If Jesus did not "magically" heal people's diseases, then how did he have the power to heal their illnesses? I understand that he was a performer and must also have been a great public speaker, but I do not understand how Crossan's theory that Jesus healed the society of its prejudices, rather than actually healing the person could work. Crossan says in chapter five, "Jesus thereby forced others either to reject him from their community or to accept the leper within it as well." Why would a community ever choose to accept Jesus and a leper? How could a man that never stayed in one place have gathered such a reputation that people were willing to cast aside such strong prejudices? How widely known was he as the Messiah? I know I must be missing something. Maybe, even if it wasn't instantaneous, he did actually heal people.
I would really appreciate it if you could enlighten me, because I am honestly confused.
I found this rather confusing as well. Curing the social illness delivered as an ultimatum "Either Jesus and leper or no Jesus at all". First of all I think this begs the question. Why did they have to accept Jesus at all? Especially considering that to these societies did not have and preexisting ties to him that risked being severed, no reason to listen to what he said beyond personal interest.
ReplyDeleteLet's give Crossan's interpretation a chance though. Assuming that all the sick people did need was social acceptance (I'm not entirely convinced social acceptance leads to healing of a disease beyond metaphorical meaning)in order to be accepted into the community and/or start to heal physically. If that's the case, then I find it hard to believe that not a single person would have noticed this relationship and accept sick people.
There must be something more to this than metaphoric healing.
I think that the community loved Jesus because of what the prophets and John the Baptist said about him. I think that the fact that Jesus was against hierarchy and was not afraid to speak about it made him popular. And for the society casting out strong prejudice, look at it in the "monkey see, monkey do" way. The followers of Jesus might have accepted both him and the leper which would have made the people around them do the same. I fell like this is what Crossan must have meant.
ReplyDeleteCrossan's theory makes a lot of sense when we understand exactly which diseases (and thereby illnesses) that Jesus healed. As Crossan explains, the term leprosy used in the New Testament does not refer to just the disease of that name, but issues such as psoriasis or eczema. These diseases may have healed by the time that Jesus got to them, but the peson still had the stigma of being "Ill." Jesus' acceptance of them breaks down that idea that you can still be ill once your disease is gone.
ReplyDeleteGreat question! That people got excited about someone as radical as Jesus, who demanded that they set aside some of their most firmly held prejudices and cultural practices, is one measure of just how bad things were. People were trying just about anything they could think of to survive or resist, and Jesus could eloquently articulate a very different approach, the results of which they could witness on the spot. Not everyone was convinced, of course, but enough were to build a remarkable movement in the countryside.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to remember is that Jesus' reputation -- no doubt rather embellished in the telling -- was sure to have proceeded him and his missionaries via the peasant grapevine, so the pump was primed before they even showed up. Thus many people were ready to listen.