People20

Mt 8:14,15 When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

Do you think God knew about mother-in-law jokes? What is it about mother-in-laws (mothers-in-laws?) that creates humour? There is often a strain of relationship where the new wife is threatened by the years of experience of the mother-in-law. Verse 14 above tells us a lot of basic information about Peter. He has a house. We assume it is his, yet it could be his father's house but the absence of a father's name in Simon Peter's designation suggests that perhaps he has died. Peter is only ever designated as Andrew's brother. The only times we hear the name of Peter's father is when Jesus speaks to Peter on the lakeside after his resurrection: “Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John,” (Jn 21:15). So, what we have is a suggestion that Peter's father has died and has left him the fishing business and the home.

But now it gets more complicated. We now come to Peter's mother-in-law. Peter is obviously married, because you don't have a mother-in-law unless you have a wife. (The first ‘pope' was married!!). Now one possibility is that she was just visiting and was taken ill and given a bed to lie down in, but a more likely scenario is that her husband (who is not mentioned) has died and she now lives with Peter and her daughter. The phrase ‘lying in bed' suggests a little bit that this was her bed, her normal bed.

What an embarrassing position to be in when an honoured guest arrives, to be in bed, presumably in a room that is easily visible to people coming in (for Jesus saw her when he came in – there is no indication that he ‘went upstairs' having been told of her illness. We aren't told much about this incident; it is all very low key, and so we have to make a lot of assumptions. The Gospel writers are usually pretty careful about noting down details and words that Jesus spoke to bring healing, but in this instance there is nothing dramatic, nothing boldly spoken. All that happens is that Jesus goes over to her where she is lying incapacitated in bed, and touches her. In her case, the healing that follows comes from nothing but a touch.

So why is it that sometimes words seem to be such an important part of the healing process that Jesus brought, but here they aren't? I suspect the answer is to do with faith. Faith, we said previously, comes through hearing God's word and is responding to it. Somebody, we said, has to have heard that it was God's will to bring healing and very often Jesus' words are linked to the faith of the other people concerned. Sometimes when Jesus spoke words of command to bring healing, it was to stir the faith of the person being healed. But there is none of that here!

Why might that be? Is it something to do with the nature of what needs healing? Not wanting to diminish blindness or paralysis in any way, but in both of those cases the person in question is fully alert and has clear thinking. When you have a 'fever', you tend to be delirious and not in your right mind. In such situations it is very difficult to think clearly, it is very difficult to either hear God or rationally respond to Him. Thus Jesus doesn't bother to speak any words against this fever, he just touches her and his power is conveyed to her that brings the complete healing.

It may also be that he is fully aware of what she is feeling, having an honoured guest in the house and be unable to provide hospitality for him. He doesn't want to draw attention to her and to her plight so the healing is very non-dramatic so she simply finds she is suddenly well and able to get on with her duties as a good hostess providing hospitality for guests. If that is so, it is another of those cases where Jesus shows his sensitivity to the feelings of other people.

I suggest it raises the whole question of how we deal, as church, with people who need healing or deliverance. In situations I have seen in the past and which, I am sure, still continue in the Church, especially in the case of deliverance, but also sometimes in the case of healing, the minister bringing deliverance or healing does it in such a way that the person being healed or delivered is being made a public spectacle and is actually being demeaned. Now, yes, Jesus did most of his healing and deliverance work publicly, but much of the time he was demonstrating it for the sake of his disciples who were to continue what he was doing. Yet again and again, we find Jesus being sensitive to the needs of the person being healed. Yes, there is value in letting the healing being seen publicly to stir faith in the watchers, but does it also demonstrate the goodness, love, kindness, concern and care of Jesus in the way we do it? Questions that are worth considering!