This exploration of the healing narratives in Matthew 8 and 9, guided by current scholarship in the fields of medical anthropology and social-scientific study of ancient Mediterranean culture, shows that when viewed in their historical and cultural context these biblical narratives point us toward a more holistic understanding of healing that may encourage contemporary movements in this direction. In this context, the goal is ‘healing’ the person rather than simply ‘curing’ the disease. The goal of restoring persons to a state of well-being and social reintegration into their families and communities requires attention to the emotional, social and spiritual well-being of persons as well as their physical health. A critically and culturally informed interpretation of Matthew’s healing narratives may therefore promote the broader understanding of healing in view of these biblical stories.
In part I of this article, we developed a methodological approach to the healing narratives in the Gospel of Matthew, drawing from work in the fields of medical anthropology, Second Temple Judaism, narrative criticism and implied ethics. In this part, we turn to the concentration of healing stories in Matthew 8-9. We will look in particular for ways they contribute to major Matthean themes, the didactic function of these stories and their implications for bioethics.
Before turning to the healing stories, we must note the importance of two further elements of the gospel narrative that guide our reading: the virtues that are explicitly introduced in these chapters, and the location and structure of this collection of healing stories.
On the way to identifying the narrative’s implied ethics, the reader should take note of its explicit ethical references. Indeed, the values named throughout the Gospel are relevant, but for this inquiry we will limit our attention to the ethical norms and virtues that appear in these two chapters. Of particular interest is the only reference to physicians (ἰατρόι) in Matthew (9:12). Jesus responds to his opponents: ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice”’ (9:13). The quotation is from Hosea 6:6 (LXX). Later in this section, two blind men come to Jesus with the pointed request, ‘Have mercy on us’ (9:27). Finally, the summary statement at the end of the section, which reports that Jesus went about the cities and villages ‘curing every disease and every illness’ (πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν – 9:35), explains that he ‘had compassion (ἐσπλαγχνίσθη) on them’ (9:36). Compassion and mercy appear therefore as primary impulses for Jesus’ healing ministry.
The structure of the material in Matthew 8-9 provides further clues to its emphases. These chapters contain three units of miracle stories with two, three or four healings in each one with teachings on discipleship interspersed between the three triads:
Unit I | |
8:1-4 | Jesus cleanses a leper |
8:5-13 | Jesus heals a centurion’s servant |
8:14-17 | Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law and others |
Teachings on Discipleship | |
8:18-22 | Sayings on discipleship |
Unit II | |
8:23-27 | Jesus stills a storm |
8:28-9:1 | Jesus heals the Gadarene demoniacs |
9:2-8 | Jesus heals a paralytic |
Teachings on Discipleship | |
9:9 | Jesus calls Matthew |
9:10-13 | Controversy over eating with tax collectors and sinners |
9:14-17 | Controversy over fasting |
Unit III | |
9:18-26 | Jesus heals a woman and restores life to a dead girl |
9:27-31 | Jesus heals two blind men |
9:32-34 | Jesus heals a mute man |
Conclusion | |
9:35-38 | Summary report and transition |
One may gather from the placement and structure of this section of the Gospel that it illustrates Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and provides examples of the in-breaking of the kingdom through Jesus’ works. Jesus heals persons from various social groups: a leper, a centurion’s servant, a family member of his in-group, a Gadarene, a ‘ruler’ (ἄρχων – 9:18) and an unclean woman. He also heals persons with various illnesses: leprosy, paralysis, fever, demons, haemorrhage, blindness and muteness. He even restores a dead girl to life. His compassion crosses social boundaries and his power to heal is effective with even the most debilitating illnesses (blindness and paralysis-conditions that made one totally dependent on others), the most socially alienating (leprosy and haemorrhaging), the most powerful demons (the Gadarene demoniac) and the most extreme condition (death). Shortly later, in Matthew 11, Jesus responds to John the Baptist’s disciples:
Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. (v. 4-5)
The list of illnesses approximates those named in Isaiah:
26:19 ‘Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise’. 29:18 ‘On that day the And out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the (see also Isa 42:7, 18) 35:5-6 ‘Then the eyes of the And the ears of the Then the And the tongue of the
The echo in 11:5 of Isaiah 61:1, ‘he has sent me to bring good news to the poor’, which serves as the keynote of Jesus’ ministry in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 4:18), confirms the connection of the list of illnesses with fulfilment of Isaiah (cf. Baxter
We can now turn to the individual healing accounts in Matthew 8-9, paying particular attention to their implications for bioethics.
It is often stated that biblical ‘leprosy’ (described in Lv 13-14) is actually not leprosy or Hansen’s disease. An accurate diagnosis of the disease, however, is not important to understanding the healing narrative and may even distract us from the dynamics of the story. John Pilch’s guidance ( The symptoms presented are not a code but rather condense in an appropriate idiom a series of personal tragedies. The flaky skin and underlying redness begin to make one stand out from the crowd. If declared unclean, such persons must remove themselves from the community and should be shunned (Lev 13:45-46). In collectivistic, that is group-oriented societies, such excommunication is devastating. It is the equivalent of a death sentence. The words
The rabbis devoted an entire tractate of the Mishnah to leprosy (m. Neg.) and R. Johanan claimed ‘leprosy is equal to death’ (b. Sanh. 47a; 2 Ki 5:7). With Pilch’s explanation in mind, it is immediately striking that the leper asks not to be healed, but to be made clean. His condition, whatever its modern diagnosis might be, has made him ‘unclean’. It is not that he is contagious, but that he is defiled. The practice of ostracism of lepers was not peculiar to Hebrew law, as the following report in Herodotus ( The citizen who has leprosy or the white sickness may not come into a town or consort with other Persians. They say that he is so afflicted because he has sinned in some wise against the sun. (1.138; cf. Boring, Berger & Colpe.
Contact with him or with any of his bodily fluids might not make another person sick, but it would certainly render them unclean (m. Kelim 1:3; Malina & Rohrbaugh Touching is the way power is transmitted, so that Jesus’ touch is an effective conduit for healing power. But perhaps in these instances the touching draws significance not so much from showing no fear of pollution but from physically symbolizing an acceptance back into the community. (p. 52)
Jesus’ command, ‘Be made clean!’ expressed in the passive, may be a circumlocution – common in Matthew – carrying the meaning, ‘By God’s power be made clean’. The exercise of power is always significant in healing stories. The leper acknowledges and perhaps appeals to Jesus’ power. He prostrates himself before Jesus and affirms his certainty that Jesus can make him clean. Whether personally or as God’s agent, Jesus can make the man clean and restore him to the community. Instead of the leprosy rendering Jesus unclean, Jesus dramatically delivers the man from his uncleanness: ‘purity flows from Jesus to the leper’ (Evans
The first healing story, following the Sermon on the Mount, demonstrates not only Jesus’ power in word and deed, but also illustrates the nature of the purity required of Jesus’ followers. In the beatitudes, Jesus declared, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God’ (5:8; cf. Ps 24:3-4). Purity rituals were exceedingly important among Jews in the Second Temple period – perhaps as an effort to maintain identity and reinforce boundaries in response to the cultural upheaval brought about by Hellenization and Romanization, oppression and the introduction of foreign religious cults during this era.
The exercise of power is given particular prominence in the healing of the centurion’s servant. The centurion, as a man with authority, expects Jesus to use his power in the same way: simply give an order. He approaches Jesus respectfully, addressing him as ‘Lord’ or ‘Sir’ (κύριε). His servant or child (παῖς), is paralyzed and suffering (literally ‘being tormented’) terribly at his home. Jesus offers to come with the centurion and heal his servant, or as some read the Greek syntax, he questions whether he should do so (Wilson
The centurion demonstrates compassion and mercy, seeking help for his servant, and has faith that Jesus can heal him. He also demonstrates humility: he is not worthy to have Jesus come to his home – a quality Matthew’s readers might have found surprising in a Roman officer.
Then, Jesus grants the healing in the manner the centurion requested. He commands the centurion—not the demon afflicting the servant—to ‘go’ (cf. Jesus’ command to the leper to ‘go’ in 8:4). Again, Jesus commands the healing indirectly and using the passive: ‘let it be done for you [
Laura Anderson (
In contrast to the previous healings, which occurred in public space, this one occurs in a private venue. Elaine Wainwright (
The first triad of healing stories ends with a summary report and a quotation from Isaiah. The gossip network functioned efficiently and word of her healing spread through the community with the result that neighbours brought demon possessed and sick people to him to be healed that evening. Matthew omits Mark’s report for that day was the Sabbath. Therefore, they waited until the Sabbath had ended before carrying people to Jesus for healing. The report is a summary of healings, similar to 4:23-24, 9:35 and 10:1:
4:23-24 | καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν ἐν |
8:16-17 | δαιμονιζομένους πολλούς καὶ ἐξέβαλεν τὰ πνεύματα |
9:35 | καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν. |
10:1 | ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων ὥστε ἐκβάλλειν |
Matthew’s summaries and the quotation from Isaiah provide a glossary of terms for illnesses and some indication of the causes assigned to them. The phrase πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ
πᾶσαν μαλακίαν is repeated in 4:24, 9:35 and 10:1. νόσος is a general term for sickness, disease or malady. μαλακία, a term that is not used by any of the other evangelists, means softness, delicacy, passivity or effeminacy (cf. μαλακοὶ in 1 Cor 6:9; Pilch
Following the sayings on discipleship and the account of Jesus’ stilling of the storm, which in Matthew serves as a further teaching on discipleship, Jesus and the disciples arrive on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus encounters two Gadarenes. Craig Evans (
The area of the Gadarenes was in the Decapolis, the loose federation of Gentile cities east of the Jordan River. Jewish attitudes toward Gentile pollution, illustrated by Isaac’s admonitions to Jacob in the following passage in Jubilees, form the backdrop of this story:
And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. They slaughter their sacrifices to the dead, and to the demons they bow down. And they eat in tombs. And all their deeds are worthless and vain. (Jub 22:16-17; Boring
There Jesus is met by two fierce demoniacs who come out of the tombs and prevent anyone from passing that way. The details underscore the wildness of their demon possessed state, their uncleanness and the danger they presented to others. Their fierceness may also serve as a connection providing continuity with the ‘great’ storm on the sea in the previous pericope, although the reaction of the disciples to the demoniacs is not reported. The demon possessed men approach Jesus with a salutation (‘Son of God’) and two questions: ‘What have you to do with us?’ and ‘Have you come here to torment us before the time?’ The demons know who Jesus is and they address him with a Christological title and a reference to the eschatological judgement, both common Matthean themes. The encounter is abbreviated from Mark’s account (Mk 5:1-20), with the result that the demons anticipate that they will be cast out of the men and ask to be sent into the herd of swine. The swine would have been a further index of Gentile uncleanness for Matthew’s Jewish and Jewish Christian readers. The theme of crossing boundaries that we have seen in the earlier healing stories is exaggerated in this one. Jesus crosses to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, where he encounters two demon possessed, unclean and violent men who live in tombs not far from swine. Jesus does not enter into conversation with the demons as in Mark, nor does the exorcism require any magical rites or incantations.
This healing account therefore addresses issues of power, boundary crossing and defeating the invasive demonic forces (Malina & Rohrbaugh
Back in his own town (Capernaum), Jesus heals a paralytic. Like the preceding healing stories, this one carries extra freight and advances the themes of these two chapters in Matthew. In this instance, the pericope is a hybrid of a healing miracle and a controversy dialogue or pronouncement story. The paralytic is presumed to be a sinner, and Jesus both forgives his sin and heals his paralysis. The conflict is not between Jesus and the demonic here, but rather between Jesus and the scribes who accuse him of blasphemy. The plot of the story is driven by this conflict and by the opposition between what Jesus knows and what the others, especially the scribes, do not know.
When the paralysed man is brought to Jesus (Matthew omits the details in Mk 2:1-12) Jesus ‘sees’ (i.e. knows) their faith and assures the paralytic that his sins are forgiven. When the scribes say to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming’, Jesus ‘sees’ their thoughts and asks them why they think evil in their hearts. He poses to them the question: Which is easier, to say his sins are forgiven or to heal the man? But so that they may ‘know’ the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins (1:21), he commands the paralytic to rise and immediately he did so. Herbert Basser (
Jesus’ word (i.e. the power that is present in all his pronouncements and teachings) is again effective – implicitly confirming the authority of Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the Gospel. Jesus has demonstrated the power of the kingdom both to restore and forgive, and to defeat the illness and turn aside the accusations of his opponents. Moreover, the healing occurred both to restore the paralytic to health and so that the scribes might know the authority of the Son of Man. When the crowds ‘saw’ what had taken place, they glorified God for giving such authority to human beings.
The power to still storms and vanquish demons is also able to bring forgiveness for sins. In the traditional view of illness and healing, illness was due to sin and thus healing is also a sign of forgiveness. Forgiveness and healing, moreover, are the other side of vanquishing evil. In this regard, Jesus is again portrayed as the agent of the kingdom of heaven in whom the eschatological powers are already at work on earth. There is also a corporate dimension to this story. The incapacitated paralytic is brought to Jesus by others, and when he is forgiven and healed the crowds respond with awe, glorifying God ‘who had given such authority This means that the announcement of forgiveness is not the end of the story but the beginning. Having been transformed into both recipients and agents of the Son of Man’s authority, the forgiven are now drawn into a social and eschatological drama, and it is only from this perspective that one can understand the full meaning of healing. (p. 159)
Matthew preserves Mark’s ‘sandwich’ construction, intercalating the healing of the haemorrhaging woman with the raising of the synagogue leader’s daughter, but in the course of abbreviating Mark’s account from twenty-two verses to eight verses, it drops the reference to the synagogue, making the designation (‘ruler’, ‘leader’) somewhat ambiguous (cf. Mt 9:18 – ἄρχων; Mk 5:22 – ἀρχισυναγώγων; and Lk 8:41 – ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς). Eugene Boring (
The girl’s father approaches Jesus and kneels before him (see 8:2; 15:25; 18:26). Mark relates that his daughter was at the point of death (ἐσχάτως ἔχει – Mk 5:23), whereas in Matthew and Luke the girl has already died. Matthew and Luke may be escalating the story from a healing to a raising of the dead or they may simply both be clarifying Mark’s somewhat ambiguous reference. Regardless, the father’s request expresses great faith in Jesus’ ability to overcome even death.
While they are making their way to the man’s home, a woman who has been bleeding for 12 years, and therefore living in pain, impurity and shame all this time, moves to touch Jesus’ garment, confident that she will be healed if she can do so. Mark reports that she had ‘endured much under many physicians, and spent all that she had; and was no better, but rather grew worse’ (Mk 5:26). the saving is more than the healing. Matthew expresses that first by relating that Jesus grants salvation to the woman because of her faith and only then by telling her about the healing. (p. 42)
Matthew construes the healing differently than Mark. In Mark’s account her bleeding stopped instantly when she touched the hem of his garment and Jesus felt that power had gone out from him (Mk 5:29-30). In Matthew, however, Jesus knows the woman’s thoughts (as he knew what the scribes were saying – 9:3), turns, sees her and assures her, ‘Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well’ (9:22). Then, but only then, is she healed. Thus, the healing does not take place by the magical power of Jesus’ garment, but by his perception of her need and her faith, and by the power of his word, assuring her that she was received as a ‘daughter’ and that she was healed (Boring
When they arrive at the man’s house, the mourning is already starting. When Jesus sees that the flute players have come and there was a great commotion, he drives them away, saying, ‘the girl is not dead but sleeping’ (9:24). They laughed at him. When they had dispersed, Jesus goes in (again to the home’s private space), and grasps the girl’s hand. Matthew omits Mark’s report of Jesus’ command to her in Aramaic (ταλιθα κουμ – Mk 5:41), probably to avoid any hint that the resuscitation was the result of a magical incantation rather than Jesus’ personal authority as God’s son.
In these related healing stories, Jesus comes in contact with a bleeding woman and takes a corpse’s hand. Both actions brought uncleanness (Lv 15:19-33; Nm 19:11-12; cf. Keener life flows from Jesus … Death and its associated impurity are conquered. … Jesus has yet again brought the Kingdom of heaven a step closer. With his coming, the purity laws are fulfilled. Jesus enacts the intention of the Law. (p. 465)
The story of the two blind men’s healing emphasises Jesus’ identity as Son of David and the role of faith in healing. Like Mark (Mk 8:22-26; 10:46-52), Matthew has two stories of healing the blind, but in Matthew both stories report the healing of two blind men (20:29-34; cf. 21:14). Davies and Allison (2004a:142) note on the basis of the exclusion of the blind from Jerusalem in 11QTemple 45:12-14 that ‘blindness for an ancient Jew could involve not simply poverty and hardship but also religious alienation’.
As brief as this story is, we are told that the blind men ‘followed’ Jesus (like disciples) and that they addressed him with, ‘Son of David’, which is at least for Matthew a Christological title. This is significant, because, rather than their healing leading them to become disciples as in Mark 10:46-52, Matthew emphasises that it is their faith that leads to the restoration of their sight. Earlier in this section, Jesus has been addressed as ‘Lord’ (8:2, 8, 21, 25) that may be only a title of respect, and ‘teacher’ (8:19). The title
The blind men call out for Jesus to have mercy on them that is almost ironic following Jesus’ quotation of Hosea 6:6, ‘I desire
The final twist in this story comes with the discrepancy between their affirmation of faith and the granting of their sight, on the one hand, and their failure to obey Jesus’ command not to tell others what had happened, on the other. As blind men they could perceive Jesus’ identity, follow him and affirm their faith in him (cf. Wilson
This story is so abbreviated that it is little more than a summary statement and, interestingly, while Matthew mentions the healing or exorcism of mute persons in 11:5, 12:22 and 15:30-31, they always appear in summary statements. The exorcism or healing is not even described and it is not even made clear that Jesus was the healer. Still, it introduces some new elements into this carefully composed collection of stories: the reference to Israel and the opposition of the Pharisees whom Malina and Neyrey (
Following a change of location notice, the narrator reports that a mute person was brought to Jesus. There is no other attestation of faith. Here the emphasis lies on the response to the healing. Neither Jesus’ words nor those of the one who was healed are reported – only the words of those who witnessed the healing.
The man’s condition is attributed to demon possession and, since Jesus’ work as an exorcist has been described in the story of the Gadarene demoniacs, there is no need to report the details here. That the man is able to speak confirms that the demon has been driven out of him. Two responses follow, characterising Israel’s responses to Jesus. The crowds exclaim in amazement that nothing like this had ever been seen in Israel. The Pharisees, on the other hand, charge that he is able to cast out demons, because he exercises the authority of the demons’ ruler (see the doublet of this story in 12:24-32, where Jesus responds to this charge; Malina & Neyrey
The summary statement in 9:35-38 draws this collection of three triads of miracle stories to a conclusion. It is similar to the summary in 4:23-25. Jesus teaches, preaches and heals in the cities and villages. The reference to ‘every disease and every sickness’ reminds the reader of the healings that have just been reported. That Jesus was moved by compassion is reemphasised with an allusion to the description of Israel as ‘sheep without a shepherd’ (Nm 27:17; 1 Ki 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16). By implication Jesus is characterised as Israel’s Davidic shepherd (see Baxter
While Matthew refers to Jesus’ healing ministry in summary statements later in the Gospel (11:5; 12:22; 14:34-36; 15:29-31), there are only four other healing stories in Matthew – each of them plays a strategic role in the Gospel’s portrait of Jesus as healer and bringer of the kingdom. The healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (12:9-14) affirms that healing is doing good and is therefore allowed on the Sabbath. The healing of the Canaanite woman’s daughter (15:21-28) extends healing – and implicitly the kingdom – to Gentiles, reaffirming the boundary crossing that had already taken place in the healing of the Gadarene demoniacs in 8:28-9:1. The exorcism of the possessed boy in 17:14-18 leads to a short dialogue with the disciples on the power of faith (17:19-21). Finally, the healing of the two blind men in 20:29-34, the last healing story in the Gospel, a doublet of 9:27-31 with echoes of the healing of the blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46-52, returns to the themes of Jesus as the ‘Son of David’ and the healings as works of mercy and compassion.
The ancient Mediterranean and Jewish contexts are assumed in the gospels. Therefore, what is distinctive is Jesus’ role as a healer, the relationship between healing and the in-breaking of the kingdom of heaven in his person and ministry, and a heightened significance accorded to the role of faith in healing.
Healing is an important part of Jesus’ work and ministry in all four gospels (although the Gospel of John contains no exorcisms). Matthew in particular, lists teaching, preaching and healing as Jesus’ characteristic and defining activities (4:23; 9:35). His work as a healer or exorcist demonstrated his authority as the Messiah, the power of the Spirit with which he had been endowed at his baptism and the nature of the kingdom of heaven. Healing was an integral part of his vocation and people came to him for healing. It was important that they have faith in him – at least faith that he could heal them. As a healer, Jesus accepted everyone who sought his help: a centurion, gentile demoniacs, lepers and a bleeding woman. He crossed geographical, cultural, social and religious barriers in his healing. He crossed the Sea of Galilee to a gentile region with tombs and swine. He entered the private space of homes, and he touched the unclean, lepers and a corpse that would have rendered him ritually unclean. In doing so, he also encountered opposition, ridicule and hostility from those who disapproved of his ministry, while he received and healed those in need, restoring them to health and wellbeing.
Many of the characteristics of Jesus’ work as healer in Matthew as well as the other gospels are evident in the collection of healing stories in Matthew 8 and 9. Nevertheless, four elements can be highlighted as distinctive, if not altogether unique to Matthew.
First, for Matthew, Jesus’ healing ministry was a fulfilment of Scripture. The accounts of healing by Elijah and Elisha, in particular, and references to healing in Isaiah lie behind Matthew’s healing stories. In 8:17, the evangelist comments: ‘This was to fulfil what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases”’ (Is 53:4; cf. Baxter
Second, Matthew emphasises that Jesus was moved by compassion (9:36; 14:14) and mercy (see 9:27; 15:22; 17:15; 20:30, 31). Matthew quotes Hosea 6:6, ‘I desire mercy …’ twice (9:13; 12:7; cf. 23:23), whereas this verse is not quoted in any of the other gospels (cf. Mk 12:33). That is to say that Matthew makes it clear that, for Jesus, healing was not just professional – it demonstrated his compassion for suffering people, both Jews and Gentiles.
Third, Matthew draws a link between healing and discipleship. We have seen that Matthew often uses the healing stories to teach a lesson on discipleship. He marvels at the faith of the centurion and teaches on the inclusion of Gentiles (8:10-13). The three triads of miracle stories are interspersed with teachings on discipleship (8:18-22, 23-27; 9:9, 10-13) and Matthew’s account of the stilling of the storm in 8:23-27, turns the nature miracle into a lesson on discipleship. The healing stories serve Matthew’s interest in affirming Jesus’ authority–authority over demons and authority to forgive sin. The healing stories also instruct the church on its role in forgiving sin (9:8), showing mercy (9:13), and its need to obey Jesus’ commands (9:30-31) and to take up its role in the teaching, preaching and healing ministry of the kingdom (9:37-38; cf. 10:1-2).
Fourth, Matthew uses characters in the healing stories as ethical models. Richard A. Burridge (
This exploration of the healing narratives in Matthew 8 and 9, guided by current scholarship in the fields of medical anthropology and social-scientific study of ancient Mediterranean culture, shows that. When viewed in their historical and cultural context, these biblical healing narratives point us toward a more holistic understanding of healing that may encourage contemporary movements in this direction. In particular, the goal of healing rather than simply curing, that is, the goal of restoring persons to a state of well-being and social reintegration into their families and communities, requires attention to the emotional, social and spiritual well-being of persons as well as their physical health. A critically and culturally informed interpretation of Matthew’s healing narratives may therefore promote the broader understanding of healing in view in these biblical stories that might lead to greater collaboration between healthcare professionals, counsellors and ministers.
The ways in which the Gospel of Matthew develops the mimetic role of Jesus and the didactic function of the stories may also lead the church to further reflection on its role in the healing process and its responsibility as an advocate for all who are suffering, broken and alienated.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships which may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
All further references to the Gospel of Matthew will be indicated only by chapters and verses.
Compare Davies and Allison (2004a:117), who put 8:16-17 with 8:18-22.
Davies and Allison (2004a:120) note that the centurion may actually have been an officer serving Herod Antipas and not a Roman soldier (also see Meier
See the text of the magical papyrus
When Alec McCowen recited the Gospel of Mark in theaters in England and America, his audiences laughed in response to this comment at the expense of physicians.
R.H. Gundry (
Luz (
These sentences were originally published in Culpepper (