MY RESPONSE

Mike, thanks for posting this and switching on a light bulb for me in terms of how this story relates to the surrounding context with the synagogue ruler.  I think you’re on to something there.

That said, I’m convinced you’re off-base at a few points.  {{ “It’s tempting sometimes to fall into the habit of thinking that God only hears the prayers of those who have achieved some level of holiness above the average. . . . We’re taught, Jesus won’t hear your prayers if your motives are selfish. . . . Really?” }}

Yeah.  Really.  Cuz it’s in the Bible: “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives” (James 4:3; cf. Psa. 66:18; Prov. 28:9; Isa. 59:2; 1Pet. 3:7).

{{ “. . . in the Bible we find Jesus not just answering, but honoring, the request of a woman made out of selfish motives . . . . [O]ur motives are never entirely pure.” }}

On what grounds are you calling the woman “selfish” and “[im]pure”?  Granted, because we’re sinners our motives are, in fact, “never entirely pure.”  But there’s no reason to single out this woman; the desire to be healed isn’t inherently selfish.  Indeed, no desire is inherently selfish – but only when it’s turned into an idol, thus replacing God.

{{ “[We’re taught that] Jesus won’t answer you if you don’t believe the right things about him.” }}

Now this one’s not so straightforward.  Nobody’s theology is perfect, so that’s not at issue.  What’s at issue is whether or not someone is receptive to God’s self-revelation.  To use an obvious example, if I’m offered the Gospel, reject it – but ask God to save me anyway – He won’t!  

Yet there’s a difference between rejection and ignorance/misunderstanding.  I’ve occasionally been asked if a person has to believe in the Trinity to be saved.  My answer?  “Yes and no.”  I always point to the example of the Philippian jailer, to whom Paul said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).  It’s a virtual certainty the guy didn’t know Jesus is the Creator, or probably even that Jesus died for our sins – yet there’s no reason to doubt he was saved at that moment.  He was obviously receptive to what God had shown him up to that point.

However, if indeed his faith was genuine, then I’m confident that when he was eventually taught about the nature of Christ and of the Atonement – his faith accepted that teaching.

The same principle would apply to the woman who touched Jesus’ garment to be healed.  She lacked theological understanding, to be sure, yet it’s not at all surprising that Jesus healed her – because her faith was in him, not in his attire.  But if some time later she manifested an unteachable spirit toward sound doctrine, this would hinder her prayers, as well as indicate the possibility that she wasn’t truly converted.

{{ “I’ve always assumed [Jesus] knew exactly what had happened . . . . I suspect he is feigning surprise[.]” }}

This would mean he was being dishonest with his audience, wouldn’t it?  We often overlook that Jesus didn’t perform his ministry as God.  He ministered as a man empowered and guided by the Holy Spirit.  That being the case, there would have been many things Jesus – setting aside his divine prerogatives – would not have known (e.g., Matt. 24:36; cf. Jn. 8:28).

“You see the people crowding against you, and yet you can ask, ‘Who touched me?’ [THERE IS NOBODY THERE!]”

The woman was untouchable. She was alone. She was invisible. She was desperate. She was ‘poor in spirit’. This is the condition in which we enter the kingdom.

Thanks Dave. I’ve only recently come across that stuff about the Pharisees’ tzitzit, which adds another whole layer of meaning to the way I’ve told the story in the past.