Article

Jnal*‫־‬
o‫©؛‬u٢t h e S tu d y o f

The Uninvited Healer :

R ep Houses, H
■ ■ ٠٠٠٠ s a g e p u b c o u k /jo u rn a ls P e rm is sio n s nav
Prophets¡٨ M atthew ‫و‬. I ‫־‬22 ¿٥‫ ه؛ ؛‬1177/0142064X134 5
٠٠ ٠ ٠ ‫م‬ r%

js n t s a g e p u b c o m

®SAGE

W a lt e r T. W ilson
C a n d le r School o f T h eo lo g y , E m ory U n ^ e rsity , USA

A b s tra c t
T he accou n t o‫ ؛‬th e healing o‫ ؛‬P eter’s m other-in-law (Mt. 8.14-15; c‫؛‬. Ml< 1.29-31) has
heen rew ritten and recon textu alized by M atthew so as t o recall specific sto ries ab ou t
Elisha, specifically, th e p ro p h et’s raising o‫ ؛‬th e Sunam m ite w o m a n ’s son (2 Kgs 4 .1 8 -3 7 )
and th e p rop h et’s call by Elijah (I Kgs 19.19-21). This editorial acthdty enhances th e
G o sp el’s characterization o fje s u s as a prophet, its characterization o f th o s e he heals as
disciples, and its characterization o f th e Christian h ou seh old as a c e n te r o f ritual healing.

K eyw ords
Elijah Eli$ha, healing, h ou se-church, M atthew, m other-in-law , P eter

In the ideology o f the aneient (male) mind, mothers-in-law were as untrust-

worthy as they were ill-tempered.‫ ؛‬The resilienee ofsueh stereotypes (together
with the terseness o f the episode) is perhaps to blame for tbe limited attention
that has heen paid to the story o f Peter’s motber-in-law in the Instory ofbiblieal
seholarship. An exeeption to this is an essay by the famous Freneh Catholic
scholar Xavier Léon-Dufour (1965), who ‫< اﻫﻬﺂ‬the differences between Mt. 8.14-
15 and the parallel accounts in M k 1.29-31 and Lk. 4.38-39 as evidence that the
author o f the first Gospel relied on a separate, now-lost tradition.2 [!٦ what t'ol-

1. E.g., Josephus, Ant. 16.322; Bell. 1.479-80; Cassius Dio, Hist. Rom. 48.4.1; 48.5.3; Plutarch,
C onj.praec. 143a-b; Terence, Hec. 277-78. Following M 1C. 7.6, the Q source implicates them
m th e sort o f enmity that divides families during the eschatological tribulation (Mt. 10.36; ‫ ئ‬.
12.53; cf. m. Sota 9.15).
2. These differences include the following: (1) M atthew lacks ευθύ ‫ < اة؟‬τ η‫ ؟‬σ υ ν α γ ω γ ή‫؟‬
εξελθόυτε‫( ؟‬Μ ^ 1.29); ( 2 ) m lieu ο ίΣ ιμ ω υ ο‫ ؟‬και Ά υ δ ρ εο υ μ ετά Ιά κ ω β ο υ κα! ’ Ιω ^ ννο υ

C o r r e s p o n d in g a u t h o r :
W a lte r τ. W ilso n , C an d ler School o f T heology, Em ory U n ^ crsity , A tlanta G A 30322 USA.
Email: w tw 1lso@ em ory.edu

D o w n lo a d e d from jnt s a g e p u b 0 0 m b y A m e rica n T h e o lo g ic a l Library A s s o c ia tio n on M a y 1 2 2 0 1 5

54 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

lows, 1 adopt a more conventional approach, namely, that in fashioning this story
Matthew draws on Mark, but that in utilizing his source material he exhibits his
typical freedom as a redactor. Indeed, Mt. 8-9 is one ofthe places where Matthew
departs most noticeably from M ark’s narrative outline (Luz 1995: 8). Ill so doing
be has left us witb a truly distinct literary composition^ the contents o f wbicb
can he su m m a r iz e d as follows:

1. A triad ofm iracle stories (8.1-15) followed by a summary statement plus

instructional material (8.16-22);
2. A second triad ofm iracle stories (8.23-9.8) followed by foe call of Mat-
foew plus instructional material (9.9-17);
3. A third triad ofm iracle stories (9.18-34) followed by a summary state-
ment plus instructional material (9.35-38).4

The focus for this investigation is foe first of these units, Mt. 8.1-22. As we shall
see, here foe evangelist has not only gathered together a particular cluster of
stories, but also organized tbese stories in a particular order. Tor those inter-
ested in spelling ortt foe implications o f this literary activity, there are no
doubt various ways o f entering into foe discussion. The approach adopted
bere frames foe question in a specific way, namely, by focusing on how
M atthew has reworked and recontextualized foe story o f ? e te r’s mother-in-
law (8.14-15). 1 begin by analyzing foe narrative dynamics o f 8.1-15, espe-
cially as they relate to matters ofspace and gender. Next, 1 identify similarities
betw een M f 8.14-15 and 2 Kgs 4.18-37 (Elisha’s raising o fth e Sunammite
w om an’s son) and betw een Mt. 8.14-15, 19-22 and 1 Kgs 19.19-21 (Elijah’s
call o f Elisha). 1 conclude by exploring some o fth e study’s implications for
understanding how foe evangelist configures foe house as a symbolic and
social space.

N arrativ e S cope and Social Dynamics

In 8.1-22, Matthew draws for material not only on Mark but also on foe Q
source:‫؛‬

(M k 29. ‫ )أ‬M atthew has n é r p o u ; (3) m lieu ο ίκ α τε'κ ε ιτο (M k 1.30) M atthew has βεβλημε'-
٧١٦٧; (4) M a ^ ie w lacks και ευθύ‫ ؟‬λε'γουσιυ α ϋ τ ώ περ! α ϋ τ η‫( ؟‬M k 1.30); (5) M a ^ ie w
lacks π ρ ο σ ε λ θ ، ^ (M k 1.31); ( 6 ) in lieu o f κ ρ α τ η σ α‫( ؟‬M k 1.31) M atttiew has η ψ α το .
3. As H eld (1963: 246) obsew es, while M aik bas Iwc ccllecticns ofm irac le stories (M k 1.21-
45; 4.35-5.43) ‫ س‬huke bas three (hk. 4.31-5.26; 7.1-17; 8.22-56), M a ^ ie w bas only one.
4. Davies and Allison 1988: 69, 102. They suivey other options regarding the struchrre o f Mt.
8 -9 at Davies and A llison 1991: 1-4.
5. For tbe Two Source Hypotiiesis and Its bearing on this set o f passages, see Kümmel 1975:

□ o w n loaded from jnt s a g e p u b com by A m erican T heological hibrary A ssociation on M ay 12 2015

W ilson 55

Mark Matthew Q (Luke)

‫ر‬ 8.1-4
1.32-34 8.5-13 ^ ^ ^ — 7.7-1-10
1.35-39^ ‫ ־‬8.14-15
1.40-45 ‫م‬ ^ 8.16-17
8.18-22----------------- 9.57-60

In Mark, the healing ©۴ Peter’s mother-in-law and the accompanying summary

statement comes first (Mk 1.29-34), followed by a scene in which Jesus departs
from Capernaum (Mk 1.35-39) and then the healing of the man with a scale-
disease (Mk 1.40-45). Matthew reverses the order o f the two healing episodes,
drops the intervening material (Mk 1.35-39) ,‫ ة‬and then in 8.5-13 inserts between
the two episodes a text derived fr©m Q, the st©ry ofthe ceotur‫ »©؛‬and his servant
(cf. Lk. 7.1-10).7After M f 8.16-17, which is based on M k 1.32-34, at Mt. 8.18-
22 the evangelist inserts another Q text (cf. Lk. 9.57-60), t h ^ g h it appears that
this material, consisting o f two discipleship apophthegms, comes fr©m a differ-
ent location in his source, that is, after the material in Q(Lk.) 7.18-35 (cf. Mt.
11.2-19).8
In evaluating the results o f this redactional activity, it is important to recog-
nize that in Mt. 8.1-15 (i.e., in the first triad ofm iracle stories) the evangelist has
altered the flow not ©ldy o fth e narrative’s structure, but also o fth e narrative’s
scope. Specifically, as they transition fr©m the first two stories o fth e u»fi (Mt.
8.1-4, 5-13) to the third (Mt. 8.14-15), the readers encounter various forms of
what we might call ‘narrowing’ ٥٢ ‘c،mtracti،m’ in terms of how the narrative is
conveyed. This pr©gress1©‫؛‬r in the means ©fst©rytelh»g can he detected in f©ur
areas.
The first form of narrowing concerns the composition’s mix of act‫ »©؛‬and
dialogue. As commentators »©te, in the first two st©r‫؛‬es o fth e triad, Matthean
redaction has the result ofem phasizing the role ofverbal exchange in the flow of
the narrative.9 In the case ©fMt. 8.5-13, the d‫؛‬al©gue has bee» expanded to such
an extent that it is possible t© categorize the episode formally as a hybrid of

6. A vestige ©f M k 1.39 ean be detected in Mt. 4.23.

7. In Q, this appears to have been the stoiy that immediately foll©wed the inaugural serm©n,
while M atthew has instead 8.1-4.
8. t h e transitional statement m Mt. 8.18 IS based on M ^ 4.35, m anticipation ©f the stilling o f
the storm ep 1s©de m Mt. 8.23-27/M k 4.36-41.
9. Davies and A llison 1991: 8-9, 17-18. Cf. H eld 1963: 166, 2 I4 -I5 , 233-35, 239-42. As
Kingsbury (1978: 570) ©bseives, the amplification m dialogue results m an emphasis ©n ‘the
personal encounter’ behveen Jesus and the suppliants.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
56 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

healing story and pronouncement story.10 In Mt. 8.14-15, by contrast, there are
no pronouncements. []٦ fact, tins is toe only healing story in Matthew in wbicb ]٦٥
dialogue o f any kind occurs. Even M ark’s report that toe disciples Informed
Jesus ‘at once’ about toe wom an’s condition has been dropped. The form of liar-
ration has contracted to sheer action. As a consequence, Mt. 8.14-15 is toe only
bealing story in toe Gospel wbere toe nntlatlve for toe healing comes from Jesus
ratber than from toe person in need of healing ٥٢ from some tolrd-party
character.11

κα'1 έλθών ο ’Ιησού ‫ ؟‬8 1 ‫؟‬ την οικίαν Πέτρου εΤδεν την πενθεράν αϋτοΰ
βεβλημενην κα'1 πυρεσσουσαν κα'1 ήψατο τη‫ ؟‬χειρο‫ ؟‬αϋτή‫ ؟‬, κα '1 άφήκεν αυτήν
ο πυρετό‫ ؟‬, κα '1 ήγερθη κα1' διηκόνει αϋτώ.
When Jesus entered Peter’s house he saw his mother-in-law lying there with a fever;
and he touehed her hand and the fever left her. And she got up and served him.

The unit consists o f three actions associated wito Jesus (be enters toe house, he
sees toe woman, and be touches her hand) followed by three actions associated
wito toe woman (toe fever leaves ber, she gets up, and toe serves Jesus).12 In toe
absence o f dialogue, there is no supplication, even from toe sickw om an herself.
In toe first Evo stories o f the unit toe supplicants had ‫؛‬liltlated their conversations
wito Jesus by addressing him as ‘Lord’ (Mt. 8.2, 6). Here, by contrast, no such
indication is given as to toew om an’‫ ؟‬attitude toward Jesus as a healer. Evidently,
neitber her coiidltloii nor her beliefs are matters about whicb Jesus needs to he
informed. He simply know‫ ؟‬and acts.
Second, contraction also takes place in toe number o f characters. In toe first
two stories o f toe unit, toe presence o f crowds is explicitly mentioned (Mt. 8.1,
10). Indeed, up to tins point in toe Gospel Jesus’ healing (like his teaching) has
been very much a ‘public’ practice, large numhcr‫ ؟‬ofpeople having been present
either to he healed ٥٢ to witness healing (cf. Mt. 4.23-24). Here not only are toe
crowds gone but toe d isc ip le s-ev e n Peter— have been written out of toe story
as well. In fact, there are no dnrd-party characters at all: no advocates to petition
on behalf of toe afrilcterl, no opponents to contest what Jesus is doing.

to . C f H eld 46-241 ,37-234 ,180 ,176 : ‫ إ‬96 ‫ق‬ . lu Mt. 8 -9 generally, Jesus’ words are not words o f
pow er (as m, say, M k 5.4‫ إ‬or 7.34) but words o f mstruetion, the aeeeptanee o f w hieh ean be
eharaeterizedas a kind o f healing (Mt. 9 . ‫ إ‬2 - ‫ ; ﻗﺈ‬to . to). Cf. Gerhardsson .4 6 :979 ‫إ‬
‫ إ إ‬. H eld 70-69 ‫ إ‬963 :‫إ‬. The summary statement in Mt . 4‫ إ‬4 . ‫( إ‬also with ε’ιδεν) mdieates that Jesus
takes the initiative, though w hat he ‘sees’ there IS speeified not as those m need o f healing but
as the erowds. ©ther summary statements (e.g., Mt. 9.35) seem to leave the question open.
It IS interesting that the two Tukan stories m whieh Jesus ‘sees’ someone m need o f healing
(7.11-17 and to .10-17) also involve women.
12. Gerhardsson (1979: 40) emphasizes the sym m etiy o fth e text.

©‫ا‬sagep u b com by America© The©l©g1cal hibrary Ass©c1at1©n ٥© May 12

□©wnl©aded fr©m 1 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson 57

no onlookers to marvel and spread tire news.13 Even tire fever is envisioned as
leaving (αφήκεν) the house.14 If we were to imagine a stage production o f the
seene, it would he carried out with only two actors and entirely in silence, all
attention being focused on the actions o f the healer and the one healed.
Third, with each successive story in our unit the reader is presented with an
increased level o f specificity with regard to the location ofJesus’ I1 e‫؛‬r i 11‫؛‬g activity.
The action moves from an unspecified area outside of Capernaum (Mt. 8.1) to
somewhere in Capernaum (Mt. 8.5) to a specific place within tbe city, tbe home
o f ?eter (Mt. 8.14). This narrowing appears to he significant with regard not only
to the particular place, but also to the particular kind ofplace, the enclosed space
o fthe ‫ ه ؛؛ اا’ ه‬. While in the story o f the centurion it was Jesus’ healing power that
entered into this space (note o‫؛‬K‫؛‬a in Mt. 8.6), here— for toe first time in toe
G o s p e l-it is toe healer bim self who enters into this space (Mt. 8.14). Tbe
sequence o f events, then, creates a spatial contraction in toe venue of Jesus’
activity as well as a focusing in toe direction of Jesus’ movements, so that toe
house, this particular house, takes on added significance.
Fourth, a similar dynamic o f increasing specificity can he observed wito
regard to toe principal individuals wito whom Jesus interacts as healer. Tbe first
petitioner is an anonymous person known only by his ailment (Mt. 8.2), toe sec-
ond is an anonymous person known by his profession, his status as a slave-
owner, and by his (likely) place o f residence, while toe beiieficlary o f Jesus’
healing in toe third story is a specific individual lliiked to a specific, named char-
actor. This narrowing appears to he significant wito regard not only to toe par-
ticular person, but also to toe particular kind o f person. Corresponding wito toe
healer’s first entry into a house is toe first healing story in toe Gospel that involves
a woman (cf. 9.18-26; 15.21-28).
Even as it is critical to recognize toe nexus of silence, gender and domestic
space in our healing stoty, it is also important not to overstate its significance.
After all, in M atthew’s Gospel neither toe space o fth e house nor toe receipt of
healing is coded for gender. Botb men (9.28-30) and women (9.23-25) are
reported as receiving healing inside of a house, just as both men (9.32-33) and
women (9.20-22) can receive healing outside o f a house. This parity applies to

13. Cf. C erhardsson 1979: 42-45. The evangelist demonstrates an mterest in private healing
elsewhere m Mt. 9.25, whieh has Jesus entenng the house alone to raise the offictal’s daughter,
m contrast to Mark, who has him entenng with the chtld’s parents ‘‫ س‬those who were with
him ’ (M k 5.40). Mt. 9.28 seems to present a stmtlar scenarto (ef. M k 8.23). For the prtvacy
mottf, see also 1 Kgs 17.19; 2 Kgs 4.33; M k 7.33; Aets 9.40. Theissen (1983: 60-61) notes
smnlartttes m this regard with the A s c l^ tu s eult: referring spectfically to 57G3 111, 1173, he
obseives that when It eomes to the healtng ttself, ‘the aetivity o fth e deity IS supposed to take
plaee m seeret’ (cf. Theissen 1983: 154-58).
14. For the range o f social and religious meanings attached to fever m the ancient world, see von
B endemann 2006: 103-14.

©‫ا‬sagep n b c©m by American The©l©g1cal Library Ass©c1at1©n ٥٨May 12

□©wnlcaded from 1 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
58 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

the technique ofhealing as well, with Jesus healing both men (20.34) and women
(9.25) by means ٥ ۴ mere touch, just as be heals botb men (8.13) and women
(15.28) with just a word. In assessing the evidence, we can turn for guidance to
Elaine Wainwright’s ground-breaking study Women Healing/Healing Women:
The Genderization ofH ealing in Early Christianity. Wainwright begins her anal-
ysis o f the episode in Mk 1.29-31/Mt. 8.14-15 by eschewing foe sort o f model-
driven approaches (endorsed by social-scientific critics like Bruce Malina and
John ?ilch) that presuppose a strict alignment between gender and ‘foe cultural
code o f the public/private’.15 Rather than operating according to rigid d‫؛‬choto-
mies, she suggests that in foe Gospels foe gendering o f both healing spaces and
bealing practices is subject to constant negotiation through foe artful
reconfiguration of authoritative narratives.
Such an approach would seem to he relevant to foe investigation of our story,
wbere foe mutability o f explanatory categories like ‘public’ and ‘private’ is sig-
naled in part by foe specific actions associated wifo Peter’s mother-in-law in Mt.
8.15. The first of these is ‫؛‬lidlcated by foe verb εγείρ ω , which elsewhere is used
in foe passion predictions (Mt. 16.21; 1?.23; 20.19; cf. 17.9; 28.6-7). The same
eschatological power bytvlncli God will raise Jesus’ crucified body from foe
dead is, by implication, at work in this wom an’s healed body, just as it wifi he at
work in foe raising of the official’s daughter In Mt. 9.25 (cf. 10.8; 11.5) .‫ ﺀل‬The
second of tbese is indicated by foe verb διακονέω , which elsewhere describes
foe service rendered to Jesus not only by women, but also by men and even
angels (4.11; 25.44; 27.55) as well as foe ‘service’ that Christ him self renders to
humanity through his life and death (20.28). Thus foe wom an’s response in Mt.
8.15 can he understood not only as referring to a specific act of service, but also
as intimating a connection between healing and discipleship.17 That Peter’s
mother-in-law is shown resuming her domestic duties, then, ‘is not an affirmation
of fixed gender and spatial categories’ but indicates that her domestic space has
been ‘transformed’ so as to ‘encompass male and female activities o fb o th a p u b -
lie and private nature’ (Wainwright 2006: 111).
As for foe physical configuration ofthe domestic space in whieh this transfor-
mation occurs, Wainwright suggests that foe evangelists probably had in mind a
eourtyard house (Wainwright 2006: 107). hr support ofthis suggestion, she refers
to arehaeologieal evidence reviewed by Eric Meyers Iiidlcatliig foe p r^aleiice of
sueh houses during tills era in ^ ٧٢٥ -Palestine, espeeially in urban areas (Meyers

15. Wa 1nwng] 1t 2 0 0 6 : 105 (refem ng to M alina 1993: 117-48; Ptlch 2000: 57-86).
16. Cf. fam arche 1965: 521-22. For the idea that being healed IS akin to being raised from the
dead, see Gnilka 1979: 49.
17. H agner 1993: 208-209: m confrast to tbe M arkan aeeount, tbe w om an’s service m Mt.
8.15 takes on ‘a distinct cbristological aspect’, tbereby displaying ‘a fondamental aspect o f
discipleship’ tbat ‘becomes a model for the Christian reader’.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson 59

2007). A visitor to such a dwellingwould have to pass through a single entrance-

way and then through a central courtyard in order to gain access to the rooms
surrounding it, rooms which, like the courtyard itself, served multiple func-
tions.18 In some cases, the complex would have been large enough to accommo-
date as many as three ٥٢ four (presumably related) families.‫ وا‬Imagining sucb a
setting, Wainwright surmises that itw ouhl have been necessary for Jesus to tra-
verse not just one but a number o f social and spatial ‘boundaries’ in order to
reach Peter’s mother-in-law lying in one of foe rooms of foe house.20 Such a
reconstruction certainly seems to he applicable in foe case o f Mark’s version of
foe story, since there Jesus does not proceed immediately to foe woman upon
entering foe residence but does so only after being informed of her condition by
foe disciples accompanying him.21 Whether foe reconstruction applies to
M atthew’s version o f foe story is more difficult to say, although we can infer
from Mt. 26.A 58 and 69 that foe evangelist was familiar wifo courtyards,22
while Mt. 6.6 and 24.26 project an organization of domestic space that includes
not only ‘inner’ rooms, but also rooms separated from foe rest o f the house by
doors.23 If we were to imagine Jesus entering foe sort of ‘pastas-style’ houses
found through،rut foe Greco-Roman world, then itw o u h l have been necessary
for him to traverse even more symbolic boundaries insofar as such donriciles
would have included a ‘transverse ball’ arljaceiit to foe courtyard and facing a
suite o f two ٥٢ more imrer rooms, thereby functioning as an ‘intramural zone’
mediating ‘between foe semipublic space o f the courtyard and foe fully private
sanctum’ (Ault 2005: 66-67).
K w e v e^ we are to envision foe space, it is probably correct to assume that foe
movement depicted in Mt. 8.14 involved ‘stages of entry into foe lmuse’
(Wainwright 2006: 144). W hat remains uncertain, however, is !٦٥١٧ best to assess
foe meaning of this entry in light of the various forms o f narrative ‘contraction’
identified above. Regardless o f !٦٥١٧ many social and spatial boundaries foe
Matthean Jesus may he envisioned as traversing in order fo reach Peter’s mother-
in-law, in foe absence of third-party characters ٥٢ a request for healing, be is
represented as doing so not only uiiaccoirrpaiiied, but also uninvited. M ark’s ver-
sion ofthe story may have Jesus entering a cultural ‘borderland’ where a ‘public’

18. Meyers 2007: 118: the interior o f a typieal eourtyard honse ‘does not represent private spaee
as distmet from w ork spaee ... The publie/private diehotomy simply eannot eharaeterize tills
spaee w herein eveiy m anner o f household, family, ‫ س‬everyday activities was conducted.’
19. Guijarro 1997. f h e so-ealled House o f Teter exeavated m Capernaum ‫ﻟﻞ‬1‫ ﺀﻟﻪ‬have been o f tills
type: Strange and Sbanks 1982.
20. Wamwrigbt 2006: 144 (ef. 107-109). Ordinarily, neitber tbe eourtyard nor tbe rooms
surrounding It w ould have been visible from the street (see R eed 2000: 125).
21. Stages o f m ovem ent are indicated by ήλθου m M k 1.29 and ττροσΕλθοόυ m M k 1.31.
22. For the variety that existed m eourtyard a fig n r a tio n s , see Ricbardson 2004.
23. Cf. Sawicki 2000: s.v. doors.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological hibrary A ssociation on May 12 2015
60 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

healer performs in a ‘private’ venue, but in M atthew’s retelling o f the story, ‘the
entry ofJesus alone into toe very presence of a woman lying sick seems a breach
of even toe most carefully nuanced construction o f public and private space in
first-century imaginations’.24 Wainwright’s investigation, however, does little to
explain toe significance o f this breach for understanding either toe distinctive
cbaracter ofthe story ٥٢ its contribution to toe literary and toeimrtic profile ofM t.
8.1-22. In order to address these issues, it is necessary to expand toe scope of
analysis beyond M atthew’s redaction o f Mk 1.29-31 to include toe manner in
which toe evangelist has situated toe story boto witbin its immediate literary
context and in relation to possible biblical precedents.

In th e N a m e of a P ro p h e t
As we have seen, Mt. 8.1-22 constitutes a literary unity.2‫ ؟‬Further unifying this
material are toeimrtic features that ground its story ofJesus in toe story of Israel.
For example, at three d i f f ^ ii t juiictures rtoereiice is made to one ٥٢ more heroes
from salvatton history: M ‫ ه‬ses in Mt. 8.4, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Mt. 8.11,
and Isaiah ‘toe prophet’ in Mt. 8.17. On a more subtle level, some scholars have
suggested that toe first two stories in toe unit recall toe exploits o f another great
figure from Israelite history, toe prophet Elisha, specifically his healing ٥٢
‘cleansing’ ‫؛‬٥ Naaman toe AramiteA’ The former episode, Mt. 8.1-4, parallels 2
Kgs 5.1-14 ill that boto oftoe supplicants in question suffer from a similar afflic-
tion (‘leprosy’, i.e., a scale-disease), wbile toe latter, Mt. 8.5-13, parallels 2 Kgs
5.1-14 in that both ofthe supplicants in question have a similar status and profes-
sion (Gentile military officer). M atthew’s redactional activity in constructing this
three-part section, then, has toe result o f drawing togethertw o healing stories
that evoke toe activities o fthe prophet Elisha. Given this, as well as toe fact that
Matthew interprets wbat transpires in toe unit as toe fulfillment of a prophetic
m ad e (Mt. 8.17), it is worth asking if the same can be said oftoe toird. After all,
as Raymond Brown has ^ se rv e d , it ‘is in respect to miracles that we find toe

24. W amwright 2006: 4 4‫ إ‬. As B askin (2002: ‫ إ‬4 ‫ ) إ‬observes (referring to texts sueh as m. Pesah.
8.7; m. Sotah 6.1; b. Git. 45a; Gen. Rab. 71.2-72.6), rabbm ie delineations o f social and
symbolie space generated ‘a domestic w orld o f w om en to which m en had lim ited access’.
Cf. W egner 1988: 145-67. W ith reg ard to the w om en’s quarters o f a Greek home, meanwhile,
‘no m ale IS allowed entrance unless he IS a relative’ (Cornelius N epos, Vir. illustr. pref. 7).
C f Lysias, ٠٢. 3.6 (women em barrassed to be seen even by close m ale relatives); Lacey
1968: 158-62.
25. Thompson (1971: 370-71) enumerates a num ber o f ‘verbal contacts’ that help to lm k the
pericopes o fth e unit together.
26. B.g., ?esch 1970: 63-78; Brown 1971: 90-91; Davies and A lltson 1991: 13, 18; Pilch 2000:
48, 52; G ow ler2003; Schöpflm 2009: 43-45.

Dow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological hibrary A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson

closest similarities between Jesus and Elisha’ (Brown 1971: 89).27 As he further
observes, these similarities are based not so much on specific verbal parallels as
on ‘general similarities in the type ofm iracles’ (Brown 1971: 92; emphasis origi-
nal), a point worth bearing in mind as we proceed.
Unfortunately, an inspection ofthe commentary literature is of'llttle assistance
in addressing this question. In fact, most commentaries do not posit much o f an
Old Testament background for Mt. 8.14-15 at all. An exception in this regard is
W.D. □avies and Dale Allison (1991: 34), who suggest that ‘perhaps we should
recall the OT texts in which the prophets Elisha (2 Kgs 5.9; 6.1-2,32) and Ezekiel
(3.24) stay in houses’.28 A somewhat better parallel, one that also occurs in a
house, comes from the story o f Elisha's raising o fthe Shunammite woman’s son
(2 Kgs 4.18-37). O f particular interest are the following texts:

ή λ θ ο ν ε ι‫ ؟‬τ η υ ο ικ ία ν Σ ίμ ω υ ο ‫؟‬ και ε λ θ ώ υ ό Ί η σ ο ΰ ‫ ؟‬ε ι‫؟‬ και εισ η λθευ Ε λ ισ α ίε

και Ά υ δ ρ έ ο υ μ ε τ ά Ι ά κ ω β ο υ και τ η υ ο ικ ία ν Π έ τ ρ ο υ ε ι‫ ؟‬τ ο υ ο ίκ ο υ , κα! ιδ ού
Ί ω α υ υ ο υ . ή δε π ε υ θ ε ρ ά ε’ι δευ τ η υ π ε υ θ ε ρ ά υ α ϋ τ ο ΰ τ ο π α ιδ α ρ ίο υ τ εθ υ η κ ό ‫؟‬
Σ ίμ ω υ ο ‫ ؟‬κ α τ έ κ ε ιτ ο β εβ λ η μ έυ η υ και κ εκ οιμ ισ μ ευου επ ι ٢١٦٧
τ τυ ρ έσ σ ο υσ α , και εϋθύ‫؟‬ πυρεσσουσαυ. κ λίυηυ α ϋ τ ο ΰ .
λ έ ^ ο υ σ ιν α ΰ τ ω π ε ρ ί α υ τ ή ‫ ؟‬.
T h ey en te r e d th e h o u se o f Simon W h e n Jesus en tered P eter’s W h e n Elisha en tered
and A n d rew , w ith Jam es and John. h o u se, h e saw his m oth er- in to th e h o u se , th e r e
M ow S im on ’s m oth er-in -law w as in-law lying th e r e w ith a w a s t h e child lying dead
lying th e r e w ith a fever, and th ey fever. (Mt. 8.14) on his hed . (2 Kgs 4.32)
m id him a b o u t h er at o n c e .
(Mk 1.29-30)

Matthean redaction produces a statement, one unique to his version oftbe story,
that parallels 2 Kgs 4.32 in terms o f tlie basic narrative sequence: tlie liealer
enters the house, attention is drawn to tlie one in need ofbealiiig, and tlien there
is a brief description o fth e latter’s posture and condition. Note that tlie incident
described tliere occurs in an upper room o fth e house (2 Kgs 4.10, 21; cf. 1 Kgs
17.19), the door ofTvlncb Elisha closes in order to ensure privacy (4.33), and that
the healing technique he subsequently employs also involves physical contact
(4.34-35). Note further that at one point the Shunammite woman is identified as
the prophet’s ‘servant’ (2 Kgs 4.16), with which we can compare the ‘service’
offered to Jesus by Peter’s mother-in-law after her healing. If Matthew drew on
this prophetic story for inspiration in reshaping his own story, it would help to
explain why his account seems to be more ‘private’ tban the one provided by
Mark. It may also be significant that the miracle performed by Elisha involves

27. Unfortunately for our purposes, B row n’s effort to ‘open up the possibility that the Elisha
narratives mflueneed the formation o f at least part o f foe gospel narratives’ (1971: 90) pays
more attention to the Eourth Gospel than to the first. Cf. Nfitzel 1986.
28. Cf. G evaryahu 1983.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2015
62 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

bringing someone back from the dead (c£ ‫ ل‬Kgs 17.17-24). R eaders w Ij o recog-
nized similarities between the two episodesw ould he more likely to appreciate
not only the prophetic character of Jesus’ person and actions, but also the sym-
bolic undercurrents οίή γερ θη in Mt. 8.15. Finally, it should he noted that a ‫؛؛‬imi-
lar ‘privatization’ ofhealing can be detected elsewhere in the Gospel, specifically
in the redaction of Mt. 9.18-19, 23-26, the story of the raising o f the official’s
daughter. In contrast to ffie report in Ml< 5.40 (which has him accompanied hy a
group o f witnesses), ffie first Gospel has Jesus enter her room alone (Mt. 9.25),
just as Elijah (1 Kgs 17.19) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4.33) had done when they raised
dead youths to life (cf. Theissen 1983: 60-61).
While such comparisons help to bring ffie hihlical character of our story into
retie، they do not exhaust ffie intertextual possihilities that it presents. In order
to clarify these possibilities, however, it is necessary to proceed hy comparing
our passage not wiffi another Old Testament text hut wiffi two pericopes found
elsewhere in Matthew:

As he walked by the Sea of Galdee, he saw (εΤδεν) two brothers, Simon, who IS ealled
?eter, and Andrew his brother, easting a net into the se a -fo r they were fishermen.
And he said to them, ‘Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.’ Immediately
they left their nets and followed him. (Mt. 4.18-20; eft 4.21-22)

As Jesus was walking along, he saw (εΤδεν) a man called Matthew sitting at the tax
booth; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’And he got up and followed ‫ذ‬ (Mt. 9.9)

Roth of these pericopes (as well as 4.21-22) helong to ffie literary genre of ffie
‘call’ ٥٢ vocation story. The structural elements of the form can be outlined as
follows: (I) appearance of Jesus, (2) Jesus sees ffie prospective disciple(s), (3)
observation on ffie location and activity of the 0 1 1 e(s) called, (4) ffie call to dis-
cipleship, (5) positive response to ffie call. A re-examination of Mt. 8.14-15 indi-
cates that its contents correspond wiffi this hasic structure (cf. Benoit and
Boismard 1972: 97), except for element 4, where in lieu o f 11 call to discipleship
we have a healing, although it is worth noting that ffie association between call-
ing and healing is one that figures in ffie analysis of miracle stories elsewhere in
ffie Gospel.29

(1) When Jesus entered Peter’s house (2) he saw (εΤδεν) his mother-in-law (3) lying
there with a fever; (4) and he touched her hand and the fever left her. (5) And she got
up and served him.

29. The ‘healing as eall’ m o tif IS probably best represented elsewhere by Mt. 2 0 .2 9 - 4 ‫ق‬, where
the evangelist (following M k 10.52) has the eured individuals ‘follow ’ Jesus. His other story
about Iwo blind m en (Mt. 9 . 1 ‫ق‬0 -‫ )ق‬presents a more ambiguous seenario. Cf. Lk. 8.1-3; Aets

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson 63

Note further how the particular term that Matthew uses for ‘saw’ in 8.14 (ε’ιδεν),
a word unique to his version o f the narrative (c f M k 1.30), is also used in ele-
ment 2 of all three o f the call stories (Mt. 4.18, 21; 9.9). ‫ ر'آ‬Commenting on such
stories, Joel Marcus (2000: 183) suggests that foe vision involved should he
interpreted not as passive observation, but as an active ‘possessive gaze’ and, as
sucb, an expression o f foe view er’s prophetic acuity. The parallels identified
above suggest that foe same can he applied to foe interpretation of our passage as
w e ll.i
On both foe formal and verbal levels, then, it appears that Matthean redaction
has transformed M ark’s rather standard healing story into a healing story wifo
features of a call story.’^ This development would help to account not only for
foe absence ofdnrd-party characters in Mt. 8.14-15, but also for foe fact tbat
here, in contrast to foe otber healing stories in foe Gospel, Jesus is foe one who
initiates foe narrative action, doing so in a manner consistent wifo foe general
pattern ofthe New Testament ‘call’ genre.33 Readers wbo recognized similarities
between our story and this genre would also he more likely to undcr^kmd
διηκόνει αυταρ inM t. 8.15 as an anticipation ofM t. 2?.55: ‘Many women were
also foere, loohiirg oil from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and
served bim (διακονουσαι α ύ τ ώ ).’34 Healing calls ?eter’s mother-in-law to a
form o f service that is appropriate to one who follows foe Lord.3‫؛‬
As commentators often note, foe basic genre ofthe call story did not originate
wifo foe evangelists themselves but has its roots in Old Testament prophetic liar-
ratives, especially foe story o f Eli jah's call of Elisha.3‫ ؛‬Comparison wifo 1 Kgs
19.19-21 is appropriate for foe analysis ofM t. 8.14-15 as well, especially when
we take into account foe way in wbicb foe two stories conclude:

30. ?esc h l9 6 8 : 166: ‘Jesus erblickt die Frau; die Form ulierung rückt m die N ähe des erwählenden
(und hier erbarmenden, vgl. 8 , 17) Sehens der Berufungserzählungen.’
31. Comparison ean also be made with Mt. 9.2: by dropping the aetion o f M k 2.4, M atthew
renders Jesus’ ability to ‘see’ others m the eontext o f ab eah n g stoiy more impressive. Also cf.
Mt. 9.22.
32. Luke, meanwbile, bas fransfom ied tbe episode into a healing stoiy with features o f an
exorcism (fk . 4.38-39). C f Twelftree 2007: 132.
33. In Mt. 8.14-15, as m the call stories (and ٥١contrast to m ost bealing stories), the encounter
with Jesus IS not a m atter o f bum an volition. Anotber regular feature o fth e call narrative IS
tbe instantaneous nature o fth e ‘conversion’ experience, a featirre present ٥١the experience o f
bealing as well. See W agner 1980.
34. W hile both Mt. 8.15 (cf. M k 1.31) and Mt. 27.55 (cf. M k 15.41) have verbal parallels ١٥Mark,
as we have seen, only M atthew has tbe suggestion that female ‘seivice’ ١٥the former passage
can be understood as the result o f something akin to a call experience, wbicb bas the potential
to alter the w ay we tbm k about female ‘seivice’ ١٥the latter passage.
35. Also compare ηγΕρθη ١٥Mt. 8.15 with α υ α σ τ α ‫؟‬١٥ Mt. 9.9.
36. E.g., 81-177 :2005 ‫ س‬11‫ س‬. Cf. John Chrysostom, Horn. Matt. 14.3; ?escb 1969: 9-18.

©‫ا‬sagep u b com by America© The©l©g1cal Library Ass©c1at1©n ٥© May 12

□©wnl©aded fr©m 1 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
64 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

κα'1 άνεστη κα'1 έπορεύθη ¿ttiaro Ηλιου κα'1 έλειτούργει α ϋ τ ώ .... and he stood up
and followed after E11]ah and ministered 1 0 him. (1 Kgs 19.21)

κα'1 ήγερθη κα'1 διηκόνει α ϋ τω .... and she got up and began to serve him. (٧١ 8.15)

Elisha’s positive response to Elijah's eall has two components, following and
serving. In Matthew, we have the former in 4.20, 22, 9.9, the latter in 8.15, and
both (interestingly enough) only in 27.55. Eooking at our story, given the nature
of the ‘call’ genre, it is not surprising that the hrst Gospel lias Peter’s 1 1 1 0 tl1 er-i 11-
law serving ‘him ’ and not ‘them ’ as in the Markan version (Ml< 1.31).37 Eor
Matthew, all that matters is her response to Jesus.
In addition, the story of Eli jah's call ofE lislia has influenced the shape not
only ofthe pericopes cited above, but also oftw o pronouncement stories oil dis-
cipleship in the New Testament, stories that (as we have seen) Matthew appears
to have repositioned t'rom their original context in the Q source to a location
immediately following the material in Mt. 8.14-17. There is a consensus among
interpreters that Mt. 8.21-22 in particular entails an allusion to 1 Kgs 19.20,
where Elisha requests permission to take leave ofhis father and mother.3‫ ؟‬Indeed,
it is comparison with the Elijah-Elisha typology that makes Jesus’ response to
the would-be disciple in Mt. 8.22 seem so shocking.39 Eike the story of Peter’s
mother-in-law, this pair of discipleship apophthegms has ١٦٥ tlurd-party charac-
ters, M atthew’s redaction o f 8.14-15 having the effect o f creating formal align-
ment with 8.18-22 in this regard.^9
It appears, then, that the different ways in which Mt. 8.14-15 alludes to the
figure o f Elisha correspond to the different ways in which the passage relates to
its literary environment. Specifically, the passage serves both as the third ofthree
stories that evoke the prophet’s healings as well as the first ofthree stories that
evoke the prophet’s call. Similarities between Mt. 8.14-15 and 2 Kgs 4.18-37
help to align the former with the stories in Mt. 8.1-13, which recall 2 Kgs 5.1-14,
while similarities between Mt. 8.14-15 and 1 Kgs 19.19-21 suggest that the for-
mer can be interpreted as a transition to Mti 8.18-22, which, as we have seen, is
also rooted in 1 Kgs 19.19-21. Within this trio o f stories in Mti 8.14-22, Peter’s

37. The vanant reading (α υ τ ο ί‫ ) ؟‬for Mt. 8.15 preseived in 1‫ א‬L Δ ete. appears to be an effort
to harm onize with the parallels in M k 1.31 and hk. 4.39, thereby averting tbe soeially
problematie seenario.
38. E.g., Hengel 1981: 16-18; Coulot 1987: 18-40; Davies and A llison 1991: 54-56; Hagner
1993: 218; Tuz 2001: 18. Cf. Steinhäuser 1981: 96-121.
39. This IS partieularly ١
™ o fth e Septuagmtal version (i.e., 3 Kgdms 19.19-21), w bieb implies
tbat the request was granted. Cf. Josepbus, Ant. 8.354, and tbe diseussion 111 Robbins 1984:
98-101.
40. As m 8.14-15, M atthew ’s (apparent) redaetion results m a more y m m etrieal eomposition.
See Davies ‫ ص‬Allison 1991: 53-54.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson 65

mother-in-law compares favorably, since she is tbe only one reported as respond-
ing positively to Jesus.41 Matthew 8.18-22, in turn, segues to Mt. 8.23-27 and the
second triad of miracle stories.42 An appreciation for these ‫؛‬ntertextual features
provides a perspective from wbicb to explicate more fully the results ofthe evan-
gelist’s literary activity in Mt. 8.1-22, contributing as they do not only to tire
section’s thematic unity, but also to the revelation o fJesu s’ prophetic identity,42
one that extends to his disciples as well, wbo in their nrlnlstry o f healing (Mt.
10.1) are sent out as prophets in the name of a prophet (Mti 10.41 )‫م‬

Healing and H ouses

Tbe explication of Jesus’ prophetic identity tigures as well in the text accompa-
nying Mt. 8.14-1.‫؟‬, wbicb consists o f two elements: a summary statement (Mt.
8.16), followed by a fultillnrent quotation attributed to Isaiah ‘foe prophet’ (Mt.
8.17). With foe latter, foe author reminds his readers that foe acts ofJesus are not
self-interpreting, that is, they do not by tbemselves provide sufficient evidence of
his true identity and mission: ‘It is not foe miracles that attest, rather they foem-
selves must first be attested.’45 As for foe fornrer, Mt. 8.16 is o ^ r t i c u l a r interest
for foe various sbifts that it ushers into foe narrative. To begin wifo, we see that
bere Jesus resumes his usual, more reactive role as bealer, wifo foe afflicted
being ‘brougbt to him ’ (cf. 4.24; 9.2, 32; 12.22; 14.35). In addition, foe silence
acom panying foe healer’s actions nr Mt. 8.14-1.‫ ؟‬is broken, with Jesus now cast-
ing out spirits ‘wifo a w ord’, an expression that links this episode wifo foe one
tbat precedes it (cf. Mt. 8.8). Most Iirrportaiit, foe house, wbicb had been foe
space o f private healing, now opens up as a space for public healing. Note that
wbile 8.16 indicates a change in time, it does not Indicate a change in setting. It
is therefore not just the state of Peter’s mother-in-law that is transformed, but
also foe state of Peter’s home. Davies a11dAll‫؛‬s011(1991: 40) imagine foe crowds
0Í8.16 as gatbering ‘around’ foe house, but this reading seems to reflect M ark’s
version ofthe story (Mk 1.33) more tban M atthew’s. As Eric Meyers (2007: 118)

41. H agner (1993: 212) understands 8.14-17 to be linked to 8.18-22 by the them e o f dtsctpleshtp
as well, though for him this IS owing to the use o f 0‫ ﺛﺘﻴﺎاﺳﺎة‬m the former.
42. For the connections bettveen Mt. 8.18-22 27-8.23 ‫ س‬, see H eld 1963: 200-204; Luz 2001:
15-16. A eeordmg to Davies and Allison (1991: 39), M atthew plaeed the discipleship
apophthegms m 8.18-22 beeause ‘for him the tale o fth e stilling o fth e storm IS a parable,
a symbolie illustration o f w hat It means to “follow” Jesus. In other words, a story about
discipleship IS prefaeed by teaehmg on discipleship.’
43. For the M atthean elaboration o f dlls theme, see Schnider 1973: 158-63.
44. The saying m 10.41 IS nnique to Matthew. Cf. Mt. 5.12; 12.39; 13.57; 14.5;16.14; 21.11, 46;
23.34, 37; Lk. 4.27; N ov 1‫؛‬k o v 1c 2003: 109-18.
45. H eld 1963: 255. If our interpretation IS correct, then It IS not ju st such direct statements but
also the shape o f th e healing stories themselves that testifies to the prophetic character o f
Jesus’ person and actions.

□©wnlcaded from J©t sagep u b c©m by American The©l©g1cal Library Ass©c 1at 1©n ٥٨May 12 2015
66 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

points out, in a typical courtyard house, the space created by the courtyard was
not ‘a convenient barrier between public and private domains’, but rather permit-
ted ‘multiple connections with neighbors and multiple relationships among peo-
pie residing within the domicile’.^ This fact raises the possibility that the
courtyard (or perhaps also the transverse hall) o f Peter’s house was the place in
Mt. 8.16 where people were being brougbt to Jesus.
A domestic setting for foe action ofM t. 8.16 would also accord with subsequent
texts in foe Gospel that draw attention to foe house as a venue ofhealing.47 To effect
foe cures in Mt. 9.27-31, for example, Jesus is presented as entering a house (o’1 K‫؛‬a)
wifo foe supplicants,48 an item not found in foe story’s Markan counterparts (Ml<
8.22-26; 10.46-52), while Mt. 9.10-12 presents Jesus ‘foe physician’ teaching 8 V
τη o’1 K‫؛‬q (ct'. Mt. 13.36; 17.25).49 Houses also figure prominently as physical and
social centers for foe disciples’ missionary work (Mt. 10.11-14, again wifo o‫؛‬K‫؛‬a),
which includes bealing foe sick (Mt. 10.1, 8).50 The narrative connection between
houses and healing may he based in part on foe experience of Matthew’s original
readers, for whom foe house-church would have served as a place ofritual healing,
an iiiHitutioiial role reflected in other early Christian texts as well.‫ ؛؛‬hr foe evange-
list’s narrative world, this space can he seen to contrast 8y»tbo(‫؛‬€tfoy both with foe
‘house’ (‫ز؟ﺳﺄه‬ ofthe Jerusalem temple (Mt. 12.4; 21.13; 23.38), which can serve
as avenue for ritual healing only after Jesus has ‘cleanser(’ it (Mt. 21.14; cf. 2 Sam.
5.6-8), as well as wifo foe ‘house’ (o‫؛‬K‫ )«؛‬ofthe ‘strong man’ (Mt. 12.29), which
Jesus ‘plunders’ by healing tbose possessed of demons (Mt. 12.22-28).
hr cwfoittting foe import ofsuclr texts for Matthew’s original readers, it is worfo
remembering that early Christianity was not foe first ٥٢ only movement to situate
healing practices within domestic spaces. In Tob. 3.10-17, t'or example, an agent of
divine healing is said to enter suclr a space while one supplicant is in an upper room

46. Cf. Mt. 26.3, 58, 69. According to Anlt (2005: 67), that ‘a m ulttpltctty o f activities took place
in the transverse hall IS apparent’. Cf. Vitruvius, Arch. 6.7.2.
47. N ote that M atthew does not always retain the domestic setting for a healing stoiy. In Mt. 9.2
he drops M ark’s reference to the οίκο‫( ؟‬M k 2.1 )‫ﺀﻃﺎ‬‫هﺀ‬ sfeiy o f hie paralytic hrerhaps because
o fth e presence ofPharisees), while m Mt. 15.21 be drops M ark’s reference to the o‫؛‬K‫؛‬a (Mk
7.24) nr the story o fth e Syrophoenician/Canaanite w oman (perhaps because she IS a Gentile;
cf. Mt. 8 .8 ). A m ore complicated scenario IS presented by Mt. 17.19 (cf. M k 9.28). See further
Mt. 12.22; 15.15; 19.7.
48. In Matthew, o‫؛‬K‫؛‬a can be used o f a structirre used as a dwelling (e.g., 2.11), o f a household or
family (e.g., 12.25), or m a way that seems to encompass both o f these meanings (e.g., 10.12-
13). See BDAG s.v. o‫؛‬K‫؛‬a .
49. M atthew follows M ark m having the healing o fth e official's daughter take place in his house
(Mt. 9.23-25; ٥٤ M k 5.38-42). Also cf. Mt. 8 .6 .
50. Cf. M k 3.15; 6.7, 10; Lk. 9.1-2, 4; 10.5-7, 9; H offm ann 1972: 254-61, 267-83.
51. B.g., M k 2.1; Acts 9.17-19, 39-40; 28.7-9; Acts John 19-25; Acts Andr. 22, 29; Acts Xan.
Polyx. 10; cf. 1 Cor. 12.9, 28, 30; Jas 5.14-15.
52. Cf. Miilhon 1986: 106-40.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 0 m by American Theological hibrary A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
W ilson 67

and another is in the house’s courtyard (cf. Schüngel-Straumann 2000: 87-93).

Hippocratic physicians sometimes operated out of their own homes, carrying out
‘public’ work in the ‘private’ realm (Nutton 1992: 49), wbile charismatic healers
were not unknown to operate in domestic settings as wcIIA There is also evidence
tbat devotees ofthe Asclepius cult would sometimes consecrate their homes to tbe
god’s service.54 The household could even serve as the locatioii for a ‘healing as
call’ experience. The author o fa ^ ' 0 1 1 d-ce 11tury C E papyms, for example, recounts
how, in response to his prayers, Asclepius appeared to bim one night wbile be was
sleeping in his home: after curing the man ofhis fever, the god demanded that be
fulfill his previous pledge to translate a sacred book into Greek.55
Against sucb a backdrop, a narrative like Mt. 8.14-17, grounded as it is in
various prophetic texts, can he interpreted as providing needed legitimation for
the Cbristian ‘house’ as a center ofritual healing,56 a need that would have taken
on added urgency if the ‘house’ o f prayer (i.e., the synagogue) in the evangelist’s
milieu was also seeking recognition as a center of healing in its own right.57 Tor
M attbew’s readers, wbo themselves worshipped in house-churches, such descrip-
tions o f Jesus’ prophetic activity would have had botb spiritual and social rele-
vanee .‫ و‬The same power manifested in houses during his eartbly ministry is now
manifested in house-ehurehes through his continued presenee ‘w ith’ the eom-
munity (Mt. 1.23; 28.2 5‫(ه‬. ‫ و‬Tbe healing narratives are not just illustrating theo-
logieal themes like discipleship ٥٢ resurrection, then, but also authorizing and
elieiting the personal experiences that believers have o f Christ in their time ot'
need, including the role of such experiences in establishing and sustaining the
life of faith.6‫ ؛؛‬In support of this, stories like ours project the ‘house’ as both toe

53. E.g., Hippolytus, Haer. 4.32; b. Ber. 34b; ?hilostratus, Vit. Apoll. 3.39.
54. E.g., IG2, no. 4969. Cf. Schlaifer 1943; Renberg 2006-2007. In some cases, anA sclepieion
w ould include a building referred to as an oikos (W ickkiser 2010: 41). For domestic shrines
o f Asclepius, seeD espm is 1999: 207-18.
55. E.Oxy. XI, 1381. Cf. Leipoldt 1950.
56. Davies and Allison 1991: 34. For a discussion o fth e different forms o f social legitimation that
could be attached to healing practices, see Fheissen 1983: 231-46.
57. For the evidence that aucient synagogues served as centers o f healing, see Bohak 2008: 314-
18. Cf. John Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. 8.5.6; 8 .8 .7-9.
58. Fuz 1995: 67: Almost all o fth e miracle stories ‘are designed to m ean m ore than they say:
they transcend past events m the stoiy o f Jesus and enter one’s own life, encouraging personal
experiences with Jesus or m aking such experiences intelligible’. Cf. W eder 1984: 46-49.
59. According to Howell (1990: 133-35), the stories ofM t. 8 -9 are transparent ofth e comm uuity’s
experience insofar as they present readers with a decision to accept or reject Jesus. W hile this
m ay be 1® ‫ ؛‬, such an mteipretation does little to illuminate the experience o f healing Itself
60. Fhis explains why m the M atthean healing accounts, the ’request for help often takes the form
o f a “prayer-like” petition’ (Kingsbury 1978: 570), while the one to whom such petitions are
directed often appears as ‘a majestic Jesus’ (Fheissen 1983: 179), that IS, as the church’s risen
and sovereign Lord. Cf. H eld 1963: 229, 265, 281-90.

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 ©m by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2 1 5 ‫ه‬
68 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

social and the symbolic space intvliicli such experiences are given expression.
With regard to the latter, an instructive connection can perhaps he drawn between
Mt. 8.14-15 and Mt. 6.6, a passage tbat similarly combines imagery o f vision
with imagery of domestic space (cf. Wilson 2010). It is not just that the heavenly
Fatber ‘sees’ tbe faithful wben they pray in ‘the inner room ’, that is, in the pri-
vate, quiet places of life, but that Christ ‘sees’ them there as well and, moreover,
enters into this space to transform toe believer wito a healing touch.

Conclusion
According to Vitruvius, ‘into toe private rooms no one can come uninvited’
(Arch. 6.5.1). As we bave seen, toe various forms of narrative ‘contraction’ evi-
dent in M atthew’s manner ofrew riting and recontextualizing toe story o f Peter’s
motber-in-law draw attention hoto to toe private nature of her encounter wito
Jesus and to toe domestic setting in which this encounter occurs. Tbe seeming
breacb of cultural norms attending toe evangelist’s re-envisioning o f the scene
lends toe story a distinctive character, one that recalls stories about Elisha in
1 Kgs 19.19-21 and 2 Kgs 4.18-37. From this perspective, M f 8.14-15 can he
seen to function as a narrative hinge, operating hoto as toe third o f three stories
(Mt. 8.1-4, 5-13, 14-15) that evoke healings performed by Elisha (2 Kgs 4.18-37;
5.1-14) and as toe first ofthree stories (M f 8.14-15, 19-20, 21-22) that evoke his
c a llb y E lija h (l Kgs 19.19-21).
As we have also seen, it is possible to identify ways in which this study relates
more widely to otber research on Matthew’s Gospel. For example, by aligning toe
action of 8 .1-22 with such biblical narratives, Matthew dramatizes toe prophetic
nature of Jesus’ person, reinforcing toe place o f his ministry in salvation Instory,
and legitimating toe house as toe venue of such ministry Our findings also have a
bearing on toe evangelist’s Mew ofdiscipleship, especially insofar as toe type of
healing experience represented by Mt. 8.14-15 can he said to ‘calf people— women
in part‫؛‬cul‫؛‬a r - t o participate not only in ‘rising’ wito Christ, but also in ‘serving’
Christ. Filially, this investigation has also shed some light on toe function of the
house as a symbolic space in toe GospeFs narrative world. Insofar as toe house-
holds of the evangelist’s community serve as a venue for similar types of healing
experiences, they can he understood to bave a place in salvation history as well.

R eferen ces
Ault, Bradley A.
2005 The Excavations at A ncient Halléis 11. The Houses The Organization and Use ٠
/
D om estic Space (Bloomington: Indiana U niversity ?ress).
Baskin, Judith R.
2002 M idrashic Women Formations o fth e Feminine in Rabbinic Literature (Hanover,
NH: Brandéis U niversity ?ress).

□ow nloaded from jnt sagep u b com by American Theological Library A ssociation on May 12 2015
W ilson 6‫و‬

Benoit, p. and M. Boism ard

1972 Synopse des quatre évangiles enfrançais. 11. Commentaire (Paris: Les Éditions du
Cerf).
Bohak, Gideon
2008 A ncient Jewish M agic A H istory (Cambridge: Cambridge U niversity Press).
Brown, Raym ond E.
1971 ‘Jesus ‫ س‬Elisha’, Perspective 12: 85-104.
Coulot, Claude
1987 Jésus et le disciple étude ,sur l ’autorité messianique de Jésus (Paris: j. Gabalda).
Davies, W.D. and Dale c. Allison
1988, 1991, The Gospel According ،٠Saint M atthew (3 vols.; ICC; Eondon: T&T Clark).
1997
Despims, Giorgos 1.
1999 ‘Zum Basisfragm ent IG II2 4417 im K eram eikos’, M DAI(A) 114:207-18.
Gerhardsson, Birger
1979 The M ighty Acts o fJesu s According ،٠M atthew (Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup).
Gevaryahu, Haim M.L
1983 ‘Privathäuser als V ersam m lungsstätten von M eister und Jüngern’, A S T I 12:
5-12.
Gmlka, Joachim
1979 D as Evangelium nach M arkus 16,20- 8,27 ‫( ص‬EKK, II.2; Zürich: Benzmger;
Neitylrchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Gowler, D avid B.
2003 ‘Text, Culture, and Ideology m Luke 7:1-10: A Dialogic R eading’, m D avid B.
Gowler, L Gregory Bloom quist and Duane E. W atson (eds.), Fabrics o f D is-
course Essays in H onor o f Vernon K Robbins (New York: Trinity Press Interna-
tional): 89-125.
Guijarro, Santiago
1997 ‘The Eamity m Eirst-Cenhny G alilee’, m H alvor Moxnes (ed.), Constructing
Early Christian Families Family as Social Reality andM etaphor (London: Rout-
ledge): 42-65.
Hagner, D onald A.
1993 M atthew 1 -1 3 (WBC, 33A; Dallas: Word Books).
Held, H einz Joachim
1963 ‘M atthew as Interpreter o f the M iracle Stories’, m Günther ^ ‫ اﻃآلﻟﻪ‬1‫ ﻟﻠال‬, Gerhard
Barth ‫ س‬H einz Joachim Held, Tradition and Interpretation in M atthew (Phila-
delphia: W estminster Press): 165-299.
Hengel, M artin
1981 The Charismatic Leader and his Followers (New York· Crossroad).
Hoffmann, Paul
1972 Studien zur Theologie derLogienquelle (NTAbh, 8 ; Münster: Verlag A sch en d o r^ .

Dow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 0 m by American Theological bibrary A ssociation on May 12 2015
70 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

Howell, D avid B.
1990 M atthew ’s Inclusive Story A Study in the Narrative Rhetoric o f the F irst Gospel
(JSNTSup, 42; Sheffield: Sheffield Aeademie Press).
Kingsbury, Jaek Dean
1978 O bservations on the “M iraele Chapters” o fM atthew 8 -9 ’, CBQ 40: 559-73.
Kümmel, W erner Georg
1975 Introduction ،٠the N ew Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press).
Lacey, W.K.
1968 The Family in Classical Greece (London: Thames and ^ ‫״״^״‬ ١
Lamarche, Paul
1965 ‘La guérison de la belle-mère de Pierre et le genre littéraire des évangiles’, NRTh
87:515-26.
Leipoldt, j.
1950 ‘Von Ü bersetzungen und Ü bersetzern’, m Siegfried M orenz (ed.), Aus Antike und
O rient Festschrift Wilhelm Schubart zum 75 Geburtstag (Leipzig: o. Harras-
sowitz): 54-63.
Léon-Dufour, Xavier
1965 ‘La guérison de la belle-m ère de Sim on-Pierre’, m Études d ’évangile parole de
‫ أﺀ' ﻳﻢ‬، (Paris: Éditions du Semi): 123-48.
Luz, Ulrich
1995 The Theology o f the Gospel o fM a tth ew (New Lestament Theology; Cambridge:
Cambridge U niversity Press).
2001 M atthew 8-2 0 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers
1986 Narrative Space and M ythic M eaning in M ark (San Francisco: H aiper & Row).
Malma, Bruce j.
1993 The New Testament World Insightsfrom Cultural Anthropology (Louisville, KY:
W estmmster/John Knox).
Marcus, Joel
2000 M ark 1 -8 (AB, 27; N ew York: Doubleday).
Meyers, Eric M.
2007 ‘The Problems o f Gendered Space m Syro-Palestim an Domestic Architecture:
The Case o f Roman-Period G alilee’, m Katharina Galor and Tomasz Walisze-
wski (eds.). From Antioch ،٠A lexandria Recent Studies in D om estic Architecture
(Warsaw: U niversity o f Warsaw): 107-23.
Nolland, John
2005 The Gospel ofM atthew (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, ML Eerdmans).
Novakovic, Lidija
2003 Messiah, the H ealer o fth e Sick A Study o fJesu s as the Son o fD a v id in the Gos-
p e l ofM atthew ^ J N T , 2.170; Tübingen: M ohr Siebeck).

Dow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 0 m by American Theological bibrary A ssociation on May 12 2015
W ilson 71

Nutton, Vivian
1992 ‘Healers m the M edical Market Place: Towards a Social H istory o f Graeco-
Roman M edicine’, m A ndrew Wear (ed.), M edicine in Society H istorical Essays
(Cambridge: C a m b rid ^ U niversity Press): 15-58.
Nützel, Johannes M.
1986 ‘Elija- und E li^ha-T raditionen im N euen Testam ent’, 7 1-160 :4 1 ‫ ﻣﻤﻤﻢ‬.
Pesch, R udolf
1968 ‘D ie Heilung der Schwiegerm utter des Simon-Petrus: Ein Beispiel heutiger Syn-
optikerexegese’, in Neuere Exegese Verlust oder G ewinn? (Freiburg: Herder):
143-76.
1969 ‘Berufung und Sendung, N achfolge und Mission: Eine Studie zu M k 1, 16-20’,
ZK T91: 1-31.
1970 Jesu ureigene Taten ۶Ein Beitrag zu r Wunderfrage (QD, 52; Ereiburg: Herder).
Pilch, John j.
2000 H ealing in the N ew Testament Insightsfrom M edical and Mediterranean Anthro-
pology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Reed, Jonathan E.
2000 Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus A Re-examination o f the Evidence (H am s-
burg, PA: Trinity Press International).
Renberg, Gil
2006-2007 ‘Public and Private Places o f Worship m the Cult o f Asclepius at R om e’, MAAR
51/52: 87-177
Richardson, Peter
2004 ‘Towards a Typology ofL evantm e/Palestim an H ouses’, J S N T 2 I: 47-68.
Robbins, Vernon K.
1984 Jesus the Teacher A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation o fM a rk (Minneapolis: For-
tress Press).
Sawicki, Marianne
2000 Crossing Galilee Architectures o f Contact in the Occupied Land o fJe su s (Har-
risburg, PA: Trinity Press International).
Schlaifer, Robert
1943 ‘D em on ofPaeam a, Priest o f A sclepius’, CP 38: 39-43.
Schnider, Franz
1973 Jesus der Prophet (OBO, 2; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht).
Schöpflm, Karin
2009 ‘Naaman: Seme Heilung und Bekehrung im A lten und im N euen Testam ent’, B N

Schüngel-Straumann, H elen
2000 ToBit R TK A T; Ereiburg ‫ س‬Breisgau: Herder).

Dow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 0 m by American Theological bibrary A ssociation on May 12 2015
72 Journal for th e Stu dy o f th e N e w T esta m e n t 3 6 (1 )

Steinhäuser, M iehael G.
1981 Doppelbildworte in den synoptischen Evangelien Eine fo rm - und traditionskri-
tische Studie (FB, 44; W ürzburg: Eehter Verlag).
Strange, James F. and Hershel Shanks
1982 ‘Fías the Flouse where Jesus Stayed m Capernaum Been Found?’, BAR 8 .6 : 26-J7.
Theissen, Gerd
1983 The M iracle Stories ٠/ the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press).
Thompson, William ٠.
1971 ‘Refleetions on the Composition o f Mt 8:1-9:34’, CBQ 33: 365-88.
Twelftree, Graham H.
2007 In the Nam e o f Jesus Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker).
von Bendemann, Reinhard
2006 ‘“M any-Coloured Aînesses” (M ark 1.34): On the Signifieanee o flllnesses m N ew
Testament Therapy N arratives’, m M iehael Labahn and Bert Jan Tietaert Peer-
bolte (eds.), Wonders N ever Cease The Purpose ofN arrating M iracle Stories in
the N ew Testament and its Religious Environment (London: T&T Clark): 100-24.
Wagner, Falk
1980 ‘Berufirng 11. N eues Testament’, TRE 5: 684-88.
Wamwright, Elame M.
2006 Women H ealing/Healing Women The Genderization o fH ea lin g in Early Christi-
anity (London: Equinox).
Weder, Hans
1984 ‘W under Jesu und W undergesehiehten’, VF 29: 25-49.
Wegner, Judith Romney
1988 Chattel or Person ? The Status o f Women in theM ishnah (Oxford: Oxford U m ver-
sity Press).
Wickkiser, Bronw en T.
2010 ‘Asklepios m Greek and Rom an Corm th’, m Steven j. Friesen, Daniel N. Sehow-
alter and James ( ’. Walters (eds.), Corinth in Context Comparative Studies ٠«
Religion and Society (NovTSup, 134; Leiden: Brill): 37-66.
Wilson, W alter T.
2010 ‘Seen m Secret: Inconspicuous Piety and Alternative Subjectivity m M atthew 6:1-
6 , 16-18’, 72: 475-97.

Dow nloaded from jnt sagep u b 0 0 m by American Theological bibrary A ssociation on May 12 2015
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATT,AS subscriber agreement.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.