The account of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood is recounted by both Mark and Luke using basically the same wording. This unusual miracle gives rise to several questions, which are addressed briefly below.
Why is this healing sandwiched in between the account of Jairus' daughter's healing?
This literary technique is actually quite common in Mark's Gospel and forms part of its method of organization. See my post “Gospel of Mark: Introduction to the Literary Structure.” Luke's account appears to be patterned directly after Mark's Gospel.
Wouldn't the woman's touch have rendered Jesus ritually unclean?
This is one of the powerful theological points made in this miracle story. Instead of uncleanliness flowing from the woman to Jesus, Jesus' holy power went in the other direction to make the woman clean.
Why does the “power” leaving Jesus appear to have a life of its own?
That is because in essence it does, as a number of commentators have noted:
Fitzmyer: The cure of the woman “is recounted as an exercise of Jesus' dynamis, 'power' (Luke 8:46), which has to be understood as 'the power of the Spirit' learned about in 4:14 or the power of the Lord...to heal' spoken of in 5:17.” A similar reference to healing power leaving Jesus is found in Luke 6:18-19.
W.L. Lane explains that the word “must be interpreted from the context of 'the power of God' in the Scripture. Power is a constitutive element in the biblical concept of the personal God. Jesus possesses the power of God as the representation of the Father. Nevertheless, the Father remains in control of his own power. The healing of the woman occurred through God's free and gracious decision to bestow upon her the power which was active in Jesus.”
Betz states that in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, 'dynamis' denotes the power of God..., miraculous power...and the power which brings salvation to completion.”
Stubbs says that “this power breaks out from Christ unintentionally, simply through the contact of the woman with the holy hem of Christ's robe after she intentionally 'encroached' into Christ's space and touches it.”
Horsley: “The initiative and action are entirely hers, Jesus being the passive conduit through which the healing power goes forth.”
Isn't this story closer to magic than to a miracle?
There is one point upon which all commentators seem to agree – this act was not at all a case of magical healing.
Lane: “By an act of sovereign will God determined to honor the woman's faith in spite of the fact that it was tinged with ideas which bordered on magic.” And one could certainly say the same thing regarding the miracles carried out through Paul's handkerchiefs (Acts 19:12) or those at least attempted through the medium of Peter's shadow (Acts 5:15). Kistemaker puts it this way: “There is a difference between cloth and confidence, fabric and faith.”
Craddock: “In no sense are we dealing here with the practice of magic. The encounter was personal: Jesus knew he had been touched, that power had gone out of him, and he wanted to meet the one who had received his healing. And the encounter was prompted by faith.”
Ellis agrees that “the healing is not to be understood as a mechanical or magical result but as the confirming evidence of grace given to the woman.”
Marshall: “Jesus is not to be thought of as involuntarily dispensing healing power; the power is that of God (Lk 5:17), and it is thought of as flowing from Jesus to the healed person, but this happens in response to faith.”
Doesn't Jesus' display of ignorance portray him as being less than omniscient?
Swift says that “although He was aware that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth in conscious response to the touch of faith, there is no need to suppose that he exhibited supernatural knowledge where information could be obtained without it.”
“This is the only Gospel miracle that takes Jesus by surprise, triggered entirely by another's initiating act.” (F.S. Spencer)
Parsenios: “Mark's image of Jesus reflects a dialectical tension between knowledge and ignorance, power and weakness, and so forth.” He also cites Mark 10:40 and 13:32 which reveal limits to the earthly Jesus' knowledge.
A dissenting voice from the above opinions comes from two Dallas Theological Seminary professors who do not care for the idea of the earthly Jesus exhibiting anything less than omniscience.
Grassnick admits that some feel “God the Father healed the woman and Jesus was not aware of it till afterward.” But his own feeling is “that Jesus Himself, wishing to honor the woman's faith, willingly extended His healing power to her. The latter view is more consistent with Jesus' healing ministry. Power did not leave Him without His knowledge and will. However, He exercised it only at the Father's bidding (cf. Mark 13:32)...” Curiously, the very verse that he cites actually demonstrates that the earthly Jesus was not privy to all the knowledge possessed by the Father.
In a similar manner, J.A. Martin deals with the subsequent question posed by Jesus: “Who touched me?” “Jesus' question...does not imply that He was ignorant of the situation. He wanted the woman to reveal herself and openly express the faith which caused her to touch Him.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments