Issue of Blood

[RDC]

Wow, it's been a long time since I've posted here!

I am substituting in Gospel Doctrine this weekend (#7), and I wanted to see if I could get some input on the subject of this woman who suffered from an

[MorningStar]

I learned in a class that it meant she just couldn't stop menstruating, which meant she was considered unclean all the time.

[Zakuska]

I beleive the correct medical term would be:

Menometrorrhagia

[Duncan]

Maybe she had hemophillia, though I don't know if that would make her unclean or not but hey

[Calm]

Wouldn't blood issuing anywhere on one's body make one "unclean"?

Because it is a woman though, the most likely reason (statistically) is one having to do with menstruation. I don't think we are given enough information to do more than guess except to eliminate any disease/disorder that would have killed her in less than 12 years of suffering.

[Libs]

I would think bleeding profusely for 12 years, anywhere, would cause death. I was thinking it had to be something intermittent, but constant or ongoing. I, too, thought of hemophilia.

[katherine the great]

Female haemopheliacs don't live past the onset of menstruation (if that long). I've always interpreted this as being an ongoing menstruation. It would not have had to be a constant heavy bleeding. It could have been a light bleeding that never stopped long enough for her to purify herself according to the law (as Morningstar mentioned.) If it were an open, bleeding infection, I would think she would have died long before twelve years. Maybe LDS men are just uncomfortable discussing menstruation. I can't think of any other reason they might look at theories that stray from the obvious.

[Duncan]

Female haemopheliacs don't live past the onset of menstruation (if that long). I've always interpreted this as being an ongoing menstruation. It would not have had to be a constant heavy bleeding. It could have been a light bleeding that never stopped long enough for her to purify herself according to the law (as Morningstar mentioned.) If it were an open, bleeding infection, I would think she would have died long before twelve years. Maybe LDS men are just uncomfortable discussing menstruation. I can't think of any other reason they might look at theories that stray from the obvious.

Guilty as charged!

[Calm]

I've always interpreted this as being an ongoing menstruation. It would not have had to be a constant heavy bleeding. It could have been a light bleeding that never stopped long enough for her to purify herself according to the law (as Morningstar mentioned.)

Which is a week IIRC.

[consiglieri]

I will confess I have no idea what this woman suffered from, though I have always presumed it had something to do with menstruation. I have also never really given the matter much thought, nor do I think the subject has come up in my Gospel Doctrine class, which I no longer teach as of last August, RDC.

Now giving it some consideration, I think that perhaps the point of the story has less to do with the specific afflication than the fact this woman was made continuously ritually unclean thereby, together with the singular manner of her healing.

It is interesting that this is the only miracle (I recall) where the account is specific that only Jesus' clothes were touched, and then just on the hem; as if the author wants to create a buffer of sorts between the two. It is also an unasked for contact. Is the author trying to make it clear that, even though the woman was unclean, her act of coming into contact with Jesus was not sufficient to make him unclean, as well?

Perhaps more importantly, the unclean woman not only doesn't make Jesus unclean, the tables are turned when Jesus heals her, thereby making her ritually clean. In this way, the story may not be just another in a long string of miracles Jesus is reported as doing, but an illustration of how Jesus' power (or virtue) was sufficient to overcome the effects of the law of Moses.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

I will confess I have no idea what this woman suffered from, though I have always presumed it had something to do with menstruation. I have also never really given the matter much thought, nor do I think the subject has come up in my Gospel Doctrine class, which I no longer teach as of last August, RDC.

Now giving it some consideration, I think that perhaps the point of the story has less to do with the specific afflication than the fact this woman was made continuously ritually unclean thereby, together with the singular manner of her healing.

It is interesting that this is the only miracle (I recall) where the account is specific that only Jesus' clothes were touched, and then just on the hem; as if the author wants to create a buffer of sorts between the two. It is also an unasked for contact. Is the author trying to make it clear that, even though the woman was unclean, her act of coming into contact with Jesus was not sufficient to make him unclean, as well?

Perhaps more importantly, the unclean woman not only doesn't make Jesus unclean, the tables are turned when Jesus heals her, thereby making her ritually clean. In this way, the story may not be just another in a long string of miracles Jesus is reported as doing, but an illustration of how Jesus' power (or virtue) was sufficient to overcome the effects of the law of Moses.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How did a woman with an issue of blood become pure apart from temple sacrifices? See Leviticus 15:13. The same, it can reasonably be argued, is implied for menstruation. If not in OT times, at least by the 2nd Temple times. That was the reasoning behind a mikveh. Running water in the KJV for Lev. 15:13 is a good translation of what mayim hayyim involve, but a literal translation in this case would have been better- living waters. Luke and Matthew don't specifically call Jesus living waters, they imply it. Nobody who heard the gospel accounts would have missed the allusion.

Living waters aren't rendered unclean by contact with the impure, they convey purity.

[LeSellers]

It is interesting that this is the only miracle (I recall) where the account is specific that only Jesus' clothes were touched, and then just on the hem; as if the author wants to create a buffer of sorts between the two.

Or, we might note, that the hem of His garment was part of His "ceremonial clothing", as prescribed in the Law of Moses.

It is also an unasked for contact. Is the author trying to make it clear that, even though the woman was unclean, her act of coming into contact with Jesus was not sufficient to make him unclean, as well?

There is no provision, as I read it, in the Law of Moses for one's avoiding becoming unclean merely because the contact was unintentional. Any contact with a menstruating woman was sufficient for the one touched to become unclean, just as, say, eating pork unknowingly would result in a ritual uncleanliness.

Lehi

[volgadon]

There is no provision, as I read it, in the Law of Moses for one's avoiding becoming unclean merely because the contact was unintentional. Any contact with a menstruating woman was sufficient for the one touched to become unclean, just as, say, eating pork unknowingly would result in a ritual uncleanliness.

Which is why menstruating women were not let into the temple court because they might leave drops of blood behind.

[ERMD]

My assumption has always been that she had dysfunctional uterine bleeding, one cause of which is menometrorrhagia as stated above. Today it is treated with hormonal therapy, endometrial ablation, embolization, or hysterectomy.

[RDC]

Thanks for all your replies. I realize that the actual "issue" she was dealing with is not the main theme of the story, but I like to be prepared in case the question comes up. Maybe KTG is right, and men are not comfortable discussing menstration as this woman's problem. At any rate, you've given me some things to think about. I appreciate all the input!

[Pilgrim]

Even today, among menopausal women, menometrorrhagia (MEN-o-MET-ro-RAH-gia) is not an uncommon ailment. (Defined in Dorland's Medical Dictionary as excessive uterine bleeding, occurring both during the menses and at irregular intervals). Depending on the severity, it leads to anemia and accompanying weakness and discomfort. The usual modern day treatment for it is hysterectomy. Before modern surgery, I suppose the patient, if she survived, eventually completed the menopausal process and recovered. The medical term breakdown is meno=menses, metro=uterus, and rrage=excessive flow (you likely recognize it in a word like hemorrhage). In a society where the life expectancy was probably the 40s, it may have been a more unusual condition than it is today.