The Obligation to Heal (Luke 13,10-17)

The cure of the bent woman (Luke 13,10-17) is placed noticeably close to the cure of the dropsical man (Luke 14,1-6)¹. Both cures take place on the Sabbath, and so become points of contention. Indeed, both stories, though relating cures, eventually focus heavily on the Sabbath circumstance². Both stories have Jesus refer to the treatment of animals on the Sabbath in defense of his acts and as a kind of a minore ad majus³ argument on his behalf. Should these similarities suggest the conclusion that Luke is simply repeating himself⁴, solely, let us say, so as to present one miracle on behalf of a woman, the other on behalf of a man⁵? But Luke is not inclined to needlessly duplicate stories⁶; he has so often eliminated apparent duplicates found in his sources⁷ and, when he has presented like stories, he does so because they teach different lessons⁸. We can expect here then, where we find no sure sources⁹, that Luke wants to teach two different points by means of the cure stories of the bent woman and the dropsical man.

1. It Is Necessary; It Is licit

There is a difference of expression in these two miracle stories which is very important for understanding the difference in meaning between them: in the first story, the remarks of the synagogue leader and Jesus turn on the verb dei=; in the second story, the remarks of Jesus to his table companions center on the verb e!cestin. The difference between necessity¹⁰ and licitness is the key to understanding the difference in these stories. It is these two verbs that lead into the interpretation of these two cure stories¹¹.

2. The Synagogue Leader's Argument

The synagogue leader sets the tone by stating that 'there are six days on which it is necessary to work¹²; therefore, on (any of) these come and be healed, and not on the Sabbath'. The response of Jesus picks up on the term 'necessity'; this term becomes for him, as for the leader, the perspective from which one is to understand what Jesus did.

The synagogue leader speaks of the 'necessity to work'. He does not speak of the days on which one is allowed to work. Even though the phrase is 'it is necessary to work', one might tend to think of that phrase as 'it is licit to work', a dilution of meaning which, though possible, cannot be presumed; on

the contrary,'it is necessary' underlines the immediate proper sense of the verb used here.

The leader's principle (from which he will draw his conclusion) speaks of the necessity 'to work'. Clearly he is referring, while stating a principle, to work in general. But in reality he is thinking of only one 'work' here, that of healing. His argument is that it is necessary to heal on six days of the week, but not on the Sabbath. Again, I understand 'necessity' in its full sense, since there is no reason not to understand it this way.

The leader, then, concludes that the sick should come for cures, but not on the Sabbath. He is not opposed to the healing Jesus can do; in fact, his words suggest that he encourages people to come for healing.

Peculiarly, the leader does not address his words to Jesus (though obviously Jesus hears them and to them he reacts vigorously). I think this is so, because, while respecting the good done by the healer, he finds fault with those who move the healer to heal. It is they who need instruction, for it is they who provoke the situation of healing. The leader, then, is not opposed to healing; he favors it. But he cannot see the correctness of seeking (or performing) cures on the Sabbath; the proper understanding of the Sabbath precludes healing.

In all this, the leader does not deny, but affirms that Jesus is under a necessity to heal¹³. Granted that this is a peculiar way to think of the motivation of Jesus' healings, but it is a correct way. Most of all, this understanding of the necessity that lays upon Jesus is far from a consideration of healing that centers on licitness¹⁴. It is necessary to work, i.e., it is necessary to heal; just do not heal on the Sabbath. The Sabbath precludes work (healing) and thus limits the necessity Jesus' powers for good places upon him.

3. Jesus' Argument¹⁵

Jesus' response to the teaching of the synagogue leader is immediate and severely critical. He calls the synagogue leader and those who think as he does 'hypocrites'¹⁶. They are this, in Jesus' view, because they, in their capacity to teach (and teach the truth), suggest holiness while presenting false doctrine, i.e., what is not the will of God.

To arrive at the proper understanding of God's will, Jesus offers an argument based on the experience of the synagogue leader (and those like him) with regard, not to humans, but to animals. It is customary that on every Sabbath owners know that they should lead their oxen and asses to water. Though the word 'necessary' does not appear in this affirmation about those who water animals on the Sabbath, it is clearly just beneath the surface. What is on the surface of the argument is the fact: people do 'work' on the Sabbath. Of course, this notice about a weekly and unquestioned practice is to be an argument a minore ad majus: if this is the case with lowly animals, what must be concluded in regard to human beings? But it has its own particular value for Jesus' stance in regard to the Sabbath. Animals are respected in the Jewish understanding of God's creation ¹⁷; their due, for whatever reason, is proper — they should be taken care of. Thus, while one can say that one takes care of an animal in order to assure its usefulness to its owner, one can also say that an animal, whatever its usefulness to its owner, deserves proper care. One cannot argue that respect for the Sabbath precludes respect for one's animals; the weekly practice of the righteous argues against that.

Important here is the difference between the case Jesus presents here and that he will present when defending his cure of the dropsical man. In the case of the dropsical man, the note struck is that of threat to life: an animal has fallen into a pit. This is not the weekly occurrence that Jesus speaks of when addressing the teaching of the synagogue leader; here there is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The question here is about the liceity of saving this animal from the pit: does the Sabbath preclude this saving, which is clearly a work? In the argument regarding the cure of the bent woman Jesus deals with the everyday rhythm of work. It is not a question of what is allowed done in emergency¹⁸, but what necessity does respectful care for creatures impose on a person every day, and on the Sabbath day, especially on the person who has the power to 'work' for the care of those in need.

When Jesus moves from the minor argument to the major argument, he brings up and makes central the verb the synagogue leader introduced: dei]¹⁹. Jesus speaks about the necessity that this daughter of Abraham be set free from the bonds of Satan on the Sabbath. From the words Jesus uses, one is encouraged to think of that meaning of the Sabbath that celebrates the freedom of Abraham's children from Egypt, symbolically the land of slavery, darkness, false gods, and so of Satan. It seems certain from his vocabulary that Jesus wants the synagogue leader to think²⁰ in terms of this sense of the Sabbath when he sees Jesus cure (set free) on the Sabbath.

Yet, this potent imagery does not explain the 'necessity' of this woman's cure. Rather, this imagery falls under the category of 'what is befitting'. Since Jesus cured on all days of the week, one is reluctant to divide his motivation, i.e., to say that on the Sabbath he cured because of the meaning of the Sabbath, but on the other days he must have had some other reason for curing²¹. I think that there is further reason to heal on the Sabbath, a certain fittingness that one can call upon to justify curing; the motivation of Jesus, the explanation of the necessity upon him (recognized by the synagogue leader) lies elsewhere than in the Sabbath imagery of freedom of a daughter of Abraham from Satan.

One might think of the use of dei= in the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostles, in the hope of understanding the sense of the word in Jesus' argument here. The general opinion about Luke's use of this verb points to the necessity that characterizes the offer of salvation, to Israel, to the Gentiles: salvation must be preached to all. Jesus is under this obligation, and so everything he does is presumably an actualization of the necessity to do the will of God, to offer salvation to each and all²². While certainly this divine necessity characterizes Luke-Acts, one wonders if it satisfactorily explains 'necessity' in Luke 13,14.16.

4. Reflections on the Arguments

It was the synagogue leader who introduced the phrase 'it is necessary', and certainly he did it without reference to the Lucan divine necessity behind the offer of salvation to all peoples. The synagogue leader seems to recognize the necessity that lays upon Jesus, the necessity to use his powers for the good of others. Jesus picks up this phrase 'it is necessary'. Reminding his addressees of their weekly (indeed daily) practice of caring for the well-being of animals, he suggests that there is a necessity that they do that, a necessity they would and should readily admit. So too, on the human level, there is a necessity that people be taken care of²³. The motivation for this can only be, in the last analysis, love of neighbor, the command which governs actions towards one's neighbor, a command for which Jesus has only praise (Luke 10,27). I say 'in the last analysis' because the will of God regarding one's neighbor is, in Jesus' mind, absolutely the foundation of all relationships²⁴, and a law which applies to him as to any other Jew.

The peculiarity of this law, this necessity, for Jesus is shaped by the ways in which he can be neighbor to all people. His abilities, his powers, are especially those of teaching and healing. His word is powerful, whether in the teaching which makes clear the kingdom of God, or in mastering those elements which threaten salvation. What is emphasized in Luke 13, 14.16 is that it is the peculiar necessity of healing which lays upon Jesus. He 'must' heal, out of love of neighbor. This is his obligation.

Once again, one must recall that this pericope is distinguished clearly from that of Luke 14,1-6, which is concerned with 'what is allowed on the Sabbath'²⁵. Jesus is not only allowed to work in an emergency on the Sabbath; he is obliged by charity to work on behalf of all whom he encounters. This means that, whereas the case of the dropsical man is concerned with 'halakah' or a point of law (what is permitted?)²⁶, the case of the bent woman reveals the necessity of love That governs Jesus' life, his relationship with all persons he meets.

At stake, then, in this story of the bent woman is the relationship between the respect owed to God on the Sabbath and the respect owed to human beings. The lowly argument regarding treatment of animals is the stepping stone to making clear that charity on the Sabbath does not hinder proper worship of God on the Sabbath; the broad practice of the pious admits this in certain situations ²⁷ and so should all the more admit it in all situations.

The point of this essay, however, is not so much the argument about what justifies use of miraculous healing powers on the Sabbath, but the question about the motivation of Jesus' healing when that is governed by the phrase 'it is necessary'. Ultimately, the explanation of this acknowledged necessity is the obligation upon Jesus to love others²⁸, and his gifts are put to use in accordance with that love²⁹.

5. Luke 13,10-17 and Luke 13,1-9

The above explanation as to the significance of dei=, e!dei (Luke 13,14.16) and as to why Jesus cured the bent woman is strengthened by the verses that precede the story of the bent woman³⁰; in other words, the story of the bent woman 'fits' into Luke's concern at this point, the concern to teach repentance³¹.

Luke 13,1-5³² are an account of Jesus' response to tragedies that have recently occurred in Jerusalem, tragedies which were popularly understood to have been punishments for sins. The words of Jesus end with the solemn declaration/warning: 'I say to you, if you do not repent, all of you will perish in like manner' (v. 5). The identification of the sins of others should not obscure the need that all repent.

To this strong teaching about the need for repentance, Jesus adds a parable. While a tree deserves to be cut down for its lack of fruitfulness, one can imagine the petition that, under further intense care, the tree be allowed one further opportunity to produce fruit. This parable is said in the light of the demand of Jesus that all repent or perish. In the light of the parable, one understands that the presence of Jesus is the presence of the vine-dresser; his appeals to repent, i.e., produce good fruit for God, are those efforts of the vine-dresser during the time of the owner's patience, a patience which, the parable suggests, does have an end.

It seems fitting, then, that Luke offer Jesus as a model of that activity which signals the essence of repentance³³. The great commandment, love of God, and the second like it, love of neighbor, is the revelation of what the truly repentant person embraces. An example of one who lives this love of neighbor is Jesus, as reflected in the remarks of the synagogue leader and of Jesus. One can admire the wonderful healing power of Jesus, but recognizes that, in calling its exercise a necessity, Jesus is presented as one who uses his power for the good of others. The story of the bent woman is not a story about what the Law allows or permits; it is a story about the need incumbent on a loving Jesus that he use his power for the good of others. That the exercise of this power is obligatory for him on the Sabbath, that its exercise does not lessen one's due worship of and attention to God on the Sabbath, this too is a lesson of the story of the bent woman. But, given the sequence of material, 13,1-5; 13,6-9; 13,10-17, one can appreciate the inclusion in a story about the Sabbath the revelation about the motivation of Jesus, that 'necessity' that comes from the Law for every Jew, to do what love of neighbor would demand. The cure of the bent woman illustrates not what work is allowed on the Sabbath, but what work should be done on the Sabbath — that one might love one's neighbor fully, as God commands.

SUMMARY

Luke 13,10-17 is often considered to be a parallel to Luke 14,1-6; further, Luke 13,10-17 is often separated, in the structuring of Luke's Gospel, from Luke 13,1-9. In this essay, there is noted the crucial difference between the key words dei= (13,14.16) and e!cestin(14,3) for the interpretations (and differences) between these two Sabbath cures. Also this essay notes the inherent unity of the cure of the bent woman with the call to repentance that precedes it.

NOTES

¹ Cf. J. NOLLAND, Luke 9:21–18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas 1993) 723, notes, when commenting on Luke 13, 10-17: 'As yet another instance of Luke's concern to balance men and women, the parallel incident in 14:1-6 will involve a man'.

² 'The evangelist has now woven this healing episode into the fabric of Jesus' extended discourse', D. TIEDE, Luke (ACNT; Minneapolis 1988) 249; the author had just commented, 'The context is still that of Jesus' teaching (v. 10) and the brief story (vv. 11-13) again prompts an instructive debate between Jesus and the ruler...on the proper observance of the Sabbath (vv. 14-17)'.

³ Of course, if one reads 'son' and not 'mule/sheep' at Luke 14,5, the argument is a pari, not a minore ad majus; Luke 13,16: 'an argument "a fortiori"', cf., A. PLUMMER, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh 51922) 343.

⁴ 'It [13,10-17] has often been thought to be a secondary variant of the cure of the man with dropsy', J. FITZMYER, Luke. Introduction, translation, and notes (AB 28A; Garden City 1985) II, 1010; Fitzmyer continues, 'that suggestion raises more problems than it solves'.

⁵ Cf. R. TANNEHILL, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts. A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia 1986) I , 135: 'Some healing stories also appear to form pairs'; this 'pairing' is cited as characteristic of Luke's desire to show equality between men and women; also, FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1012: 'It is characteristic of Luke that in this episode he makes a woman the object of Jesus' compassion on the Sabbath... He will do the same for a man in 14:1-6'.

⁶ Cf. C.H. TALBERT, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBL.MS 20; Missoula 1974) 52, where the author notes, among 11 parallels in the Gospel of Luke, that 13,10-17 is parallel to 14,1-6. To accentuate this parallelism, the author reduces the two stories to this one description: 'A woman (man) is healed on the Sabbath; Jesus says the Jews treat an ox and ass better than a person'. This description brings out the parallelism the author finds in these Lucan passages, but, unfortunately, obscures how different the stories are, particularly with regard to the terms dei=, e!cestin.

⁷ An example of this elimination is the removal of a second multiplication of loaves; this is especially true once it is obvious that Luke has no desire to repeat a Marcan miracle (Mark 8,1-10) on behalf of Gentiles. Luke will handle preparation of the Gentile mission in his own way.

⁸ A good example of this principle is the discussion, at Luke 11,1-13, regarding prayer and the discussion, at Luke 18,1-8, again regarding prayer; in these pericopi Luke has made clear that these two teachings about prayer belong to two different circumstances, that prayer should be considered from two very different perspectives. More of a challenge to the validity of this principle is to discover the difference in the two stories (Luke 6,6-11 and 14,1-6) which have much the same question at their center: 'Is it permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save a life or to destroy it?' (6,9), 'Is it permitted on the Sabbath to cure or not?' (14,3).

⁹ Cf. K. BERGER, Die Gesetzeauslegung Jesu (Hamburg 1972) I, 500: '...aus vorlukanischer Quelle (Tochter Abrahams!) ist Lk 13,15'; cf. also J. KREMER, Lukasevangelium (Wьrzburg 1988) 146. These opinions sugggest that, if the 'community' constructed this story, we cannot accuse Luke of 'simplifying' or 'distorting' what was, in Jesus' time, the actual teaching of many Jewish authorities about the Sabbath.

¹⁰ 'The obligation was for the healing on the Sabbath', A. PLUMMER, St.Luke (Edinburgh 1922) 343.

¹¹ PLUMMER, St. Luke, 343 notes: 'Not only she may be loosed, but she ought to be. The obligation was for the healing on the Sabbath. It was a marked fulfilment of the programme of the ministry as announced in the synagogue at Nazareth (iv. 18)'. Plummer rightly stresses the element of 'necessity' in this Lucan story; my only further question concerns the origin of the obligation upon Jesus, and the answer of this essay is the charity that motivates all his actions, without prejudice to the obedience he felt to his calling (indicated by baptism, that anointing which he interpreted through Isaiah, Luke 4, 18-19).

¹² Similar in vocabulary to the expression of the leader, and almost formulaic among themselves, are the Septuagintal expressions: e#c h(me/raj e)rga=| kai_ poih/seij pa/nta ta_ e!rga sou (Exod 20,9); e#c h(me/raj poih/seij e!rga (Exod 31,15); e#c h(me/raj e)rga=| (Deut 5,13). The fuller text of Exod 31,15 reads: 'Six days you shall do works, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, you shall rest, [the Sabbath, the day] holy to the Lord'. Moreover, this same text warns that 'everyone, who will do work on the seventh day, will surely be made to die'.

¹³ FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1011, notes: 'The irony in the episode is seen in that the opposition to Jesus' curing comes from a "leader of the synagogue" who himself uses the same impersonal vb. dei= (v. 14) to express the human obligation to work'. But one must appeal to irony if the sole meaning of e!dei '(v. 16) alludes to the necessary realization of God's plan of salvation-history, working itself out in Jesus' ministry'. In this essay, I contend that the link between the two uses of the impersonal verb, dei=, e!dei, is in the reason why one can speak of necessity to do good works, outside or on the Sabbath.

¹⁴ FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1012 comments, in explaining the a minore ad majus argument of vv. 15-16, 'If it is permitted to care for household animals on the Sabbath, it is also permitted to care for human infirmity [on the Sabbath]'. One must always remember, though, that 'it is permitted' is the term used only in the episode of the dropsical man; 'it is/was necessary' is the term in Chapter 13.

¹⁵ Throughout this essay I use 'Jesus' (cf., e.g., 13,12.14), but M.J. LAGRANGE, Йvangile selon Saint Luc (EtB; Paris 81948) 383, is correct when he comments on the Lucan use of Ku/rioj (13,15): 'Le Seigneur, ainsi nommй а dessein...'

¹⁶ In all of Luke-Acts, Luke uses this derogatory appellation only 3 times: an imagined person who should learn to take the beam out of his eye (6,42); the crowds who cannot recognize the signs of the kingdom of God (12,56); those who, in concert with the synagogue leader, criticize the cure of the bent woman because it happens on the Sabbath. Luke recognizes the leaven which describes the u(po/krisij of the Pharisees (12,1). He also speaks once (20,20) of those who 'pretend' (u(pokrinome/nouj) to be dikai/ouj. On balance, though the term is hardly flattering, Luke is much less inclined in the Gospel (and not at all so in Acts) to describe people as hypocrites; Matthew is another story.

¹⁷ Psalm 104 (LXX: Ps 105) lists various ways God cares for the animals in his creation: vv. 11.12.14.17.18.20-21.27-28; this recalls God's daily care of animals. Also Psalm 147,9 recalls the Lord 'who gives food to the cattle, and to the young ravens when they cry to Him'. Jesus recalls what must be a traditional way of thinking: 'Consider the ravens; they do not sow, they do not reap, they have neither cellar nor barn — yet God feeds them' (Luke 12,24). St. Paul recalls (1Cor 9,8) what is written in Deuteronomy 25,4: 'You shall not muzzle the ox while it treads out grain'; Paul does ask, in the next breath: 'Is God concerned here [at Deut 25,4] for oxen?'; he speaks of the text in this way, not to deny the oxen what Deuteronomy says belongs to them, but to show that the sense of the text of Deuteronomy regarding rights should apply, by God's will, to human beings, too. In regard to Paul's teaching in this matter, cf. 1Tim 5,17-18.

¹⁸ Cf. TANNEHILL, Luke-Acts, I, 65: 'Since the woman was held in Satan's bondage, the relevant analogy is the loosing of a tied animal, not raising one that has fallen into a well'.

¹⁹ In this essay I have made much of the axis dei= (synagogue leader), e!dei (Jesus). Cf. J. ROLOFF, Das Kerygma und das irdische Jesus. Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzдhlungen der Evangelien (Gцttingen 1970) 67-68, who, after emphasizing the importance of Lucan redaction of the healing story, points to the 'Stichwortassoziation' of the verb lu/ein (vv. 15.16) as key to the understanding of Luke 13,10-17.

²⁰ To make a person think is one of the many ploys which characterize the teaching method of Jesus or his manner of responding in controversies. He spurs this thinking provocatively by asking a question, rather than simply stating a principle or giving his answer. Such examples of this style in the Gospel are: 2,46; 5,23.34; 6,3-4.9.32.33.34.39.41.42; 7,24.25.26.31.44; 9,18.20; 10,26.36; 11,5.11.12.18.19.40; 12,6.14.25.26.51.56.57; 13,2.4.15.16.18.20; 14,3.27.31.34; 15,4.8; 16,11.12.13; 17,7-8.17-18; 18,7.8.19; 20,4.15.17.24.41.44; 22.27.35.46.48.52; 23,31; 24,17.19.26.38.41

²¹ Some suggestions are: A. STЦGER, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (GSL.NT 3; Dьsseldorf 31967 [11963]) I, 33: 'Die Ruhe des Sabbats bedeutet fьr Jesus die Offenbarung des gцttlichen Wohlwollen fьr seine Geschцpfe, Friede und Heil'; Kremer, Lukasevangelium, 146: 'Die anschauliche Geschichte zeigt dem Leser... seine (i.e., Jesus') ihr (i.e., the woman) in Einklang mit dem ursprьnglichem Sinn der Tora gewцhnte Hilfe'; Lagrange, Luc, 399: 'Le sabbat doit cйder а une loi plus haute'; W.GRUNDMANN, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (ThHK 3; Berlin 1966) 280: 'Der Sabbat ist die Vollendung des Schцpfungswerkes und als solcher von Gott geheiligt; darum ist er der rechte Tag fьr die Heilung Jesu, die dem Menchen zur Heilsvollendung hilft'.

²² I note again that this is the view of FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1011.

²³ J.D.M. DERRETT, Studies in the New Testament (Leiden 1989) V, 138-140; the author, in regard to 13,10-17 and 14,1-6, notes that 'Jesus is attending the sick. Several psalms must meet this occasion. [...] We are not the first to find Psalm 23 behind our passages'. Derrett may be correct in this claim, but what is interesting in his calling upon Psalm 23 is the evident love of pastor for the sheep, similar to Jesus' love for the sheep, for whom, as the Gospels often testify, he was willing to give even his life.

²⁴ Cf. GRUNDMANN, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 292: 'Helfende Gьte ... ist oberstes Gebot'.

²⁵ DERRETT, Studies in the New Testament, V, 142, n. 24, says: 'The healer's "work" is prohibited by Exodus 20,9 and Deuteronomy 5,13. The Mishnah offers several exceptions, whereby the laws of the Sabbath are only suspended (Mishnah, Yom.VIII.6., Bab.Talm., Yom.84b). "All doubt about lives pushes the Sabbath aside". I. JAKOBOVITS, Jewish Medical Ethics (New York, 1959), pp. 73-81'.

²⁶ E.E. ELLIS, The Gospel of Luke (NBC; Grand Rapids 21974), 193, is one among a number of exegetes who call attention to the Qumran teaching, 'For a member of the Qumran sect, "even if a beast drop its young into a cistern or a pit, he is not to lift it out on the Sabbath" (CD 11:16f.= 13:22ff. in CAP II, 827)'. Cf. further, FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1013 regarding v. 15, and FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1040 regarding Qumran teachings and Luke 14,1-6. Deuteronomy 22,4 and Exodus 23,5 are authoritative texts with regard to general help for a neighbor's suffering animals; how these texts are to be applied in the circumstance of the Sabbath is not clear from these texts alone and remained debated.

²⁷ Cf. S. WESTERHOLM, Jesus and Scribal Authority (Lund 1978) 101 makes the distinction: 'in Lk. 14:5, Jesus does not ask whether it is lawful to draw up a son (or ass?) or ox who had fallen into a well, but how, in practice, his hearers... would behave'; he concludes, '...the argument is clear: behaviour in certain cases is, commonly and rightly, not determined by reference to casuistic law, but by a perception of need and feelings of compassion'.

²⁸ Cf. WESTERHOLM, Jesus, 102: 'In Lk 13:15f, the common practice of untying an ox or donkey and taking it out for water forms the basis of an argument that... leaves the bounds of legal discussion and becomes an appeal for compassion'. Cf. ROLOFF, Kerygma, 67, who notes: '...so spricht auch alles gegen die Annahme, dass Lk. 13,15 ein echtes Jesuslogion sein kцnnte. Denn einmal hat es nur geringen sachlichen Anhalt an der jьdischen Sabbatpraxis zur Zeit Jesu. Aus der rabbinischen [!] Diskussion geht nдmlich hervor, dass das Trдnken des Viehs am Sabbat keinesfalls so selbstverstдndlich in der Weise erfolgt, wie das hier vorausgesetzt ist'. Cf. his n.58, appended to the above citation.

²⁹ I do not mean to belabor the point, but my point of view here is crucial. To find in the Father's will for salvation the motivation for Jesus' healing, Sabbath or not, is reasonable, but it does not explain the entire motive at all of the human person who often unilaterally offers, from his compassion, his healing powers. Further, it is realistic to look for and encouraging to find in Jesus a motivation for good which he hopes to find, or at least instill, in others.

³⁰ A different view of the relationship of 13,1-9 and 13,10-17 is offered by TALBERT, Literary Patterns, 55, where the author notes that 12:49–13,9 and 13:25–15 are parallel elements of the Gospel. One reason (of four) for this parallelism is that they both contain the theme of 'repentance' (ibid., 55). The author's concern is to identify parallelisms in Luke, but the aftermath of this process of identification is to separate 13,1-9 from 13,10-17; this separation is what this present essay seeks to deny.

³¹ 'Coming on the heels of the parable of the barren fig tree, the episode has given rise to considerable discussion as to its place and meaning', FITZMYER, Luke, II, 1010.

³² NOLLAND, Luke, 722 notes that at Lk 13,10 'A new major section begins'. While emphasizing the relationship between the two cures on the Sabbath, this division effectively denies the relationship between the cure of the dropsical man and those 9 verses which precede it.

³³ TIEDE, Luke, 261, notes about the story of 14,1-6: 'it is a story of healing, but the force of the story is invested in the conflict'; again, a healing story is taken up into the great thematic of the Travel Narrative, the teaching of Jesus.