Of People and Power II

The person who actually is the reason for the narrative only occupies a few words or thoughts in this text. Like the widow of Nain's dead son (Luke 7:12), the subject of the healing is really only the occasion for presentation of other issues important for Luke. She never says a word, even though we know that she praised God after the healing (v. 13). Though important in herself, she is, as it were, the foil in a continuing controversy between Jesus and the religious authorities. She becomes the occasion for the renewal of a power battle between Jesus and them.

Luke carefully describes her condition. The NRSV "overinterprets" the Greek language in v. 11. All the Greek says at first is that there was a woman with a "spirit of weakness" for 18 years. But then, the second half of the verse tells us a little more about her. Using words that are rare in the NT, Luke tells us that she was bent double and couldn't stand up straight. The closing phrase of v. 11 is difficult to translate. It either means that she couldn't stand up completely or that she couldn't stand up at all. The phrase is ambiguous. Maybe this is a good thing, because the author wants us to notice the fact of weakness rather than the specific medical condition she has. Thus, I am not too interested in trying to "guess," as some commentators do, the specific medical malady that might have bothered a person. Some have tried to argue that Luke, possibly a physician, used medical vocabulary that might befit the language of such a profession. But in my judgment these studies have not proven their point. Sometimes Luke can be hyperattentive to the condition of a sufferer met by Jesus; other times he breezes through the description with superficial words. The point here will be the fact of the healing and not the degree of curvature of the woman's spine.

Is there significance to the fact that she had been bent over for 18 years? I think that other than it is a period 50% longer than the woman with the flow of blood suffered (i.e., 12 years), and it is shorter by more than 50% of the time that the paralyzed man sat by the pool of Bethesda (38 years--John 5:5), I can divine no significance in the number. It is just a very long time.

The fact that the woman says nothing here, and that she seems to become a minor figure in the controversy between Jesus and the synagogue ruler, shows her "invisible" status both as a woman and as an infirm person in antiquity. But, when Jesus calls her a "daughter of Abraham" whom Satan had bound for 18 years (v. 16), he is raising her status right before our eyes. She may have no words, but the healing Lord has given her a position, a status in the religious community. If Jesus' ministry was to lift up the downtrodden and heal the brokenhearted, he is going to the right people. He doesn't go to Princeton or Harvard Univerisity, so to speak, and ask them if they want education reform. He goes to those who know that they need help; he helps them, and he raises them in status in the process. He sets them free and lifts them up. The fact that she is now described as a person who can "stand up straight" (cf. v. 11) is emblematic of her new position in life; she no longer has to bend over and look at the ground. Now she can face people eye to eye, healed, released, ready to live. The acceptable year of the Lord has been proclaimed for her.

III. The Opponents

Luke has already given us signals in the passage that this is not only about a healing but about religious controversy--about a power struggle between Jesus and the religious authorities. His primary way of doing this is through the use of the word "sabbath." Jesus will heal on the sabbath, bringing him directly into conflict with those whose power or authority was demonstrated on the sabbath. Though only the ruler of the synagogue is mentioned (v. 13), the final scene has a division in the house between those for and against Jesus. Thus, this is not just a "private" encounter. It is Jesus v. the religious authorities in the presence of loads of people. It is a dramatic confrontation. It is a confrontation over the "rules" of the sabbath or, in other words, who "rules" the sabbath.

Those in charge always have rules. And, they are not only the writers of the rules, they are the interpreters and often the enforcers of the rules. Rules are the means by which control is established and maintained. However, if you asked the rulers, they would say that rules are the occasion to enable most freedom. After all, when you board an airplane, it isn't just a free-for-all (as some people like to characterize Southwest Airlines, for example). There is an order to boarding. Rules exist (first those with a little "1" board, then a "2", etc.) in order to make sure that everyone gets on the plane in the quickest time with minimum of conflict and inconvenience. The authorities will tell you that rules are there for your own good. You don't break rules; rules break you.

But rules are a subtle thing. There may be some truth in the authorities' contention that rules actually supplement and enhance freedom, but rules are also a tool of control. Rules casn sometimes take on a life of their own, like the broom in the Sorcerer's Apprentice, and begin to destroy the very persons who made up the rules. Or, alternatively, they can end up holding people in bondage, in thrall, for no other reason than that the rules say "X" or "Y."

This dual-faceted nature of rules is evident in the passage under consideration. The leader of the synagogue says, "There are six days on which work ought to be done..." Therefore "come on those days and be cured, and not on the sabbath day." It is almost as if he is saying, "Look, there is lots of other time in which these things can be done. Just don't do it now." When you think of it for a second, the synagogue ruler has a point. Why must the "healing booth" be opened seven days a week? Even God rested from the divine labor for one day a week. Can't people, also?

The request is reasonable, but Jesus wants to make a point, and in fact I think he is rather looking to pick a slight fight. He shows their hypocrisy--giving oxen food on the sabbath--to illustrate his point. But are we really talking apples and apples, so to speak? The illustration Jesus gave was about the "ordinary" tasks which a person might also want to do on a sabbath, because human and animal needs continue. But the example the synagogue ruler gave was something extraordinary--healing on the sabbath.

Conclusion

In any case, Jesus chose to confront the authorities rather than to wait a day to heal when there would be no problem. Normally we are told to avoid a conflict if we are able to do so. Certainly Jesus would have been able to avoid a controversy if he wanted. But, obviously, he didn't want to avoid conflict. He wanted to bring it into the open. He wanted to confront the religious establishment right to its face. Is it easy to show inconsistency or even hypocrisy in business or religious systems? Of course. Big institutions make easy targets. But Jesus was on a mission, a mission to redefine the nature of liberation or freedom (Luke 4), a mission that would even have implications for the structure of familial and social relationships. I have talked about these in my essays on Luke 4 and Luke 6. In this situation, confrontation was the way to make sure that the new message was heard. But I can understand how many people would be furious at Jesus. He was going after the power structure at its most vulnerable point--how it was able to secure the support of the people. And he gave the people another choice. And what a choice.

2839