Pentecost 5 -2021
Mark 5:21-43
Marian Free
In the name of God who calls us to step out in faith into a future that is yet unknown. Amen.
Richard Scott William Hutchinson was not expected to survive. He was born five months prematurely, weighing less than 500 grams. This week he celebrated his first birthday. No one can deny that medical science has made enormous advances during our lifetimes and that not only has life-expectancy been increased but also the quality of life for a great many people has been significantly enhanced. At the beginning of last century, a broken hip would have been a death sentence. Now hip replacements are readily available and those with new hips, new knees or other new parts can continue to live full lives – often for decades. Who would have thought in the 1950s that it would have been possible to give a chronically ill person a new heart and that the recipients would go on to lead long and productive lives or that someone would invent dialysis which would substantially extend the life of someone with kidney failure?
That said, medical intervention – whether in the form of drugs, surgery, radiation treatment or some other – carries with it a degree of risk. Medication is usually packaged with a brochure outlining the possible side-effects so that the recipient can assess whether the benefits outweigh the potential costs. Before a doctor performs surgery, he or she will ensure that the patient understands the potential risks (however small) that are associated with the operation so that they can make an educated choice to go ahead (or not). Anybody undergoing treatment for cancer will be given an estimate as to how successful the treatment will be and sometimes, how long the treatment will add to their life to enable them to decide if the treatment is worth it.
Sadly though, the ability to extend a person’s life is not always associated with an improvement in their quality of life. Life-saving drugs may leave a person constantly feeling nauseous and occasionally surgical intervention leaves a person worse off in terms of mobility or the experience of pain. Mostly though the risk is worth it as it brings the hope of a better future.
Today’s gospel tells the tale of the raising of Jairus’ daughter and the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage. Mark combines the two stories using a technique called intercalation or sandwiching. In this way he allows the two accounts of healing to speak to and to interpret each other. As Mark recounts the events, we notice a number of interesting things. Perhaps what stands out most is that Jairus has asked Jesus to come to his daughter as a matter of urgency and yet Jesus takes the time to stop and engage the older woman in conversation. Then there are the parallels between the stories. The child is twelve years old, and the woman has suffered for all that time. The girl is on the verge of her child-bearing years and the woman by virtue of her bleeding is unable to have children. The girl is surrounded by a loving family who are comfortably well off and who have status in the community. The woman appears to be alone, has used all her resources and, due to the bleeding, is considered unclean and thus is excluded from society. The child is at the point of death and the woman, as a result of her condition, might as well be dead.
It seems to me that risk-taking is at the heart of these healing stories. Neither Jairus nor the woman know whether or not they will be better off as a result of their approach to Jesus. Jairus’ daughter may live, but her quality of life may have already been seriously compromised. The woman’s flow of blood may stop but the underlying cause may remain. As the leader of the synagogue, Jairus risks ridicule and shame by approaching this strange travelling teacher. He is a man of status. If Jesus cannot heal his child, he may well lose the respect of his community. (Indeed, the laughter of the crowd indicates that his honour is already being questioned.) As a woman with a flow of blood, the woman is unclean. Her presence among the crowd will taint everyone there. No one will be able to visit the Temple for seven days if they have come into contact with her. She risks censure, even anger – how dare she break social and religious convention, how dare she threaten the people’s state of religious purity!
None-the-less, both Jairus and the woman feel that the risk is worth it and, as we see, their courage is rewarded. The woman is healed and the child (who has died) is raised to newness of life. Both are restored – one to her family, the other to her place in the community. Better still, as the Greek suggests, their healing not just a short-term fix or a prolongation of life at any cost. They are made well now and will have life (not mere existence) going forward.
Of course, Jairus and the woman were already transformed by their act of faith. Even before they had approached Jesus, they had made a decision that it was worth gambling their reputation and their life or that of their daughter. They had had the courage to believe that Jesus could work change in their lives and that any potential cost was well worth risk.
I don’t claim to know how healing works and why it works for some and not for others, but I do know that if, like Jairus and the woman, we have the courage to step out in faith, to take a risk with God and to place our lives in Jesus’ hands, then, whatever our life situation we can be confident that God will give us what we need and will enable us to live life to its fullest.
Swallowsrest 