Mark 1:40f Now a leper came to him and fell to his knees, asking for help. “If you are willing, you can make me clean,” he said. Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing. Be clean!”  The leprosy left him at once, and he was clean.

Some ancient manuscripts have ὀργίζω, ‘angry or indignant’.  This may well be the correct reading.

In this case, we need to examine this ‘anger’.  Who, or what, was Jesus angry with, and why?

Here are a couple of possible explanations.

1. Jesus was angry that the man doubted his willingness to heal him

Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) prefers this latter reading.  In his view, copyists would sometimes deliberately alter the text of the New Testament, and (as in this case) significantly change the picture of Jesus or the doctrine of the original.

In this post Ehrman mentions several other possible explanations for Jesus’ anger:

• Jesus knew that the man would disobey him by spreading the news of his healing.  But this is to make Jesus angry before the event!
• Jesus regarded the man as intruding on his main ministry, which was preaching.  But healings feature too prominently in Mark’s Gospel for this to be plausible.
• Jesus was angry with the (ritually ‘unclean’) man for approaching him and touching him.  But this does not explain why Jesus appeared perfectly willing to touch the man.
• Jesus’ anger was part of the emotional energy required to cast out demons.  But there is no mention of demons in this case.

Ehrman then discusses the popular idea that Jesus is angry with the existence of such suffering in the world (see later in the present post for more on this).  Of the various versions of this interpretation, Ehrman complains:

‘they avoid making Jesus appear angry with the man and they avoid dealing directly with the words of the text in order to do so.’

I regard this as a rather typical failure of judgment on Ehrman’s part.  The text does not say that Jesus was angry with the man, but rather that he was ‘moved with anger’ (the object of that anger being unspecified).

Ehrman next considers the proposition that Jesus’ anger is directed at Satan, but notes that there is nothing in the text that directly suggests this.

Then Ehrman discusses two other occasions in Mark’s Gospel where Jesus is said to be ‘angry’.  In Mk 3:1-6, the Pharisees do not believe that Jesus is authorised to heal on the Sabbath.  In Mk 9 the father of the demonised boy says to Jesus: ‘If you are able, have pity and help us.’  Jesus responds: ‘If you are able…?!’ (Ehrman characterises Jesus’ response as ‘angry’, but the text does not say this).  Ehrman comments:

‘Here again is a question about Jesus’ miracle working power; but in this case, it is not a question of authorization (as in chapter 3) but of ability.’

Ehrman’s conclusion is that Jesus is angered when people question his ability, willingness or desire to heal them.

So, to return to the account of the healing of the leper in ch 1:

‘Jesus is angered —  not at the illness, or the world, or the Law, or Satan —  but at the very idea that anyone would question, if even implicitly, his willingness to help one in need.’

I regard Ehrman’s proposal as interesting, and possible.  But I think his case is weakened in ways that I have pointed out.

The NET Bible, while supporting (on balance) the majority translation, agrees that:

‘it is more difficult to account for a change from “moved with compassion” to “moved with anger” than it is for a copyist to soften “moved with anger” to “moved with compassion,” making the decision quite difficult. B. M. Metzger (TCGNT 65) suggests that “moved with anger” could have been prompted by Mk 1:43, “Jesus sent the man away with a very strong warning.” It also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40). As well, it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant).’

2. Jesus was angry at the suffering that evil has wreaked in the world

Cranfield, who thinks that the ‘anger’ reading is the original, goes on to ask, ‘Why was Jesus angry’.  He thinks that the most likely explanation is that this was:

‘anger with Satan at his disfigurement of God’s creature…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.’

We may not be very far wide of the mark to see Jesus’ anger here as an expression of the ‘groaning’ that Paul writes of in Rom 8 in the light of a broken and not-yet-fully-redeemed cosmos.  See also Mk 7:34.

Lane, who agrees with the ‘anger/indignation’ reading, takes a similar view:

‘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.’

Edwards:

‘Anger may not be as offensive as it first appears if one recalls that in Judg 10:16 “[God] became indignant over the misery of Israel” (RSV), much as Jesus does here. If “anger” was the original reading, it must clearly mean that Jesus was indignant at the misery of the leper (so John 11:33–38), for Jesus willingly healed him.’

It is not difficult to see why an over-cautious copyist sought to prevent misunderstanding of the character of Jesus by replacing the more difficult ‘anger/indignation’ with the easier ‘compassion’.

See also this, and this, by Mounce.

[Slightly revised and reposted at a time when my beloved wife Sarah was critically ill, and I was led to reflect on this episode in the life of our Lord Jesus.]