Ep. 36: Miracles of faith
CLICK HERE for the corresponding devotional in Yeshua Adored
MATTHEW 9:18-26, MARK 5:21-43, LUKE 8:40-56
(Book 3: Chapter 26)
There seems remarkable similarity between the two miracles of Jesus on leaving Capernaum and those which he did on his return. The stilling of the storm and the healing of the demonised were manifestations of the absolute power inherent in Christ; the recovery of the woman and the raising of Jairus’ daughter, evidence of the absolute value of faith.
On the shore at Capernaum, many were gathered on the morning after the storm. As he again stepped on the well-known shore. He was welcomed, surrounded by the crowd, eager, curious, expectant. It seemed as if he had been away all too long for their impatience. The tidings rapidly spread and reached two homes where his help was needed.
Both Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue and the woman suffering these many years from disease, had faith. But the weakness of the first came from excess and threatened to turn into superstition, while the weakness of the second was due to defect and threatened to end in despair. In both cases faith had to be called out, tried, purified and so perfected; in both, the thing sought for was, humanly speaking, unattainable and the means employed seemingly powerless; yet, in both, the outward and inward results required were obtained through the power of Jesus.
Although Matthew speaks of her as dead at the time of Jairus’ request to Jesus, the other two Gospel accounts, giving fuller details, describe her as on the point of death, literally, ‘at the last breath’. Unless her disease had been both sudden and very rapid, which is barely possible, it is difficult to understand why her father had not on the previous day approached Jesus, if his faith had been such as is generally supposed. Only in the hour of supreme need, when his only child lay dying, did he turn to Jesus.
There was a need to perfect such faith, on the one hand into the perseverance of assurance and on the other into the energy of trustfulness. There was nothing unnatural in the approach of this ruler to Jesus. He must have known of the healing of the son of the court official and of the servant of the Centurion, there or in the immediate neighbourhood - as it was said, by the mere word of Jesus. This serves to highlight the important point, that Christ’s miracles were intended to aid, not to supersede, faith; to direct to the person and teaching of Jesus. Instead of exciting the crowd with acts of power, but rather leading in humble discipleship to the feet of Jesus. That was, as we’ve seen before, the moral purpose of these miracles.
When Jesus followed the ruler to his house, another approached him from out of that crowd, one whose inner history was far different from that of Jairus. The disease from which this woman had suffered for twelve years would render her Levitically ‘unclean.’ On one page of the Talmud, no less than eleven different remedies are proposed, of which at most only six can possibly be regarded as proper remedies, while the rest are merely the outcome of superstition. But what is interesting here is that, in all cases where remedies are prescribed, it is ordered, that, while the woman takes the remedy, she is to be addressed by the words, ‘Arise (Qum) from thy flux.’ Is it a coincidence that the command Arise (Qum) is that used by Jesus in raising Jairus’ daughter?
Rather than ‘magical cures’ Jesus neither used remedies nor spoke the word Qum to her who had come to touch ‘the fringe of his outer garment’ for her healing. This is almost the only occasion on which we can obtain a glimpse of what clothing Jesus wore. There was a rule that Rabbis ought to be most careful in their dress and that to wear dirty clothes deserved death, for ‘the glory of God was man, and the glory of man was his dress.’ It was the general rule to eat and drink below a man’s means, but to dress above them. For, in these things, a man’s character might be learned.
Perhaps a distinctive garment, most likely a head gear, was worn, even by ‘rulers’ at their ordination. The President of the Sanhedrin also had a distinctive garment and the head of the Jewish community in Babylon had a distinctive girdle. In referring to the clothing which may on a Sabbath be saved from a burning house - not, indeed, by carrying it, but by successively putting it on - no fewer than eighteen articles are mentioned. If we had an understanding of all the terms, we should know precisely what the Jews at the time of Jesus wore.
Unfortunately, many of these possibilities are disputed. Also, it must not be imagined that a Jew would wear all eighteen of these pieces at one time! Included would be undergarments and overgarments; the latter consisted of types of shoes. Head-coverings, the Tallith or upper cloak, the girdle, the Chaluq or underdress and the Aphqarsin or innermost covering. As regarded shoes, it was not the practice to provide more than one pair of shoes and to this may have been referenced by Jesus to the Apostles not to provide shoes for their journey.
Regarding the covering of the head, it was deemed a mark of disrespect to walk with a bare head. The ordinary covering of the head was the so-called Sudar, a cloth twisted into a turban, which might also be worn around the neck. The Sudar was peculiarly twisted by Rabbis to distinguish them from others. We also read of a sort of cap or hood attached to garments. Three or four articles commonly constituted the dress of the body.
First came the undergarment, commonly the Chaluq, of linen or of wool. The Sages wore it down to the feet. It was covered by the upper garment or Tallith to within about a handbreadth. The Chaluq lay close to the body and had no other opening than that round the neck and for the arms. At the bottom, it had a kind of hem. To possess only one such ‘coat’ or inner garment was a mark of poverty. Hence, when the Apostles were sent on their temporary mission, they were directed not to take ‘two coats.’
Closely similar to the Chaluq was the ancient garment mentioned in the Old Testament as Kethoneth, which would have been the garment that Jesus wore. This might be of almost any material, even leather, though it was generally of wool or flax. It was sleeved, close-fitting, reached to the ankles, and was fastened round the loins, or just under the breast by a girdle.
The upper garment which Jesus wore would be most likely the Tallith. This garment was provided on the four borders, with the so-called Tsitsith, or ‘fringes.’ These were attached to the four corners of the outer dress, in supposed fulfilment of the command, Numbers 15:38-41 and Deuteronomy 15:38-41, 22:12. At first, this observance seems to have been comparatively simple. The question as to the number of filaments on these ‘fringes’ was settled in accordance with the teaching of the School of Shammai. Four filaments (not three, as the Hillelites proposed), each of four finger-lengths and attached to the four corners of what must be a strictly square garment. Such were the earliest rules on the subject.
We can now form an approximate idea of the outward appearance of Jesus on that spring morning amidst the throng at Capernaum. He would look like any other Jewish teacher of Galilee. His headgear would probably be the Sudar (turban), or perhaps the Maaphoreth, which seems to have served as a covering for the head and to have descended over the back of the neck and shoulders. His feet were probably shod with sandals. The Chaluq, or more probably the Kittuna, which formed his inner garment must have been close-fitting and descended to his feet because it was worn by teachers and was regarded as absolutely necessary for anyone who would publicly read the Scriptures, or exercise any function in the synagogue.
As we know, it ‘was without seam, woven from the top throughout’. Around the middle, it would be fastened with a girdle. Over this. He would most probably wear the Tallith, with the customary fringes of four long white threads with one of hyacinth knotted together on each of the four corners. There is reason to believe, that three square garments were made with these ‘fringes,’ although, just to show off, the Pharisees made them particularly wide to attract attention, just as they made their phylacteries broad. Although Jesus only denounced the latter practice, not the phylacteries themselves, it is hard to believe that he ever wore them, either on the forehead or the arm. There was certainly no warrant for them in Holy Scripture and only Pharisee legalism could represent their use as fulfilling Exodus 13:9,16 or Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. The admission that neither the officiating priests nor the representatives of the people wore them in the Temple seems to imply that this practice was not quite universal.
Back to our story, can we then wonder that this Jewish woman, ‘having heard the things concerning Jesus,’ with her imperfect knowledge, in the weakness of her strong faith, thought that if she might but touch his garment she would be made whole? The Lord cannot be touched by disease and misery without healing coming from him, for he is the God-Man. And he is also the loving, pitying Saviour. We can picture her in our minds as mingling with those who thronged and pressed upon the Lord, she ‘touched the border of his garment,’ most probably the long Tsitsith of one of the corners of the Tallith. We can understand how, with a disease making her Levitically defiled, she might thus seek to have her heart’s desire. What strong faith to expect help where all human help had so failed her! And what strong faith to expect that even contact with him, the bare touch of his garment, would carry such Divine Power as to make her ‘whole.’
Yet, in this very strength lay also its weakness. It was not the garments or even his sacred body, but himself that brings healing. There is the danger of losing sight of what is necessary in faith, personal contact with Jesus. And so it is to us also. As we realise the mystery of the incarnation, we must think only of that which brings us in contact with him. We must avoid all superstition, the attachment of power to anything other than the Living God.
No sooner had she so touched the border of his garment than ‘she knew in the body that she was healed of the scourge.’ No sooner, also, had she so touched the border of his garment than he knew - ‘perceived in himself’ - what had taken place, the release of power out of him. This was neither unconscious nor unwilled on his part. It was caused by her faith, not by her touch. ‘Your faith has made you whole.’
As brief as this episode was, it must have caused considerable delay in his progress to the house of Jairus. For the girl had died and the mourning had started. It was designed this way, no outcome of God’s Providence is of chance. The first thing to be done by Jesus was to eject the mourners, who had proved themselves unfit to be witnesses of his great miracle. It seems that the father was stupefied, passive rather than active in the matter. The great fear which had come upon him on news of the death still seemed to numb his faith. Jesus took her by the hand and spoke only these two words, Talyetha Qum, Maiden, arise! And immediately she arose.
Soon Jesus left Capernaum, but what of that multitude? The news must have speedily reached them that the daughter of the synagogue ruler was not dead. It is doubtful whether Jewish theology generally attributed to the Messiah the raising of the dead. The consensus was that God only would raise the dead. But even those passages in which this is attributed to the Messiah do not refer to single individuals. To this matter, there is not the faintest allusion in Jewish writings. It was unheard of in Jewish theology. The world was now a very different place.
This is an extract from the book, Jesus : Life and Times, available for £10 here (Finalist for Academic Book of the year at 2023 CRT awards)