John Kilgallen, «The Obligation to Heal (Luke 13,10-17)», Vol. 82 (2001) 402-409

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.

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