Sarah Lane

NT 3403

Professor Stuckenbruck

December 17, 2011

Interpretation of Jesus’ Miracles in Matthew 8:1-94: What is at Stake?

The Gospel accounts of Jesus’ miracles are fascinating, not only because of their inherently

extraordinary nature and theological import, but also because of the varied interpretive reactions they

elicit. Confronted by Jesus’ miracles, Biblical scholars and theologians are forced to grapple with

ancient world views even as they remain honest about their own scientifically-informed world views

and cosmologies. In this effort to connect Biblical truth with contemporary realities, scholars often

offer interpretations that subordinate the miracle texts themselves to the most current scientifically-

informed conceptions of reality; the most current world view (scientific or philosophical) becomes the

lens through which the miracles must be understood. One major subset of Jesus’ miracles are his

healing miracles, and these are particularly significant because they add to the interpretive discussions

an additional element: the question of personhood. The mind/body/soul "problem" has been debated for

millennia, but is often overlooked in quests for the "real meaning" of the miracles. And yet, it is an

understanding of personhood that drives not only contemporary interpretations of New Testament

miracle texts, but also necessarily acted as the natural boundary lines for Gospel authors as they

constructed narratives and developed theologies.

It is with all this in mind that I would suggest Matthew 8:1-9:34 as a particularly fitting text in

which to explore the relationships between personhood, Matthew's theology, and Jesus' miracles. Not

only is this passage a veritable showcase of Jesus' miracles, but the miracles involve marginalized

people and sociological issues that very easily lend themselves to the types of historically-popular

interpretations of Jesus' miracles as being about something other than physical healing. Central

questions in this discussion include: Is it important to Matthew's message that Jesus' miracles actually

occurred? Is it possible to read the miracles symbolically or metaphorically and still be true to the text?

What understanding of personhood is Matthew working with, and does he build his theology on such

an understanding of personhood? While I can only begin to scratch the surface of such questions here, I

do believe that an honest look at Matthew 8-9 reveals something about the way miracles work in

Matthew's development of Jesus' life and ministry. In short, then, I am suggesting that if one is to take

Matthew seriously, it is necessary to understand the author as viewing Jesus' healing miracles as real,

historical events in human bodies. Moreover, the drastic psychological, spiritual, and social

consequences accompanying these healings cannot be separated from the physical healings, but (due to

Matthew's understanding of the human person) are actually dependent upon them having really

happened. It is precisely because of the importance of the accompanying wider salvific healing that it is

crucial to take the physical healings seriously!

Because the nature of these topics almost necessarily requires one to incorporate

interdisciplinary findings and is thus rather complex, it would be helpful for me to lay out the general

framework within which I am operating. I will start by giving a (very!) brief account of the way in

which Jesus' healing miracles have been and are interpreted, as well as an account of why those

interpretations are insufficient. I will then look briefly at the views of personhood inherent in common

interpretations of the healings, followed by an exploration of Matthew's understanding of personhood

as evidenced in key words throughout his Gospel. This is then focused upon the passage in question, as

well as the role Matthew 8:1-9:34 plays in Matthew's narrative structure and theological development.

Finally, I will move to three specific healings within this passage (the leper in 8:1-4, the paralytic in

9:2-8, and the hemorrhaging woman in 9:18-26).1

1 I am aware that my approach to the texts seems to be a “top-down” one, rather than “bottom-up” from the text itself. This is intentional; because of the interdisciplinary character of these issues, a “funnel approach” seems to be the most effective way to frame an examination of the text. It enables the most pertinent details of the text to be gleaned when one has a general understanding of the issues involved.

The first way in which Jesus' healing miracles have been interpreted is as literal, historical fact.

The miracles were evidence of Jesus' divinity and the power of God to break into the natural world in

saving power. Interestingly, this view depends on Jesus intentionally breaking natural laws precisely to

prove that he had the power to do so. In proving that he can, he thus proves his divinity, for it is God

alone who can break natural laws. This view, of course, assumes that a "miracle" is necessarily an event

which occurs in spite of nature. In this literalist approach, while there may be secondary social and

psychological consequences for the recipient of the healing, those consequences are just that:

consequences that necessarily proceed from the historical reality of the miracle.2

Second, the rationalist interpretation takes as its starting point a naturalistic view of the

universe. Because natural laws and reason would seem to disallow events that break those laws,

rationalists thus infer that the healing miracles of Jesus simply did not happen as written.3 Thus, if an

individual was thought to be healed, or even indeed was healed, it was due to a cause-and-effect

relationship that operated wholly within the bounds of natural laws. This could cover everything from

epilepsy (in the case of “exorcisms”) to the placebo effect and even to Jesus' remarkable skill as a

psychosomatic healer.4

A third way in which Jesus' healing miracles have been interpreted is through "spiritualization."

This approach is really an umbrella for many sub-interpretations. The basic thrust of this approach is

the assumption that the real meaning of the miracles lies in something beyond, behind, or somehow

"other" than the miracle itself. Thus the healing stories become metaphors for Jesus' work to bring

about social, psychological, political, and, of course, spiritual freedom. Or, Jesus' miracles could be a

sort of extension of his parables, such that the miracle stories were simply vivid illustrations of Jesus'

2 Luz, U. (2001). Matthew 8-2-: A Commentary (Vol. 2). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 3 Davies, W. D., & Allison, D. C. (1991). Matthew 9-18. In International Critical Commentary (Vol. 2). pg. 62.4 See Donald Capps’ Jesus the Village Psychiatrist (Westminster John Knox Press, 2008). Capps’ thesis is that the people

Jesus healed were suffering from psychosomatic illnesses; Jesus thus used healing methods that took this fact into account. This is an intriguing hypothesis, and one that at least takes seriously an understanding of the unified person as a single, undifferentiated entity. However, while Capps’ point is duly noted and can be taken seriously on a psychological level, it does not seem to take into account the plain meaning of the text or the New Testament writers’ clear message and stated intentions.

teachings regarding discipleship, faith, or obedience.5 Related to this is the view that all of human

reality is a miracle, and miracles are really spiritual "interpretations of the totality of reality.”6 The

spiritualization interpretive method is the one that modern New Testament scholarship seems to have

rallied around; seeking the “kerygmatic meaning” of the miracle has become the “theologically

responsible" thing to do.7

Fourth, related to the “spiritualized” interpretation is a strategy that involves the social function

of Jesus' healings. The healings could have served to delineate boundaries around Jesus' followers and

thus set them apart as a distinct group.8 This is especially pertinent to our discussion of Matthew 8-9,

for this set of healings is focused upon individuals that would have been marginalized in Jewish society

(lepers, unclean women, Gentiles, servants, etc.). In this interpretation, the function of Matthew's

healing narrative would have been to emphasize a social justice agenda.

Finally, the healing miracles have been interpreted as showing Jesus' “Jewishness.” That is, in

his healing of people, Jesus was in keeping with the traditions of Jewish healers and miracle workers of

his day. Again, this is particularly pertinent in the case of Matthew, as his is known as the “Jewish

Gospel.”9 Also, the miracles could be viewed as not simply pointing out Jesus' similarities to other

Jewish healers, but as positing Jesus over and against other healers of his day. In this view, the healing

miracles were important because they not only pointed out Jesus' Jewishness, but pointed to his

superlative status as Messiah; his healings took miracles to a new level and had an unparallelled quality

amongst healers of his day.10

It seems fair to affirm that all of these interpretations of Jesus' miracles have an element of truth

5 Carter, W. (2010, December). Jesus' Healing Stories; Imperial Critique and Eschatological Anticipations in Matthew's Gospel. Currents in Theology and Mission, 37(6), 488-496.

6 Luz, 56. This is understandable, especially when viewed as a reaction to the emotionally abusive results that can result from a mishandling of the miracle texts.

7 Luz, 56.8 Carter, 492.9 Howard, J. (2001). Disease and Healing in the New Testament: An Analysis and Interpretation. New York: University

Press of America. Pg 29.10 Howard, pg. 29.

to them, but taken on their own none of them is sufficient in addressing the “problem” of Jesus'

healings.11 The first view, the literalist interpretation, simply leaves us in the same intellectual quandary

which likely spawned the development of all the rest of the interpretations: not only do miracles seem

contrary to reason, but for Western readers they are also foreign to experience.12 The rest of the

interpretive strategies fall short insofar as they seek to portray the Gospel author's message as being

about something other than what it claims to be about. Any consideration of the “plain meaning of the

text” leaves us with the reality that Matthew is quite plainly saying that Jesus actually healed people's

physical bodies as a part of his incarnational ministry.

This is a very uncomfortable reality for contemporary scholars to deal with. In light of this, I

want to make clear that the question at hand has little to do with whether or not Jesus' healing miracles

actually occurred in history, and even less to do with the question of whether believers should be

expecting healing miracles today.13 Rather, we are here dealing only with whether a fair and honest

reading of Matthew's text requires one to understand him as assuming the literal reality of Jesus'

healing miracles. How an affirmative answer to this question does or does not inform one's view of

Scripture is another project entirely, as is the question of how God does or does not act in human bodies

today. It is here that I must reaffirm that the healings in Matthew 8-9 most definitely do have drastic

social, psychological, and spiritual consequences. It is precisely because of the importance of these real

consequences to Matthew's overall message that we take seriously the author's understanding of Jesus'

real healing ministry. It is here that the issue of personhood enters the discussion, for as previously

11 Also see Luz, 58. Interestingly, Luz denies the validity of all the above interpretive approaches, precisely because “the event threatens to become meaningless” when we interpret the “real miracle” as being a metaphorical meaning in the miracle text itself. However, he then offers his own version of this very same approach, claiming that the miracles should be read as pointing to something “special” about Jesus’ miracles; that is their theological meaning. While I appreciate Luz’s redirecting of the argument, such that he emphasizes that the miracles are about more than just the breaking of natural law, he does seem to still skirt the issue.

12 This is not the case outside of the Western world and, indeed, within many communities of faith even in the West. It is perhaps surprising for many academics to realize that intelligent and thoughtful people can and do perceive miracles as occurring. This is not inherently an issue of intelligence or education, but of world view.

13 As mentioned above, certain interpretations of Jesus’ miracles can lead to spiritual and emotional abuse when “applied” to current illnesses. This is a very dangerous and tricky issue, as “faith healing” involves so much more than “just” flesh and blood. If we take the unity of the person seriously, then we must be aware that any (mis)appropriation of miraculous healing activity is dealing with the very core of a person.

mentioned, it is entirely plausible that Matthew's rendering of Jesus' salvific and holistic saving work is

dependent upon a very particular understanding of the human person.

What is a person? This is an enormous question that has been grappled with and debated by brilliant

thinkers for thousands of years, and no solid consensus currently presents itself as being definitive.

Words like “soul,” “body,” “mind,” “self,” and “spirit” are thrown around with only vague conceptions

of their definitions and relations to each other, but one thing is for sure: one's understanding of human

personhood shapes his/her worldview and conceptual thinking on the most fundamental and profound

levels. It is apparent, then, that Matthew's conception of what makes a person a person would have

shaped the way in which he developed his theology. It is equally apparent that the differing conceptions

of personhood on the part of Matthew's readers and interpreters would almost necessarily generate

huge interpretive issues.

The history of the philosophy, psychology, science, and theology of personhood is a much more

expansive topic than I can do justice to here. What seems to be most important for the issues at hand is

to realize the compartmentalized notion of personhood that is operative in most interpretive approaches

to Jesus' miracles. The three main conceptions of personhood are trichotomism (body, soul, and spirit),

dualism (either body and soul, or body and mind), and physicalism (one united physical organism).14

Suffice it to say that the majority of Biblical interpretation since the very beginning of Christianity's

spread throughout the Mediterranean world has been colored by Platonic and Cartesian dualism.15 That

is, humans are defined by a mental/spiritual substance that stands over and against the body.

Interestingly, it was when historical-critical Biblical scholarship started questioning the historicity of

Jesus' miracles in the nineteenth century that a strong emphasis on an immortal soul really gained

traction.16 A dualistic emphasis on the soul and the afterlife permitted a sort of “Christian hope” when

14 Murphy, N. (2001). Religion and Science: God, Evolution and the Soul. In C. S. Helrich (Ed.), Proceedings of the Goshen Conference on Religion and Science. Waterloo, Canada: Pandora Press. Pg 12.

15 Murphy, 14.16 This is fascinating, as it seems to reflect an unnamed assumption that it is somehow “easier” for God to work in the spiritual world than in the physical world; it is as if interpreters are much more comfortable giving God a “rightful place” in

more literal interpretations were becoming unacceptable. Even though there are streams of

interpretation that do not maintain a dualistic conception of the person, the bulk of modern scholarship

remains uncomfortable with letting go of all dualism.17

With all of this as background, we can look at Matthew's Gospel itself. What understanding of

personhood was framing Matthew's theology as he worked with his sources and produced a work that

was distinctively his own?18 Though debates regarding the cultural identity of Matthew are very much

alive, it seems fair to say that he was a Jewish Christian who was likely trilingual and familiar with

both Jewish and Gentile traditions and thought.19 Thus, it is significant to our discussion to mention that

early Hebraic accounts of the person “were holistic and physicalist,” with no clear partitioning of body,

soul, or mind.20 As Joel Green emphasizes, it is “axiomatic in Old Testament scholarship today that

human beings must be understood in their fully integrated, embodied existence.”21 However, it is

equally important to note that the cultural circles in which the New Testament writings were generated

had been mixing with Hellenistic influences for hundreds of years by the time the Gospels were

written; this Hellenistic influence stressed various forms of dualism.22 Thus, Matthew would have been

operating in a cultural and social environment that lacked any clear understanding of what exactly the

human person is, and this murkiness certainly manifested itself in mixed conceptions of specifically

“Christian” understandings of an eternal soul, resurrection, and salvation.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Matthew's text presents a rather “fuzzy” picture of the human person.

As a way to sketch a general picture of this, it may be helpful to look at his use of four “loaded” terms:

cosmology. Certainly it is much easier to maintain belief in a God that only works in the afterlife and the spiritual world than to expect (and be disappointed by) a God that actively works miracles in the natural world. This idea seems to have been voiced by Matthew through Jesus in the healing of the paralytic. See Matthew 9:2-817 Again, Capps does an excellent job of driving home this point. Especially relevant is Chapter Four, “Two Paralyzed Men,” pp.37-55.18 I will be assuming a Markan priority. 19 Carter, W. (2004). Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. N.p.: Hendrickson Publishers. Pg 20.20 Murphy, 13.21 Murphy, N., Brown, W., & Maloney, H. (1998'). Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of

Human Nature. N.p.: Fortress. Pg. 158.22 Murphy, N., Brown, W., & Maloney, H., 159.

“σῶμά”, “ψυχή,” “καρδίᾳ,” and “πνεῦμα.” The first use of “σῶμά” comes in 5:29, which reads: ““If

your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your

members than that your whole body by thrown into hell.” Here we get a picture of the body as being

something that retains its existence after death; it is not the “soul” that goes into the afterlife, but a very

physical entity.23 And yet, in 10:28 we get a near opposite rendering: “And do not fear those who kill

the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” There is

a clear differentiation here between the body and soul, made even more striking as both deal with what

“part” of the self is condemned to hell.24 Matthew writes in 27:52 that after Jesus' resurrection, “many

bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised,” which is fascinating in its own right. At the

Passover meal in 26:26, Jesus serves the bread to his disciples, saying, “Take, eat; this is my body.”

Even here, it is almost unavoidable that we see meaning in “σῶμά” that goes beyond “just” pure flesh;

there seems to be some quality of “more-ness” to this use of “σῶμά.” Beyond these uses, there are an

additional four instances in which “σῶμά” is clearly used to refer to actual, physical bodies.25 However,

there is only reason to assume that these usages refer to “only” the body if one is operating within a

dualistic framework. A more physicalist perspective that affirms the unity of the self would simply read

these passages as involving a unified person.

“Ψυχή” is a complex word with meanings ranging from “vital breath” and “the human soul” to

“the self” and “the human person.” Matthew's first usage is in 2:20, when he writes that “those who

sought the child's ψυχή are dead.” Similarly, in 6:25 ψυχή seems to carry the connotation of being some

animating, vital force, especially as it stands in distinction to the body: “For this reason I say to you, do

not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your σῶμά, as to

23 Of course, this could be in keeping with the imagery of cutting off a member of the body in this life. 24 Luz here notes the difficulty in interpreting this passage. He makes it clear that the “point” of the text is not to say

anything regarding anthropological questions about life after death. While interpreters have read a dualistic understanding of the person eisegetically back into the text, “the text is aware of no immortal soul, but it does know that the “soul,” in contrast to the body, is removed from the person’s control…On the positive side we can say that it offers no support for a devaluation of the bodily as an unreal self” Luz, 102. Luz seems to be arguing both sides of the issue here.

25 6:25, 26:12, 27:58-59.

what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” Here, ψυχή is

separated from σῶμά in an interesting fashion: “σῶμά” is affected by clothing; it is referring to

something very “fleshly.” Eating and drinking, while certainly affecting the body, are more directly

related to sustaining life – a very physical, this-world life, to be sure. This becomes especially

interesting when we get to 10:28, as quoted above, which makes a distinction between the body that is

subject to death and the ψυχή which is subject to damnation in hell. Then, in 10:39 Jesus says that “he

who has found his life will lose it, and He who has lost his life for my sake will find it.” Certainly Jesus

would not be exhorting people to lose their “soul” (as “ψυχή” is so often taken to mean)! Here again we

have a connotation of “vitality” or “embodied life” in the text. Still, though, in 11:29 Jesus promises

that his followers “will find rest for [their] ψυχαῖs.” In 16:26, after reiterating the words of 10:39, Jesus

asks, “What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and loses his ψυχή?” Here again, it would

not make sense if ψυχή were simply a physical life force; it has a “more-ness” to it. Matthew 20:28

claims that Jesus came to “give his ψυχή as a ransom for many.” This cannot be referring to some

disembodied, eternal soul in Jesus; whatever can be said about Jesus, it cannot be said that he lost his

eternal soul. There is something very embodied about this usage of “ψυχή.” Finally, in Matthew 22:37

we get perhaps the most perplexing instance of all, as Jesus commands a man to “love the Lord your

God with all your “καρδίᾳ”, and with all your “ψυχή”, and with all your “διανοίᾳ.” Heart, soul, and

mind? This is an interesting twist on the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6:5, with “strength” becoming

“διανοίᾳ”. It is likely that instead of being interpreted separately, these three modifiers are now to be

taken as synonyms.26

The word “πνεῦμα” is the next term so pertinent to the question of personhood in Matthew. The

vast majority of this word's usages in Matthew refer to the “Holy Spirit” or the “Spirit of God.”27 There

26 Schnackenburg, R. (2002). The Gospel of Matthew (R. R. Barr, Trans.). . Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Pg 223.

27 1:18, 20, 3:11, 16, 4:1, 10:20, 12:18, 28, 31-32, 22:43, 28:19

are four instances in which “πνεῦμα” refers to demons or evil spirits.28 However, there are also three

uses of this word in relation to human beings. First is 5:3, where in the Beatitudes Jesus proclaims,

“Blessed are the poor πνεῦμαti.” The second is in 26:41, where Jesus tells his disciples to watch and

pray, because the “πνεῦμα is willing, but the flesh (σὰρξ) is weak.”29 Finally, in 27:50 we read that on

the cross, Jesus “yielded up his πνεῦμα.” This is particularly interesting, because we read Matthew

through the eyes of trinitarian doctrine. What does it mean for a member of the trinity to “yield up his

πνεῦμα”?

“Kαρδίᾳ” is generally translated as “heart”, but as with the other terms examined thus far, is

used by Matthew in a variety of ways. It is used fourteen times in Matthew, and generally seems to

carry the connotation of “the center of all physical and spiritual life.”30 It has to do with the soul, mind,

will, character, desires, and passions. For instance, 5:8 has “blessed are the pure in καρδίᾳ,” and in

15:19 Matthew writes “out of the καρδίᾳ come evil thoughts.” Worth noting is Mark 2:8, where Jesus

knows that certain people were “reasoning in their καρδίᾳis.” This seems to be a general term that

refers to the seat of one's being, the self, or the whole person.

What, then, can be said about all these terms having to do with personhood? First of all, it

seems clear that there is no clearly articulated conception of exactly what a human being is in Matthew.

There is “evidence” on both sides of the aisle; for every term examined, there are some passages that

seem to assume a partitioned person, and others that would suggest a unified human person in which a

delineation between “physical” and “spiritual” is simply meaningless. However, some tentative

conclusions can be drawn. Given the way that Matthew uses so many of these terms interchangeably in

referring to the human person, it seems fair to conclude that he was generally operating within a

conception of the human person as a unified entity. Notice that I am not merely saying “embodied” in

28 8:16, 10:1, 12:43, 45. 29 I am not examining “σὰρξ”, but this is interesting as well! 5 instances in Matthew....not just purely to physical flesh, but

also to more animal nature of man. Just to complicate things a bit more. Is this referring to Jesus though? If so, it must be referring to his human nature, right? Implications for the trinity? Same issue in 27:50.

30 Strong's Concordance, 2588.

such a way that would infer the soul was somehow being housed in the physical body. Rather, it seems

reasonable to say that in Matthew, the human person is one entity, a body that thinks, loves, acts, makes

decisions, lives, dies, and is in relationship with God.31

Given this understanding of personhood in Matthew as a whole, I now turn to the healing

miracles of Matthew 8:1-9:34, in the hopes that this understanding will aid in a serious and honest

interpretation of Jesus' miracles. The Gospel of Matthew is often thought of as the “Jewish Gospel,”

and as such it has Christology as a major theological aspect; Matthew was very concerned to

demonstrate the Messiahship of Christ.32 “Matthew's gospel reveals the significance of Jesus as it was

formulated in the context of a community of believers,” and this significance of “Jesus as Messiah”

involved not only forgiveness of sins and discipleship, but larger societal issues particular to the

community.33 In a very broad way, J.D. Kingsbury has helpfully sketched an outline of Matthew that

separates the Gospel into three parts: “the person of Jesus Messiah (1:1-4:16), the proclamation of

Jesus Messiah (4:17-16:20), and the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah (16:21-

28:20).34Matthew thus structures his source material in such a way that his theological aims are met,

and this is seen almost paradigmatically in chapters 8-9.

Matthew 8-9 are often seen as part of a larger unit of chapters 5-10. Thus, after genealogies and

three narrative sections, Matthew develops a carefully-structured two-part panel. The first is comprised

of Jesus' teachings in the sermon on the mount (5-7), and the second is a rapid-fire account of nine

miracle stories (ten miracles in nine stories) (8:1-9:34).35 In 5-7 Matthew lays out the radical challenges

of Jesus' words (including drastic interpersonal, communal, and personal elements, importantly), and

then in 8-9 he lays out the challenge of Jesus' actions. Finally, chapter 10 has the challenge of both

Jesus' words and deeds, and chapters 11-12 demonstrate a response. Within this structure,"the disciple

31 This is in keeping with a physicalist understanding of the person – see Murphy.32 Schnackenburg, 8.33 Carter, W. (2004). Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. N.p.: Hendrickson Publishers. Pg. 42.34 Carter, 133.35 Davies, W. D., & Allison, D. C., 5.

of Jesus learns by 'normative precept; and 'normative example.”36 The Sermon on the Mount lays out

some rather radical mandates for followers of Christ. In this light, it is not surprising that the miracles

of 8-9 deal not only with physical healings, but include overtures of social justice themes as a working-

out of Jesus' verbal mandates in 5-7.

The miracle cycle itself is comprised of ten miracles within nine miracle stories. Though there is

a general scholarly consensus that the ten miracles in chapters 8 and 9 comprise a single unit within

Matthew's overall structure, the internal arrangement within that unit itself is widely debated.37 Davies

and Allison convincingly suggest a rather straightforward formal approach, citing “Matthew's love of

the triad, the number of miracle stories in 8-9 (nine), and the fact that the miracle stories appear in three

different groups” as reason enough to divide the unit into three sections of three miracles apiece.38

While this formal structure does seem to be the scaffolding of the unit, I find it Luz equally convincing

in his assertion that 8:1-9:34 is one unit of continuous movement. In this unit, the miracles are

presented to the reader in rapid-fire fashion, serving to “convey the impression that Jesus healed the

sick without interruption. Each story emerges directly from its predecessor; Matthew offers a narrative

thread without a single break in time or place.”39 While I find Luz's conclusion regarding the unit's

theme to be less than convincing (his organizing principle involves Jesus' conflict with Israel), his basic

approach is a reasonable one. In looking at three of these miracles, I will thus be operating on the

assumption that Matthew is presenting to his readers a flurry of miraculous accounts in a loose triadic

structure, with the aim of emphasizing the miraculous nature of Jesus' actions in response to the verbal

challenge of 5-7.

The first miracle story we are dealing with happens to be the first miracle of the entire unit: the

36 Ibid.37 Black, S. L. (2008). How Matthew Tells the Story: A Linguistic Approach to Matthew's Syntax. In D. M. Gurtner & J.

Nolland (Eds.), Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (pp. 24-52). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pg. 39.

38 Davies, W. D., & Allison, D. C., 6.39 Luz, U. (1995). The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (J. B. Robinson, Trans.). . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 63.

healing of the leper in 8:1-4. In typical Matthean fashion, the Markan text of 1:40-45 is abbreviated

considerably, cutting out emotional elements and details; this serves to heighten the details that

remain.40Descending from the mountain where he had been instructing the crowds, Jesus is

immediately approached by a leper; an exceedingly complicated case, indeed. While it has been duly

noted that leprosy in the Gospels could refer to any number of skin diseases, this does not mean that it

was not a serious physical and, indeed, spiritual ailment for Matthew. This is precisely the same leprosy

of Leviticus 13-14 whose cure, in rabbinic tradition, was “as difficult as raising a person from the

dead.”41 For the purposes of our discussion here, it is particularly interesting that Matthew's first

miracle story deals with an ailment with both physical and religious elements. In v.2, the leper

addresses Jesus as “Lord” (Κύριε) and falls at his feet (προσκυνέω). Matthew consistently uses

προσκυνέω throughout his Gospel in a very Christological way; this fits in with the overall purpose of

8-9 to emphasize the Messianic status and authority of Jesus.42 Interestingly, the leper assumes that

Jesus is able to heal him; his request is that Jesus might will to heal him. Stretching out his hand, Jesus

touches the man and announces that he is indeed willing; his authority is enough to immediately heal

the leper. This physical healing, though, is also a cleansing (καθαρίζω). Nolland notes that there existed

in Jesus' time a Jewish expectation that messianic salvation would include deliverance from the

bio/psycho/social ravages of leprosy; “the social exclusion of lepers combined with the growing first-

century Jewish preoccupation with issues of clean and unclean separated leprosy from other forms of

illness and would have given a heightened significance to its cure.”43 In v.4, then, Jesus shows a

concern for the man's religious and social well-being, in addition to the physical, by instructing the man

to present himself to the priest in accordance with the Law. In this passage, then, we see Jesus

40 Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Pg. 348.

41 Luz, 5. 42 Matthew uses προσκυνέω for the first time in 7:21-22 to refer to Jesus as judge. The word is always used by disciples

(8:25, 14:28, 14:30, 16:22, 17:4, 18:21) and people seeking him as “Lord” for help (8:2, 6, 8; 9:28; 15:22, 25, 27; 17:15; 20:30-31, 33). It is never used by his critics or outsiders and thus cannot be a simply polite term. Luz, 6.

43 Nolland, 348.

presented clearly as Κύριε and worthy of worship; it is then precisely because of his lordship that the

leper's complex illness is summarily healed and cleansed by Jesus.44 Here we see that Jesus was

concerned to bring the leper back into the context of a worshipping community and society; this is

dependent, however, upon the leper having actually been healed of the leprosy.

The next pertinent miracle story is the healing of the paralytic in 9:2-8. In this account Mark's

material (2:1-12) is again shortened, such that the sole focal point is the person of Jesus. And indeed,

Jesus' short statement in verse 2 is absolutely pregnant with meaning: “Take courage, my child, your

sins are forgiven.” But how interesting that Jesus would say these words in the first place! The lame

man had clearly been brought to Jesus for healing, and yet his first action is to pronounce forgiveness

of the man's sins on account of his friends' faith. Luz here suggests that the sickness is a result of the

man's sin (at least in Matthew's conception), and that Jesus' pronouncement of forgiveness thus clears

the way, as it were, for physical healing to occur.45 Verse 5 is an intriguing one; Jesus, recognizing the

scribes' perturbation at his bold assumption of authority in forgiving the man's sins, asks which is easier

– “to say” (εἰπεῖν) one's sins are forgiven or “to say” that a paralytic should get up and walk. At issue

here is this εἰπεῖν; it is one thing to pronounce forgiveness, for this cannot be proven externally (in

scientific terms, it fails the test falsifiability!). It is a completely different thing to command a paralytic

to walk, for much more rides on such words; you had better have the power to do what you say! This is

incredibly relevant for the topic at hand, for it is my sense that much of modern Biblical interpretation

regarding Jesus' miracles operates on just this principle. That is, while few scholars would likely admit

this, I wonder if they often prefer a spiritualized reading of the miracle stories (i.e. that Jesus was

“really” proclaiming freedom from social oppression for the leper) because of one of two reasons: a) it

is somehow “easier” in reality to effect spiritual change than physical change because that is the

44 Of course, the precise relationship between one's physical illness and religiousuncleanliness is confusing indeed. What is important here is that Jesus is concerned with the healing of both, even if he might not ultimately have identified leprosy as phenomenon that could make a person truly unclean.

45 Luz, 27.

“proper realm” for divine activity or b) there is simply more at stake if one says that miracles are/were

possible, because than the burden lies upon them to explain why they are not actually occurring.46 Of

course, as I am trying to show here, it is not so easy to differentiate between the spiritual and the

physical (if these categories signify realities at all!). What Jesus does next is so telling! In order to

show his critics that he does indeed have the power to forgive sins (which is of primary importance in

Matthew's gospel as a whole), Jesus performs the physical miracle. The physical healing is proof of

Jesus' spiritual power. Again, the physical and spiritual realms of Jesus' ministry are inextricably

intertwined. Here Jesus is placing a primary importance on the man's forgiveness. There is, then, a

primacy of spiritual and, oftentimes, social change in Matthew's account of Jesus' ministry. What

separates this reading from that of modern Biblical criticism, however, is the affirmation that it is

precisely because of Jesus' physical healing power that the spiritual realities are made known and

effectually realized.

The last story in our lineup is the healing of the hemorrhaging woman in 9:18-26. Interrupting

Jesus' journey to the ruler's house, a woman who has been bleeding constantly for twelve years comes

up behind him and touches his cloak. In doing so, this woman has demonstrated that she has faith in

Jesus. When Jesus turns, he looks into her eyes and sees her faith. In v.22 he declares to her that her

faith has “saved” (σέσωκέν) her. This is a “saving” that is concrete and incredibly this-worldly. As Luz

puts it, “the saving and the healing go hand in hand,” and Matthew emphasizes that this healing took

place “from that very hour” (ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης in the aorist); this was a “done deal.” It is unclear

what implications this “σῴζω” had other than the purely physical healing of the body. There is an

interesting parallel, though, between Jesus' statement here in v.22 (“Take courage, daughter, your faith

has saved you!”) and that in 8:2 (Take courage, my child, your sins are forgiven.”) In both instances,

Jesus is linking a physical healing with a spiritual reality. The parallels in these pronouncements

46 Or so they assume. I actually am not sure that Christians need to have an explanation for why we do not see miracles. My inability to mimic Jesus' healing ministry is thus not a reason for me to assume, at the outset, that Jesus' miracles were metaphorical. This seems anachronistic and dishonest.

suggest that “σῴζω” does have wider implications than just the healing of the bleeding, for the

paralytic's sins were forgiven as well.

What, then, can be said in conclusion? As Luz rightly notes, “we are part of a tradition that has

suppressed the miracles.”47 And yet, such a suppression simply does not take Matthew seriously.

Matthew’s understanding of the person was not a compartmentalized one, such that actions upon any

“part” of the person was an action upon the whole person. Thus, we see Jesus’ physical healing

miracles tied to the forgiveness of sins, social and religious cleansing, and salvation (broadly speaking).

To speak of the “real meaning” of these stories apart from the reality that Matthew required them to

have actually happened is to impose an understanding of personhood on the text that is just not there. It

is important to recognize that Matthew viewed the person as a unified whole, and that he actually built

theology upon that understanding. It is precisely because Jesus was Lord over the whole person that

Matthew’s themes of Messiahship and forgiveness could be developed. Perhaps Luz is right in steering

the conversation in a slightly different direction the general, such that the “ideological question about

the possibility of miracles here becomes the existential question of whether we will permit them to

move us. They become understandable only when we let ourselves be thus moved by them; they

demonstrate their truth by encouraging analogous experiences of life and salvation and by making such

experiences happen."48

References

Black, S. L. (2008). How Matthew Tells the Story: A Linguistic Approach to Matthew's Syntax. In-.D.M. Gurtner & J. Nolland (Eds.), Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew (pp.

47 Luz, 55.48 Luz, 57.

24-52). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Capps, D. (2008). Jesus the Village Psychiatrist. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Carter, W. (2004). Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. N.p.: Hendrickson Publishers.

Carter, W. (2010, December). Jesus' Healing Stories; Imperial Critique and Eschatological Anticipations in Matthew's Gospel. Currents in Theology and Mission, 37(6), 488-496.

Davies, W. D., & Allison, D. C. (1991). Matthew 9-18. In International Critical Commentary (Vol. 2). Luz, U. (2001). Matthew 8-2-: A Commentary (Vol. 2). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Murphy, N. (2001). Religion and Science: God, Evolution and the Soul. In C. S. Helrich (Ed.), Proceedings of the Goshen Conference on Religion and Science. Waterloo, Canada: Pandora Press.

Murphy, N., Brown, W., & Maloney, H. (1998'). Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature. N.p.: Fortress

Nolland, J. (2005). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Schnackenburg, R. (2002). The Gospel of Matthew (R. R. Barr, Trans.). . Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.