This is a reflection on Luke 8:40-56, with thanks to Ched Myers for his work in Binding the Strong Man and to Richard Rohr for his understanding of the ‘one great suffering’.
I wonder if any of you saw the sci-fi film Inception that was released in 2010? It starred Leonardo DiCaprio as a professional thief who specialized in conning secrets from his victims by infiltrating their dreams. Without going into too much detail, let me summarise by saying that he implanted a dream into a businessman to manipulate him into making a decision, and what’s more, he actually implanted three dreams, one inside the other.
Now I don’t want to suggest that the gospel writer Mark wrote science fiction, but he did use a similar literary technique to get our attention in the gospel reading today: he placed the story of the haemorrhaging woman inside the story of Jairus’ daughter.
The technical term for this is ‘intercalation’: the outer story gives the context for interpreting the inner story. There’s another example in chapter 11, where Jesus cursed a fig tree because it had no fruit. He then cleansed the temple of the money changers and afterwards returned to the fig tree, which by then had withered. The message seems to be that temple was like a fig tree which has leaves but no fruit, that is, the temple and its practises had become barren.
This intercalation signals that the two healings in today’s gospel reading are to be read in tandem, that they comment on each other. What is more, the number 12 is mentioned twice, which should ring some bells for us, think 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples, and there are two daughters both of whom were very sick.
Let’s first have a look at the two main characters – Jairus and the haemorrhaging woman.
Jairus was a leader of the synagogue, he would have been in charge of running things – not in a priestly role, but more like a CEO, allocating duties and ensuring they were carried out properly. He would have been one of the most important and respected men in the community.
The haemorrhaging woman was in a sharply contrasting situation, her 12-year flow of blood had been financially debilitating, as she had spent all her money on ineffective doctors, it must have been physically exhausting, as well as practically difficult to deal with. What is more, her condition rendered her permanently unclean so she wouldn’t have been allowed near the synagogue. She was an outcast on the very edge of society.
Jairus was a powerful man in a patriarchal society, while the woman was right at the opposite end of the social spectrum, just look at the differences in the way they behave:
- Jairus falls at Jesus’ feet, which was the proper way to grant honour before asking a favour, while the woman furtively steals her healing from behind and under the cover of the crowd.
- Jairus is named, is the head of his family and social group, and he advocates for his daughter, while the woman is nameless and alone.
- Jairus talks directly to Jesus as his social equal; while the woman talks only to herself in obscurity.
At that time, a woman’s “success” was dependent on her ability to marry and have children. The haemorrhaging woman failed in this duty and was therefore without honour. The Purity Code mandated that menstruating women be quarantined, and so it was highly inappropriate for her to be out in public – much less grabbing a “holy man”! But Mark ignores this scandal in order to focus instead on the way she had been bankrupted by profiteering physicians who had exploited her without healing her.
And yet, it’s not appropriate to see her as merely a victim. By being out in public and touching Jesus while she was ritually unclean, she intentionally challenges the social boundaries set up against her. She stood up for herself by going out and seeking healing in a transgressive way, and Jesus commends her for it, for her ‘faith’.
The moment she touches Jesus, the power dynamics of the story start to be reversed. For starters, rather than contaminating Jesus with her impurity, the woman is healed.
Then, when Jesus senses that power has gone out of him, he stops to inquire what has happened; he is concerned with the individual human being who has sought out his help. Never mind that she is one of the crowd, the anonymous mass of impoverished people that always seem to be following him around, this person is important enough for him to interrupt his journey to Jairus’ house. In typical fashion, the disciples cannot understand why he takes this detour while there is the urgent request of a powerful person to attend to. But Jesus insists on knowing who touched him.
Emerging from the margins of the story to center stage, it is the woman’s turn to fall in front of Jesus, implying that she is now on equal par with Jairus. Finding her voice, “she told him the whole truth”— she does this in fear and trembling, but Jesus speaks peace over her and acknowledges her rightful status as “daughter” in the family of Israel.
Just as Jesus calls the woman daughter, servants come to say that Jairus’ daughter is dead. It seems that by spending time on this woman, Jesus has let Jairus down. But Jesus is not phased by this and exhorts Jairus to believe… the intercalation of the two stories implies that Jesus is instructing this leader of the synagogue to learn about faith from an outcast woman! Here, faith means trusting the person of Jesus, rather than the circumstances of the situation.
The scene at Jairus’ house must have been quite dramatic. Mourning rituals of the time involved the beating of breasts, tearing of hair, and rending of garments. There was to be no work or activity for 3 days, no joy, and no reading of the scriptures apart from the none-too cheery books of Job, Jeremiah and Lamentations. When Jesus insists that the girl is only sleeping, this mourning turns to derision. Jesus throws out the onlookers and raises the girl back to life.
The people gathered around the girl were astonished, a reaction that only happens one other time in the gospel of Mark, at Jesus‘ resurrection, in both cases the word used is ekstasis. The double use of this rare word ekstasis encourages us to see a link between the two events, but more on that later.
At his point, Mark mentions that the girl was 12 years old – she had lived affluently for 12 years, and was on the verge of menstruation. In contrast, the bleeding woman had suffered for 12 years, permanently infertile. This special number, also symbolizes the twelve tribes of Israel; within the “family” of Israel, these “daughters” represent the advantaged and the impoverished.
Inequality within society is not only unjust, it is also dangerous. High levels of income inequality are linked to economic instability, financial crisis, debt, inflation and violent crime; the effects are also psychological, including diminishing trust, an eroded sense of community and growing political apathy. People in less equal societies are less likely to engage in social or civic activities, and less likely to say they’re happy.
Jesus’ healing journey had to take a detour to listen to the pain of the excluded and disadvantaged woman. Only when the outcast woman was restored to “daughterhood” could the daughter of the synagogue also be restored to life. The kingdom that Jesus came to bring is for the good of everyone, and only when the inequalities in our societies are addressed, will the whole of society prosper.
While it’s reassuring to know that Christ’s kingdom will ultimately bring an end to injustice, what about all the injustices and all the other suffering happening in the meantime? What about our own personal sufferings, in whatever form they take, what might this story have to say about that?
People deal with pain and suffering in different ways. Some tend to blame others or even God. Others deny or repress their feelings behind a stiff upper lip. Others are able to express their painful feelings in healthy ways and to find some sort of peace. This story points us towards yet another way of approaching suffering.
Mark places the woman’s story of suffering inside the story of Jairus’ daughter’s death and new life. This whole incident in placed within the larger narrative of the gospel of Mark – the narrative of Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection. Like the woman, Jesus became outcast, cursed by the crucifixion, and like the girl he rose from death – remember that word ekstasis? On the cross he held their suffering and shared in it.
In Christ, God chose to become human and stand in solidarity with us in our brokenness, and he invites us to come to him in our times of suffering and struggle and place our story inside his bigger story too.
I hardly need to tell you that suffering is an important part of the human experience, and we struggle and strain against it. Many pages have been written to try to understand how a good God can allow so much pain and suffering, without any easy answer.
But what we do know is that on the cross Christ embraced both our suffering and the whole world’s suffering. In Christ, our suffering connects us, in some small way, with the one great suffering of the rest of the world.
Perhaps we can find some consolation in holding our pain in solidarity with others, trusting in Christ who held it all on the cross, holds it now in the heart of the Godhead and is transforming it into resurrection.