This coming Sunday is the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time. 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 “that will be proof for 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: “as a testimony against them.” Scholarly 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 required for his own benefit, 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.

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 he had experienced from Jesus. The text uses the word kērussō which is normally translated as “preaching.” Did he do this out of joy? Was he placing a premium on a proper response to tell everyone about his benefactor? This would have been a proper response in a shame/honor society.  Some scholars have speculated that given Mark’s readership was a Gentile community, with less concern about the rituals of Temple Judaism, the honor/shame basis would carry more resonance.

In any case, 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, entreating healing and cures 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.

Image credit: 12th-13th century Mosaic | Cathedral of the Assumption, Monreale, Sicily | PS-US