Content
Healing of Simon’s mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-34; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39)
This is a brief account of Jesus healing the mother of Peter’s wife from fever. Matthew, Mark and Luke all recorded this event, which is quite common for these three so-called Synoptic Gospels. We will perform a synopsis to see the differences among the 3 books in this short account.
By comparison, we can notice the following differences:
1. In Matt and Luke, only Simon’s name (Matt uses ‘Peter’) is mentioned. But in Mark, 4 disciples’ names (Simon, Andrew, James and John) are recorded. This is interesting. According to Mark, this event was preceded by Jesus’ calling of the above 4 disciples. (Mark 1:16-20) So, it is natural for the readers to think that they have become Jesus’ disciples and thus follow Jesus wherever he goes. That’s why they are present when Jesus enters Peter’s house. Matt also recorded the calling before the healing event. But in Luke, the healing took place before the calling (Luke 5:10-11)! In general, Bible commentaries claim that Luke records the events in chronological order, as said in prologue (“to write unto thee in order” Luke 1:3). However, there are also Bible commentaries that claim that the phrase “in order” does not necessarily mean the chronological order. Sometimes, the author puts the events in such an order that stresses a certain theme, such as Jesus’ preaching messages. In other words, the author may write the book in thematic order.
Anyway, if we believe that Luke records the two events (healing of Simon’s mother-in-law and calling of four disciples) in chronological order, it is natural for Luke to mention only Simon in his book. But we may immediately wonder why Mark mentions James and John following Jesus into Simon’s house (NIV 1:29, ‘they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew’). Simon and Andrew are brothers. We won’t question Andrew’s presence. But how about James and John. They are not Jesus’ followers yet according to Luke. Even Matt does not mention them. One logical reasoning would be that since they are partners as fishermen, they probably live very near to each other and are very acquainted with each other. It is not unusual that James and John follow Jesus to their friend's or neighbor’s house. The thing that Matt and Luke do not mention them doesn’t mean that the two brothers are not there with Peter. It is Mark who gives us extra information about who are there. And since Mark introduced them already in Jesus’ calling, the author doesn’t mind mentioning their names in this account, even though they are not Jesus’ followers yet (according to Luke).
If we look at other accounts in Mark, we will discover that Mark tends to draw the reader’s attention that Peter, James and John are always together, giving us the impression that the three disciples are close disciples of Jesus. At least 2 other events are recorded with the above 3 names altogether. (9:2—transfiguration, 14:33—Gethsemane’s prayer) Their intimate relationship with their Master can be proven in Matt & Luke (Mt 17:1—transfiguration; Mt 26:37—Gethsemane’s prayer; Lk 8:51—healing of Jairus’ daughter).
Further, in Mark’s record, we may always have the impression that Peter becomes Jesus’ follower and then brings Jesus to visit his home. When Jesus knows that his mother-in-law is sick, then he heals her. But this assumption seems to be wrong according to Luke’s record. In any case, there is good reason for us to believe that Peter
and Andrew know Jesus quite well before he comes to Peter’s house. John 1:35-42 recorded how Andrew and Peter first encountered Jesus. According to John, Andrew was the disciple of John the Baptist. When John saw Jesus walking, he said to Andrew, “Behold the Lamb of God!” Andrew then followed Jesus to see where his dwelling was. He even decided to stay one night with Jesus. The next day he found his brother Simon and said, “We have found the Messiah.” He then introduced Simon to Jesus. Seeing Simon for the first time, Jesus gave him the name ‘Cephas’ (‘Cephas’ in Aramaic, ‘Peter' in Greek, meaning ‘stone’, John 1:42). Matt 16:18 gave us reason why Jesus named him ‘Peter’—“Thou art Peter, upon this rock I will build my church.” However, this verse has become one of the most debatable issues between Catholicism and Christianity.
2. Simon’s mother-in-law got a ‘fever’ (Matt & Mark). But Luke said she had a ‘great’ fever. It is believed that since Luke was a physician, he usually described the sickness in more detail, since he was more sensitive to people’s sickness. In addition, the intensity of the sickness emphasized the power of the healing miracle.
Mark said people told Jesus about her sickness (KJV ‘anon they tell him of her’; NRSV ‘they told him about her at once’). Luke even said “they besought him for her.” But Matt did not say anything about the people, only said, “he (Jesus) saw his (Peter’s) wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.” Thus, Mark and Luke gave us extra information on that.
3. How Jesus healed her was also recorded very differently. Mark said Jesus ‘took her by the hand and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her.’ Matt said ‘he touched her hand and the fever left her.’ Luke said ‘he rebuked the fever, and it left her.’ Actually, it is common for an event to have several different descriptions. The observers may all give a partial description for the same incident, which is not unusual for the four Gospels. Moreover, the authors record the incident with various personal styles. The same incident can be viewed slightly differently by the readers.The thing is: How can we link the information together to provide a complete picture? Since we have only partial descriptions for each account from the authors, we can only make some assumption. For the account under discussion, we may assume it this way: Jesus touched her hand, rebuked the fever, took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her. When we piece the information together in a logical manner, there exists no point for arguing or suspecting any contradiction. In analyzing the healing process, we can see that when different views apply to the same event, the event is recorded in slightly different ways. That’s normal for any report of the same case by different reporters, sometimes depending on the reporter’s subjective point of view. When Jesus performs a miracle for healing or driving out demons, he may simply make a charge or touch any part of the body and the power emerges from Jesus to perform supernatural things. The key point is the motive behind the performance of the miracle. There are various motives of doing miracles in different situations, which may be perceived by examining the development in the aftermath of the miracle.
4. With respect to the effect of the healing, all three Gospels said that the fever left her, except that Mark inserted the word ‘immediately’. Mark said ‘immediately the fever left her,’ emphasizing the power of Jesus in the healing. Mark in many other places loves to use the word ‘immediately,’ e.g. Mark 1:12, 18, 20, 28, 31, 42; 2:2, 8, 12. There are several reasons for this: 1. the word emphasizes the power of the miracle; 2. The word brings out the point that Jesus keeps on ministering or serving the multitude; 3. It is Mark’s unique writing style in that the author emphasizes action more often than speaking. The word is used to imply that events occur in a rapid pace one after the other. (Jesus is portrayed as teacher in Matthew, servant in Mark, son of man in Luke, Son of God in John.)
5. Luke also used ‘immediately’ in this account but not in the same statement. Luke said, ‘immediately she arose and ministered unto them,’ emphasizing her fast reaction of serving Jesus after the fever was gone. All three books use the word ‘ministered’ to describe how Peter’s mother-in-law reacted to Jesus’ healing. How she ministered Jesus was not mentioned at all. However, if we look further at the events afterward, we find out that many patients were brought to Jesus for healing in Simon’s house around the evening. Hence, we can judge that Peter’s mother-in-law should have prepared dinner for Jesus. At the sight of her immediate response of serving Jesus, we should think about how fast we respond to the grace we receive from Jesus, when we keep on being served by him through his bountiful grace in our daily lives. Do we really rise and minister to Jesus immediately? Or just sit idle and wait for another service from him?