Hemorrhaging Woman Essay
The unnamed hemorrhaging woman in Mark 5:24-34 interrupts the longer story of Jairus, one of the leaders of the synagogue who begs Jesus to heal his sick daughter. As Jesus and a large crowd walk toward Jairus’ house, the hemorrhaging woman touches Jesus’ cloak, which heals her affliction after 12 years of bleeding. According to Susan Haber, there are two major feminist camps when interpreting the hemorrhaging woman’s story. The first, supported by Marla Selvidge, argues that although Levitical purity laws and sexism oppress this woman, Jesus--through healing her affliction--alludes to a more egalitarian society in which the woman, regardless of perceived impurity or gender, would be fully included. The second, supported by Mary Rose D’Angelo,
…show more content…
However, the presence of mikvaot, or submersion pools, in Gamla, Sepphoris, Herodium, and Massada indicates that the cleansing of impurity would have been commonplace across Palestine during the Second Temple Period. Even during the Diaspora, when the Jews didn’t have pools, the focus on purity didn’t disappear--they probably splashed or sprinkled water on themselves (Haber, 178). Since Mark wrote this story around 70 C.E., at the end of the Second Temple period, we can assume that people adhered to Biblical impurity laws. In a time where childbirth and child rearing determined the worth of a woman, it’s likely that she was an outcast. Not only was she incapable of having sex/conceiving during her illness, but she also had a ‘contagious’ …show more content…
Rather than Jesus purposefully using his powers to heal the woman, she reaches out and touches Jesus’ cloak. This is not only against ancient Israelite gender roles, but she also risks contaminating Jesus. Under Levitical purity laws, she cannot touch people within the crowd lest she spread her impurity (Kinukawa, 33). I think that the feminist interpretation of this situation sees that the woman takes an active role in restoring her own wholeness and connection to the community. However, my use of ‘feminist’ here is not exact to the modern sense, as that would be an alien concept. But for a woman living in the first century CE, rejoining the community of her own volition is unprecedented in other Biblical stories and
However, the presence of mikvaot, or submersion pools, in Gamla, Sepphoris, Herodium, and Massada indicates that the cleansing of impurity would have been commonplace across Palestine during the Second Temple Period. Even during the Diaspora, when the Jews didn’t have pools, the focus on purity didn’t disappear--they probably splashed or sprinkled water on themselves (Haber, 178). Since Mark wrote this story around 70 C.E., at the end of the Second Temple period, we can assume that people adhered to Biblical impurity laws. In a time where childbirth and child rearing determined the worth of a woman, it’s likely that she was an outcast. Not only was she incapable of having sex/conceiving during her illness, but she also had a ‘contagious’ …show more content…
Rather than Jesus purposefully using his powers to heal the woman, she reaches out and touches Jesus’ cloak. This is not only against ancient Israelite gender roles, but she also risks contaminating Jesus. Under Levitical purity laws, she cannot touch people within the crowd lest she spread her impurity (Kinukawa, 33). I think that the feminist interpretation of this situation sees that the woman takes an active role in restoring her own wholeness and connection to the community. However, my use of ‘feminist’ here is not exact to the modern sense, as that would be an alien concept. But for a woman living in the first century CE, rejoining the community of her own volition is unprecedented in other Biblical stories and