The New Way - Mark 2:18-22

18 Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?”

19 Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. 20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

21 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.” (Mark 2:18-22 New International Version)

This passage in the Second Chapter of Mark is the climax and summary of the three previous stories about Jesus' new teaching on inclusion and community over the letter of the law and religious practice. The opening statement of the Gospel, that Jesus is the Messiah, God's chosen king to bring about the new eschatological era for Israel, is reiterated with the previous stories illustrating the new covenant he brings and how it differs from the old. Zealous pursuit of the letter of the law and religious ritual is characterized as the old way while a focus on community, inclusion and principles of mercy and justice behind the Law are portrayed as a totally new way and not merely an addition to the existing ethos which is to be abandoned in favour of the new.

All three synoptic Gospels share this story and all three place it directly after the story about the calling of Levi and the Pharisees' criticism of Jesus and his disciples for eating at Levi's home with tax collectors and sinners.  It seems clear that this passage is a continuation of this story with the question about Jesus' disciples not fasting suggesting that instead of taking part in the regular fasting period of the disciples of the Pharisees and John the Baptist, the disciples of Jesus were eating with tax collectors and sinners at Levi's home.

This sets up an opportunity to contrast the vision of Jesus and the vision of the Pharisees.  The writer insists that Jesus' teaching is not just an addition or amplification of the existing, but something completely new.  Jesus' "Way" is compared to new cloth which must be used to make a new garment or a new wine requiring new wineskins.  It can not be used as a patch on the existing way, but requires that it be made into an entirely new garment.  The old way can not be used as a vessel for the new, but requires a new vessel, or both will be ruined. 

Judaic thought of the time, as represented by John and the Pharisees, was one of a community of exclusive holiness.  Only by the people becoming more holy and purging themselves of the unclean, fulfilling their side of the covenant through strict adherence to the 
Law, would God fulfill his side and drive out their oppressors and make them a nation again.  This could only be accomplished through increased zeal in meeting the letter of the law for the purity and holiness regulations and rituals as a community.  This mindset demanded the exclusion and censuring of those who did not, or could not, meet these practices to the level demanded.  We see this in this passage and the preceding stories through the exclusion and condemnation of the disabled, the ill, and those not tithing or meeting the purity practices and rituals.

The new way of Jesus as illustrated by the three preceding stories envisions a community of inclusive compassion.  Laws, practices and individual behaviour are secondary to a whole and inclusive community and to the principles of community, compassion and equality behind the law.  This is illustrated in the previous stories by Jesus going out of his way and even breaking purity laws and religious practice to bring into community those who were excluded and even reviled:

• Absolution of a disabled man who could not fulfill the temple sacrifice forgiven
• Holiness practices disregarded as part of healing a leper
• Fasting forgone in preference to honouring tax collectors and sinners.

__________________________ 

Their hearts, closed to God’s truth, clutch only at the truth of the Law, taking it by ‘the letter,’ and do not find outlets other than in lies, false witness, and death,” Pope Francis 

 https://sojo.net/articles/pope-francis-again-blasts-moral-legalism-religious-leaders

 __________________________

Pope Francis is someone who understands the community of Mark's teaching of the way of Jesus.  As part of his homily at Mass on April 11, 2016, the Pope criticized those who care more about the letter of the law than people’s individual situations.  This Pope understands that community is more important than "purity".

The fundamental nature of this message as central to the way of Jesus is spelled out by the community of Mark in the portion of the passage where Jesus is related as describing himself as a bridesgroom.  This is a common metaphor in the Tanakh (Jewish Scriptures) where the relationship between God and the people of Israel is described as one between husband and wife.  Recasting Jesus as the husband in this allusion is a reoccurring one in early Christianity and common to the movement.  It is seen in the earlier Epistles of Paul and the much later Gospel of John.  In the Third Chapter of the Gospel of John, John the Baptist is presented as referring to Jesus as both the messiah and a bridesgroom with the crowds who moved away from himself to Jesus referred to as the bride.

The metaphor of God as the spouse of Israel is a common one in the mindset of the Second Temple Period.  It also has a strong eschatological connection.  In the book of Hosea, this marriage ends in a separation or divorce because of Israel's unfaithfulness. The eschatological or messianic age is given as a time when the marriage between God and Israel will be renewed. 

"...a marriage metaphor was often used to describe God’s relationship with his people in the Hebrew Bible. The marriage ended in disaster because Israel was an unfaithful spouse. But in the eschatological age, God will restore Israel to her former position and create a new covenant with them. God in fact does a miracle by restoring the faithless bride to her virgin state and re-wedding her in the coming age... Jesus stands in this prophetic tradition when describes the eschatological age as a wedding celebration and himself as the bridegroom in Mark" Richard D. Patterson   https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-4/JETS%252051-4%2520689-702%2520Patterson.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjQ7rah-YfMAhXBtIMKHfv2DH44HhAWCB0wAg&usg=AFQjCNEhyN3tD5sQeU7ydmJWyI7M56gUQA&sig2=TzN7_iMq17iJCOcPSqhhlA

The authority of this new teaching, this new way, is that of the messiah who ushers in the renewed marriage between God and his people, a new relationship where no one is excluded.  The meal with the sinners and tax collectors becomes a wedding feast celebrating this new covanent where those who were excluded and reviled are honoured and no one is turned away.  Legalism and ritual are swept away in an outpouring of community that embraces all.

Even Tax Collectors - Mark 2:13-17

13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.  15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”  17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:13-17 NIV)

In this next passage from the second Chapter of Mark, we are given yet another story of Jesus demonstrating the inclusive nature of his ministry and of his coming kingdom.  This is the third story, one right after the other, about the inclusiveness of Jesus. Rabbi Dr. Hillel ben David (Greg Killian) relates that according to Jewish law, once something is done three times it is considered a permanent thing (http://www.betemunah.org/three.html). This is called a “chazakah".  For the community of Mark to put three stories in a row centered on Jesus' inclusion of those considered outsiders in the society of his time is a strong and definitive statement about the importance of inclusion as a defining principle in their understanding of the way of Jesus.

Let's look at these three stories:

In the previous passage Jesus is shown as forgiving the sins of a man who by nature of being crippled was excluded from the temple and the temple practice of sacrifice and forgiveness.  As such he was a religious and social outcast. The community of Mark used this story to illustrate that none among them were by their nature, or by virtue of who they were, excluded from Jesus' kingdom, or the full fellowship of God.  


The story before that was the healing of the leper.  The man with leprosy breaks the rules regarding proximity and social contact for lepers when he approaches Jesus.  He puts Jesus, and the crowd that was most likely around him, at risk of becoming unclean themselves and unable to worship God until they underwent purification. Jesus, however, instead of shunning or rebuking him, not only interacted with the man, but also touched him to heal him, making himself ritually unclean.  

Lepers were considered to be in a constant state of ritual impurity and were excluded from the community worship of God and from interaction with, "clean", people.  Jesus' compassion in wanting to see the man returned to fellowship with the people and with God overrode any concerns over his own religious purity and ritual cleanliness.  The community of Mark included Gentiles and women, people who were by their very nature considered to be, "unclean", by Judaic law and ineligible for full communion and worship of God.  This story told them that they were included, that no ritual or religious law could bar them from full membership in the community and the faith, and that Jesus' coming kingdom was for all of them.

The third story on the principle of inclusion is the passage we are currently looking at.  Here Jesus calls a Tax Collector named Levi to follow him, to become one of his disciples.  He is also criticized for eating at Levi's house with tax collectors and, "sinners".  Let's start off by looking at Tax Collectors in first century Palestine and the people's perception of them.

Tax Collectors were reviled by the Jews of Jesus' time because they were usually fellow Jews collaborating with the Roman occupiers.  They were seen as greedy opportunists using the oppression of their fellow Jews as a source of profit for themselves.  They worked for tax farmers, a form of revenue leasing where the tax collector leases the right to collect and retain the whole of the money owed to the state in return for a fixed payment.  Known to cheat the people they collect from by collecting more than what was required, they were usually well to do and formed their own elite social group.

Tax Collectors were seen by the Jewish community and particularly the Religious Leaders as enemies to both them and God, to be shunned and despised like lepers and the disabled.  Think of the Nazi collaborators in France during the German occupation and how the people of France viewed them.  The Tax Collectors not only gained profit by supporting the people's oppressors, they were in competition with the collection of the Temple taxes and the tithes.   The Religious Authorities believed the people of Israel needed to pay these tithes and Temple taxes to be right with God as part of carrying out their side of their Covenant with God.  It was believed that the reason God had allowed them to be defeated as a nation was a lack as a people in fullfilling the obligations of Covenant in terms of the Law and that they needed to follow the regulations to a greater degree before God would rid them of the Roman occupiers and make them a nation again.

The Tax Collectors, if not unpopular enough, used violence, or the threat of violence in order to extort their money from the people under the auspices and authority of Rome and the backing of the occupying Roman military forces. 

To appreciate how the Jewish people felt about Publicans, consider the modern parallel of the Black community in the town of Ferguson Missouri. We have watched on television the protests and rallies against the white city officials and judiciary who use legalized force to exploit and further impoverish the Black community.  In Ferguson they do this through a de facto taxation system of laws and regulations targeted at extorting money specifically from members of the Black Community.  The Jewish community would have harbored a similar resentment to their exploitation by Tax Collectors for Roman taxes.

Now, in the Gospel story so far, Jesus has already gained a great deal of popularity with the people and a popular Rabbi calling someone to be his talmidim, or disciple, was a great honour and a great commitment on both their parts.  To bestow this honour on someone from a group considered to be an enemy of the Jewish people and their return to nationhood was shocking to say the least.  To the teachers of the law who were Pharisees, this was close to both heresy and treason.

To put this into perspective, imagine a Christian faith healer and teacher with a following in the Southern U.S. gaining a lot of attention, drawing crowds due to his miraculous faith healings and growing in popularity among Christians there.  Imagine him publicly picking a newly immigrated Gay Socialist Transvestite Arab as one of his inner circle.  Like the Pharisees of Jesus day, the leaders of the Religious Right would be outraged.

"God hates them" 

"These people are the reason God is not blessing us, the reason why we are no longer great" 

"God is punishing us because we tolerate this kind" 

"We need to get rid of them in order for God to bless us and bring us prosperity and victory again"

Jesus drove his message further home by having dinner at Levi's house with a group of tax collectors and "sinners", those who did not tithe or follow the Jewish purity rituals and practices.  Eating with tax collectors and sinners is the issue that the teachers of the law who were Pharisees criticize him for.  To fully understand why this offended them, one has to look at table politics and etiquette in first century Judea.

Commensality, the practice of eating together, or its absence, was a sign of group membership. "Likes eat with Like." The meals of Judeans showed their group affiliation, or their separation. Food also functioned as a metaphor for the word of God. Concern for doctrinal and ethnic purity were mirrored in the dietary and commensality practices. 

Food, articulated in terms of who eats what with whom under which circumstances, had long been one of the most important languages in which Jews conceived and conducted social relations among human beings and between human beings and God. Food was a way of talking about the law and lawlessness (Gillian Feeley-Harnik1981:72).  
https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/meals.html

For the pharisaical teachers of the law, Jesus, who claimed authority to teach Scripture and therefore be one of their group, was acting as if their group included "these kind" of people.  He included those who were considered outside of the fellowship and love of God in the same group as the Teachers of the Law who considered themselves as holy and set apart.  By proclaiming the Tax Collectors and Sinners to be members of the same group as the Teachers of the Law, Jesus was also demanding that the Teachers of the Law treat them as they treat each other.  By eating with them he proclaimed them to be as special to God as the Teachers of the Law. This may be the main message of the community of Mark; all are included in the fellowship and love of God with no special favorites and none excluded. 

All are included in the fellowship and love of God with no special favorites and none excluded.

Now some with a more "fundamentalist" perspective of Christianity as a religion of rules, condemnation and control might focus on the last verse of the passage, verse seventeen, where Jesus replies to the question the Tachers of the Law who were Pharisees asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

A "conservative" view might see this as Jesus condemning the Tax Collectors and those at the meal who did not observe Jewish religious practices, the "sinners", and inferring that the only reason he associated with them was to cure them of the wickedness of their behavior and lifestyle.  I can picture the conservative mind imagining the scene at the meal consisting of Jesus lecturing them on the wickedness of their ways and refusing any fellowship and companionship that might taint him with their influence until they had agreed to bow their knee and recite the Sinner's Prayer with him.

However, there is no lecturing, preaching or condemnation by Jesus mentioned in the story.  In fact, the only group of people that Jesus ever condemns or lectures throughout the Gospels is the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.  What sort of lecture would Jesus preach during the meal to correct the "sinners" the Pharisees talk about?  What might he preach to those who failed to keep the Jewish purity rituals, laws and regulations which the Pharisees felt were the requirement to be right with God and an accepted part of their community?  Jesus himself was constantly being criticized by the Pharisees for not following these regulations to the degree they felt required.  He and his disciples didn't observe the proper washing rituals before eating and they were lax in following the dietary rules.  In fact in one of the Gospel stories when Jesus is sending out his disciples to teach his way, he specifically tells them when staying in someone's home to eat whatever is put before them without question.  He was always pushing the boundaries and deliberately breaking the religious laws, healing on the Sabbath, touching lepers, eating with the "unclean" to prove that the principles of equality, compassion and justice behind the law are more important than blind adherence.

To see Jesus' table fellowship with sinners as correction rather than inclusion also depends on the dubious presumption that Jesus considers the Pharisees and teachers of the law as healthy and righteous in terms of being preferred by God and in a right and whole relationship with God.  Since Jesus is answering the Pharisees it could appear he is implying that the Pharisees and their ilk are the healthy and the righteous, but I don't think that is what is going on here.

 

As we saw in the two earlier stories, sickness and disability is not associated with individual failing, moral lack, or a fundamental ineligibility to be part of community in this Gospel.  The issue is not the leprosy or the lameness per say, it is with how it causes the person to be excluded from the community and the community's fellowship with God.  Once Jesus personally absolves the lame man's sin he solves the man's problem of being excluded due to his inability to participate in Temple sacrifice and gain his forgiveness along with the rest in his community in that manner.  The healing is then an afterthought to prove a point to the teachers of the law.

One of the mistakes we as modern readers make with these stories is that we project our own cultural prejudices and values on them.  Individualism is a strong cultural perspective for us, but in this time community was the much stronger focus.  I believe the sickness that the writer has Jesus refer to is the exclusion of the Tax Collectors and "sinners" from the Jewish community, exclusion from fellowship with the community of God. It is a sickness of the community, not of the "sinner".

Note that Jesus never asks the sinners and tax collectors to change their actions and there is no discussion indicating that they make any changes.  The only action, the only change in behaviour, was on the part of Jesus and his disciples in including the outcasts as part of their group and as part of the wider religious and social community.

 

In the Gospel of Luke there is another story about Jesus eating in the home of a Tax Collector.  Jesus publically invites himself to the home of a chief tax collector named Zacchaeus.  In this story there is a change in behaviour by the outcast. When Jesus comes to his home, Zacchaeus pledges to give half of his goods to the poor and to restore fourfold anything he has taken from anyone by false accusation.  Nowhere in the story does Jesus condemn him or instruct him to do these things.  It is just a heartfelt reaction to the respect and dignity Jesus shows him through inclusion.

It is probably fitting to note here that the Gospels have Jesus state that all the Commandments and the Law, all that God expects of us, can be fulfilled by loving God and loving our neighbour as ourselves.  The only new commandment they have him give is that we love one another as he has loved us.

The Jesus of this passage as portrayed by the Community of Mark has little to no concern about rules to control peoples' behavior, or how individuals stack up to some behavioural standard.  His concern is only about the inclusion, the love, and the respect that the community should show everyone irregardless of their behavior or practices.  It is all about the faith that including and respecting others will generate a love that will be contagious and inspire others to act in the same way.  The only behaviour targeted is that of the wider community in excluding and margainalizing some of it's members.  That this inclusion and respect often inspires those ot embraces to act in the way they have been loved and respected is just a byproduct of the wholeness Jesus calls us to.

Your Sins Are Forgiven - Mark 2:1-12

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

In the beginning of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark, we are back in Capernaum in the, "Galilee of the Gentiles".  This choice of setting by the community of Mark, who we believe had a large Gentile segment, was likely deliberate.  They may have found it important to portray Jesus as delivering his message primarily in areas that had a known Gentile population to reinforce to themselves that Jesus' teaching was not just for Jews.  There must have also been some importance to the community in telling the story of Jesus' early ministry as a rural populist movement.  They have him begin with rural grassroots support before moving him to the large urban centre of Jerusalem.

On his return to Capernaum, Jesus has gained quite a reputation and a large crowd has gathered to hear him; so large that they overflowed the meeting place and were surrounding the building to hear his word.  This must have irked the religious authorities to no end, particularly the, "teachers of the law".  These were religious leaders who had not yet gained the credentials to give their own interpretation, or teaching, but had completed the training and had the permissions to teach accepted interpretations and teachings from those who did.  

The teachers of the law, to get this title would have to have been the best at their Beth Sefer and then their Beth Midrash.  They may have already spent time as a student of a certified Rabbi in order to work their way to the point where they might someday be considered as a candidate for semicha, Rabbinic ordination, and be granted their own s'mikhahto, "authority", and be able to give their own teaching.  Now they had to watch this country bumpkin, shaman, and faith healer draw in crowds of admirers that had come to hang on the words of a teaching he had no right or authority to give.  Why should he get the honour and respect that should be shown to those like themselves who had worked for it and earned it.  No wonder they were spoiling for a fight and looking to find fault that they might discredit him with the people.

Jesus provides that fault when he tells the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven.  Actually, Jesus identifies what their criticism is going to be before they even get a chance to say it.  "Only God can forgive sins.  Are you so deluded that you think you are God?"  The writer answers the question both for the crowd in the story and for those Jews that would have questioned the legitimacy of Jesus as a criticism of the writer's community.  He does it in a way that both denies Jesus' divinity and establishes his right to give his teaching.

The writer does this in two ways; first in the title he has Jesus claim, and second in the act of healing the paralyzed man.  In Jesus response to the question, "Do you think you are God", he calls himself, "the Son of Man".  This both denies any claim at divinity and names his authority as stemming from his role as one of God's Prophets, one that is chosen by God to speak on his behalf.

"Son of Man", literally in Hebrew, "Human Being",  is the title most often used by God in the Hebrew Scriptures to address one of his Prophets to emphasise the difference between God's divine stature and the Prophet's mortal humanity.  But, noting the semantics, the writer is having Jesus claim another source of authority as well.  Jesus doesn't just call himself a Son of Man, but, "the", Son of Man.  Thereby stating that he is the Messiah, God's chosen king for the new Messianic Age.

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (Daniel 7:13 NIV)

"The Son of Man", is a title referring to the final king in Daniel's vision in the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel who is described as being" like a son of man". In the vision, four future rulers are portrayed as beast like creatures.  After these leaders a fifth ruler is portrayed as a human/angelic figure.  This last king is given authority and dominion over the earth.  Note the semantics again.  The writer is not having Jesus claim to be, " The One Like a Son of Man".  He is claiming to be the person represented in the vision by an angelic figure, not an angelic creature himself.  Just as the preceding kings in the vision represented as beasts are revealed in the susequent interpretation in the passage as being human leaders of actual empires, the, "one like a son of man", is explained in the interpretation as being an actual man chosen by God to have authority and dominion over the earth.  And, as Jesus explains in the story, this includes the authority to forgive sins.

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:14 NIV)

The second way Jesus establishes his right to give his own teaching and give authority to the claim he has just made in the story, is to heal the paralyzed man.  The fact that God performs acts of miraculous mercy through Jesus proves that God affirms Jesus' words.  If what Jesus says is not from God, why would God show his power through him?  This is why it was important for the writer and his community to include so many stories of Jesus', "mighty deeds".

The passage also raises a question about the community's view on the cause of illness and infirmaries.  It looks at first glance that they are attributing the cause of the man's paralysis to some sin that he has committed.  However, a closer look at the passage shows the forgiveness of his sin and the healing of his paralysis are two separate acts.  The man is still paralyzed after Jesus forgives his sin.  It is not until after Jesus decides he needs to give the religious authorities an object lesson on his right to forgive sin and commands the man to get up does the healing occur.

So, what was this sin and why in the story is it made more important for the man to be forgiven than healed?  Imagine the bewilderment of the man's four friends.  The man's reuse of his legs was obviously of great importance to them and they made a herculean effort to get him in front of Jesus in order to get that fixed.  They had just worked as a team to haul the guy up on top of the house, dig through the roof and lower him inside on a mat.  Then all Jesus does is proclaim that the guy's sin is forgiven.

Or, were they bewildered?  The modern reader might think they would be, but there is no response from them or the crowd that Jesus missed the point of what they wanted.  To the Jewish mind of the time, the need to have one's sin forgiven was extremely important and prerequset to being accepted by God and by the community.  This was done by making sacrifice at the temple.  But, as a cripple, this man was excluded from the temple, was excluded from forgiveness, and was therefore a social outcast.

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; (Leviticus 21:16-18)

8 Now David said on that day, “Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites (the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul), he shall be chief and captain.”Therefore they say, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” (2 Samuel 5:8)

The four friends would never have expected Jesus to forgive the man's sin, but it served for them the primary goal, to bring him back into full fellowship with God and their community.  This would have been an important part of the story to the community of Mark.  They were saying that none among them, were they Gentile, female, crippled, or homosexual, were by their nature, or by virtue of who they were, excluded from Jesus' kingdom, or the full fellowship of God.  

A Man with Leprosy - Mark 1:40-45

40 A man with leprosy[h] came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”  41 Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.  43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 45 Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
h. Mark 1:40 The Greek word traditionally translated leprosy was used for various diseases affecting the skin.
i. Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion

This story marks the beginning of a theme important to the community of Mark in their Gospel, the elevation of compassion over purity as the imitation of God. The significance of the skin disease is that it made the man, "unclean", a literal untouchable according to the laws of Leviticus.

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,2 “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin disease,[a] they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons[b] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on the skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is a defiling skin disease. When the priest examines that person, he shall pronounce them ceremonially unclean.

1. Leviticus 13:2 The Hebrew word for defiling skin disease, traditionally translated “leprosy,” was used for various diseases affecting the skin; here and throughout verses 3-46.

Someone who was, "unclean", was excluded from the worship of God. They were not allowed to come near the Tabernacle ( Num 5:3 ).  It placed a person in a "dangerous" condition under threat of divine retribution, even death ( Lev 15:31). Uncleanness among the people in general was feared. It could lead to expulsion by God of the land's inhabitants ( Lev 18:25 ) and its threat remained on those who did not undergo purification ( Lev 17:16 ; Num 19:12-13 ).

An unclean person was not allowed to eat or tithe consecrated food ( Lev 7:20-21 ; Deut 26:14), and had to celebrate the Passover with a month's delay (Num 9:6-13 ). An unclean person in general had to avoid that which was holy and take steps to return to a state of cleanness. Priests were to avoid becoming ritually defiled ( Leviticus 21:1-4 Leviticus 21:11-12 ), and if defiled, had to abstain from sacred duties.

Not only was a person with leprosy considered to be in an ongoing state of ritual uncleanliness, but anyone who touched that person became unclean as well until they underwent purification. This involved waiting a period of time (until evening for minor cases), and could also involve ritual washings symbolizing cleansing, atoning sacrifices, and priestly rituals.

As such, those with leprosy were treated as a pariah:

If a person contracted the contagious type, a priest declared him a leper and banished him from his home and city. He had to cry, "Unclean" when other people came near. Anyone who came in contact with a leper was also considered unclean. Lepers were not permitted to travel on the roadway, nor could they have any social contact with "clean" people. Therefore, lepers were isolated from the rest of the community so that the members of the community could maintain their status as worshipers. The leper was sent to live in a community with other lepers until he died. Lepers were social outcasts.
Once a man or woman was deemed leprous, he was totally abandoned by society. He had to keep his distance from others: six feet if there was no prevailing wind and over 100 feet if the wind was blowing. He also had to warn anyone in the vicinity that a leper was near by, crying out, "Unclean, unclean!" Upon hearing such a cry, the "normal" people of society would retreat to their homes or run away from the presence of the leper. No one dared to touch a leper either, for to do so would make a person ceremonially unclean. Anything the leper touched became unclean. (Life Application New Testament CommentaryBy Bruce B. Barton, Livingstone)

Persons with leprosy were not to be pitied or treated with compassion.  It was felt that they deserved their fate, that their affliction was a just punishment from God.  Many of the 55 times leprosy is mentioned in the old Testament are in association with punishment or the consequences of sin.  (https://answersingenesis.org/biology/disease/biblical-leprosy-shedding-light-on-the-disease-that-shuns/ )

When, in the story in this passage, the man with leprosy approaches Jesus, the man is breaking the rules regarding proximity and social contact.  He puts Jesus, and the crowd that was most likely around him, at risk of becoming unclean themselves and unable to worship God.  Jesus, however, instead of shunning or rebuking him, not only interacted with the man, but also touched him to heal him, making himself unclean. 


The reason given for Jesus' shocking action is his compassion, his desire to see the man healed.  His compassion in wanting to see the man returned to fellowship with the people and with God overrode any concerns over religious purity and ritual cleanliness.  

The Greek word in verse 41 translated as, "indignant", or, "filled with compassion", is, σπλαγχνισθεὶς (splanchnistheis 4697).  Literally it means to have the seat of ones affections moved.

Cognate: 4697 splagxnízomai – "fromsplanxna, 'the inward parts,' especially the nobler entrails – the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. These gradually came to denote the seat of the affections" 

To translate this to say that Jesus was indignant at the idea that he might be unwilling to heal the man highlights Jesus attitude even more. No one is unworthy of restoration and inclusion with God and his people no matter what ritual and law stands in the way. To suggest as much is an affront to Jesus' very nature. Love and compassion is priority over law and purity.

It would seem pretty obvious why the community of Mark added this story.  This is a community that includes gentiles and women, people who were by their very nature considered to be, "unclean", by Judaic law and ineligible for full communion and worship of God.  This story told them that they were included, that no ritual or religious law could bar them from full membership in the community and the faith, and that Jesus' coming kingdom was for all of them.

I imagine this story would be especially meaningful to the Gentile members of the community and their advocates since it would remind them of another healing of leprosy told in the fifth chapter of Second Kings.

In the story from 2 Kings, God heals from leprosy the Gentile Naaman, the commander of the king of Aram's army, through his prophet Elisha. This is something there was no precedent of God doing even for those of Isreal.  It portrays Gentiles as being eligible for God's compassion and mercy.

The message of this story that was important to the community of Mark was that compassion is more important than purity.  This is the higher quality of God that they should imitate.  This compassion called them to include in their community and in their worship those who had been marginalized and disenfranchised.

Morning Prayer - Mark 1:35-39

35 Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36 Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37 and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”

38 Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” 39 So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.

One of the objectives of this blog is to discover the view point of the writers of the Gospel and their community. Why did they pick these stories?  What did these stories mean to them, and why did they tell them in the manner in which they did?  So, how does this apply to the passage above? 

We explored earlier how Jesus, the founder of their Jewish sect, had no mainstream credentials. He had no recognized right by the Jewish religious authorities to offer his own teaching, his own Mishnah, or interpretation of Scripture. Not having been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination, Jesus did not have, s'mikhahto, "authority". His claim to legitimacy and the right to speak rests on being a Chasidium, a Rabbi who can dispense the mercy of God. As such, Jesus' message and mission depends on his personal revelation of, intimacy with, and favor from God rather than the continuation of existing recognized teaching or the agendas of the current religious authority.  

As members of a Jewish sect that followed Jesus' teaching, this community must have had to answer to other Jews and to themselves why they did not observe the same purity laws and rituals, or to the same degree.  What right did their founder have to give them a different direction?  Stories like this would reinforce their conviction that their teacher's direction came from personal interaction with God.  This story shows Jesus seeking out communication and intimacy with God as the source for his message and the purpose for his mission.  It follows that, after an early morning of isolated prayer, Jesus is presented as announcing his intention and purpose to preach throughout Galilee.

Jesus as Chasidim - Mark 1:29-34

29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30 Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her.31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33 The whole town gathered at the door, 34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Jesus heals a number of people of various ailments throughout the book of Mark. This is not uncommon in writings of the time about other great Rabbis and the assumption is not that the individual themselves performed the healing, but their favor with God meant that God did the healing at their behest.

In fact, the literature of the time, both Jewish and non-Jewish, is filled with healings and other miracles being attributed to important figures. This seems to be a common literary device to affirm the importance and validity of the figure being discussed. For example, Pythagoras, the Greek mathematician and philosopher, was "documented" as having performed a series of miracles that rivals anything found in the Gospels.

Jesus has no recognized right by mainstream Jewish tradition to offer his own teaching, his own Mishnah, or interpretation of Scripture.  Not having been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination, Jesus did not have, s'mikhahto, "authority".  His claim to legitimacy and the right to speak rests on being a Chasidium, a Rabbi who can dispense the mercy of God.  The examples the writer of Mark gives of God dispensing his mercy through Jesus in the form of healing and exorcism are an effort to validate Jesus and his teaching by demonstrating God's willingness to work through him.  

Hasidim/Chasidim (Hebrew: חסידים‎) is the plural of Hasid (חסיד), meaning "pious". The honorific "Hasid" was frequently used as a term of exceptional respect in the Talmudic and early medieval periods.... The literal meaning of "Hasid" derives from Chesed-"kindness", the outward expression of love for God and other people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidim

Bruce Chilton, in his book, "Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography", describes a Chasidium as a Rabbi who was able to dispense the mercy of God by curing sickness or relieving drought through prayer. They were ancient Judaism's shawmans, faith healers, witch doctors and sorcerers. The term was first applied to Jews during the Maccabean revolt following the desecration of the Temple by the Seleucids in 167 B.C.E. who preferred to die rather than do violence on the Shabbath (1 Maccabees 2:29-48). Having known the "chesed", the compassion of God, they refuse to betray him. That Jesus followed in this tradition might also be surmised by his refusal to allow his disciples to defend him using violence when he is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane when his execution was a foregone conclusion.

A famous Chasidium who was a contemporary of Jesus was Chanina ben Dosa. He lived near Nazareth and said healing stemmed from the fluency of his prayer. He was famous for healing the son of Gamaliel, a leader of the Pharisees in Jerusalem.

The stories of Jesus' miracles, healings, and mighty deeds in the Gospel are used to establish his right to offer a Mishnah under an alternate Jewish tradition as well as using the established literary device common to the Mediterranean region of the time to affirm Jesus' importance and validity. 

Impure Spirits? - Mark 1:21-28

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. 27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

So far in Mark's story, Jesus' right and authority to give his own teaching is based solely on the testimony of supernatural beings and supernatural events.  Occurrences such as the voice from Heaven when he is baptized, and the healings and exorcisms he has performed which demonstrated God's favor are the proof of his legitimacy in representing God. 

 This begs the question of how the writer and his community viewed supernatural beings and events. Living in a wider community where these stories were abundant in the literature of the time, was it just the accepted cultural norm that these beings existed, like everyone knowing that the world is flat? Or, were they metaphorizing the story using the accepted literary devices and mythology of the wider culture to express who Jesus was to them and didn't expect these aspects of the story to be taken literally?

In the introduction to this blog series I stated that I wanted to identify my own bias as I studied the Gospel in an effort to be more authentic to the intention of the Gospel writers and their community.  There are many Christians today who take the description of "impure spirits" in the Gospels literally. I recently read an article on an Evangelist who was asking his followers to send money so that he could build a private airport for his private jet so that he would not be exposed to people inhabited by demons in public airports as he prepared for his journeys to perform his ministry. As well, another famous television Evangelist took the recent occasion of musician David Bowie's death to declare that Bowie's music invoked demons and that Bowie's soul had now been taken by said demons.

I have in the past been part of groups and communities that took demons both literally and seriously, where they were seen as the root cause of illness, or as agents blocking people from their goals, or as the cause of misfortune.  Some of these communities made the group prayer for the removal of these being from individuals among them a regular part of their practise.  Suffering from cyclic depression, the root of my problem was identified as the torment of these beings.  However, my experience is that group prayers for exorcism with the laying on of hands and the authority of the name of Jesus holds less sway over the "demons of depression" then antidepressant medication. 

But, what is important to this study is what the writer and his community's understanding was of, "impure spirits", and how metaphorical or literal they intended their use in their story.  To shed light in this, I will first explore the tradition of, "impure spirits", in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, and then the influences of other cultures on the mythology referenced in the Gospel.  

There are "unclean", "evil", or "harmful" spirits mentioned in the Tanakh, but no, "demons", or anything similar to what is described in the New Testament or the later Christian mythology of the Middle Ages.  As well, the portrayal of these spirits in the writings of the Tanakh is quite different from the dualistic view as forces in conflict with God common in the wider first century community.  This concept seems to have been taken from other cultures and religions such as Persian Zoroastrianism rather than the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Harmful spirits in the Jewish Scriptures of our Old Testament were described as being from God and under God's direction.  This is in contrast with the popular view of the wider community in Jesus time that saw these beings in opposition to God and part of a power split in the Heavens between beings of good and evil.

For example, in the Book of 1 Samuel in Chapter 16, God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul. In Hebrew the word translated as, "evil", is, רָעָ֖ה , ra': bad, unpleasant, giving pain, unhappiness, misery.

14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil[a] spirit from the Lord tormented him. 15 Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better.” (1 Samuel 16:14-16 NIV)
Footnote a: 1 Samuel 16:14 Or and a harmful; similarly in verses 15, 16 and 23

23 Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. (1 Samuel 16:23 NIV)

The passage relates that this "unpleasant" spirit was from God and not something in opposition to God or working contrary to his will, or, "evil", in that sense. 

I stated earlier that there are no, "demons", in the Old Testament, or at least in the sense of sentient beings in opposition to God in service to a powerful, "anti-god", out to destroy humanity.  Many English translations use the word, "demon", (for example, Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21) where the text refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities, often to state that these are not, "gods", that Yahweh is the only God and that these other, "gods" are not real.

Dennis Bratcher with the Christian Resource Institute writes that:

...a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear. http://www.crivoice.org/demonsot.html

So if the mythology of demons that was common in Jewish Palestine at the time of the Gospels was not formed from the Hebrew Scripture, where did it come from? Some of it was influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism which at that time had begun to view demons as more literal beings. The Prophet Zarathustra (Greek name of Zoroaster) was a religious reformer, priest, visionary and prophet believed to have lived in north eastern Iran sometime in the sixth or fifth century BCE. In the Gathas, seen as the original teaching by Prophet Zoroaster, the concept of angels and demons are abstract figures and ideas, while in earlier texts and later texts they are substantive figures and beings. (http://iranian.com/main/blog/nabarz/persian-angels-and-demons.html)
The word we translate from the original Greek texts of the New Testament as, "demon", is the Greek word, "daimon".  In Greek mythology, a daimon was a powerful supernatural being that existed between gods and humans.  However, they were viewed traditionally as benevolent and only began to be viewed as sinister with the writings of Plato.  Many of the classic Greek daimons, like Pan, were nature spirits.  It was only later under the influence of other Mediterranean mythologies that they began to be associated with the underworld and death like the netherworld guards of Egyptian religion. http://www.mythicalcreaturesguide.com/m/page/Demon

This presents a quandary for Christian literalists.  If one takes the description of demons in the Gospels literally and this characterization comes from pagan religions and mythology which is at odds with that of the earlier Hebrew writings canonised as inspired and inerrant in the Christian Bible, then did God reveal a more accurate knowledge of the nature of these beings to pagan religions than to his Prophets and other writers of the Old Testament?  Do the Gospels show us that the Hebrew Scriptures were wrong and that pagan mythologies had it right?

The writers of the Gospels were extremely knowledgable about the Tanakh as were most Jews of the period to the point of having large sections memorized.  I find it hard to believe that they would be unable to differentiate between the characterization of spirits in their own Scriptures and those from other cultures and religions.  Therefore, I find it difficult to accept that they would be offering portrayals of demons from other cultures as what they believed to be a literal description.

That the writers were offering this as a metaphorical element of the story, a literary device, is also suggested by the teaching style they portray Jesus as having.  Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher who belonged to post-exilic Rabbinical Judaism. He and his early followers saw themselves as thoroughly part of that religion and tradition. Wisdom teachers in that tradition frequently used the telling of popular stories, parables, and myths with their own twist in order to make a point, or bring a different perspective to light. 

We see this throughout the Gospel accounts of Jesus' teachings.  Jesus is reported as using popular stories, some from other cultures, that his audience would have been familiar with in his parables.  An example of this would be Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke. In this parable, the rich man and Lazarus both die and experience an afterlife where they are judged and sent to different planes of existence dependent on how they had lived their life on earth like in the Greek myths of Hades. This is unlike anything in the Hebrew Scriptures and is a reference to Greek myth as a vehicle for the lesson.  This is also obviously a parable and shows up in Luke among a collection of parables. It doesn't make sense to interpret it as Jesus giving a science lesson on the actual workings of what happens when people die especially since it is not representative of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Taking this all into account, I am fairly confident that the writer of Mark and his community meant these accounts of impure spirits as metaphor.  That brings us around to the original question of what these accounts meant to them.  What were these metaphors for?  In the passage from Mark above, the account of the impure spirit was meant to answer the question about Jesus' authority and right to give his own teaching.

The impure spirit testifies to Jesus' right and sanction as coming directly from God.  If the impure spirit is not meant to be literal, then what does it represent?  I would suggest that it represents those who have a closer experience with the spiritual, those who live closer to the will of God and recognize his word.  This is how I believe the community would have viewed themselves.  They see Jesus as being sanctioned and "of God" because his words and actions ring true with them as the word of God.

I believe that the community of Mark held a sentiment on Jesus' legitimacy and the God  inspired nature of his words similar to that later expressed in the Gospel of John.

16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (John 7:16-17)