In Mk 5:34 the pres. impv. ISQI is used in reference to something that had
_already_ taken place. Jesus says to the woman, H PISTIS SOU SESWKEN SE.
hUPAGE EIS EIRHNHN KAI *ISQI* UGIHS APO THS MASTIGOS SOU. (Your faith has
healed you; fo in peace and be healed from your affliction.)
Not only is there a statement of healing here (SESWKEN, the perf. in ref.
to her present state of health), but vv. 29-30 have already said that she
had been healed (IATAI), the flow of blood has already stopped (EUQUS
EXHRANQH), and power had already "gone out" (DUNAMIN EXELQOUSAN) from Jesus.
Why then use an imperative, "Be healed" (ISQI UGIHS)?
Lane (the only comm. on Mk that I have at the house) says that this
statement "confirms that her healing was permanent." But I don't remember
ever seeing an imperative that confirms a *previous _condition_*. (There
are some impvs. that appear to confirm previous *desires*--e.g.,the demons
who ask to go into the pigs, upon which Jesus says, "Go!"--but this is, I
think, quite different.)
One possibility is that the perfect form in v. 29 (IATAI) might be taken in
a *future* sense, almost as a subjunctive: she knew that she would be
healed..." (The future use of the perfect, although not common, is, IMHO,
adequately attested to be a viable alternative.) This would suggest that
the immediate result of the touch was to effect a change in the symptoms,
but that the cause of those symptoms is not healed until the command
(performative?) from Jesus a short time later.
What do the grammarians in our midst think? Am I missing something obvious
here?
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Baptist Bible Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT P O Box 800
rdecker@bbc.edu Clarks Summit PA 18411
http://www.bbc.edu/courses/BBS/RDecker/Index.htm USA
_________________________________________________________________