The Experience of Studying Hebrew as a Student Who is Blind
Sarah Blake is a licensed minister with the Church of God (Anderson, IN). She is available to provide biblical teaching, ministry seminars, or music ministry for your church. Hear samples from some of her presentations and contact her for booking information.
Development of content for this site is supported by your contributions, the sale of products through various affiliate programs, and Sarah's work as a writer, speaker, and in other areas listed on her services page. If the material on this site has been helpful or encouraging to you, please consider shopping using the sites linked here--and return to do your shopping anytime using these links to continue supporting this site--or making a contribution using the Amazon Honor System.
Reload for a different book selection...
People who have sought solutions to a problem for a long time and failed to find them often turn to the story of the healing of the hemorrhaging woman in Mark 5:25-34 for encouragement. The story not only demonstrates Jesus’ healing power but serves as a vehicle for encouraging people to place their faith, however timid, in the power of Jesus. The story is most often meaningful for people who are seeking relief from illness; but it also has other implications. In addition to being a story about the healing of the woman’s physical illness, it is also a story about the healing of relationships and community. The usefulness of this story is not only as a model of faith but also as a vehicle for understanding the role of Jesus as savior.
The story of the healing of the hemorrhaging woman is told in all three synoptic Gospels. Mark devotes the most space to it, spending ten verses on it (Mk. 5:25-34). Luke devotes six verses to it (Lk. 8:43-48), while Matthew devotes only three (Mt. 9:20-22).
Mark is often assumed to have been written before other Gospels, and some scholars believe that it may have been used as a source for the writing of the other Gospels. The author is unknown, but tradition indicates that the author is Mark, Peter’s interpreter. The Gospel is presumed to have been written before the fall of Jerusalem.
Several features of the Gospel of Mark provide clues that are useful in studying individual passages. The meaning of particular phrases in Greek is translated, creating the impression that the work was written for an audience who may not be familiar with the language. This usage of translation also may provide clues about the cultural composition of the community.
Mark identifies important details, such as the facial or ethnic background of particular individuals who interact with Jesus. This suggests that the average person with whom Jesus interacted was Jewish—and, in fact, was a Jewish peasant since members of the Jewish elite are also identified. This fact has important implications when Mark describes the behavior of the crowds in relation to Jesus in a number of places. The descriptions imply that the inclusion of crowds in certain stories has a certain purpose. These descriptions provide important background information when read against the story of the hemorrhaging woman.
Mark includes several details in his story that Matthew and Luke omit. This is the only account that mentions the fact that the woman had “spent all she had” in seeking healing from doctors.(Mk. 5:25, NIV) Luke mentions the fact that “no one could heal her,” (Lk. 8:43) and Matthew does not indicate that she had sought help at all. Mark not only mentions the fact that she had sought help but indicates the degree of help she had sought and the impact this had upon her socially. She had seen many doctors and spent all of her money, “yet instead of getting better she grew worse.” (Mk. 5:26) Not only were her attempts unsuccessful; but her condition later would result in a greater need for help than she had when she began.
Mark also provides detail about the motivation behind the woman’s action. The passage indicates that she learned about Jesus (though it does not specify when this happened) and that she acted upon this knowledge, motivated by the thought that contact with his clothing would bring healing, and deliberately touched him. Luke indicates that she thought about the ramifications of touching Jesus and had made a conscious decision to touch him. Matthew provides no information about her motivation.
Mark provides details about the healing and the encounter with Jesus that follows which are omitted from both Matthew and Luke. The healing happened immediately, prompting Jesus to look around to see who touched him. At the moment of healing, the woman experienced a knowledge of her healing. Jesus’ response to the fact that someone has touched him is unique in this story. The crowds press forward to touch him in Mk. 3:10 and request to touch him in Mk. 6:56. Being touched is not unusual for him. The disciples not only deny being the one to touch him but also question his reason for asking about it. He says that power has gone out from him, implying that the touch is special. The two comparative passages describe healing events, implying either that at times power was present for Jesus to heal or that the crowds had permission to access this power.
The ordering of words in the account of the woman’s response to Jesus is unique in Mark. It suggests that she could have come first and then trembled as she confessed to touching him (Mk. 5:33. This aspect of the story is omitted in Matthew. However, in the Luke passage, she came trembling, suggesting that she was already trembling before she touched him (Lk 8:47).
In all three passages, the story of the hemorrhaging woman is placed in the midst of another miracle story: the healing of Jairus’ daughter. This sandwiching emphasizes clashing characteristics between the two events and underscores the importance of several factors in the woman’s story.
Jairus is a synagogue ruler; the woman’s status is unspecified except that she has spent all of her money seeking treatment. Marie Eloise Rosenblatt raises questions about the woman's ethnicity, suggesting that it is difficult to discern this information based on historical analysis and the fact that none of the three texts provide useful clues to the woman's identity. However, it may be possible to deduce that the woman was likely Jewish based on the fact that the Gospel writers positively identify other women whose racial differences cause them to experience tension in their interactions with Jesus. Such a racial difference, like the woman's illness, would have presented a need for a resolution of tension in order for the healing to take place. Rosenblatt also provides some information that suggests equal possibilities of determining that the woman is Gentile.
The most powerful evidence for the woman's identity as a Gentile, according to Rosenblatt, is found in Jesus' words to her.The thought, "If I but touch but his clothes" (Mark 5:28) is linked biblically and thematically with gentiles seeking affiliation with Jews. "Thus says the Lord of hosts: In those days ten men from nations of every language shall take hold of a Jew, grasping his garment and saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you'" (Zech. 8:23). In an earlier passage, Mark emphasizes the diversity of the population, not its homogeneity, for the crowd pressing Jesus on all sides for healing is ethnically mixed, coming not only from the land of Israel, but Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon (Mark 3:10). Luke evokes the same geographical and ethnic diversity in 6:19 at the Sermon on the Plain, in the crowd seeking healing. In Acts 19:11-12, the crowd in the hall of Tyrannus and the residents of the city of Ephesus include both Jews and gentiles. They bring pieces of cloth to touch Paul, as though he were a holy site or a healing-emanating force whose power can be transferred via the medium of an object which has touched him, a surrogate contact with his body.
The woman's gentile ethnicity is underlined by Jesus' confirmation of her healing and her new socio-religious status as "daughter" (Mark 5:34). The vocative acknowledges that she is no longer an anonymous stranger, but she has a place of respect in the family, analogous to the daughter of the synagogue official. She is no longer a social or religious outsider. The relationship does not flow from Jesus assuming the role of parent. Being called "daughter" in this context is not merely a pastoral expression of care, or a diminutive which subordinates her to the status of fearful child in relation to Jesus as powerful male healer. Rather, in the social context, she is dignified by an acknowledgment that she is a member of the household of the faith; she has been publicly acknowledged and adopted as "daughter" as a badge of honour. Her testimony belongs to the family as part of its precious heritage of remembering the healing power of Jesus. As Karen Jo Torjesen notes, "The earliest Christians conceived of themselves explicitly as an alternative family or household. The Gospels portray the bonds among the followers of Jesus as familial, superseding even biological bonds."37 The vocative here has a distinct application to the woman as gentile-daughter; it also has resonance with the dignifying of a Jewish woman as "daughter of Abraham" (cf. the bent-over woman in Luke 13:16) and with the honoured priestly ancestry of Elizabeth, referred to as "from the daughters of Aaron" (Luke 1:5).
Other scholars assume that the woman is Jewish and that Jesus is acting with respect to the Jewish purity laws. Stuart Love proposes that the story demonstrates Jesus’ healing work within the house of Israel.3 If this is the case, then it should be assumed that the woman is Jewish.
The woman’s condition, when compared with the condition of Jairus’ daughter, is significant. Some translations introduce the woman as having “a flow of blood” (Mk. 5:25, Amp) or “an issue of blood.” (Mk 5:25, KJV) Elaine Weissenrieder explains that ancient medical texts indicate that many conditions can cause the “issuing” of blood and suggests that the woman’s hemorrhage may not, in fact, represent a genital problem suggesting uncleanness. 4 However, the narrative context of the story provides a clue that the condition does, in fact, invoke the Levitical purity laws. Marla Selvidge notes that no other Greek authors of the time period use the term that translates as menstrual flow. The term is used seventeen times in the LXX, fifteen of which are found in Leviticus. After listing several references where terms for menstruation are used, Selvidge says that "all of the above references are used to control sexuality." 5 This implies that the woman’s “flow of blood” was an abnormal genital condition. The placement of the story amid the journey of Jesus to the home of the synagogue ruler emphasizes the stigma of the Jewish woman with an illness which makes her unclean. In the time that it takes for the woman and Jesus to interact, Jairus’ daughter dies, setting up a situation where Jesus must touch a corpse. Both situations require Jesus to risk being contaminated and to confront and reinterpret ancient purity laws.
The healing of the hemorrhaging woman takes place outside, amid a crowd, as do many other healings in Mark. By contrast, the healing of Jairus’ daughter takes place inside the house. Only the child’s parents and two of Jesus’ disciples are present. This again suggests that there is something for the crowd to learn from the healing of the woman. The location of the two healings also illustrates another important point. Jesus made a practice of intentionally meeting people at the point of their need. Jairus approached him and intentionally requested his presence at the location where healing was needed. Jesus likewise heals those who need healing outside because they are unable to enter the temple due to the status which their illness has conferred upon them. The woman with the hemorrhage, like the leper and the lame and the blind, could not enter the temple.
Jesus’ words in both stories restore health and community to the individual. His words also instruct the community regarding treatment of the individual. He seeks out the person who touched him (Mk. 5:30) , demonstrating to his disciples that people in need of healing should not be ignored due to their social status. This action is consistent with other actions, such as his calling attention to the poor widow’s offering. (Mk. 12:43) He instructs the woman to “go in peace and be freed from your suffering.” (Mk. 5:34) His words grant her rightful claim to the healing which she sought in secret and provide subtle instruction to her to perform the appropriate purification rites. His address to her as “daughter” sends a clear message to the rest of the crowd, including Jairus, the synagogue ruler. This woman is to be acknowledged as part of the community, as one of the children of Abraham. Likewise, his words to the child’s parents, “to give her something to eat,” (Mk. 5:43) instruct them to provide the nourishment that she needs in order to return to health and, in doing this, to reinstate her into the community.
The theological significance of this narrative is evident by examining three models of interpretation, which have been proposed by Stuart Love. These models explore the implications of healing and physical illness, the implications of illness and healing on politics and kinship, and the implications of healing where the body is a symbol of community. 6 Using these models, it is possible to understand how the truths which applied to the hemorrhaging woman and to her community also apply to people who face similar impacts from different circumstances and to the communities in which they live. The story also has theological implications regarding the relationship of the sinner to Jesus as savior.
Love points out that illness in agrarian society is not an individual problem. It is a community problem. It causes a personal loss of ability which results in loss of physical and monetary resources which would normally be available to the community. In some cases, it requires the use of community resources for care. In the case of the hemorrhaging woman, illness prevented her from forming relationships and from conceiving a child. The healing of physical illness resulted in restoration of the community through correction of these imbalances. Thus the whole community was healed.
While western society tends to view illness solely as a medical problem, it is no less affected socially. The fact that America is faced with a crisis regarding how to provide effective health care to millions of people who are aging or disabled is testimony to this fact. Many Americans do not even have the luxury of depleting their savings in order to seek care from multiple doctors. America’s managed care system prevents people with low incomes from seeking additional opinions for chronic illness.
As discussed earlier, the placement of the story of the hemorrhaging woman demonstrates the need for political healing in the Jewish culture. Israel viewed itself as one large family with the temple being the source of government. However, a significant number of people with various illnesses were prevented from entering the temple, limited in their ability to participate in daily activities, and in some cases separated from the community at large. Susan Haber says that feminist authors sometimes present the woman as isolated and oppressed. 7 However, she explains that purity laws regarding abnormal genital discharges would permit the woman to perform normal domestic tasks. She would only be required to wash her hands before touching things, and others would be prohibited from coming into contact with her bed or places where she had sat in order to avoid contamination. Even in light of this fact, there would still be social stigma associated with such a long-term illness. The loss of familial intimacy, assuming the woman had a husband, would be tremendous and would certainly cause her to continue to seek treatment. The loss of potential for intimacy, if she had no husband, would be extremely painful as well. Emotional isolation can be as painful as physical isolation. Healing the woman’s disease would restore her place in the family, thus freeing her from this isolation.
Love cites Mary Douglas’ definition of purity as normality and wholeness. Pollution and taboo refer to "a cultural system of order and disorder ." He says that Douglas identifies diseases of the orifices of the body as symbolic of the need to protect a group's political and cultural unity. He therefore proposes that the hemorrhaging illness represents problems with Israel's public, social identity. Like many other healings in Mark, this one takes place in public. It is set against the healing of Jairus' daughter, which takes place in private. The situation confronts social problems facing ordinary Jews who lived with illness in a political society with laws which made them outcasts.
Mitzi Minor speaks to this problem as well, calling attention to the tendency of women to remain silent about their difficulties and needs in an effort not to create difficulties for others.
What a contrast there is between this woman's hidden effort and the action of the synagogue ruler Jairus whose story is so intimately intertwined with hers! Jairus, an important man in his society, approached Jesus openly (5:22) and begged Jesus to come to his house and heal his daughter who was dying (5:23). Indeed, the woman contrasts sharply with all the men in Mark … Our nameless, anonymous woman, however, silently touched Jesus' clothes so slightly that his progress to Jairus' home need not be impeded.
Once again this woman is evocative of the experiences and attitudes of many contemporary women for whom silence remains an aspect of their lives. Is there a woman today who has never said or thought about her own needs, "It's not important," "It can wait," or "I don't want to interrupt you while you're doing something important"? Or how many women have never given voice to their hurts because they have been told to shut up, because they are sure no one is listening, or because they do not know the words to use? … Women's silence betrays an attitude they often have toward themselves that they are unworthy of other persons' significant time or attention. The result is that women often subsume their needs and indeed their whole selves under the needs of the other people in their lives and live only through these others. … Those who seek to nurture women's spirituality believe that this attitude women have about themselves is often the greatest obstacle women face in becoming the persons God created them to be, in becoming whole human beings with God-given gifts and creativities of their own to share with the world around them. Some call this attitude sin, indeed women's greatest sin. Susan Nelson Dunfee has even given this sin a name: she has labeled it the "sin of hiding" from oneself and the person God has called one to be.8
This “sin of hiding” affects many people—both men and women. It is vital to understand that the Holy Spirit calls us to be accountable for our actions and that Jesus meets us at the point of our need just as he turned and looked for the person who touched him.
Jesus was not contaminated by the woman’s illness. Instead, his healing power was available to her with merely a touch of his clothing. It was meant to be given in response to the confession of her need; for his healing was not only for her illness but also for the impact of her illness upon her life and the community where she lived. The comparison of uncleanness to sin is unmistakable. The awareness of sin, like the abnormal genital discharge, causes shame. However, sin does not contaminate Jesus. Jesus cleanses the sinner in response to confession and repentance and restores a right spirit. Healing is also available for the impact of sin.
When studying the miracle stories, it can be difficult to discover the meaning and implications. It is tempting to apply the meaning that seems most obvious: Jesus provides healing for diseases. It is equally tempting to look for the most spiritual meaning and gloss over the details that suggest that God is concerned with everyday problems. However, the meaning and implications of this and other similar narratives are complex, often spanning multiple domains. Everyday problems are significant because they have a lasting impact on other areas of life. The healing narratives illustrate God’s concern for this impact as well as his plan to use such circumstances as “teachable moments.”
Haber, Susan. “A woman's touch: feminist encounters with the hemorrhaging woman in Mark 5.24-34,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (December 2003), 171-192.
Love, Stuart L. “Jesus Heals the Hemorrhaging Woman,” in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Molina, and Gerd Theissen, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002, 85-101.
Minor, Mitzi. “Old Stories Through New Eyes : Insights Gained from a Feminist Reading of Mark 5:25-34,” Memphis Theological Seminary Journal 30 (Spring 1992), 2-14.
Rosenblatt, Marie Eloise. “Gender, ethnicity, and legal considerations in the haemorrhaging woman's story Mark 5:25-34,” in Transformative encounters, Leiden: Brill, 2000, 137-161..
Selvidge, Marla. "Mark 5:25-34 and Leviticus 15:19-20 : a reaction to restrictive purity regulations," in Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (December 1984), 619-626.
Weissenrieder, Elaine. "The Plague of Uncleanness?: The Ancient Illness Construct 'Issue of Blood' in Luke 8:43-48," in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Molina, and Gerd Theissen (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 212-222.
Sarah J. Blake