Introduction
Matthew presents a paradigm of
Jesus’ ministry, when he records in 4:23-24[1]:
And
He went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming
the
gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the
people.
So His fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought Him all the sick,
those
afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, those
having seizures, and paralytics,
and He healed them.
Jesus’
ministry was comprised of the three components of teaching, preaching or
proclaiming the gospel, and healing. And He healed all manners of diseases and
afflictions among the people. All who were brought to Him or came to Him were
not sent away without experiencing healing (Matt 8:16-17/Mark 1:32-24/Luke
4:40-41, Matt 14:34-36/Mark 6:53-56/Luke 6:18-19, Matt 15:29-31, 19:2, Mark
6:5)[2]. Many
more than those recorded in the Gospels received healing from Jesus (John
20:30, 21:25).
When Jesus healed the sick, He had
the authority and power to do so just by saying the word even without being in
the presence of the sick, as He demonstrated in the case of a centurion’s
servant (Matt 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10) or an official’s son in Cana (John 4:46-54).
In fact, all He had to do was to indicate His willingness to heal (Matt
8:1-4/Mark 1:40-45/Luke 5:12-16). Yet, at other times, He took the time to
actually touch the afflicted body parts; one time He even went through some
elaborate steps of making a mud with His own spittle and anointing the eyes of
a man born blind with the mud (John 9:1-41). As tabulated in the Appendix, the
Gospels record at least 28 healing miracles where the healed individuals are
identified. Approximately half of these involved touching of the afflicted by
Jesus or of Jesus by the afflicted.
This paper will first review the
Greek and Jewish modes of therapy, against whose backdrop Jesus provided His
healing ministry, and then examine the possible Christological and soteriological
implications of the element of touching in Jesus’ healing.
Healing and medicine in the
Greco-Roman world
Early Greek physicians aspired to be followers of Asclepius,
a demi-god of healing and medicine, who had first been described as a king
(circa 9th to 10th century BC) whose two sons, Machaon
and Podalasius, were physicians in the Greek army at Troy in Homer’s Iliad[3]. As the
myth has it, Asclepius (Ἀσκληπιός
meaning “to cut open”)
was delivered surgically from his dying mother Coronis by his father Apollo. He
was raised by and learned the art of healing with herbals from the wise
centaur, Chiron. He also had daughters whose names were Hygieia (hygiene or
cleanliness), Medtrina (medicine), and Panacea (all healing), who probably
symbolized different aspects of medicine and healing. Asclepius, or his
teaching, was later credited with eradication of a plague in Athens in 420 BC
and a pestilence in Rome in 293 BC and by then his status as a demigod was
well-established.
Followers of Asclepius, or
Asclepiads, had two types of medical practice[4],[5].
The first group consisted of traveling physicians, who carried a staff to the countryside[6] and
treated the poor with medicines and instruments. The second practiced temple
medicine[7]: The
sick would come to the temple of Asclepius, where, following a ritual, they
would enter a sleep room or Abaton and then receive massage, hydrotherapy,
exercise and nutritional counseling. They were often treated with unguents and
poultices made from herbs and subjected to hygienic measures.
Hippocrates (circa 460~377 BC)
sought a fundamental paradigm shift from the supernatural to the natural in dealing
with diseases[8],[9].
He categorized diseases, including mental disorders, and introduced the
concepts of physiology, physical diagnosis, pathology and surgery. He advocated
a holistic care model that prevents diseases and restores health by altering diet
and environmental conditions. Incorporating the traditions of Hippocrates and
other Greek writers, Claudius Galenus, better known as Galen of Pergamum,
developed an understanding of the physiology based on 4 humors of water, earth,
fire and air, popularized “bloodletting” to correct imbalance of the 4 humors, proposed
the heart as circulating the “innate heat” of the body, and attempted to cure
blindness caused by cataract by removing the lens with a needle[10]. He was
most effective as a physician when he advocated hygienic measures in treating
gladiators’ wounds in Pergamum and combating a great plague in Rome. Galen’s
influence dominated the western medicine for nearly 1300 years until the
Renaissance era.
Although shrouded in temple rituals,
Greek medicine basically attempted to understand physiology and pathology using
natural scientific means and employed hygienic measures and herbal medicines
that were found effective by trial and error. In this sense, it was the
forerunner of modern medicine. Jesus did not necessarily disapprove the use of
natural therapeutic measures based on the available understanding of natural
sciences. In His Parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan poured oil and
wine on the wounds (Luke 10:34), presumably to soothe the pain and disinfect
the wound. Jesus’ healing ministry, however, was more than just a therapeutic
practice; it was meant to be a sign that demonstrated that He is the Christ,
the Son of God (John 20:31).
Healing and medicine in Judaism
In Judaism, God was the supreme physician, responsible
for both sickness and healing in response to sin and repentance[11]: “I
kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver
out of My hand” (Deut 32:39). For maintenance of health and healing from diseases,
the nation of Israel was enjoined to be humble before the Lord and seek His
ways (2 Chron 7:13-14). Since healing was theurgic, few references were made to
physicians and medicines in the Old Testament.
The use of human physicians was seen
with some ambiguity. When Asa king of Judah was diseased in his feet, he was
rebuked for seeking help from physicians, rather than from the Lord (2 Chron
16:12). The Mishnah excludes physicians from resurrection and destines them to
hell[12]. Yet,
in Talmudic tradition, the Mosaic law that if one inflicted harm to another, he
“shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed” (Ex
21:19) authorized physicians to practice medicine[13]. In
fact, Talmudic authors forbade living in a town without a physician[14]. A
medical practitioner was called a rophe, from a root meaning to alleviate
or assuage. When a rophe is selected as a certified municipal
physician for his training and experience, he was then designated as rophe
umman and could render expert testimony in court and treat the poor at
community expense. At his disposal were bandages, splints, oils, poultices and
herbal remedies such as balm of Gilead (Jer 8:22); the hyssop plant, commonly
colonized by penicillium mold and thus having antibacterial properties,
was used for cleansing[15].
For the Biblical Jew, physical
health and spiritual and ritual cleanliness were identical[16]; the
priests and Levites, while not practicing medicine, were responsible for
declaring what was clean and unclean. In promoting ritual purity, the Mosaic
law advocated many preventive health practices such as frequent washing,
especially before meals (Mark 7:3), the cleansing of cooking vessels or their
destruction (Lev 11:32-33), sanitation and proper waste disposal (Deut
23:12-13), and keeping houses free from mold and mildew or dismantling them
(Lev 14:33-53). The law also had many dietary restrictions, especially
regarding meat. Meat offerings were to be eaten the day of sacrifice or the
next, but no later (Lev 7:15-17); consumption of blood or meat torn by beasts
in the field was forbidden (Lev 17:10-15, Ex 22:31). The Jews’ concern for
their environment are contained in the injunctions called bal tashhit
(“You shall not (wantonly) destroy”, Deut 20:19) and yishuv ha-arez
(“dwelling in the land”, Num 33:53), whereby they were enjoined a strict regard
for preservation of the world around them to promote community welfare[17].
Unlike the Greeks who hypothesized
the 4 humors to explain physiology and pathology, the Talmudists – somewhat
paradoxically against the injunction not to touch the unclean -- relied on
direct examination of the person or meat to ensure cleanliness and ritual
purity[18]. In the
process, they invented various instruments such as the endotracheal tube to
examine the lungs and the vaginal speculum to look for the source of bleeding
and were able to correlate morphological changes in tissues with external
symptoms, thus predating the modern science of pathology. The Jews emphasized
practicality[19]
and, in the opinion of one Jewish physician[20], “evinced
little interest in irrational treatments such as the exorcism of demons and
healing shrines, waters and relics.” The Mosaic law prohibited the use of
sorcery, fortune-telling and necromancery (Deut 18:10-12, Lev 19:26,31,
20:6,27, Ex 22:18). Many of Jesus’ healing miracles involved exorcisms of
demons and touching[21] of the
ceremonially unclean such as the lepers and the woman with bloody discharge; it
is not surprising that these acts brought repugnant reactions from the Jewish
leaders.
Christological implications of Touching
in Jesus’ Healing
Jesus’ acts of healing signify that He is the Christ
(John 20:31). In fact, the touching element in His healing ministry helps
demonstrate both humanity and divinity of the Christ.
John, who says “Every spirit that
acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” (1 John 4:2),
explains what this means in the prologue to his first epistle (1 John 1:1):
“That which was from the beginning”, i.e., “the Word of life” came in the flesh,
so that we could not only hear and see Him, but “our hands have touched” Him.
In these words that echo the prologue to the Gospel of John, the Apostle
declares not only the pre-existent divinity of the Word as from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ἀρχῆς), but His humanity that came in
the flesh (ἐν σαρκὶ) and could be touched, handled and felt (αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν). Just as Thomas demanded a proof
of Jesus’ bodily resurrection by being able to touch the wounds in His hands
and His side (John 20:25), Jesus’ acts of touching and being touched in His
healing amply proved that He dwelled among us in flesh (John 1:14).
Furthermore, His being touched
proved that Jesus in flesh was accessible and through Him as God Incarnate, God
was now accessible. Though God is spirit (John 4:24) and dwells in
unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16), Jesus with His touching and being touched revealed
(ἐξηγήσατο) the
Father (John 1:18) and gave us access to Him in confidence (Eph 2:18, 3:12). At
the beginning of His ministry, after Jesus was baptized by John, He saw the
“heavens being torn open” (Mark 1:10), so that the heavens were no
longer inaccessible. Thus the woman with the bloody discharge could touch Jesus
in the crowd (Mark 5:27) and “all who had diseases pressed around Him to touch
Him” (Mark 3:10). And “as many as touched (even His garment) were made well”
(Mark 6:56).
In a peculiar act of healing, Jesus
opened the eyes of a man born blind by spitting on the ground, making mud with
the saliva, anointing the man’s eyes with the mud and telling him to go and
wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:6-7). Beginning with Irenaeus, many Biblical
exegetes have suggested that Jesus’ use of the mud or clay (τὸν πηλὸν) to heal the blind man alludes to
God’s use of dust in the creation of Adam in Gen 2:7[22]. Calvin
agrees in his commentary[23] that
as
man was at first made of clay, so in restoring the eyes Christ made use
of clay, showing that He had the same power over a part of the body
which the Father had displayed in forming the whole man.
In
addition, in various Bible passages that portray God the creator as a potter,
God is said to work with clay (πηλὸς)
(LXX Isa 29:16, 45:9, Jer 18:6, Job 10:9, 33:6, Rom 9:21).
Yet for some modern scholars, “the
mere mention of clay (without other contextual clues) seems … too meager a
foundation on which to rest (Irenaeus’s) case”[24] that
portrays Jesus as God the creator. They assert that this healing narrative
merely reflects the ancient belief that saliva held curative properties[25].
Against these scholarly doubts, two contextual evidences may be provided that
spittle and clay allude to creation. First, Frayer-Griggs notes that several
Dead Sea scrolls, presumably composed within a similar cultural milieu as the
Gospel of John, refer to spittle and clay alongside more transparent creation
motifs[26]: In the
Rule of the Community, the writer calls attention to the substances from
which men are created to emphasize the inadequacies of mankind:
As
what shall one born of woman be considered in Your presence? Shaped from dust
has he been, maggots’ food shall be his dwelling; he is spat saliva, moulded
clay, and for dust is his longing. What will the clay reply and the one
shaped by hand? And what advice will he be able to understand?[27]
Similarly,
in the Thanksgiving Hymns, the psalmist laments:
And
I, from dust, have been gathered, and from clay I have been formed to be a
source of impurity, and of vile filth, a pile of dust, mixed with water … a
lodging of darkness. The creature of clay must return to the dust … to the
place from which he has been taken.
Lastly,
fragments from Songs of the Sage illustrate similar motifs:
You
have placed knowledge in my foundation of dust …, even though I am a
formation from spat saliva, I am moulded from clay, and of darkness is my
mixture.
It
is clear from these passages that spittle, clay and dust were believed to be
primal elements in God’s creation of man.
As a second contextual evidence that
spittle and clay used by Jesus in healing the blind man allude to creation, it
should be noted that John 7:1 ~ 10:21, of which the healing narrative is a
part, records events and teachings of Jesus in Jerusalem during the Feast of
Tabernacles[28].
Prior to performing the miracle, Jesus had claimed that He is the giver of the
living water (7:38), the light of the world (8:12), and the pre-existent God
(8:58). Immediately before restoring the sight of the blind man, Jesus said he
must “work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day” (9:4). With the
healing act, Jesus was authenticating His claims and signifying that He does
divine works as the Creator. The clay is the salve that, when anointed,
restores a man’s sight (Rev 3:18). Through His work of re-creation and
restoration, man can be healed and re-born as a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).
Thus, in His healing ministry, Jesus
revealed both His humanity and divinity, sometimes through the mere act of
touching or being touched and other times through elaborate schemes of making
clay with His spittle and dust and applying it to restore a man.
Soteriological implications of
Touching in Jesus’ Healing
Touching by Jesus in His healing
ministry was manifested in various ways – sometimes merely holding the hand of
the diseased or the dead, sometimes being touched stealthily by the sick, and
sometimes even going through an elaborate scheme of using spittle and mud. His
touching signifies, on the one hand, substitutionary atonement and sacramental
sacrifice for His people and, on the other, judgment for those who do not
believe despite irrefutable demonstration that He is the long-awaited healer
and Savior.
According to the Mosaic law, a
diseased or dead person was considered ritually unclean. Num 5:2 commands to
put out of the camp of Israel everyone who is leprous or has a discharge and
everyone who is unclean through contact with the dead. Extensive details were
provided on how to diagnose the uncleanness of one with leprosy (Lev 13), one
with discharges (Lev 15) or one who comes in contact with the dead (Lev 21).
The uncleanness of a person was in a way contagious, so that whatever or
whoever the unclean person touched or was touched by or even anyone who touched
what the unclean person touched would also become unclean (Num 19:22).
Knowing this fully well, Jesus, however,
did not hesitate to stretch out His hand to touch a leper (Mark 1:40-45/Matt
8:1-4/Luke 5:12-16), allowed a woman with bloody discharge to touch His cloak
(Mark 5:25-34/Matt 9:20-22/Luke 8:43-48), and stopped a funeral procession by
placing His hand on the bier (Luke 7:11-17). In the well-known narrative of the
woman with bloody discharge for 12 years, she came up stealthily from behind to
touch Jesus’ cloak. And immediately the flow of blood dried up and she was
freed from her suffering, but, according to the Mosaic law, Jesus became
unclean. Even as He healed others, Jesus paid a price[29]: As
Isaiah prophesied in 53:4 and was quoted in Matt 8:17, “He took our illnesses
and bore our diseases.”
In fact, as Scaer notes, at every
step of His ministry, Jesus paid a price[30]: After
His baptism, as He was about to begin His ministry to make it possible for His
people to enter into the presence of God, He Himself was violently cast out
into the wilderness (ἐκβάλλει
εἰς τὴν ἔρημον) (Mark 1:12), just as the first
Adam was driven out of Eden (Gen 3:24). Jesus cleansed the leper to restore him
to the society, but as a result, He “could no longer openly enter a town, but
was out in desolate places” (Mark 1:45). As the woman was healed of her
discharge, Jesus perceived that power had gone out from Him (Mark 5:30). As
Paul wrote to the Corinthian church (2 Cor 5:21):
For
our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become
the righteousness of God.
For
our healing and for our salvation, Jesus became unclean and made Himself the
atoning sacrifice to reconcile us with God (Heb 9:11-12).
Yet, this touching was not a
mechanical magic act, but was made efficacious to bring salvation (σωτηρία) when one actually encountered
Jesus in an open and truthful manner[31]. As the
hemorrhaging woman approached Jesus, she deliberated in her own mind, “If I
touch even His garments, I will be made well (σωθήσομαι)” (Mark 5:28). When she touched
His cloak, she was healed of her disease (ἴαται), but not yet made well (σωθήσομαι)[32]. Only
when she came forward and told the whole truth (v 33), Jesus pronounced,
“Daughter, your faith has made you well (ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε)” (v 34).
Three times in His healing ministry,
Jesus not only touched the diseased, but also used His own spittle. In Mark
7:31-37, in Decapolis, Jesus took a man with hearing and speech impediment
aside from the crowd privately, put His fingers into his ears, and after
spitting touched his tongue, then saying “Ephphatha (Be opened).” Then
in Mark 8:22-26, Jesus took a blind man out of Bethsaida and when He had spit
on his eyes, He laid His hands on him twice to open his eyes. Lastly in John
9:1-9, Jesus healed a man born blind by spitting on the ground, making mud with
the saliva and anointing his eyes with the mud before sending him to wash in
the pool of Siloam.
Regarding these unusual methods of
healing, Calvin comments that they simply demonstrate that Jesus has multiple
means at His disposal to bring about healing and attempts to extract
allegorical meanings may be more ingenious than solid[33],[34].
Without reading into an allegorical meaning of the spittle, however, one should
note that in using the spittle, Jesus was giving something of Himself, a part of
His body to bring about healing or σωτηρία (salvation). And this is the very
idea of the Lord’s Supper that He gave his body for salvation of many.
On His way to Jerusalem to die on
the cross, Jesus was approached by the sons of Zebedee asking to be seated at
His right and left in His glory. Jesus responded in imageries of the sacraments
of the Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:38): “Are you able to drink the
cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.”
He thus links the sacraments with His death[35]. Then
He went on to say His locus classicus statement on atonement (Mark
14:45): “For even the Son of Man came … to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Thus in giving something (spittle) of His body in healing, Jesus might have
foreshadowed His sacrificial death for atonement and salvation of many.
Whereas Jesus’ touch in His healing
ministry brought redemption and salvation to some, His ministry was also the
evidence for judgment for others. Although Jesus’ acts of healing were meant to
be signs to help us believe that He is the Christ, the Son of God, and
believing, obtain eternal life in His name (John 20:30-31), the same signs
produced different reactions on the part of those witnessing the acts[36]. While
the official in Cana, whose son was healed by Jesus, believed along with his
household (John 4:53), the invalid man at Bethesda ended up informing on Jesus
who healed him (John 5:15). While the man born blind confessed Jesus as the
Lord and worshipped Him (John 9:38), the Pharisees sought to suppress the fact
and tried to label Jesus as a sinner (v 24), thus remaining spiritually blind
and in sin (v 40-41). While the resurrection of Lazarus was obvious to all the
Jews that visited his house, not all of them believed in Jesus. Some actually
went to tell the Pharisees about what He had done and the latter group, along
with the chief priests, plotted to take His life (John 11:45-53). Others believed
in Jesus, but not openly because they feared the Pharisees and loved praise
from men more than from God (John 12:42-43).
Regarding the unbelievers, Jesus
thus said (John 15:24-25):
If
I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be
guilty of sin, but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father.
Jesus
made it plain to see who He is by doing the works that no one else did, proving
He did the works of the Father who sent Him[37]. He
made it obvious by actually touching the afflicted and diseased and healing
them and sometime by going the extra distance of even spitting to make mud and
anoint it on the eyes. Yet some did not believe. Woe to them, as Jesus declared
(Luke 10:13-14):
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if
the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable
in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
Conclusion
Healing was an important element in
Jesus’ ministry. Though He could heal with a word or merely with willingness,
He often intentionally touched the afflicted. Christologically, His touch
demonstrated both His humanity with accessibility and His divinity as the
Creator. Soteriologically, His touch signified that He took upon Himself our
sin and infirmities and by giving Himself atoned for us and brought us
salvation. At the same time, His healing ministry was a judgment against those
who did not believe despite witnessing His acts that no one else did.
Appendix:
List of Jesus’ healing miracles in the Gospels
|
|
Bible
passages
|
Who
was healed
|
Touching
involved?
|
|
1
|
Matt
8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16
|
A
leper in Galilee
|
Yes
|
|
2
|
Matt
8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10
|
A
centurion’s servant in Capernaum
|
No
|
|
3
|
Matt
8:14-15, Mark 1:29-31, Luke 4:38-39
|
Peter’s
mother-in-law
|
Yes
|
|
4
|
Matt
8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39
|
A
demon-possessed
|
No
|
|
5
|
Matt
9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-26
|
A
paralytic in Capernaum
|
No
|
|
6
|
Matt
9:18-26, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56
|
Jairus’s
dead daughter
|
Yes
|
|
7
|
Matt
9:20-22, Mark 5:25-34, Luke 8:43-48
|
A
woman with discharge of blood
|
Yes
|
|
8
|
Matt
9:27-30
|
Two
blind men
|
Yes
|
|
9
|
Matt
9:32-34, Luke 11:14
|
A
demon-possessed, mute man
|
No
|
|
10
|
Matt
12:9-14, Mark 3:1-3, Luke 6:6-11
|
A
man with a withered hand
|
No
|
|
11
|
Matt
12:22
|
A
blind, mute, demon-possessed man
|
No
|
|
12
|
Matt
15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30
|
A
Canaanite woman’s daughter
|
No
|
|
13
|
Matt
17:14-21, Mark 9:14-29, Luke 9:37-43
|
A
boy with an unclean spirit, mute, seizure
|
No
|
|
14
|
Matt
20:29-34
|
Two
blind men near Jericho
|
Yes
|
|
14a
|
Mark
10:46-52, Luke 18:35-43
|
Bartimaeus
near Jericho
|
No
|
|
15
|
Matt
21:14
|
A
blind, lame man in the temple
|
No
|
|
16
|
Mark
1:21-28
|
A
man with unclean spirit in Capernaum
|
No
|
|
17
|
Mark
7:31-37
|
A
deaf, mute man in Decapolis
|
Yes
|
|
18
|
Mark
8:22-26
|
A
blind man in Bethsaida
|
Yes
|
|
19
|
Luke
7:11-17
|
A
widow’s dead son in Nain
|
Yes
|
|
20
|
Luke
13:10-17
|
A
woman with disabling spirit
|
Yes
|
|
21
|
Luke
14:1-6
|
A
man with dropsy
|
No
|
|
22
|
Luke
17:11-19
|
Ten
lepers
|
No
|
|
23
|
Luke
22:50-51
|
A
servant of the high priest
|
Yes
|
|
24
|
John
4:46-54
|
An
official’s son in Cana
|
No
|
|
25
|
John
5:1-17
|
An
invalid for 38 years by Bethesda pool
|
No
|
|
26
|
John
9:1-41
|
A
man born blind
|
Yes
|
|
27
|
John
11:1-44
|
Lazarus
in Bethany
|
No
|
[1]
All Scripture quotations in English in this paper are from The Holy Bible,
English Standard Version (ESV), copyright Ó 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
a publishing ministry of Good News Publications; all rights reserved. All NT
quotations in Greek in this paper are from Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes
Karavidopoulos, et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed.
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993)
[2]
Bible book abbreviations in this paper follow the conventions of The Holy
Bible, English Standard Version (ESV), copyright Ó 2001 by Crossway Bibles,
a publishing ministry of Good News Publications; all rights reserved.
[3]
T Nayernouri. Asclepius, Caduseus, and Simurgh as medical symbols, Part I. Arch
Iran Med 13, no. 1 (2010): 61-68
[4]
GD Hart. Asclepius, god of medicine. Canad Med Assn J 92 (1965): 232-236
[5]
L Santacroce, L Bottalico, and IA Charitos. Greek medicine practice at ancient
Rome: the physician molecularist Asclepiades. Medicines (Basel) 4, no. 4
(2017): 1-7
[6]
Hence, the staff of Asclepius.
[7]
M Mironidou-Tzouveleki and PM Tzitzis. Medical practice applied in the ancient
Asclepeion in Kos Island. Hell J Nucl Med 17, no. 3 (2014): 167-170
[8]
RH Savel, CL Munro. From Asclepius to Hippocrates: the art and science of
healing. Am J Crit Care 23, no. 6 (2014): 437-439
[9]
CF Kleisiaris, C Sfakianakis C and IV Papathanasiou. Healthcare practices in
ancient Greece: the Hippocratic ideal. J Med Ethics Hist Med 7 (2014): 6
[10]
JB West. Galen and the beginnings of western physiology. Am J Physiol Lung
Cell Mol Physiol 307 (2014): L121-L128
[11]
R Saxey. A physician’s reflections on Old Testament medicine. Dialogue 17,
no. 3 (1984): 122-128
[12]
Julius Preuss, Biblical and Talmudic Medicine, Fred Rosner, trans. And
ed. (1911; reprint ed., New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1978), p 23
[13]
Ibid., Preuss, p 25.
[14]
S Levin. Jewish ethics in relation to medicine. S African Med J 47 (1973):
928
[15]
S Levin. Job’s syndrome. J Pediatrics 76 (1970): 326
[16]
S Newmyer. Talmudic medicine: a classicist’s perspective. Judaism 29,
no. 3 (1980): 360-367
[17]
S Newmyer. Climate and health: classical and Talmudic perspectives. Judaism
33, no. 4 (1984): 426-438
[18]
S Newmyer. Talmudic medicine: a classicist’s perspective. Judaism 29,
no. 3 (1980): 360-367
[19]
The Talmudists were apparently the first to describe hemophilia. Their
practicality is demonstrated by the fact that the Talmudist rabbis allowed even
circumcision to be omitted if two or three male children of a mother have died
from bleeding following circumcision. (S Newmyer. Talmudic medicine: a
classicist’s perspective. Judaism 29, no. 3 (1980): 360-367).
[20]
S Levin. Jewish ethics in relation to medicine. S African Med J 47 (1973):
928
[21]
Among the Semitic peoples, the use of touching to heal someone hardly occurs.
The idea of laying on of hands in connection with prayer occurs in the Qumran
Genesis Apocryphon, but it is not otherwise attested in Judaism either or after
the time of Jesus. See, for example, D Flusser, ‘Healing through the laying-on
of hands in a Dead Sea Scroll,’ Israel Exploration Journal 7 (1957):
107-108 or PJ Lalleman, ‘Healing by a mere touch as a Christian concept,’ Tyndale
Bulletin 48, no. 2 (1997): 355-361.
[22]
D Frayer-Griggs. Spittle, clay, and creation in John 9:6 and some Dead Sea
scrolls. JBL 132, no. 3 (2013): 659-670
[23]
John Calvin, Commentary on John – Volume 1, trans. William Pringle
(Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1847), 301
[24]
M Rae, “The Testimony of Works in the Christology of John’s Gospel,” in The
Gospel of John and Christian Theology, ed. Richard Bauckham and Carl Mosser
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 306
[25]
See, for example, Wendy Cotter, Miracles in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A
Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1999), 187-89, 214, 218
[26]
D Frayer-Griggs. Spittle, clay, and creation in John 9:6 and some Dead Sea
scrolls. JBL 132, no. 3 (2013): 659-670
[27]
Per Frayer-Griggs, translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls are taken from
Florentino Garcia Martinez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls
Study Edition (2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1997, 1998), 1:99 (italics added for
emphasis).
[28]
SS Kim. The significance of Jesus’ healing the blind man in John 9. Bibliotheca
Sacra 167 (2010): 307-316
[29]
E Nihinlola. “BY HIS WOUNDS WE ARE HEALED”: A theological examination of the
nature of healing in the atonement. Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 18, no.
1 (2013): 19-26
[30]
PJ Scaer. The atonement in Mark’s sacramental theology. CTQ 72 (2008):
227-242
[31]
FJ Gaiser. In touch with Jesus: healing in Mark 5:21-43. Word & World
30, no. 1 (2010): 5-15
[32]
Note that the word for being made well is σωθήσομαι, first person singular future passive indicative of σῴζω,
which can mean to save as well as to heal. On the other hand, the
word used for being rid of her affliction was ἴαται from ἰάομαι, which is generally used to refer to physical healing, albeit
often physical healing brought about by the divine Healer. It is also notable
that in Luke 17:11-19, in the narrative about ten lepers, on their way to the
priests, the Samaritan leper found himself treated (ἰάθη, aorist passive indicative of ἰάομαι). When he returned to Jesus,
threw himself at His feet and thanked Him, then he was told to have been saved
(ἡ πίστις σου σἐσωκέν σε).
[33]
John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke – Volume 2, trans.
William Pringle (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1847),
230 & 242
[34]
John Calvin, Commentary on John – Volume 1, trans. William Pringle
(Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1847), 301. As
mentioned earlier in this paper, Calvin allows, however, that the clay made use
of by Jesus to restore sight may be reminiscent of the clay with which God made
the first man.
[35]
PJ Scaer. The atonement in Mark’s sacramental theology. CTQ 72 (2008):
227-242
[36]
JC Thomas. Healing in the atonement: a Johannine perspective. JPT 14,
no. 1 (2005): 23-39
[37]
In Num 16:25-30, when Korah, Dathan and Abiram rose against Moses, Moses
declared that the proof that he was sent by the Lord would be that they would
not die a natural death, but the Lord would bring something totally new –
something that no one else did or could. Likewise, Jesus’ healing acts were
works that no one else did.
No comments:
Post a Comment