The sermon at church yesterday was a “Markan sandwiched double feature,” the healing of Jairus’ daughter and the woman with an issue of blood (Mark 5:21-43). In thinking about the latter, I was struck by the reversal of the normal “flow of impurity.” In a subtle yet striking way, the idea is communicated that holiness can be transmitted and make the impure pure, rather than it always being vice versa. This ran counter to the prevailing assumption (expressed in the Bible as well as elsewhere) that contact between the sacred and the profane resulted in the profanation of the sacred, rather than the sanctification of the profane.
We find this reversal expressed elsewhere in early Christian literature, most explicitly in Paul’s advice about Christians married to non-Christians, stating that the Christian transmits their holiness to their spouse and children.
Now, we may find such notions of ritual purity at best foreign and at worst simply incomprehensible. But the Biblical literature often runs together things that we would separate into the categories of ritual and moral, and there may be ways in which this topic can be more relevant than it first appears. In the moral realm, many people take a similar approach to ancient Israel’s regarding purity: the answer is to separate ourselves from evil influences. The assumption here is that, just as purity seemed to be more powerful than holiness, evil seems to be more powerful than goodness.
In the symbolism of the purity language in the New Testament, I find a powerful challenge to strive for infectious goodness. A goodness that can easily be corrupted is fairly weak and superficial – it probably means that one doesn’t desire that which is good, and so can only imagine people choosing the good if other choices have been hidden from view. We see this outlook in many religious fundamentalist groups, which practice a policy of isolation, and fear that if a certain morality is not imposed or is not rewarded, people will abandon it.
But there are stories in the New Testament that challenge us to a higher standard, a goodness that is not a mere fragile facade that breaks if it is handled or examined. A goodness that can go among those who are regarded as sinners and inspire people to choose for themselves to reject a way of life that damages themselves and others. A fragile, superficial goodness is forced to keep those it regards as dangerous at bay, while a deeper sort recognizes that good and evil reside in each of us, and finds ways of spreading goodness so that it pervades our own lives and can spread to others.
This is a brief story, inserted in the midst of another story in Mark’s Gospel. But taken symbolically, it has a powerful message. It envisages a force that can combat ostracization, a love that can conquer hate and not simply take a defensive stance, a goodness that can move into the midst of evil and transform it rather than being transformed by it.
The challenge to live a life of infectious goodness.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In