Touching Jesus

Mark 5 : 21 - 30

Mark chapter 5 verse 21 - 30: ”And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about Him, and He was beside the sea. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing Him, he fell at His feet and implored Him earnestly, saying, ‘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.’ And He went with him. And a great crowd followed Him and thronged about Him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind Him in the crowd and touched His garment. For she said, ‘If I touch even His garments, I will be made well.’ And immediately the flow of blood dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Jesus, perceiving in Himself that power had gone out from Him, immediately turned about in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched my garments?’”

Now this is one [example] of the famous ‘Markan sandwich’ – a motif found in the gospel of Mark. As you can read, the story is interrupted in the middle. Of course, from a dramatic perspective, it creates tension. But I do not think the Bible, the Word of God, is interested in creating more drama for the story. The interruption serves functionally as a reminder for the reader of the gospel of Mark but especially, in the story, for Jairus himself. Therefore the motif is theological rather than ‘cinematographic’ or ‘theatrical’. It is even the key to understanding the combined stories. And if you have the opportunity to look at the original Greek language – if not, then just believe me; there is a difference between the use of the aorist [tense] (usually translated into past tense from Greek) in the middle insertion and the imperfect or present tenses utilised in the other materials.

As you can see in both stories, Jesus was brought into contact with ‘uncleanness’. Menstrual hemorrhage, something that in the Old Testament is considered to make one unclean (extending also to those in contact with them), and the contact with the corpse of a child, something that also makes one unclean. So the aspect of uncleanness that we contemplated last week is connected with the narrative we find in this story. Now what is beautiful about this, and which I think is the key message, is that in Mark 5 we read that the unclean people transfer their uncleanness to Jesus. But Jesus does not Himself become unclean, rather bestowing cleansing, holiness, and wholeness from God. So you have here a classical substitutive motif: that of the doctrine of Substitution. Luther calls this doctrine the “Fröhliche Wechsel”, or the “Joyful/happy Exchange”. Our uncleanness is thrown to Jesus, and He bestows His cleansing wholeness and His holiness to us. The climax of this story, of course, taking place on the cross: that Jesus was not overcome by uncleanliness or sin, and that He was resurrected from the dead.

If you read the story itself, the woman was feeling hopeless about her situation so Jesus was truly the only hope in her life. I think this is also oftentimes the problem with us: that we only come to Jesus when we have exhausted every other hope. That is why it is difficult to say and to internalise the ‘Solus Christus’ principle.

You can read in the gospel of Mark that, as usual, there is the presence of a great crowd (verse 21). Compared to the crowd in the Decapolis from the previous story, you will see that the crowd here is somewhat more receptive. But the first story is, again, not about the woman with the hemorrhage but about Jairus as the ruler of the synagogue. The ruler of the synagogue is tasked with the general oversight of the synagogue, and is also responsible for the orthodox teachings. Certainly no light task. But even he is not exempt from a life of suffering or desperation. Sometimes one can say, “I have already been faithful in doing the work of God, why then do I still have suffering in my life?” But you see here that the ruler of this synagogue does not complain in that manner. Although you can read very clearly that he was quite desperate, you also read that he was pleading with Jesus. “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.” Now you see here that Jesus is not disturbed at all. He is very committed to serve, and to minister to the human need. Because He knows the invaluable worth of the human individual to God’s kingdom.

I think we can pause here, and reflect on the life of Jesus. Isn’t it true in your and my life, that we frequently lack this kind of commitment? We tend to do the bare minimum, “I still want to have my own life, my freedom, my enjoyment, my pleasure etc. I can participate in church ministry to be a blessing to my neighbour with the absolute minimum.” We can hardly talk about sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice at all when perhaps only your leisure time is used to participate in church ministry. It also holds true not only with time, but also with money, emotions, feelings, and many other things in our life. It’s not really a sacrifice, but perhaps something we don’t really need. Something that can easily be shared. Now if you read the story of the revival in the history of the church, I think you notice that this goes hand in hand. The word of God, but also human sacrifice; the Christians who sacrifice themselves. I think you can agree with me that Jesus’ own sacrifice on the cross is something radical. It is a radical sacrifice on the cross, not something He can do in His leisure time, like simply allocating a couple of hours to be on the cross. That certainly is not the depiction of the cross. But again, we are easily disturbed because of our leisure time, because of a sense of urgency that we make for ourselves, perhaps because of our health etc etc. I think there is a certain test here in this story – again, not out of the cinematographical or theatrical interest. The interruption of the woman with the menstrual hemorrhage; she was certainly also desperate in her situation. Though perhaps at a glance, less urgent in comparison to the plea of Jairus.

Now Mark the evangelist describes her condition as “Mastix”, which is an expression that can be translated to mean a whip, a lash, scourge, or torment. Now this is no mere physical suffering, but combined also with shame: as the Jews lived in the culture of honour and shame. As you know, there is an old theory if I am not mistaken during the 50s, differentiating between the honour/shame culture and the guilt culture. This is, of course, not a stereotype of the tendency of Asian cultures to lean more towards the honour and shame culture with western societies perhaps being more inclined to the guilt culture. That tendency is why somehow in Indonesia the prison system isn’t really working, because we do not have this guilt culture. We very much have a shame culture, placing a high emphasis on the importance of shame. Sometimes it is not about the guilt of right and wrong, but whether or not you are honorable or shameful. So to go back to the story, the combination of physical suffering and shame. And also from the perspective of Deuteronomistic theology from the Old Testament, I think not only the woman but also the crowd might imagine that this woman is being punished by God through this disease, through physical suffering, shame, and also a kind of punishment or judgement. That’s why Mark, when writing about the condition of this woman as we can read in verse 26, in the Greek language uses participles which can be translated into English with the ending “-ing” to denote the present participle form. It does not really reflect in the ESV translation which writes “…who had suffered…” and “…had spent…” but it would be better translated with the word ‘having’. Having blood flow, having suffered from many doctors; of course, it was not stated in the bible, but having exhausted all her wealth, having not improved but having gotten worse. So this is her condition – no hope. But she remained hopeful in relation to Jesus.

There are certain people who are very disappointed with Christians in the church. And commonly in Europe, with the government. That is likely also the experience of this woman. But she does not give up in her faith in God, in Jesus. You may be disappointed with Christians, with the church, but you shouldn’t be disappointed in God.

In this desperate situation, she came to Jesus. Perhaps in the ‘wrong’ time, in view of the more urgent matter in Jairus’ life. But imagine the suffering of this woman from many doctors, physicians, perhaps having exhausted all of her wealth and resources but having gained nothing, we can say that her situation is also somehow comparable to that of the dying girl.

If we read from the Old Testament, specifically from the book of Leviticus – if you like you may read Leviticus 15:19 - 27 but I will only read a few verses starting from 19: “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.” So it is written in the law in the book of Leviticus. So you read that anyone, not only she, but also anyone who came into contact with her during this menstrual period, he or she is to be banished at least until evening. So this is the context in which Jesus enters into this uncleanness in her life.

Now from the perspective of the woman herself, I think we can take a look at the surrounding belief during that time. In theology we usually call this, in the German scholarship the Religionsgeschichte Schule, or the school of the history of religion. The study of the comparison between religions in the Ancient Near East. For instance there is a story of Alexander the Great, who was frequently mobbed by crowds. I quote here: “The crowds ran to him from all sides. Some touching his hands, some his knees, some his garment.” From our modern perspective, this sounds like a celebrity or an idol. But that is not the case in the Ancient Near East. This is not about touching Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande or whatever. But in the Ancient Near East they have the hope of being ‘baptised’ with the aura of Alexander the Great. So it’s about power, healing, restoration, not just about taking pictures. Not that there were pictures to take in that time. Now, it could also have been the case that this woman approached Jesus with this kind of superstition, but I don’t think that was the case because the gospel of Mark does not make any comment on the matter. Perhaps it is safer to interpret and to assume that the woman saw something different in Jesus compared to the belief in Alexander the Great and other great rulers.

As with many stories in the New Testament but especially in the gospel, we hear of miraculous healings but I think we can safely assume that before this encounter the woman had already heard about Jesus. You know the other story of the blind beggar who also cries out, “Jesus son of David, have mercy on me!” The title “son of David” certainly did not come from nowhere, so there is some background to his knowledge about Jesus as the son of David. So the story of Jesus that she heard precedes her response towards Jesus. First she hears about Jesus, then she decides to come to Jesus, and then she touches Him. So first: hearing, listening; perhaps not a personal encounter but hearing from others, then the decision to come to Jesus and finally to touch Him. This is a personal, intimate relation. Many people stay at the level of simply having heard about Jesus, having heard about God, having heard about Christianity etc. but they never came to Jesus: to God. Let alone having touched Jesus. I think we can learn something from the faith of this woman. Her experience of hearing about Jesus does not only stay at the level of hearing, but her faith helps her to touch Jesus, to touch God. 12 years of shame, frustration, and the feeling of being judged and punished. But at the momentary touch of Jesus, she is restored and her problems resolved. It’s incomparable. 12 years, in comparison to a momentary touch of Jesus. Wouldn’t it be foolish for us not to appreciate this relationship with Jesus? What can Jesus do in a 12 year relationship with Him? Just a momentary touch of Jesus changed the 12 years of suffering, pain, and frustration.

Perhaps one last remark here. Let me jump to Mark 5:31 & 33: “And His disciples said to Him, ‘You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” And the response was: “But the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth.” The woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling. You can see the appropriate response: fear and trembling. Not from being accused, but rather as a proper response to the holiness of Jesus. How could being released from 12 years of suffering be compared to merely being accused? Rather, this fear and trembling is in response to standing before the Holy God. So she came in fear and trembling and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth.

I believe that she can be a model of faith; even here in the story for Jairus with emphasis on that she told the whole truth. She did not try to justify herself with her suffering, for instance, being entitled to healing. That is not what we read here. Simply that she tells the whole truth. Not only before Jesus, but also before the disciples, the crowd, and Jairus. Therefore this interruption is not a coincidence, but intentional; and Mark wrote this story very carefully. Because the story of the healed woman may serve as a model of faith for the continuing story, that of Jairus’.

I think we may end with verse 34: “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” (A.H.)