The “Passivity” of Jesus in Mark 5:25–34

By Charles E. Powell

[Charles E. Powell is Pastor, Forest Lake Bible Church, Niceville, Florida.]

The Gospel of Mark has enjoyed a surge of attention in recent centuries. All but neglected by the early church fathers, Mark’s Gospel is now appreciated for its fast-paced storytelling, unique theological themes, and its critical role in the Synoptic problem, either as a source for Matthew and Luke, or as a synthesis of both Gospels. It has been called “the Gospel of the Son of God” (Mark 1:1), “the Gospel of Action,”[1] “the Gospel of the Suffering Servant,”[2] and “the Book of Christ the Servant.”[3]

Mark has several theological themes, some that it shares with the other Gospels, while others are unique. The “messianic secret” theme, which in some cases has been overdrawn, points to Jesus’ own perception and portrayal of Himself, as well as Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the Suffering Servant. The Messiah whom the disciples and Israel were expecting was not the kind of Messiah Jesus intended to be. The kingdom Jesus proclaimed was not the kingdom the first-century Jews had in mind. Mark’s practical theme of discipleship is drawn out not through detailed discourses but in the way Jesus spent time with the disciples and involved them in His purposes (3:13–19).

Most commentators emphasize the Christology of Mark, especially the presentation of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God,[4] and the Suffering Servant. To be sure, these aspects are emphasized throughout the Gospel. However, are they the emphasis in every passage? The miracle stories in Mark highlight Jesus’ power and authority over disease, demons, and nature. Therefore an emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God is intended. One miracle story, however, shifts the emphasis from Jesus, the Miracle Worker, to the one receiving the miracle. This is the story of the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage in Mark 5:25–34.

This story is unique for several reasons. First, it is tied to the story of the resuscitation of Jairus’s daughter. Second, it gives more information about the woman and her actions than about Jesus. Third, the woman’s status as unclean according to the Law and the implications of her touching Jesus are left unaddressed. Fourth, it is the only miracle story that portrays Jesus taking a passive role. Fifth, Jesus pointed to the woman’s faith, rather than His power, as the means of her healing.

These factors suggest that Mark’s theological emphasis in this passage is not on Jesus’ power and deity but on the woman’s faith and Jesus’ validation of her faith as the means of salvation. This contrasts to the theological emphasis of the larger pericope about Jairus’s daughter, which focuses on Jesus’ power and deity. The importance of this change in theological emphasis is that it balances Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God and the Suffering Servant with the significance of faith as the means of obtaining the salvation He offers.

Overview of Mark 5:25–34

Mark 5:25–34 and its parallels (Matt. 9:20–22; Luke 8:43–48) tell the story of the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage. The passage in the NET Bible reads as follows. “Now a woman was there who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years. She had endured a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet instead of getting better, she grew worse. When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she kept saying, ‘If only I touch his clothes, I will be healed.’ At once the bleeding stopped, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Jesus knew at once that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ His disciples said to him, ‘You see the crowd pressing against you and you say, “Who touched me?” ’ But he looked around to see who had done it. Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’ ”

Mark’s version of this miracle is more detailed than its parallels. It is one in a series of miracles that demonstrate the variety and degree of Jesus’ power and authority. In fact it is situated within the story of the raising of Jairus’s daughter. The story moves rather deliberately with certain details that are added by the narrator. Mark included details of the woman’s condition, told why she wanted to touch Jesus, and recorded her perception of her own healing. Mark also stated Jesus’ own perception of what was transpiring.[5] The woman revealed herself and made her story known to Jesus. Mark emphasized the fact that she was responding to Jesus personally, while Luke wrote that she confessed her story in front of everyone. Also Jesus confirmed her healing, blessed her, and vindicated her faith. This moving story reveals Jesus’ power over disease, but it does not emphasize that fact. Mark placed more emphasis on the woman than on Jesus. The following features argue for a shift in theological emphasis in Mark’s series of miracle stories.

The Relationship to the Raising of Jairus’s Daughter

This story is inextricably tied to the story of the miracle of Jairus’s daughter. The two stories are a clear example of Mark’s narrative art of sandwiching one event in the middle of another one. Not all of Mark’s sandwiched stories, however, are alike. Mark 6:7–30 includes a “flashback” on the death of John the Baptist between the sending out of the Twelve and their return.6 Other “sandwiches” are created by events contemporary with each other interwoven in such a way that one helps interpret the other. Examples of this include the pharisaical accusations that Jesus was in league with Satan within the story of Jesus’ own family trying to restrain Him because they believed He was mad (3:21–35), Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and His cursing of the fig tree (11:11–27), and the trials of Jesus interwoven with Peter’s denials.[7]

The Jairus story provides the basic framework for the narrative. There are four scenes. Jesus returned from the other side of the sea to be met by a large crowd and Jairus (5:21–23). Jesus then went with Jairus to his house, accompanied by the crowd (vv. 24–37). Leaving the crowd behind, Jesus, Jairus, and three disciples entered the house (vv. 38–40a). Then Jesus, His three disciples, and the parents went into the girl’s room (vv. 40b–43).

The two miracle stories have several points of connection. First, the issue of impurity is involved in both cases. The woman’s condition would make any who touched her impure (Lev. 15:25), and so would touching the child’s dead body. Second, the length of the woman’s illness and the inability of the physicians to heal her correspond to the discouraging advice of the messenger to Jairus not to trouble Jesus because his daughter had died. Third, the woman had suffered with her illness for twelve years, and the child was twelve years old. Fourth, both are called “daughter.” Fifth, the woman’s response to Jesus’ confrontation with “fear and trembling” corresponds to Jesus’ exhortation to Jairus, “Do not be afraid.” Sixth, Jesus’ vindication of her faith corresponds to his exhortation to Jairus to believe.[8]

However, several differences exist in the events. First, the two main characters who interacted with Jesus occupied opposite ends of the social, religious, and economic ladder. Jairus was a male and a synagogue leader. The woman’s condition made her ritually unclean and separated her from the community, synagogue, and temple. Second, Jairus was named, but the woman’s name was not given. Third, Jairus was a man of distinction and honor, but the woman was defiled and had no honor. Fourth, Jairus could openly approach Jesus with a direct request, but the woman had to slink about and approach Jesus from behind surreptitiously in order to obtain healing. Fifth, Jairus was a wealthy man and had a large household, whereas the woman had become destitute because of her medical bills. Her condition made marriage and childbearing almost impossible. These two shared only three things in common: they had heard about Jesus, they desperately desired healing, and they had no other options.[9]

The Woman and Her Condition

The second interesting feature about this narrative is that there is more information about the woman and her actions than about Jesus. The description of the woman is given in a series of seven participial clauses, five attributive and two circumstantial.[10] She had had this hemorrhage for twelve years. She had seen many doctors and probably received a wide variety of treatments. Such prescriptions could have included drinking a goblet of wine with a powder compounded from rubber, alum, and garden crocuses. Another prescription may have included a dose of Persian onions cooked in wine and administered with the summons, “Arise out of your flow of blood.” Other doctors prescribed sudden shock or the carrying of the ash of an ostrich’s egg in a cloth.[11] The custom in the Middle East was to consult as many doctors as possible, and the result was a multiplicity of prescriptions that often made a patient worse.[12] This turned out to be the case in this woman’s life, and in fact she had spent all her money on doctors.

This woman was in a difficult situation. She had been bleeding every day for twelve long years. Physically speaking, this must have brought on anemia, which may have meant that she had energy loss, weight loss, paleness of skin, loss of hair, brittle nails, heart palpitations, difficulty breathing, and pain in her joints. Anemia would have resulted in a compromised immune system, leaving her susceptible to diseases. Her perpetual bleeding would mean that her inner organs were not getting the oxygen and blood they needed to function properly.[13] She had been to several doctors, but they were unable to help her.

The third interesting feature is that the woman’s status as unclean according to the Law and the implications of her touching Jesus are left unaddressed. The regulations in Leviticus 15:25–30 read as follows. “When a woman’s discharge of blood flows many days not at the time of her menstruation, or if it flows beyond the time of her menstruation, all the days of her discharge of impurity will be like the days of her menstruation—she is unclean. Any bed she lies on all the days of her discharge will be to her like the bed of her menstruation, any furniture she sits on will be unclean like the impurity of her menstruation, and anyone who touches them will be unclean, and he must wash his clothes, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If she becomes clean from her discharge, then she is to count off for herself seven days, and afterward she will be clean. Then on the eighth day she must take for herself two turtledoves or two young pigeons and she must bring them to the priest at the doorway of the Meeting Tent, and the priest is to make one a sin offering and the other a burnt offering. So the priest is to make atonement for her before the Lord from her discharge of impurity” (NET).

These regulations and others from extrabiblical sources restricted a woman’s activity in the home, society, and in religious observances. Sexual activity and normal social functions were prohibited during a woman’s menstrual cycle or any irregular gynecological disorder that resulted in bloody discharges. A woman was considered ceremonially unclean during her regular monthly cycle and was required to be sequestered for seven days (15:19, 28). During a lengthy gynecological disorder the woman remained unclean until her problem was cured. Anything she touched became unclean, and anyone she touched or who touched her became unclean and was secluded until that evening. If she had sexual contact with anyone, both were secluded for at least seven days.[14]

The woman’s desperation is evident in the fact that she dared transgress levitical legislation regarding her condition to come out in the midst of the crowd and risk contaminating many people by inadvertently touching them. Her boldness is even more significant in that she risked touching Jesus, whom she knew to be a miracle worker and possibly a prophet. If she touched even the tassel of his garment, she risked making Him unclean.

However, Mark wrote nothing about all this, though he explained other Jewish customs and laws to his audience. Perhaps he was silent because menstrual taboos were common in ancient societies,[15] and his audience would have been shocked at the woman’s actions in light of their own background and culture. Neither did Mark (or Matthew or Luke) say anything about the seven-day waiting period or the sacrificial offerings that a woman must make before the priest, like the leper in Mark 1:44. Jesus simply told her to go her way. Mark’s silence on this point may point to the sufficiency of Jesus’ power and the woman’s faith.

Jesus’ “Passivity”

The fourth unique feature of this story is that it is the only miracle story that portrays Jesus taking a passive role in the healing. While other passages make comments about people touching His cloak and being healed (Matt. 14:34–36; Mark 6:53–56; cf. Acts 5:15–16), this is the only passage in which the healing takes place in a surreptitious manner. The woman was the active agent in this story. Her situation was so desperate that she dared to sneak in the crowd and “steal” a healing by touching Jesus’ garment. In most other miracles Jesus is the one who touched people to heal them. Her faith, at first glance, seems to be superstitious, as if it were tainted with magical notions about Jesus’ power. However, it may be that she simply believed that touching Him would have the same effect as His touching her.

Even Jesus’ response is portrayed in a passive way. He was aware that power had gone from Him, but He acted as if He did not know who had touched Him. He acted as if He had not actively released His power; instead that power was procured from Him, although not necessarily against His own will. He asked His disciples who had touched Him, and they were baffled that He even asked the question, since so many people were pressing around Him. By looking around the crowd to see who the “culprit” was, He was drawing out the woman, similar to God’s calling and questioning Adam and Eve in Eden (cf. Gen. 3:8–13). Jesus knew who touched Him; He was simply drawing her out. The woman then responded as if she believed He did know, because she came forward to confess what she had done and why. She told the whole story. In response Jesus said she was healed, He vindicated her faith, and He sent her on her way.

Jesus’ Vindication of Her Faith

Jesus pointed to the woman’s faith, rather than His power, as the means to her healing. His search for the “culprit” suggests that something had been taken from Him without His permission. When Jesus stopped the crowd and investigated the situation, the disciples and the crowd were surprised, especially in light of the urgency of the situation involving Jairus’s daughter. No doubt Jairus himself was quite alarmed at this seemingly meaningless delay.

However, when confronted by Jesus’ penetrating gaze, the woman knew that she must come forward and confess what she had done. In fear she did not know what His response would be. Would it be a stern rebuke? Would He denigrate her and treat her as unclean? Would He shame her and accuse her of making Him and others in the crowd unclean? Yes, she had heard about Jesus. She knew Him to be a worker of miracles and perhaps even a prophet. But she may not have known of His gracious demeanor. Yes, He had healed many others, and she may have expected some amount of compassion. But she was unclean. In a sense she had “stolen” her healing. She may have even defiled Him ceremonially. She may have had no expectation of the gracious response He gave. To her amazement, instead of rebuking her He commended her for her faith.

Several things are noteworthy about her faith and Jesus’ response. Her faith is evident in that she believed Jesus could heal her, even if she only touched His cloak. The ἐάν and κἂν[16] (v. 28) emphasized that she believed that this was a sufficient condition, albeit a minimally sufficient one. The imperfect ἔλεγεν probably has an iterative aspect, suggesting that she was repeatedly telling herself that simply touching the tassels of His cloak would be sufficient. Because her situation was desperate, she had the courage to defy regulations of the Law for the possibility of being cured. She attempted to gain healing with a minimum of notice, probably keeping her head sufficiently covered so that no one would recognize her. Until Jesus stopped the crowd and brought attention to the situation, no one even noticed her.

However, Jesus did bring attention to her. Her willingness to confess her situation and what she had done is also a sign of her faith and courage. She could have escaped. However, she somehow sensed that Jesus knew what she had done, and that she in particular had done it. She knew that He was calling her forward to acknowledge her actions. She may have hoped that He would be gracious, but she did not know that He would be. She must trust in what she had heard about Him.

Jesus, on the other hand, knew that power had gone from Him. He knew that someone had been healed and that someone had exercised some kind of faith, even if it had been tainted with superstition. He brought the woman’s faith out into the open, into its full expression. He stopped the crowd, in spite of Jairus’s need, because this woman’s need to have her faith tested further was also important. When He made it known that He wanted to find who had touched Him, the woman came forward and expressed her faith, even though it might have ultimately cost her more. However, Jesus addressed her tenderly and with praise.

This is the only woman whom Jesus addressed directly as “Daughter.”[17] This endearing address suggests that Jesus accepted her as she was, in spite of what she had done. Jesus received this impure but courageous woman and made her feel special. In the presence of the crowd He announced that it was her faith that had saved her. Σέσωκεν refers to her having been healed, but the idea of spiritual salvation may be implied because there was now a change in her relationship to Jesus and society, a newness that only faith in Jesus could bring. The use of ὑγιής (“well”) later in verse 34 may also indicate that σέσωκεν has broader implications. In addition to this He bestowed on her the Old Testament formula of reassurance and blessing inὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην (“Go in peace”). At last she could enjoy the peace she had long needed, a peace derived from a relationship with Jesus. Jesus’ final words to her confirm that her healing was not merely a temporary remission. Her ailment was cured, her impurity removed, and her place in society restored.[18] All this was because she had faith in Jesus and His authority to heal.

Conclusion

Mark’s theological emphasis in this passage was not on Jesus’ power and deity but on the woman’s faith and Jesus’ validation of her faith as the means of salvation. Thus the theological idea for this passage is that faith is sufficient to appropriate Jesus’ power for help and salvation. This contrasts with the theological emphasis of the larger pericope about raising Jairus’s daughter, which emphasizes Jesus’ power and deity. The importance of this change in theological emphasis is that it balances Mark’s portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God and the Suffering Servant with the significance of faith as the means of obtaining salvation that Jesus offers.

This pericope concerning the woman’s hemorrhage shows Jesus’ power over an incurable illness, while the pericope concerning Jairus’s daughter shows His power over death. The authority and confidence of Jesus is even seen in His willingness to stop to investigate what seemed to be a minor incident, especially when everyone would think that He should proceed quickly to Jairus’s house. The Jairus story is the climax of this series of miracle stories. In Mark 4:35–5:43 the focus of the miracles moved from His power over nature (4:35–41), to His power over demons (5:1–20), to his power over sickness and death itself (5:21–43).[19] The progression is even more pointed in that the illness involves a loss of blood, and the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 17:14). The loss of blood symbolizes the process of death.[20]

Garland points out that the significance of the contrasts between Jairus and the hemorrhaging woman lies in the fact that faith enables anyone, no matter their advantages or disadvantages, to find healing and salvation in Jesus and His merciful power.[21] Jesus’ contact with what was unclean did not render Him unclean. He cleansed the impurity, whether it resulted from leprosy, hemorrhages, or contact with the dead.[22]

As the Messiah and the Son of God, Jesus commends faith wherever He sees it. Only through faith can a person have access to the Father. Only through faith can a relationship with the Son of God be established. Salvation and peace come by faith because of the mercy and grace of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. When a person enters into a relationship with God through faith in Christ, that one too may “Go in peace.”

Notes

1. Ralph Earle, Mark: The Gospel of Action, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1970).
2. John D. Grassmick, “Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor: 1983), 100; and Daniel B. Wallace, “Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” p. 7, http://wwww.bible.org/docs/soapbox/markotl.htm, accessed November 10, 2003.
3. Woodrow Kroll, Read Your Bible One Book at a Time: A Refreshing Way to Read God’s Word with New Insight and Meaning (Lincoln, NE: Back to the Bible, 2001), 75.
4. The phrase “the Son of God” marks an inclusio in Mark 1:1 and 15:39.
5. Luke also included this detail in the form of a dialogue with the disciples.
6. R. T. France sees this as a digression in the narrative sequence that makes an important contribution to the reader’s understanding of the dynamics of the entire Gospel (The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002], 18–19).
7. Ibid.
8. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989), 293.
9. David E. Garland, Mark, New International Version Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 224.
10. Ακούσασα (v. 27) is a temporal participle contemporaneous with ἥψατο, while ἐλθοῦσα is a participle of attendant circumstance to ἥψατο.
11. William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 192 n. 46.
12. C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 285.
13. James F. Balch and Phyllis A. Balch, Prescription for Nutritional Healing, 3rd ed. (New York City, NY: Avery, 2000), 174–75.
14. Marla J. Selvidge, “Mark 5:25–34 and Leviticus 15:19–20: A Reaction to Restrictive Purity Regulations,” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (December 1984): 619-20.
15. Ibid., 621.
16. Matthew 9:21 has μόνον.
17. Θυγάτηρ (v. 34) is a nominative for a vocative of indirect address.
18. France, The Gospel of Mark, 238.
19. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 294.
20. Garland, Mark, 220 n. 5.
21. Ibid., 225.
22. Ibid.