Jesus' Mysterious Spider-Sense, as described in Mark 5:25-34.

Factual Questions
1

Here’s a New Testament story I’ve never really understood: Mark 5:25-34.

A sick woman (she’s been “subject to bleeding for twelve years”) stealthily sneaks up on Jesus from behind and touches his robe, thinking that hey, “if I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.”

The sneaky little trick works, but – tam tam tam! – Jesus’ spider-sense tingles, apparently, because he somehow immediately just KNOWS that “power had gone out from him,” and turns around to ask the crowd who amongst them just dared to touch his robe.

After a dramatic staring contest, no doubt featuring quick editing between extreme close-up shots of people’s eyes set to a soundtrack by Ennio Morricone, the woman finally breaks down and confesses, but J.C. graciously lets her off the hook: “thy faith has made thee whole,” “go in peace,” and that kind of thing.

So, Dopers, what is going on here?

Some kind of “power” resides in Jesus which can “go out from him” when his clothes are touched? Does it have a name? Is it mentioned elsewhere? What surprises me is that is seems to act automatically, on its own, completely independently of J.C.'s willpower. (The Holy Ghost? Something else?) One thing is that he is capable of healing people when he decides to do so – OK, awesome healing powers are part of his arsenal, fine – but this specific superpower seems to be triggered automatically, by physical touch alone.

I am primarily interested in answers along the lines of “OK, this is what Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc. believe about that,” and/or “ah, there’s an interesting parallel to Sumerian/Egyptian/Mithraic/whatever mythology,” this being GQ and all.

2

Mark has an adoptionist Christology, so Mark perceives Jesus as basically a vehicle for the Holy Spirit which descends upon him at his baptism by John, then ditches him on the cross. So the woman being healed is accessing the Holy Spirit within Jesus, but Mark is not Trinitarian, and Jesus is not himself the Holy Spirit, but only a sort of container for it. Jesus feels the dynamis going out of him from the Holy Spirit.

3

Not really an answer to your question, but

I think you’re reading the hostility/confrontational aspect into the story. There’s really no indication that Jesus was angry or disturbed, only that he noticed what happened.

4

Messiah-Man, Messiah-Man, does whatever a Messiah can /
Saves a flock, any size /
If he’s killed, he shall arise /
Look out! Here comes Messiah-Man.

5

Ah! Excellent answer, thank you. I’m off to read up on adoptionism…!

You’re right. I generally picture the guy as short-tempered and kinda intimidating – in this case, though, it might well be unwarranted.

6

But she touched his cloak; the Holy Spirit inhabits clothing?

7

Yes.

8

I don’t want to start a GD here or anthing, but Steken keep in mind this is one interpretation of Mark. I would venture to say that most Protestant Christians in the US (of which I am more familiar) would not go along with this statement.

9

Interesting. Any other examples of THS inhabiting inanimate objects?

10

The power isn’t in the cloak, nor in the body/person of Jesus. (Plenty of others were touching it/him with no effect.) The healing came from the faith the person had that touching it would heal her (through the Holy Spirit or whatever).

11

If that is true, how did Jesus know he had been touched?

12

Then please tell me how most Protestant Christians in the US would explain the story.

13

Would this be the Catholic view? The Protestant view? Your own reading of the text? I don’t mean to be snarky of anything, but I’m trying to categorize the different interpretations – “here’s what these guys think, here’s what those guys think,” etc.

14

I was tempted to ask for a cite for Diogenes’ claim (quoted above). Instead I googled it, and among the first sites that came up were the Wikipedia page that says that “Some scholars see Adoptionist concepts in the Gospel of Mark” and a number of sites arguing against the claim that Mark has an adoptionist Christology. None of which proves anything; but in my experience Diogenes has a habit of sometimes taking a controversial view that is held by some, but far from all, scholars and baldly asserting it as The Truth.

15

I liken it to how you know something cold has touched you, because the heat has gone out of you.

16

Ever hear of the Magic Mormon undies?

17

Of course not, they accept the Nicene Creed which declared adoptionism heresy. But adoptionism was an early and popular form of Christianity. And Mark was the favorite gospel of adoptionists. The versions of Mark we use today are slightly different from the ones in common distribution in the early centuries. Interestingly enough many of these changes effectively dilute the adoptionist theology. For example:
There is no birth story. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark provides no holy birth narrative, to set Jesus apart from other mortals.
Mark 1:1 - In many of the earliest manuscripts the “son of God” is missing. Which means there is no claim to be the son of God until after the traditional point of adoption, the baptism.
Mark 1:9 - Some versions adds the words “today I have begotten you” at Jesus’s baptism. The supposed moment of adoption.
Mark 5:30 - Already mentioned by the OP.
Mark 15:33 - In some of the earliest manuscripts Jesus’s words at his crucifixion, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” are instead “My Power, my Power, why have you left me?” Indicating the removal of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:9-20 - These are missing from the oldest manuscripts. Jesus never appears before the disciples after his death, his body just disappears.
There are others as well. If I were to mention every textual variation, I would be writing something longer than Mark itself. We of course do not have the original manuscripts in the author’s hand. And we can not definitively say what the original said. But there are versions of Mark which are more explicitly adoptionist, and they are among the oldest and best versions of Mark that we have.

18

It’s not controversial. It’s disputed by traditionalists, but it’s not controversial.

19

One of Wikipedia’s flaws is that in its pursuit of NPOV it will often make it seem like controversy exists where there is none.

20

For the record, I was taught matter-of-factly in an “Introduction to the New Testament” university class that Mark had an adoptionist Christology. It’s a fairly mainstream view, not a fringe or radical view like Mythicism.