Mark 1:29-45: Would you want Jesus to heal your mother-in-law?

We aren't even through the first chapter of Mark, and yet already Jesus is having problems escaping his reputation as a miracle-worker.  It's not that it's a bad thing to be a miracle-worker, but as we have already seen, Jesus didn't come to perform the miracles.  Nonetheless, in two of the three "scenes" from this passage, we see Jesus acting in the moment, healing and restoring health.  It's worth asking though, is Jesus new-found popularity permanent, or more a result of what he can do for those around Him at the time?  In seeing the reactions of those around him to his healing work, it might even challenge us to ask if we love Jesus for who he is, or what he can do for us?
Jesus' healing of Simon's mother-in-law, when taken in conjunction with the exorcism he performs just prior to arriving at Simon's house, tells us a number of things about Jesus' view of the relationship between the Law and humanity.  Quite simply, if Jesus followed the Law as the Pharisees and scribes would have him to, the exorcism and healing of Simon's mother-in-law would never have happened.  The Law doesn't allow for work on the Sabbath.  Nor does it allow for the touching of one with an unclean spirit, or the touching of a woman who isn't a relation.  So what does this tell us?  Is Jesus some free-wheeling rebel who throws the Law out the window?  On the contrary, Jesus actions serve to remind us of the intent of the Law.  At the risk of spoiling what is yet to come, in Mark 2:27 we will see Jesus state explicitly the thinking that caused him to violate the Sabbath in such obvious ways, "man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."  Rather than seeing Jesus as some Law-breaking free-spirit, perhaps it would have done the scribes good to consider another option.  Perhaps, Jesus was opening up a deeper, more eternal way of thinking about Sabbath.  Perhaps Jesus knew that there is no rest for the demon-possessed and the ill.  How tragically ironic would it be if Jesus allowed the law that was given to ensure that humanity would have rest to prevent him from giving rest and the restoration of health to those most in need of Sabbath?
After making an attempt, albeit a brief one, to flee the crowds surrounding him for miracles, Jesus once again finds himself in the midst of people, teaching in a synagogues and when necessary casting out demons.  It is in the midst of this ministry of preaching and healing that Jesus is confronted by a leper, who desperately wants not only to be made well, but to be made "clean".  Again, we see Jesus violating the rules of his day as he reaches out his hand to touch the man.  What we dare not miss is that Jesus' touch, while not being the thing that heals him of leprosy, is the thing that heals the man's spirit.  The man's request to be "made clean" reflects the way that he has been ostracized, completely cut off from his community.  He wants to be healed, yes, but what he most wants is to be made part of society once again.  If this man had been a leper for any length of time, then Jesus' touch would have been at once both a foreign, and yet also longed for thing.  If we look closely, we see that Jesus' touch serves no other purpose.  It is his words, "I will, be clean", that cause the healing to become an immediate reality.  The pattern continues to emerge, Jesus refuses to elevate the law over the well-being of those around him. 
Perhaps the word that is the most relevant for us is found in the response of both Simon's mother-in-law, and the leper.  On one hand, we see Simon's mother-in-law respond by serving.  Important to note is that she doesn't just serve Jesus, but also those with him.  Without Jesus' physical presence among us, could it be that serving others is an equally valid response through which we show our gratitude for what Christ has done for us?  On the other hand, we have in the leper a simple inability to stay quiet, despite Jesus injunction to say nothing.  I find my ability to stay silent, even when commanded to do otherwise, an indicting characteristic of my own life.  It is clear to me that I need to learn to appreciate the good news of Jesus Christ in a way that manifests itself in both service, and in an inability to remain silent about God's work in the world.  The only way that can happen is if I learn to love the miracle-worker, not the miracle, if I learn to love not the cross, but the one who hung on a cross.  What about you?  Do you truly love the giver of all good things, or merely the gifts themselves?