Ignorant of Mark 5:28?

Post Reply
User avatar
remade
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:53 pm
Location: Idaho
Contact:

Ignorant of Mark 5:28?

Post by remade » Tue May 17, 2016 4:52 pm

I was getting ready to do a sermon on the latter half of Mark 5; concerning the healing of Jairus's daughter as well as the woman with the continual bleeding. Besides my Study Bibles, I have been using two commentaries - one from each side of the Calvinist-Arminian paradigm. I was amazed to read in The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to Mark by James R. Edwards (the Calvinist paradigm) a complete ignorance of Mark 5:28 which states, about the woman with the continual blood problem,
28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.”
This of course, is a reference to either an inside thought of her's, or Mark/Peter's (Mark wrote the testimony of Peter, most believe) intuition into the motivations of this woman who touched Jesus in disguise. Edwards' thoughts seem to completely ignore this verse as he states in his commentary over verses 27-29
27-29 Mark does not explain what was in the woman's mind as she attempted to touch Jesus. Particularly rulers in the ancient world were believed to possess power to bless those who touched them. Alexander the Great was often mobbed by crowds who "ran to him from all sides, some touching his hands, some his knees, some his garment" in hopes of being baptized with his aura and power. Sometimes the approach was made with a more specific intent, for healing or fulfillment of a request. The woman may have approached Jesus with a similar intent, perhaps mixed with superstition. Perhaps, however, she saw in Jesus something more than the aura of a ruler. She may have seen in Jesus a representative of God who, like the altar of the tabernacle, would render holy those who touched him (Exod 29:37). That she reaches for his clothes may indicate that she associates him with the God of Israel, for the reference to clothing probably refers to the tassels on the corners of his outer garment worn by all observant Jews (Num 15:38-39; Deut 22:12). Mark makes no judgment on her orthodoxy or lack thereof, however. Rather, he relates that she does the one and only important thing for a disciple to do: she "heard," she "came," she "touched" (v.27). To act on what one hears about Jesus is always in Mark the sign of a disciple, and this the woman does. In striking contrast to her deplorable straits in v. 26, Mark narrates the result of her action concretely and graphically in v. 29, which can be literally translated: "And immediately the flow of her blood was dried up and she knew in her body that she had been healed from her curse." As in the story of the man with the shriveled hand (3:1-6), in bringing her infirmity to Jesus she is healed. Twelve years of shame and frustration are resolved in a momentary touch of Jesus. pgs 163-4; Edwards
Is it just me, or is Edwards ignoring verse 28 here, completely? If I may specify my thoughts, it seems the verse first sentence of the quote is very ignorant of verse 28, and the fact that he refers to verses 27 and 29, and never 28. Furthermore, he seems to contemplate the woman's motivations, which I thought Mark, or Peter, or the Holy Inspiration of the Holy Spirit did a good job on in the Scriptures as to the contemplation of the woman's motivations in verse 28?

Is there a reason, does anyone think, anyone would ignore verse 28 in a commentary, and suggest other alternatives? Maybe the name it and claim it fright, or the fear that one might place too much emphasis on pentecostal belief in healing, and touching clothes for healing? Any thoughts?
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
- II CORINTHIANS 5:21 ESV

Post Reply

Return to “The Gospels”