Would Jesus show indignation or anger towards a leper, a needy man? Hostile readers pounce on some ambiguity.

Bart D. Ehrman is a hostile reader of the Gospels and the entire Bible. He is a mountain-builder. He constantly turns little molehills into mountains. He has misled thousands, maybe millions by now. And he does so with his nervous laugh.

The title of my post is modeled on Ehrman’s title of an article, which is further based on Puritan Jonathan Edwards’ sermon titled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

The translation is mine. If you don’t read Greek, skip the left column. For more translations, go to biblegateway.com.

I borrow heavily from respectful scholars because I learn many things from them and because they are charitable towards the Bible. I place friendly scholars on the same or higher level than hostile critics. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars.

Let’s begin.

Translation of Mark 1:40-45

Jesus Cleanses a Leper (Mark 1:40-45)

40 Καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς αὐτὸν λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν [καὶ γονυπετῶν] καὶ λέγων αὐτῷ ὅτι ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. 41 καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· 42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπῆλθεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη. 43 καὶ ἐμβριμησάμενος αὐτῷ εὐθὺς ἐξέβαλεν αὐτὸν 44 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὅρα μηδενὶ μηδὲν εἴπῃς, ἀλλ’ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ καὶ προσένεγκε περὶ τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ σου ἃ προσέταξεν Μωϋσῆς, εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς. 45 Ὁ δὲ ἐξελθὼν ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν πολλὰ καὶ διαφημίζειν τὸν λόγον, ὥστε μηκέτι αὐτὸν δύνασθαι φανερῶς εἰς πόλιν εἰσελθεῖν, ἀλλ’ ἔξω ἐπ’ ἐρήμοις τόποις ἦν· καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν πάντοθεν.

40 Next, a leper came to him, begging him and kneeling and saying to him, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” 41 Moved with compassion and stretching of his hand, Jesus touched him and said to him, “I’m willing. Be cleansed.” 42 And instantly the leprosy departed, and he was cleansed. 43 Jesus sternly warned him and quickly sent him away 44 and said to him, “See to it that you say nothing to anyone, but go and show yourself to the priest, and for your cleansing bring what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them. 45 But he left and began to proclaim freely and spread the news widely, so that Jesus was no longer able to go into a city openly, but he was outside in isolated places. They came to him from everywhere.

Comments

First a short section on the cultural background.

The standard translation is leprosy, and healing this disease was one of the signs that the Messiah had come. Scholars nowadays say the word was generic for skin diseases (Hansen’s disease). But let’s call the man a “leper” for convenience.

A leper was required by law to wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face, and, as noted, cry out “Unclean! Unclean!” in order not to contaminate someone else (Lev. 13:45).

⁴⁵ “Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ ⁴⁶ As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp. (Lev. 13:45-46, NIV)

See my posts on skin disease and mold:

Skin Disease, Mold in Leviticus 13, 14 from a NT Perspective

Childbirth, Bodily Discharges in Leviticus 12, 15 from a NT Perspective

Give this leper credit. He did show humility. Would Jesus be willing? Of course.

“moved with compassion”: Jesus was moved with compassion. The verb could be translated as “felt compassion,” but this attribute which God shares with us cannot remain static or unexpressed. It has to be active, or else it cannot be compassion. This word is what the major editions of the Greek NT has.

The Controversy

Bart Ehrman wrote an article about the leper being in the hands of an angry Jesus because a few manuscripts have “being angry” or “indignant,” instead of “moved with compassion.”

Here is the footnote to the Tyndale House Greek New Testament and the manuscripts:

σπλαγχνισθεὶς [moved with compassion] א  A  B  C  K  L  W  Δ  Θ  69 1424; οργισθεις [got angry or indignant] D

I don’t want to get into a manuscript discussion, but, first, there is no spelling variation since the words look different (even non-Greek readers can see this). Second, the witnesses (or manuscripts) supporting “moved with compassion” look stronger than the one manuscript (and a few Latin ones, not on the list) supporting “got angry” or “indignant.”

I went with United Bible Society Greek NT, fifth ed., and it says “moved with compassion,” though it ranks its choice a “D,” which means the editors are not confident in their choice.

Other Greek editions also go with “moved with compassion”: Society of Biblical Literature and Tyndale House.

I recommend you read William Mounce’s blog and his short post about the manuscript dispute and his conclusion.

A Little Textual Criticism (Mark 1:41).

But what about the lectio difficilior potior (the “more difficult reading is stronger” or is preferred)? Well, then, “got angry” or “indignant” is the more difficult reading, because in the eyes of hostile readers of the NT (and the entire Bible), it seems to put Jesus in negative light. (This explains, no doubt, why the UBS editors rated their choice as “D.”)

Therefore, let’s assume that in Mark 1:41 the correct verb is “got angry” or “got indignant.” Would Jesus express anger or indignation in the context of healing a leper, a needy man?

Replies

How do we reply to the difficulty?

First, it is not as if Mark is reluctant to write that Jesus could be angry (3:5) or indignant (10:14). Jesus had emotions, and he could get angry.

Notice how he clears out the temple with a whip (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-19 Luke 19:47-48; John 2:13-17).

Here he is getting frustrated or angry at an entire generation:

¹⁹ “You unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.” (Mark 9:19)

Note the added word in Matthew’s version:

¹⁷ “You unbelieving and perverse generation,”  Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? (Matt. 17:17). 

Mark pulled back by two words (“and perverse”). Calling an entire generation unbelieving and perverse is strong language. Yes, Jesus could show anger, when he needed to, in the context of a needy man whose son needed deliverance from demonic oppression.

Does this mean Jesus sinned? No. Here’s why not, next.

Second, it is possible to get angry and not sin.

“Be angry and sin not” (Eph. 4:26). Jesus had two natures, human and divine. I believe both natures got angry, for God in the Old Testament also showed anger, but many more times he demonstrated his love and compassion.

Here is one sample verse among many in the OT:

¹⁵ But you, Lord, are a compassionate and gracious God,
    slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness. (Ps. 86:15)

Jesus perfectly reflected that verse. Compassion and grace and love and faithful to the mission always–and anger sometimes.

Do I Really Know God? He Shows Wrath

The Wrath of God in the New Testament

The Wrath of God in the New Testament

Third, in the parallel passage to 1:41, neither Matthew nor Luke mentions anger or any emotion at all (Matt. 8:3; Luke 5:13). Does this mean that they omitted the original because they were embarrassed? How could that be? Recall that Matthew wrote that Jesus called an entire generation “unbelieving and perverse,” while Mark just wrote “unbelieving.” Going down the path of explaining in detail why some authors omit or include a word here or there is a tricky business.

In any case, the third reason supports the notion that one can get angry and not sin.

Fourth, commentators offer insights.

Mark Strauss states that Jesus expressed anger or indignation, but not against the man because Jesus was about to stretch out his hand and touch him. Instead Jesus was angry at

The ravaging effects of the disease and (especially) of the social and religious ostracism that it is causing. Mark’s Gospel portrays Jesus as God’s authoritative agent of salvation, doing battle with disease, death, and the devil. It is not surprising that he would show some disdain for disease, the result of a sinful and fallen world, that he does for Satan’s evil forces. (p. 112)

William Lane on Jesus’s indignation:

… [A]nger 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’s 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 see more appropriate to an exorcism narrative than to an account of healing are to be explained.

David Garland adds that Jesus’s anger was directed at Satan, whose work Jesus came to destroy. Garland writes:

Understood in this way, the incident becomes another example of the fierce conflict between Jesus and Satan that plays such an important part in this Gospel. Like Jesus’s exorcisms and other healings, this one has eschatological significance, evidence of the power of the kingdom of God at work in Jesus (Mt. 11:5; Lk. 7:22). (p. 721)

Fifth, this one relates to the previous one, the commentators.

Let’s add three more commentators and the theme of confrontation with the system

The offering for recovery from skin disease was two live kosher birds and other items (Lev. 14:4-6). Then the cleansed person has to shave all his hair and beard, wash his clothes, and take a bath (v. 9). Later they must offer two male lambs and one-year-old ewe lamb and other items. Together they must have been expensive, and the leper could not work, so he must have had grateful relatives who supplied him with the offerings.

On Jesus’s stern warning not to report what happened to the crowds, commentators Walter Wessel and Mark Strauss offer this colloquial, expanded translation: “Now listen, and listen good. Get to the priest immediately, and don’t tell anyone about this!” Jesus was not afraid to issue commands. This supports the edition that has “anger” or “indignant.” But please read the next two paragraphs.

“for a testimony to them”: commentator Richard France suggests that “testimony” is a confrontation against the temple system and priests. The chief priests will be the main opponents of Jesus, later on (cf. Mark 13:9). Maybe the testimony is about both confrontation and restoration, so Strauss and France are right..

Jesus really had in mind, not the leper, but the whole religious system that created an environment of doubt towards God’s compassion and willingness to heal. Should a leper be discarded as Leviticus taught? Jesus did not think so. He actually touched the leper, and this rendered Jesus ceremonially unclean. But Jesus prioritized the needy man over the impersonal and exclusionary law and religious system. This love is personal towards the leper. Once again, Jesus had directed his momentary anger or indignation towards the disease, not the needy man.

Sixth, Jesus reached out his hand and touched him. Through servants, God did that in the OT: Exod. 3:20; 6:6; 7:15; 9:15; 15:12; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 2 Kings 17:36; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 32:21). Jesus was simply following his Father’s example. It was bold and courageous to touch this unclean man. As noted, one reason that a leper was required to call out “Unclean! Unclean!” is that he must not touch and so defile anyone else. The leper did not touch Jesus; Jesus touched him, unconcerned for his own health. How could a skin disease get transferred to Jesus when he had healing power flowing from him? This power pushed the disease backwards. He was the healing Lord, not the possible victim.

Jesus’s anger or indignation was directed to the effects or the skin disease, not the man himself.

Therefore, whatever anger or indignation Jesus may have felt at the moment, he still reached out his hand and touched the leper. Jesus was fearless about his healing ministry. And now I can see why the UBS (and other editions) went with “moved with compassion.” It fits the context and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, in addition to the stronger manuscript support.

Seventh, Jesus’s willingness. “I am willing”: this could be simply translated, “I want to.”  So if Jesus showed anger and indignation at a needy leper, he does heal him nonetheless. Therefore, if Jesus was momentarily angry or indignant, the anger or indignation was not irrational. Strauss and Lane are right. The anger or indignation was directed at the disease.

Eighth, Jesus’s compassionate command towards the leper.

“Be clean”: it is a command, not a statement. Jesus commanded the skin disease to leave. He was willing to heal the leper. How angry or indignant was he? Not very.

Ninth, another controversial word does not necessarily support Ehrman’s reading.

“sent him away”: it is the verb ekballō (pronounced ehk-bahl-loh), and by the time the NT was written it has a variety or meanings.

BDAG is a thick Greek lexicon of the NT, named after the four main editors: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich. Many consider it authoritative. It represents hard work over the decades, in any case.

Here are the various meanings, according to BDAG (with the formatting edited to fit this post and for easy understanding):

(1). “Force to leave, drive out, expel” (Ehrman seizes on this definition because it appears to support the reading about anger or indignation. BDAG recommends this one for Mark 1:41)

(2). “To cause to go or remove from a position (without force), send out / away, release, bring out“; (I chose this translation because I believe the manuscripts support “moved with compassion”)

(3) “To cause something to be removed from something, take out, remove“;

(4). “To pay no attention to, disregard“;

(5). “To bring something about, cause to happen, bring.”

It is easy to see why Ehrman and others latch on to the first definition because Jesus was indignant. I say the second definition works best for translating this verse because it fits the interpretation better of being angry at the disease or Satan or the religious system.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Lane concludes this pericope (pronounced puh-RIH-koh-pea and is a section or unit) with this sharp insight:

The pericope establishes the surpassing nature of the salvation 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 of the OT only twice is it recorded that God had healed a leper (Num. 12:10-16; 2 Kings 5:1-14), 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 [temple] and ritual regulations, which were powerless to arrest the hold that death had upon the living, and issues in radical healing (p. 89)

Yes, Jesus heals; the law does not. Jesus brings in the new kingdom; the law does not. Jesus brings in the new era of salvation; the law does not.

Back to my criticism of hostile readers.

One defender of Bart D. Ehrman on youtube and elsewhere keeps pasting the same defence: Ehrman is a scholar who has won awards. Who are you compared to him?

Well, let me reply with my own temporary sarcasm. I have my own award show. I call it the Jackhammer Awards (the Jackies for short). The winner has to read the two-thousand-year-old Gospels with the subtlety, finesse, and nuance of a jackhammer. Added bonus: Can the winner turn one little molehill into a mountain with a jackhammer?

Ehrman would win every time.

I choose to be a reasonable, friendly reader.

Back to the issue in Mark 1:41. I see no problem with Jesus being indignant or angry in the context of a needy leper. Jesus reached out and touched him and healed him, after all. If he were irrationally angry at the man, why would he touch and heal him?  So I agree with the commentators. Jesus was angry or indignant at the ravages of the disease and Satan. He was upset at the religious system that threw away the needy leper.

For the Christian, your faith should not be so brittle that it snaps in two at a verse like Mark 1:41. I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented only in the mid-1400s, long after the  NT documents were eventually written down. Now we can read the oral traditions behind the four Gospels. They live and breathe and pulsate with the truth of the main storyline. Jesus’s interaction with all sorts of people feel authentic to me. I celebrate them.

Recommendations

My view of Scripture: It’s very high, but I don’t believe in “total inerrancy” or “hyper-inerrancy”:

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility?

Begin a series on the reliability of the Gospels. Start with the Conclusion which has quick summaries and links back to the other parts:

15.. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion

See this part in the series that puts differences in perspective:

13..  Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

The Gospels have a massive number of agreements in their storylines:

14.. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels

Celebrate them, as well.

SOURCES

For the bibliography, click on the next link and scroll down to the bottom:

Mark 1