Here are two seemingly insignificant encounters with women. Firstly the story of the widow of Nain, Nain being the location where she lived. This story only appears in Luke, whereas he doesn’t include an account of the Gentile woman. The story of this widow is brief. There are loads of people around, those who are following along with Jesus, to watch, to marvel or to criticize and the people of the village who are following the funeral cortege of a young man. His mother, a widow, is weeping beside the bier, he is her only son. The implications of this may be severe for the future beyond the great sadness of grief. We are not told, and maybe the original audience didn’t need telling, but the chances are that her situation as a widow, alone, could have been very grim indeed.
The only word spoken in this account is the word of command from Jesus to the young man, but what we have prior to the command is that Jesus notices the pain of the woman, and that is what elicits His compassion and His actions. The dead man sat up and began to speak and Jesus gave him to his mother. (Luke 7:15). I love that last phrase; it has such a sense of rebirth. Once she was given the baby when he was delivered from her body and now by divine Love he is delivered to her again.
The story of the crippled woman, again from Luke, is likewise very brief and shares with the widow’s experience the compassion of Jesus being the motivating force. She does not ask him for attention. We are told ‘she had a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years so that she was unable to stand up straight.’ (Luke 13:10-13) Seeing her pain, He calls her to Himself and simply states that she is now free from her pain, for which freedom she gives thanks to God.
What the problem was in medical language we have no clue and it doesn’t matter but it is described in language that re-iterates what we said earlier, that in their world-view all disease comes from some kind of spiritual disharmony. This thinking, of course, isn’t a million miles away from much current thinking, that there is no physical problem that does not have deeper, psychological implications.
In the context of the gospel account the story is inserted seemingly to highlight the increasing conflict between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders who, in this instance, complain that He has performed this healing on the Sabbath day, i.e. on that day one is not supposed to do any work; He should have held His compassion over until tomorrow!
The conflict between Jesus and the authorities is a constant and developing theme throughout all the four gospel accounts, leading us always towards the culmination in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. One can, however, also see this kind of clash as a common experience in any age. There are always the gainsayers, and there are always those who want to uphold ‘the way things ought to be done’. Sadly, this is particularly true in matters of healing. And there are always unspoken vested interests. In the time of Jesus these were the religious leaders of the people, in our day they may be harder to nail down but the motivations are much the same: money and power.
On the bright side, though, with the increase in scientific exploration, quantum physics and so on, there is more honest recognition that there is much we don’t know about healing. One hears less often these days of healings, seemingly complete and miraculous, (especially by people who didn’t have the right credentials) being swept aside or denied because they ‘couldn’t have happened’ or that the original diagnosis was faulty. The potentials for healing, as we saw, for example, with distance healing, are not only more varied than the medical profession has access to, there are also the scientific methods to enable verification. Today, ‘drugless’ approaches to cure are gaining popularity. A dozen years ago it was predicted that one day meditation would figure on a doctor’s prescription pad, and now in some consulting rooms, it does! Very heartening.
In conclusion I ponder the ‘take home’ message of these stories. Of course, there is the affirmation of the healing power of Christ, but then there is also the example of His noticing a need and fulfilling it. In some times and places, even to the present day, there are people, both in groups or individuals, who believe so fervently in the loving presence of Jesus that they do practise healing in His name, with astounding success.
And there are many people who have the gift of healing who do not acknowledge Christ as the Source of that power but that there are women and men who have ‘the gift of healing’ there is no doubt. The New Testament does assure us that the power to heal is one of the gifts of the Spirit, but that it should be so rare is a puzzlement. I think the ‘proper’ religious view is that the miracles that Jesus and His immediate followers performed were signs of ‘the Kingdom being among us’. The rest of us are waiting for its ultimate fulfillment.
As I said, I ponder this. One cannot, according to these stories, only put it down to a question of asking for healing because the examples we have show the divine healing coming unasked. That suggests a level of divine interaction, dependence or trust that only the very spiritually advanced would claim or enjoy today. I think centuries of Christian teaching have accumulated and solidified certain attitudes that make it difficult to believe in the possibility and belief, or perhaps certainty, is the necessity. ‘To believe passionately in that which does not yet exist’ is a current recommended stance for manifesting one’s desires, whether for glorious health or any other kind of abundance. However, while it is comparatively easy to hold in the mind a positive belief, having that belief rooted to the point of absolute certainty through one’s whole being is another thing entirely.
We also must take into account the long-standing dependence on an elite medical profession, which has made belief in any other form of healing a kind of absurdity and has eroded our sense of personal responsibility for our own well-being. Church and state have from the earliest days been in opposition to personal responsibility; they were the opposition to Jesus, too! Jesus encountered individuals. His opponents He addressed collectively because they came to Him as a collective, with their set opinions and objections. His teaching as well as His healing was very personal. It went directly to the heart of the individual, for him or her to take or reject at their own will. The consequences of acceptance or rejection at that very personal level were also made awesomely clear.
Of course, the questions about the healing process are far more complex than merely the issues I have raised here and pondering does not lead me to a nice neat answer, it only leads me to ponder more, and perhaps more widely. Contemplating these matters does make me more conscious of the necessity to question collective opinions and confirms my belief that radiant health is what we are intended for even if achieving it seems to be so often beyond our reach.
