Skate en Argentina

Luke presents Jesus’ healings through the lens of God’s salvific intention for humanity. For this reason, healing belongs within a holistic view of human life, characterized by freedom and relationality. As Gaiser puts it, Luke understands physical cure as part of the renewal of the whole person that occurs through the power of God at work in Jesus.182 Healing is an integral part of God’s gift of salvation that includes: (1) physical and

181 _{Ibid, 223-5.} 182 _{Ibid, 178-190.}

spiritual well being; (2) the restoration of relationships with God, with self, and with others in community; and (3) freedom from dehumanizing constraints and controls.183

The healing narratives examined in this chapter are good illustrations of Luke’s emphasis on the social dimension of health and illness. More specifically, in the context of God’s mercy and faithfulness to the covenant, Jesus’ healing of the deprived and downtrodden persons fulfills God’s plan to gather and renew the People of God (13:34, Acts 15:14). This involves the restoration of persons, who have been alienated by diseases and other forms of ritual uncleanness, to life within the community. Through his healing

interventions, Jesus lifts up human persons from their lowly or marginal status, restores their dignity, and brings them back to their place of honor among the Renewed People of God. Luke frequently reports that subsequent to Jesus’ act of healing, the restored persons praise or glorify God. This religious dimension has a teleological meaning in Luke’s view of healing: human persons are to be healed, released and restored so that they can glorify God.

In response to God’s gift of salvation, persons are called to repentance. Consistent with the social theme in the Gospel, Luke is as much concerned with the conversion of communities as with individual conversions.184 _{Jesus’ defense of the}

woman after her cure (Luke 13:10-17) calls for an evaluation of personal attitudes and social structures against God’s compassionate mercy (Luke 1:78-79). In addition, God’s restoration of downtrodden persons to full participation in the life of the community requires the conversion of the whole community; a conversion that makes the inclusion

183 _{Byrne, The Hospitality of God, 195.} 184 _{Ibid, 196.}

of such marginalized persons possible. The episodes of the restoration of the ‘sinful’ woman at the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), and of Zacchaeus (Luke 9:1- 10) each contains a call to conversion, not of those who are labeled ‘sinners,’ but of

members of the community who mutter and murmur in response to Jesus’ gracious act.185

Luke repeatedly shows that Jesus’ gift of healing extends out to include persons beyond ethnic and social boundaries. Jesus’ healing of the high priest’s servant at his arrest further illustrates the inclusive and non-discriminatory nature of his mercy. As Gaiser also points out, Jesus’ healing of individuals also serves as “a sign and an invitation of the healing of the community and the world.”186 _{In line with this, Jesus’}

love command which is illustrated by the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) provides an overarching context for a Christian understanding of health care. It is a call to service of the sick out of neighborly love, a love that transcends all socio-political boundaries. It is by giving oneself in loving service of those in physical need that one may inherit eternal life.187

Besides the love command, Luke’s depiction of Jesus’ healings can also inform Christian health ethics in the following ways. First, Jesus’ commission of the Twelve, and subsequently of the Seventy, signifies the call of Christian disciples to continue Christ’s ongoing salvific work in the Holy Spirit.188 If Jesus’ healings provide a narrative context and texture for a Christian view of health care, Jesus’ commission of the disciples links the Church’s ministry to the sick with Christ’s mission, of which physical healing is

185 _{Ibid., 4-5.}

186 _{Gaiser, Healing in the Bible, 247.} 187 _{Byrne, The Hospitality of God, 100-102.}

an integral part. This provides theological context for the Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity in health care. Faith links Christian medical work with Christ’s present healing activity through the Spirit. Hope is grounded in the faithfulness of God who continues to visit God’s people and redeems them (Luke 1:68). Charity helps bring health services into the realm of God’s salvation. Second, Luke’s depiction of healings calls for a more holistic view of health care, in which human dignity, freedom, and relationality are taken seriously. Healing in its proper sense requires not only physical cure, but also the restoration of relationships: with self, with God and with others. Third, the gospel of Luke places an emphasis on the social dimension of health and illness, which also is, and ought to be, subject to God’s saving activity. In Luke’s gospel, Jesus is anointed and sent to proclaim Good News to the poor, liberty to captives, and

restoration of sight to the blind (Luke 4:14-30). God’s salvific plan does impact upon the social forces that enslave and dehumanize persons. God’s saving intention is the

restoration of the People of God, which primarily means Israel, but also goes beyond to include the nations. This biblical theological perspective lends support to approaches to health care that take seriously the social determinants of health, such as poverty,

exploitation of the poor and the disadvantaged, discrimination and prejudice against persons based on gender, sexual orientation, class, race, culture, and religion.189 Luke’s view also supports a virtue ethic that emphasizes mercy, compassion, and inclusivity.190

189 _{See Jonathan M. Mann (ed), Health and Human Rights: A Reader (New York : Routledge, 1999); James}

F. Keenan (ed), Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention (New York/London: Continuum, 2005); Paul Farmer, “An Anthropology of Structural Violence” Current Anthropology, Vol.45(3), 2004, 305-325;

Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor, (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 2003).