1-32. eis here indicates purpose. marturion autois. Various interpretations have been suggested. (i) If eismarturion autois is taken closely with prosetaxen MwusAs, the possibilities are: (a) a statute for Israel; cf. Ps.81:5 ... where marturion renders 'edut which is parallel with hok (R.V.: 'statute') in the previous verse; (b) a testimony to Israel (the real purpose of Moses' ordinances being to point to Christ; cf. Jn. 5:45f.). (ii) If eis marturion autois is taken with the whole sentence from seauton or prosenegke down to MwusAs, the interpretations are: (c) evidence for the priests or people in general that Jesus respects the Law; (d) evidence for the priests or people in general of the true significance of the one who has healed the leper; (e) evidence that will be used against the pople in the final judgement as a damning proof of their unbelief; (f) evidence for the priests or the people generally of the fact of the cure. Of these the last is perhaps the most likely. ... Mark 1:45 But he went out, and began to publish it much,; But he went out and began to talk freely about it--RSV; But the man went out and made the whole story public--NEB; and to blaze abroad the matter,; and to spread abroad...--ASV; and to spread the news--RSV; he spread it far and wide--NEB; insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city,; so that Jesus could no longer openly enter into a city--ABUV; until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town--NEB; but was without in desert places:; but was out in the country--RSV; and had to stay outside in unfrequented places--Phi; but had to stay out in the barren wastelands--Tay; and they came to him from every quarter.; Even so, people kept coming to him from all quarters--NEB; and still the people kept coming to him from everywhere--Beck; But /he\ going forth, began to be proclaiming many things, and blazing abroad the story, so that /no longer\ was it possible for him //openly\\ /into a city\ to enter,--but /outside, in desert places\ [was he], and they were coming unto him from every quarter. And he, having gone forth, began to proclaim much, and to spread abroad the thing, so that no more he was able openly to enter into the city, but he was without in desert places, and they were coming unto him from every quarter. TRNTyeager601,2 - ho de exelthwn Arxato kArussein polla kai diaphAmizein ton logon, hwste mAketi auton dunasthai phanerws eis polin eiselthein, all' exw ep' erAmois topois An; kai Archonto pros auton pantothen. ho (nom.sing.masc.of the article, subject of Arxato). de (adversative conjunction). exelthwn (aor.part.nom.sing.masc.of exerchomai, adverbial, temporal). Arxato (3d.per.sing.aor.mid.ind.of archw, ingressive). kArussein (pres.act.inf.of kArussw, complementary). polla (acc.pl.neut.of polus, direct object of kArussein). kai (adjunctive conjunction joining infinitives). diaphAmizein (pres.act.inf.of diaphAmizw, complementary). ton (acc.sing.masc.of the article in agreement with logon). logon (acc.sing.masc.of logos, direct object of diaphAmizein). hoste (conjunction introducing an infinitive in a result clause). mAketi (adverbial). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, general reference). dunasthai (pres.inf.of dunamai, result clause). phanerws (adverbial). evidently - Acts 10:3. openly - here; John 7:10. Meaning: The opposite of en kruptw. Openly. Not in secret. Cf. phaneros (#981), phanerow (#1960), phanerwsis (#4214) and phanos (#2803). eis (preposition with the accusative of extent). polin (acc.sing.fem.of polis, extent). eiselthein (aor.inf.of eiserchomai, complementary). all' (alternative conjunction). exw (adverbial). ep' (preposition with the locative of place). erAmois (loc.pl.masc.of erAmos, in agreement with topois). topois (loc.pl.masc.of topos, place where). An (3d.per.sing.imp.ind.of eimi, progressive description). kai (continuative conjunction). Archonto (3d.per.pl.imp.mid.ind.of erchomai, inceptive). pros (preposition with the accusative of extent). auton (acc.sing.masc.of autos, extent). pantothen (adverbial). on every side - Lk.19:43. round about - Heb.9:4. from every quarter - here. Meaning: Adverb; cf. pan (#67). From all sides; from every quarter. With reference to Israel's enemies - Lk.1(:43; the ark of the covenant was laid round about with gold - Heb.9:4; Jesus' audience came to Him from all sides - (here). Translation: "But when he left he began to proclaim many things and widely to spread the message, with the result that He was no longer able openly to enter the city, but remained instead outside, in a secluded spot, and they began to come to Him from all directions." COMMENT: de is adversative. Contrary to Jesus' orders the former leper went out and began (ingressive aorist in hArxato) to speak of many things. Here polla is a substantive, the direct object of kArussein. He told it wherever he went. Note ton logon in the same sense in Acts 8:21; 15:6; 19:38. Cf.#510. The result was as Jesus had anticipated - mAketi auton dunasthai...eiseltheirn...k.t.l. The leper's story increased Jesus' popularity and thus the size of the crowds who came and demanded His services. This hindered His preaching ministry - the purpose for which He had embarked upon this tour. (Mk.1:38). The popular acclaim also stirred to jealousy and animosity His enemies in the Jewish establishment. Once before His popularity had forced His exit from Judea (Jn.4:1-3). Now He is compelled to remain (An) out in the desert. ep' and the locative may be seen elsewhere, e.g. in Mt.14:8,11; Mk.6:25,28,55; Acts 3;11. But though Jesus could not enter into any town, He could not prevent the people from coming to Him from every direction. Cf.Lk.5:15. The student is reminded again of the material expounded in TRNT, I, 189-193. It is still early in Jesus' ministry. Israel's Messiah has come, indeed as the King of the Jews, but on this, His first mission, not to reign, but to die for the sins of the elect. The distinction between the two comings of Messiah is at this point unknown to Israel. As Messiah He has come, not to deny the law of Moses, but to fulfill it (Mt.5:17-19). He healed the leper with a miraculous touch, but had He not charged the leper with the responsibility of Mk.1:44, His action would have been misunderstood. Jesus' task is a pedagogical one. The teacher must begin with what the student currently understands and gently lead on from there. Later in His ministry, Jesus openly declared that He had come to die, and that the promise of the Kingdom Age must await the completion of the missionary enterprise. Mark's first chapter has covered the events in the ministry of Jesus of approximately the first year . H446 - Polla is used with an adverbial sense, "to talk freely." Ear114 - Publish. The Greek word is kArussw, which means to "herald" or "proclaim." The man doubtless thought he was doing a great thing, but he was disobeying Jesus. Ear114,5 - Blaze Abroad. This is a one-word compound in Greek, the verb diaphAmizw. It means "make known by word of mouth, spread the news about"--here, "spread widely, disseminate" (AG). The cleansed leper was a powerful publicity agent, but it was not the kind of publicity that Jesus wanted. MitGNTwuest43 - "To publish" is kArussw "to make a public proclamation." The infinitive is present in tense, speaking of a continuous proclaiming. "To blaze abroad" is diaphAmizw "to blaze abroad," and speaks of continuous action. "The matter" is logos, the account of the healing. "The city." There is no article in the Greek text. Jesus was unable to enter any city. "Came" is Archonto, an imperfect, "They kept on coming." Expositors says: "What Jesus feared seems to have happened. The man went about telling of his cure, and neglecting the means necessary to obtain social recognition as cured. This cure and the popularity it caused may have cooperated to bring Christ's synagogue ministry to an abrupt termination by stirring up envy. Jesus was between two fires, and His order to the leper, "Go, show thyself," had a double reference: to the man's good and to the conciliation of the scribes and synagogue rulers." Translation: "But having gone out, he began to constantly proclaim in public a great deal, and to be blazing abroad the account, so that no longer was He able to enter a city, but was outside in uninhabited places. And they kept on coming to Him from everywhere." TNICotNT-MARKlane88,9 - It is not known whether the man obeyed the injunction to show himself to a priest. He blatantly disregarded the injunction to silence, and assumed the posture of a missionary, declaring publicly over an extended area what the had experienced from Jesus. The result was that Jesus' ministry in the synagogue was hampered, for he was no longer able to enter any town without encountering crowds of people waiting to throng one who could heal a leper, claiming benefactions for themselves. This was not the mission Jesus had come to fulfill. When he withdrew to places of solitude the people pursued him, but they understood neither Jesus nor the significance of his withdrawal to a place which recalled the wilderness in which his submission to the Father had been affirmed. This incident has an important position in the Marcan outline. it serves to terminate the preaching tour of the Galilean villages and provides the point of transition to the five accounts of controversy which follow (2:1-3:6). The pericope establishes the surpassing nature of the salvation which Jesus brings, for while the Law of Moses provided for the ritual purification of a leper it was powerless to actually purge a man of the disease. In all the OT only twice is it recorded that God had healed a leper (Num. 12:10ff.; II Kg.5:1ff.), and the rabbis affirmed that it was as difficult to heal the leper as to raise the dead. The cleansing of the leper indicates the new character of God's action in bringing Jesus among men. Salvation transcends cultic and ritual regulations, which were powerless to arrest the hold that death had upon the living, and issues in radical healing. NTC-MARKhendriksen81,2,3 - "...began to publish." Is this "began" (26 times in Mark) a redundant auxiliary? Would not its consistent omission spoil Mark's graphic style? Cf., however, 6:7, footnote 233. In vs.40 we saw the leper at his best. Now, in vs.45, we see him at his worst. By this act of inexcusable disobedience he deprived many towns of the blessings that might have come their way if Jesus could have entered. Cf. Luke 11:52b. "Yet people came to him from everywhere." The work of Jesus did not suffer complete interruption. Men are divided into two groups: a. those who wait until the messenger comes to them; b. those who go out to find and hear the one who brings the message. From all around this latter group came to Jesus. It is not the leper on whom our main attention should be riveted. Rather, it should be bestowed upon the Benefactor, who was willing to pour an inestimable blessing upon a man so unworthy. Summary of Chapter 1:14-45 The material under this heading may be divided as follows: a. The beginning of the Great Galilean Ministry (1:14,15). Between Christ's baptism and temptation, on the one hand, and his arrival in Galilee, on the other, about a year may have elapsed, spent mostly in Judea. At the end of that year his popularity had become such that remaining any longer in and around Jerusalem, the headquarters of the Jewish religious leaders, would have been inadvisable. John the Baptist had been imprisoned. Even before that had happened the crowds following Jesus were already larger than those following John. So naturally, when John was completely removed, the only Leader commanding respect was Jesus. Result: hughe crowds listening to the Master, many believing in him; increased envy among scribes, Pharisees, priests; the decision of Jesus to leave for the north, that is, for Galilee. Arrived there, "The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand," was his message. He announced that the reign of God in the hearts and lives of men would begin to assert itself more powerfully than ever before, with great blessings in store for many, especially for those who would turn to God and believe the gospel. b. The calling of four fishermen (vs.16-20). Going along the Sea of Galilee, Jesus calls to himself Peter and Andrew, who were fishing when they heard Jesus say to them, "Come, follow me, and I will make y o u to become fishers of men." Immediately they obeyed. So did also James and John who, at a little distance away from the others, were mending their nets. They left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed Jesus. All four, though already acquainted with Jesus, now start training in earnest for apostleship. c. The healing of a man with an unclean spirit (vs.21-28). In the synagogue at Capernaum Jesus teaches. The people are amazed about the content and the method of his teaching. In the synagogue that sabbath there was a man with an unclean spirit. "Why do you bother us?" said the demon, making use of the man's vocal organs. "Have you come to destroy us?" The evil spirit seemed to fear that even now Jesus would hurl him and his fellow- demons into the place where Satan is kept. Jesus commanded the demon to leave the man. Throwing him into convulsions and causing him to shriek loudly, the demon got out of him. Reaction on the part of the synagogue audience to Christ's teaching and demon- expulsion in the synagogue: utter amazement. Curtailing the power of Satan ("binding the strong man") and opening the hearts of men for the reception of the gospel ("mission activity") are closely connected both in the Gospels and elsewhere (for ex., Rev.20:1-3). d. The healing of Simon's mother-in-law and of many others (vs.29-34). We find Jesus, Peter, Andrew, James, and John at Peter's home. Simon's (=Peter's) mother-in-law is laid up with a high fever. The help of the Master has been requested. Jesus "stood over her" (Luke), "touched her" (Matthew), "took her by the hand and lifted her up" (Mark). At once the fever left her so completely that she began to wait on her guests. So quickly did the report of what Jesus had done in the synagogue and immediately afterward spread that at sabbath's close people started to bring to Jesus those that were sick and/or demon- possessed. To all those many people Jesus granted deliverance from their afflictions. Yet he did not allow the demons to speak. Why not? One reason may have been that he did not want to be known chiefly as a miracle-worker. He wanted the people to take to heart his words even more than to be amazed by his works. e. Christ's pre-dawn prayer, etc. (vs.35-39). After such a long, strenuous day Jesus felt the need of quiet communion with his Father. Therefore very early in the morning he left the house (Peter's? His own?) and departed to a lonely place, where he prayed. The Gospels report that Jesus prayed on many occasions, urged prayer upon his followers, and even showed them how to pray. Christ's devotions, however, were interrupted by the exclamation of Peter (and company), "Everybody is looking for you!" Peter and the others wanted to take Jesus right back to Capernaum. But Jesus refused. He wanted to distribute his favors among the people of many towns and villages. Did he perhaps also wish to impress upon the citizens of Capernaum that those who had received should now begin to give? "Let us go elsewhere, to the next towns," he said, "that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I came forth," meaning: from heaven to earth. Preaching and demon-expulsions throughout Galilee followed. f. A leper cleansed (vs.40-45). Probably while Jesus was on the Galilean circuit mentioned by Mark in vs.39 a leper came up to him. In spite of Lev.13:45,46 he came close enough to be touched by Jesus. Falling on his knees he begged the Master, "If you will, you can cleanse me." Mark's Gospel reports that the heart of Jesus went out to this sorely afflicted man. The Healer siad, "I will; be cleansed." At once the leprosy left him and he was completely cured. Not only that, but Jesus even saw to it that the man's standing among the public and in the religious life of Israel would be completely restored. For that purpose he sent him to Jerusalem so that he might bring the offerings stipulated by the Mosaic law, might be pronounced cured, and would then be able to take his place in society without being shunned by anyone. This very cure would bear testimony to the priesthood with reference to Christ's greatness and his obedience to the divine law. Jesus, for reasons not stated, charged the man not to broadcast what had happened to him: how and by whom he had been healed. Upon the dark background of the cleansed leper's disobedience the mercy of jesus stands out all the more triumphantly. MARKj&d57 - "Began to publish." Where men ought to publish Christ, alas! how silent are they. Here, when the great Savior commanded silence, this man will publish the cure. Thus our Lord's work was hindered. How many from ill-timed zeal prevent much good! "Could no more openly enter into the city." Not the city of Capernaum, but any city or town. He was compelled to go into the desert places. He was unable, because, the moment that his presence was recognized in a town, he was liable to be surrounded and hemmed in by a surging crowd of ignorant, and ignorantly expectant, gazers, wonderers and volunteer followers. One sees now how wise it was to tell the leper to hold his tongue. "And they came to him from every quarter." The people kept coming to him, not- withstanding the difficulty of reaching him, and the inconvenience connected with a sojourn, even for a very limited period, in an unpopulated district. MARKmcgarvey272,3 - "could nor more openly enter." -- Every miracle which Jesus wrought of a kind different from those which had become somewhat familiar, increased the already intense excitement among the Galileans, and to such a pitch did the excitement now run, that the crowds became immense. This was unfavorable to calm thought, and therefore Jesus retired to desert places where comparatively few would follow him. Argument of Section 2. In this section Mark has furnished a striking exhibition of both the divine authority and the divine power of Jesus. Such was the authority which he could exercise over men, that when he commanded the four fishermen to follow him, they left all they had on earth, without a question or a moment's delay, and followed him. And such was the authority with which he commanded demons, that although these wicked spirits were not willingly obedient, they instantly departed from their victims at his bidding. Such, too, was his power, that at his touch the malignant fever, the incurable leprosy, and all the maladies which afflict the body, were instantly healed. Such, finally, was his unexampled meekness, that amid these displays of divine authority and power, when popular applause ran high, he retired by night to pray, or wandered away into desert places. His meekness was as high above the capacity of a merely human being, as were his mriacles. Differences from Matthew. One of the characteristic differences between Mark and Matthew, their difference in regard to arrangement, is conspicuous in their modes of treating the subject-matter of the preceding section. Mark uses almost the same material with Matthew, but how differently he arranges it! They both begin with the removal of Jesus to Galilee, after the imprisonment of John, and follow this with the call of the four fishermen; but Matthew next introduces the general statement of the preaching throughout Galilee (4:23-25), which Mark reserves until after the cures at Simon's house (1:39); he next devotes considerable space to the sermon on the mount, which Mark omits; then he introduces as his first mentioned miracle the cure of the leper (8:1-4), which is the third miracle mentioned by Mark (1:4-45); his second miracle is the cure of the centurion's servant (8:5-13), of which Mark says nothing; his third is that of Simon's mother-in-law, which is the second with Mark; and finally, they unite in following this last miracle with the cures at Simon's door. This difference alone is sufficient proof that Mark's narrative is not an abridgment of Matthew's. TCGTC-MARKcranfield45 - It has been suggested that the subject of Arxato is Jesus (there has been no indication of a change of subject since legei in v.44) and that ton logon means the gospel (cf. vv.14f.); but it is better to take the subject of Arxato to be the leper (in spite of the awkward change of subject this involves at auton in the middle of the verse) and ton logon to refer to the news of the cure. The redundant Arxato is perhaps a Semitism. polla is used adverbially. maketi...dunasthai. I.e. he could not, if he was to fulfill his ministry according to his own plan. polin. 'A town', rather than 'the town'. Archonto. Indefinite plural: 'people came'.