In an appendix on Mark’s Christology (pp. 885-900) in her commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Julie M. Smith offers the following insightful comments about the Christology (which is much higher than many errantly believe it to be):
Jesus as God in the Garden of Eden
In 5:29, a woman’s unceasing menstruation ends when she touches Jesus’ clothing. There are significant parallels between this text and Eve’s Fall as recorded in Genesis 3. The stories share a dozen terms [1], and the same concepts if not the same wording, are found in several other instances—both passages refer to clothing, hiding, walking, becoming aware, seeing/looking, and children/daughters. But more significant than the verbal overlap are the extensive thematic associations. The bleeding woman is associated with Eve; in some strains of Jesus thought, menstruation was associated with Eve’s sin or with sin in general (Lam. 1:17; Ezek. 36:17-18). In both stories, the thought process behind the woman’s decision-making is preserved; the audience knows what the woman is thinking as she takes the initiative to act in a difficult situation. Both stories feature a transgressive touch: Eve is not supposed to touch the fruit; the woman is not supposed to touch Jesus. Just as Eve’s touch leads ultimately to death, the bleeding woman’s touch leads to death by causing a delay that permits Jairus’s daughter to die since Jesus’ journey to her is interrupted by the bleeding woman’s story. Mark’s story highlights the fact that the woman’s touch was unique—distinct from all of the other touches of the crowd and thus worthy of comment from Jesus. It parallels Eve’s touch, which led to unique consequences and similarly ushered in death. In both stories, the transgressive touch changes the nature of their bodies. The touch/eating in the garden passed along the contagion of sin and death to Adam. In this story, the woman should convey impurity to Jesus, but that is precisely the opposite of what happens. In the Genesis text, Adam is passive. In the bleeding woman’s story, Jesus is also passive.
As a result of all of these associations, Mark’s audience assumes that Jesus will be filling the role of Adam when the stories are compared. However, when Jesus asks a question and then pronounces a blessing (instead of the expected curse), it becomes clear that he is no longer filling the role of Adam but rather the role of God, since in the Garden of Eden it is God who asks the questions and pronounces the curses. Much as with the calming of the storm, Mark began by encouraging the audience to think of Jesus in one particular narrative role but then abruptly shifted so that he was in the role of God instead. In both stories, after the transgressive touch, the woman hides from the divine presence until summoned by a question about her behavior. In the garden, God asks whether Eve has eaten; in Mark, Jesus asks who has touched him. In both stories, the focus of the passage is on the consequences of the woman’s actions. But whereas Eve’s choice to touch resulted in her separation from God, the bleeding woman’s choice to touch resulted in her communion with Jesus and acceptance as his daughter. In Mark, the wording suggests that the woman came back when questioned, implying that she had already moved on. She had left Jesus’ presence, analogous to leaving the garden and the presence of God. In other words, Jesus invited the now-healed woman back into his presence. This is in contrast to the story of Eve, where she is cast out from the presence of the Lord for her action.
The story of the Fall ends with serious consequences and curses; Mark’s story ends with a blessing (“go in peace”). Genesis 3 ends with Eve’s desire for Jesus (who is in the role of Adam). The story ends with the woman assuming the role, not of wife, but of daughter; this is because Jesus’ role in the story has shifted from Adam’s to God’s.
So careful attention to the ways in which the story of the bleeding woman echoes the story of the Fall suggest that, once again, Jesus begins in one narrative role but ends in another; his final role is that of God.
[1] Shared vocabulary between chapter 5 and LXX Genesis incudes the words "woman" (5:25 and LXX Gen. 3:1), "all" (5:26 and LXX Gen. 3:1), "heard" (5:27 and LX Gen. 3:8), "know/realize" (5:29, 33 and LXX Gen. 3:5), "perceive" (5:30 and LXX Gen. 3:5), "touch" (5:28, 30, 31 and LXX Gen. 3:3), "see" (5:32 and LXX Gen. 3:6), "done" (5:32 and LXX Gen. 3:13), "fear" (5:32 and LXX Gen. 3:10), "happen" (5:33 and LXX Gen. 3:22), "told" (5:33 and LXX Gen. 3:13), and "said" (5:34 and LXX Gen. 3:16)
(Julie M. Smith, The Gospel of Mark [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 2018], 891-92)
Elsewhere, Smith writes the following which is spot-on:
A close reading of Mark disputes the idea of a historical development from low to high Christology. While there was historical development in understandings of Christology, the track was not from low to high but rather from full to high. (Ibid., 900)
