Luke 13.10-17 (NRSV)

Luke 13.10-17 (NRSV)

Jesus Heals a Crippled Woman

¹⁰ Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath.¹¹And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. ¹²When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment.’ ¹³When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God.¹⁴But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the Sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, ‘There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured, and not on the Sabbath day.’ ¹⁵But the Lord answered him and said, ‘You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger, and lead it away to give it water? ¹⁶And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the Sabbath day?’ ¹⁷When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame; and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things that he was doing.

For the Jewish leaders, healing people from their pain was not a ministry to be exercised on the holy day. Jesus points out the folly of their ways - the hypocrisy that states that one can help animals while ignoring the needs of people. The Jewish leaders in their pettiness even argued about what types on knots could or could not be tied on the Sabbath. As McBride explains, Jesus ...

... has no time for a theology of knots which can justify the release of an animal, and keep a women bound in her affliction. Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath who releases those who are bound.

Tinsley reminds us that the healing of the crippled woman should have made it clear to the religious leaders who Jesus really was, i.e. the one who is Lord of the Sabbath and the one who has mastery over the power of evil in the world. But all they saw was a man who was breaking the Sabbath, and although they would not admit it, was in a way that they too were willing to do so, if one of their valuable animals needed to be set free!

The only way these religious leaders would have been happy for the Sabbath to be broken was if a person’s life was in danger. Jesus responds to them saying that what he was doing for the woman was necessary! (dei) using the same word when Luke explains the divine necessity of the Cross (Caird, p. 171 – see Luke 9.22). It is necessary to liberate people out of the clutches of evil and this is a work that must continue seven days a week.

In fact, Caird reminds us that the real significance of the Sabbath was that it was meant to be a ‘… weekly release from the bondage of labour, and a foretaste of the rest awaiting the people of God.’ (p. 171) What Jesus was doing could therefore not have been more appropriate, as Caird adds:‘... to liberate men and women from the reign of Satan and to bring them under the gracious reign of God was therefore to fulfil the purpose of the Sabbath, not profane it’. (p. 171)

The opponent of Jesus was one of the rulers of the Synagogue. In contrast with the Scribes and the Pharisees, this person did not even respond to Jesus personally, but addressed the crowd. But when Jesus pointed out his hypocrisy, the crowd saw the legitimacy of what Jesus was saying and sided with him instead ‘... and they rejoiced in the glorious things done by Jesus’. (La Verdiere, p. 183)

Tom Wright suggests that the women probably had a ‘spirit of weakness’ meaning that there was no medical explanation why she became bent over, and that her ailment might well have been psychological. None of this really matters, though, because what does matter is the fact that she was suffering – and that this had lasted for a very long time – and now Jesus liberated her.

We need to beware of any form of strait-jacket that brings us into bondage. It is so easy for us to become legalistic like the Scribes, Pharisees and other religious leaders. This is a malady of fundamentalism; it loses the flexibility and pragmatism needed if we are to be enabled to love others with the love of Christ.

The right thing to do is the most loving thing to do. There is general agreement between Christian ethicists, but this does not mean that there is no debate. The best known modern exponent is Joseph Fletcher and his famous work entitled Situation Ethics, which he claimed was in line with the teaching, practice and example of Jesus. His theory was brilliant where he stated that one always goes into any situation with the position of one’s tradition intact, and only set aside the commonly agreed rules or laws, if the purposes of love are better served by doing this. So a Roman Catholic follower of Fletcher, would remain faithful to all their teachings, they would only change if a situation arose where love would be better served if one did not. An obvious case would be an abortion for a disabled girl who had been raped and was now pregnant. Fletcher claimed to pilot a middle road between antinomianism which abandons all laws (and which is popular today because it is at the heart of relativism, where the situation dictates what is right or wrong) and legalism on the other hand, where rules are so rigidly applied that there is no room for manoeuvre. Fletcher suggested that one should not think about rigid laws or rules, but see them rather as maxims or guiding principles. In reality, Fletcher moved to a much more antinomian relativist position, and his ideas fell out of favour – and rightly so - but other scholars like Paul Ramsey especially, and JAT Robinson, I believe are right where they claim that love is the ultimate command that should be at the heart of all our dealings with others, especially those in predicaments, whatever they may be. This is following the way set by our Lord, Jesus Christ.

As D G Miller reminds us:

What could be more wholesome in a synagogue on the Sabbath, than that the works of Satan should be destroyed and that men should life their hearts in praise for God for this. (p. 114)

The Sabbath is God’s special day and so is the most appropriate for doing his work. Miller continues:

A change of mind about the meaning of the Law was necessary before the Pharisees could enter the Kingdom. (ibid)

And for this to happen, repentance was needed and so Jesus continues with two parables to make this point.

In the Kingdom of God people matter before things, and the Law or rules are also ‘things’. We are under grace and not law and our lives should be lived in this way; Christians ought to have a reputation for being gracious people.

Rules and laws must, needs be, always be there as the basic minimum, the lowest possible standard. If all one can say that one has never broken a rule, then one will probably not have lived a loving life. Jesus made this clear when he spoke of Christians not only not committing adultery – the law – but going further and not even thinking about it; never murdering – the law – but never allowing hurtful and hateful thoughts to be part of our lives.

God treats us much better than we deserve, and so ought we who are called to be imitators of God in Jesus Christ. We should always be ready to treat others better than they deserve.

So often one hears – even in churches – that people are being petty and insisting on their way, and they appeal to the ‘rules’ to support their position. Barclay suggests that ‘… there is more trouble and strife in churches over legalistic details of procedure than over every other thing.’ (p. 178)

In the Jewish Law, it was perfectly ‘legal’ to help a person on the Sabbath if their life was in danger; the misery of the woman’s suffering for 18 years meant that her real life – the life that Jesus came to offer to all – was in danger. Barclay concludes:

Often good things are delayed because some regulation has not been satisfied – or because of some technical detail. No helpful deed that we can do today should be postponed until tomorrow. (p. 178)