Proper 8 Mark 5.21-43

Mark 5:21-43

When Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered around him; and he was by the sea. Then one of the leaders of the synagogue named Jairus came and, when he saw him, fell at his feet and begged him repeatedly, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." He went with him.

And a large crowd followed him and pressed in on him. Now there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, "If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well." Immediately her hemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease.

Immediately aware that power had gone forth from him, Jesus turned about in the crowd and said, "Who touched my clothes?" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, `Who touched me?'" He looked all around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."

While he was still speaking, some people came from the leader's house to say, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the teacher any further?" But overhearing what they said, Jesus said to the leader of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." He allowed no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.

When they came to the house of the leader of the synagogue, he saw a commotion, people weeping and wailing loudly. When he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a commotion and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. Then he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha cum," which means, "Little girl, get up!" And immediately the girl got up and began to walk about (she was twelve years of age). At this they were overcome with amazement.

He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Collect

Almighty God, you have built your Church upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone: Grant us so to be joined together in unity of spirit by their teaching, that we may be made a holy temple acceptable to you; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

This parable of the hemorrhaging woman touching Jesus and being healed has always bothered me a bit. It seems to me to be something like sorcery, power in the cloak.

A magic cloth.

The same with the other examples of people being healed by touching the Apostles.

From what I have read that is exactly the reason that Jesus stopped and asked who it was that touched Him. It was to show that it was not some magical healing but was a healing through Him that was brought about by her faith in Him.

The role of faith in healing is interesting to trace in the gospel accounts. It might be good to review in this topic the role of faith in the various healings that are described in Mark.

Here, Jesus says it was her faith that healed her, but the narrative suggests it was touching his garment. If it were faith alone, then I wonder the reason she needed to touch the garment.

I think it was because a woman with a disease touching the clothes of anyone, and particularly someone who was highly thought of, as Jesus certainly was at this point in time, would be seen as similar to a leper touching someone. Her willingness to touch His garment was the action of faith that was required for this particular incident, just as in some other cases there was an action involved to show they had faith.

I like the idea of looking a the healings in Mark, so here goes:

The first miracle in Mark that shows someone having faith is found in Mark 1:40-45, even though the word faith is not used in the passage. Actually, I suppose the healings described in 1:32-34 are acts of faith as well, but they all appear to involve someone other than the person being healed. The two previous healings in Mark appear to have happened because Jesus went to the location where there was someone who needed healing. Faith does not appear to be involved in either of these healings.

Since even in the first chapter we see examples of healings that involve faith and those that do not involve faith, I think it is going to be hard to determine the role of faith in Jesus' healings. However, I am unsure of this, because I have only looked at the first chapter. Maybe the first two are an exception to the rule. Or maybe there is no rule. I think it will be interesting to see what we discover.

I have heard it said that Jesus did not have to touch the leper to heal him, but that He did this because of the compassion He felt for the man, since one of the things missing in a leper's life was human contact.

The healing of the demoniac also seems to be one that does not require faith. For some reason our readings skipped over that story.

Last week we had the calming of the storm, not a healing of course, but was done despite an admitted lack of faith.

ambrithill,

What do you think about Mk 6.5, generally taken that the lack of faith prevented Jesus from doing any miracle,

"except laying his hands on a few sick people he healed them. And he was amazed because of their unbelief."

Despite the prevalent non belief, Jesus healed a few who were sick.

I do not think there is a common thread in the healing, other than Jesus is involved in some way.

Faith is not always present. Jesus is not always immediately present. The disciples heal some. Some of those healed are not aware of the healing (Jairus' daughter who is dead and the Gerasene demoniac come to mind).

6.56 - more instances of those who are healed by touching the magic garment

The story in Mark 6:5 has puzzled me at times, because it seems to be suggesting that the lack of faith overcame the omnipotence of Jesus. However, I think there are two suitable answers to this. Matthew words this in such a way as to say that Jesus "did not" instead of "could not." Based on your earlier theory of Matthew correcting Mark this would be acceptable. The other view that I find to be acceptable, and the one I would go with, is that Jesus was not limited by their unbelief but by God's own choice of giving men free will. To do great miracles (who would have ever thought healing a few sick people would not be classified as great?) for those who did not believe and should have could be seen as almost forcing them to believe. Remember that Jesus was apparently shocked by their unbelief because He knew there had been enough evidence for them to believe, but Luke makes it clear that they could not get by their preconceived notiions about Jesus. It is also interesting to notice that Jesus is not seen as shocked by the unbelief of those who He did not expect to have belief, such as the Samaritan woman or the centurion.

As far as 6:56, all I can say is that possibly they had heard the story of the woman who touched His garment and had enough faith to believe that the same could happen for them, but I will admit that I really do not understand why it happened this way.

In Mark 2 we see the paralytic being healed after his friends drop him through the roof. I have always heard it said that he was healed because of the faith of his friends. What are your thoughts on this? Can our faith be great enough to bring healing upon someone else?

The role of faith in healing is something we are looking at as we review the healings in Mark. So far, it does not seem to me that faith has a necessary role in healing.

It has been my experience in life that faithful and the nonbeliever get sick and heal or get sick and not heal about the same.

Believers credit faith and God for recovery, but non believers receive the same recovery, or not. I see no difference.

I believe that I have heard many doctors say that their patients having faith (whether the doctor does or not) does increase the recovery process. Unfortunately, I do not have any hard statistics in front of me on this subject. I would say that when it comes to the unbeliever being healed (meaning a miraculous, or unexplained, healing) then it would fall under the category of God's grace, which is shown to the entire world in some degree.

What about a believer not being healed miraculously?

Believers will at times claim that a good event is a blessing, or even an honoring of their actions done in faith. Then claim that times of struggle are tests sent by God, to build character.

But this experience of good times and bad times is not correlated in any way that I can see to the presence of faith or the lack of faith.

The faithful and the unfaithful live with good and bad.

The faithful can respond to the good and bad in ways that are helpful to them and others, relying on their faith as a strength and as a guide.

The non faithful can do the same, relying on their philosophy as a strength and a guide.

I think there is no effective difference. The power of faith must be sought in something other than in being a vehicle to receive God's blessings in this life.

In Mark 3 we see healing happening under yet another condition. It appears that Jesus healed the man with the withered hand as a lesson for the Pharisees. Faith is not mentioned at all. It could actually be taken to mean that Jesus healed him out of anger, though I do not think that is the meaning of the wording.

And verse 10 at least implies more healings through simply touching Jesus.

I agree that people misuse the idea of blessings and faith going hand in hand. One of the most amazing statements I have read (and I do not remember the author or the book) was in reference to Joni Eareckson Tada and her being in a wheelchair. To paraphrase, "Many people tell her if she just had enough faith she could get out of that chair, but I believe that would be the easy route for her. I believe she has enough faith to stay in the chair."

It is amazing to listen to her talk about her faith and how God has blessed her.

3.5 does describe anger and grief at the apparent lack of understanding about the important things of the law.

I wonder what a Jewish scholar might say about the context of the healing, regarding whether such a action would be forbidden?

I suppose it would depend on which branch of Judaism the scholar accepts as being correct.

The thing I find interesting in this story is how the Pharisees are there to "watch" Jesus and not to listen to what He has to say.

I also find it interesting that they would not answer His direct question, which appears to be, at least in part, the reason for His anger, as it showed the hardness of their hearts.

And isn't it interesting how the Pharisees became so mad because of Jesus healing on the Sabbath that they were willing to come together with their enemies to try and get rid of Him? I actually think what they were really mad at was Jesus made them look bad.

Is there a reference in Jewish law that forbids healing on the Sabbath? I have not found much confirmation that healing was not allowed on the Sabbath.

This morning I did find this article in which healing was forbidden as the practice of a profession.

http://apikorostalmud.blogspot.com/2005/08/shabbat-109-healing-and-shabbat.html

I thought that article was interesting, but I have never heard it claimed that Jesus was a healer by profession. I think the problem was not healing per se, but was instead that healing was seen as performing work, which was not allowed on the Sabbath.

Here is an interesting article on Jesus breaking the Sabbath:

http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2005/may-jun/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath

Mark 4 has no healings, so moving on to Mark 5. Of course, we have already discussed the woman who touched Jesus'clothes, but there are two other healings here.

First, is the healing of the demoniac by casting out the demons. Faith is definitely not a part of this process.

There is also the raising Jairus' daughter from the dead. Jairus certainly had faith that Jesus could heal his daughter from her illness, but he apparently thought Jesus had to touch her to be able to heal her. This would be in line with the woman thinking if she could touch Him she could be healed.

The Bible does not make it clear whether or not Jairus believed that Jesus could raise his daughter from the dead, but he must have at least had hope in this possibility because he allowed Jesus to continue on to his house even after hearing that his daughter was dead.

The feedings are not healing miracles, but as with the calming the storm, they required no faith. Even the second feeding was accompanied with no faith.

My first thought was to agree with you about the feedings, but can it not be implied that Jesus had the faith since it was apparent He knew that He could feed all of the people with whatever was found?

Mark 6 ends with more people being healed by just touching Jesus, and it reads in such a way as to make it sound like there were quite a few people who were healed in this way. But it also reads that they had enough faith to believe that if they could just touch the hem of His garment they would be healed.

Mark 6 also brings in another aspect of healing. In verse 13 we see the twelve being able to heal others as they were sent out two by two. Do you think this two by two was a requirement for them to be able to heal, or would they have been able to heal if they were by themselves? Nothing is specifically mentioned of their healings here, so there can be no way of knowing about the question of faith involved in these healings.

The Syrophoenician mother and the blind man in Tyre - these people are coming to Jesus for physical healing. No mention of faith before or after the healings.

They thought that this great healer might cure them physically - no indication of faith or conversion. Mark 2.2 deals with faith and forgiveness in the instance of the paralytic, but overall the faith of the one being healed does not seem to me to be a factor.

I have noticed that in some cases that the faith of the person being healed is mentioned, the faith of the person bringing the person to be healed is mentioned, and sometimes no faith at all is mentioned. Perhaps this is one more way to make sure that we cannot put God in a box and say that it has to be done this way or that way, but instead we have to say it has to be done His way.

The apparent use of magic is bothersome. The touching of Jesus' garments, spit with the blind man at Bethsaida and the deaf man in the Decapolis.

There seems to me to be a lacking of conversion with the healings - Bartimaeus is an exception to that lacking.

Mk 9.29 presents an interesting instance.

Perhaps instead of thinking of it as magic we should think of it as divinity.

You are correct that conversion does seem to be lacking, however, that would fall under that category that it rains on the just and the unjust, that God's grace is in some way given to all.

What is your take on the meaning of 9:29?

Many have pondered that verse, but it may offer some hint regarding the question we have been considering. Maybe we both can think it over today.

One other thought just occurred to me. While it is true that healing occurred without faith seemingly present, at least some of the time, this might not be applicable to today because Jesus was physically present. Could this make a diference?

Mark 7 brings two more cases of healings that took place due to someone else intervening. The first, where the mother intervenes for her demoniac daughter, takes place without Jesus being in the presence of the person being healed. Is this the first time we have come across this?

In Matthew it expressly pointed out that the woman had great faith.

The second healing takes place when someone (probably family) brings a deaf mute to Jsus. According to Mark, they begged Jesus to put His hand on the deaf mute, but here we see Jesus going one step further. He put His fingers in the boy's* ears and then spat (on His own fingers??) and touched the boy's tongue.

Could this strange way of healing been due to the fact that the people who brought the deaf mute EXPECTED Jesus to touch him?

Could Jesus touching the boy in such specific ways have been a way to show that the healing was coming through Himself?

Matthew 15:29-31 is supposed to be the corresponding verses but does not specifically mention this healing but does mention this type of healing along with several other types of healing. I am not sure if this is truly the corresponding story or if Matthew does not include this story, especially since Luke also does not include this story. What are your thoughts on this?

*I refer to him as a boy but it could have just as easliy been a man.

Mark 8 has, what is for me, the most confusing healing. Jesus heals a blind man by spitting on his eyes and touching them. However, this actually on partially heals the man, as his sight is not clear. Jesus then touches the mans eyes again, apparently without adding more spit, and this time the man sees clearly.

I have never understood why Jesus spat on his eyes, but even more, I do not understand why it took two attempts before the man was healed completely.

I hinted at the blind man and the deaf man in >27 richardbsmith:. I am sorry about not posting much the last couple days. I will try to comment more later today.

I think the healings of the blind man at Bethsaida and of Bartimaeus in Jericho have to be read as a pair and as acted parables. All that is between the two miracles work to make the disciples see more clearly, and to know what it is to follow Jesus.

The two healings make a lengthy intercalation, framing the Transfiguration and the 3 predictions.

They point, I think, to the literary skills of the evangelist, and frankly the recognition of the presence of such literary structuring calls into question for the precise historicity of the overal narrative account.

A related study that might be helpful along with the role of faith in the accounts of healing would be to review the use of the word "to save."

For instance, Mark 8.52.

Some translations have "Your faith has made you well."

The Greek is literally, Your faith has saved you."

The idea of physical healing is certainly a valid sense of the Greek, but it is not the full or root meaning of the word.

The same word in other places, as in Mark 8.35, is generally rendered as "save," with whatever meaning we give to that word in English.

Maybe the healing has happened regardless of the faith, but something more has happened in some instances, such as in 10.52, and is not well communicated through some of the choices made in translation.

>34 richardbsmith: I do not believe that they are parables, especially the one about Bartimaeus, because one of the things that I discovered when teaching on the parables was that no one is named in the parables, thus making Bartimaeus a real person.

I also do not believe that the other story is a parable because it says something which I had never paid much attention to before, and that is this: Jesus led the man out of town.

I can see why you would come up with that meaning for the two healings, however, as you know, I tend to take the stories literally, unless there is a specific reason not to do so. Oe of the things I have discovered in looking into the healing in chapter 8 is that many commentators believe that Jesus healed this man in stages to keep from being put in a box in the way that He performed healings. Or as one put it, He did this to show that He controlled how much grace was given., thus showing His sovereignty.

> 35 As one who does not read Greek, unfortunately, I am not sure that I qualify for this task.

Mark 9 has the story of a man with a son who has a deaf and dumb spirit within him, which Jesus casts out. There are several things I find interesting in this story.

When Jesus said, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?" who was He speaking to?

The father makes, what is for me, one of the most profound statements in all of Scripture: “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

And then, of course, there is verse 29. Whether it is read with or without "fasting" it still adds a dimension to healing, as least for the apostles, which had not been seen before. In either case, but especially with fasting included, it appears that the action had to take place prior to even attempting to cast out this type of demon, which begs the question of how much prayer, or how much fasting.

Mark 10 has only one healing and it is that of blind Bartimaeus. It was a healing which Jesus attributed to Bartimaeus' faith. However, the story's key compnonet may not be the healing but the fact that Bartimaeus refused to listen to others who were telling him to stay away from Jesus and the fact that even though he was blind he knew that Jesus was the "son of David." I believe this was Bartimaeus' true faith in action.

How many have died without Jesus because of those around them?

How many Christians have failed to stand up for their faith in Jesus as the Messiah because what they had to say was not popular?

God, give us the "sight" that Bartimaeus had while he was still blind!!

Looking at the exchange in 9.22 to 9.24.

I have never liked that the translations seem to show Jesus putting the responsibility of enough faith back on the father.

I do not think the Greek reads that way.

The phrase is literally "The 'if you can' ". I think it is repeating the question about Jesus' ability, not Jesus returning the father's question "If Jesus can" back to the father to ask "If the father can"

I think this is closer. Anyone with a Greek background especially a background bettern than mine, please comment on this.

Father, "If you are able, help us."
Jesus, "Your question is "if I can help". All things are possible to those who believe."

Jesus is replying words of assurance, that communicate "Yes, I can help." I do not think Jesus is requiring the confession which Mark writes the father gave.

The father replies in desperation, "I believe."

Jesus heals the son, not because of the father's confession or because the father now has faith.

Verse 29 is interesting because of the variant that adds "fasting" but also because neither prayer nor fasting are otherwise mentioned in the story, and neither are used by Jesus to exorcise the demon.

In vs19 Jesus responds to the disciples inability to cast out the demon by calling them a "faithless generation."

In vs23 Jesus responds to the father that things are possible to those who believe - is this a reference back to the disciples who should but apparently do not have adequate faith? and not to the father's level of faith?

Then in vs29, I would expect that Jesus would reply to the disciples' question with "This kind cannot be driven out by anything but faith."

Perhaps prayer in this verse means acting in faith.

Matthew and Luke omit the entire exchange between Jesus and the father. And Matthew changes Mark's account of Jesus' reply to point specifically to the disciple's lack of faith, not their lack of prayer and fasting.

Now, let's discuss the real issue.

I have several friends who are suffering from cancer. I have a nephew (10 years old) who was seriously burned.

Is the reason they are not healed because I lack faith?

If you have enough faith, could you heal them?

The people in Colorado, threatened by fire, if they have enough faith, could the Lord stop the fires?

You are correct that the real issue is how does this apply to us today, and in all honesty, I do not know the answer to your questions. Many would argue that it is due to a lack of faith that these things happen or are not cured, but I would not necessarily agree with that. Remember, we were reading about Jesus healing people and the twelve healing people after Jesus specifically commanded them to do so. But does this translate into our having that ability? Probably not. I do believe that our faith is important, and that even today God sometimes works because of our faith, but I also believe that He sometimes works in spiite of our lack of faith. The big issue for me is not whether I should be able to heal someone but am I willing to trust God and His sovereignty even when it goes against what I want. This is extremely difficult at times; and when I struggle with this is when I feel that my faith is weakest. Maybe the most important part of having faith today is simply to trust God regardless of what is going on around us and being content with things as they are (see Paul for an example).

Apparently blind Bartimaeus was the last healing in Mark, which I think is appropriate since there are so many lessons within that healing story.

>41 richardbsmith: I think that while Jesus rebukes the disciples for their lack of faith, by adding "faithless generation" He is also rebuking the scribes and their folowers.

In verse 23 I am not sure if Jesus is actually directing the statement at any one in particular or not, but if He is I would think it would be at the disciples.

v 29 According to the JAMIESON-FAUSSETT-BROWN
COMMENTARY

that is, as nearly all good interpreters are agreed, “this kind of evil spirits cannot be expelled,” or “so desperate a case of demoniacal possession cannot be cured, but by prayer and fasting.”

Does your reading of the Greek agree with this?

I do not think that part of the verse is in question. Perhaps the inference of the Jamieson Faussett Brown commentary is that the literal "This kind" should be understood as "so desperate a case". The Greek suggests to me it is the type of demon, but that could easily be understood as the degree of demon possession.

My question about the verse is to explain that Jesus uses neither prayer nor fasting and that Matthew and Luke both make significant changes to the discourse with the healing.

ETA
Please though do not put too much credence on my reading of the Greek text.

I believe that the command to pray and fast was not necessary for Jesus, rather I think He was telling the disciples this is why THEY could not cast out the demon.

I also think it ties in with Jesus telling them in the sermon on the mount to pray and also to fast.

And thinking about whether our faith is strong enough to heal others, James 5:16-18 comes to mind. Does this mean we should be able to pray and see results like Elijah, or does it mean that when we pray we are to leave it in God's hands?

Ask and receive.

Faith as small as a mustard seed.

All things are possible to one who believes.

Do not fear, only believe.

Which goes right back to your original question, and I still do not have the answer. Perhaps that is because of the weakness of my own faith.