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.

The cure of the bent woman (Luke 13,10-17) is placed noticeably close to the cure of the dropsical man (Luke 14,1-6)¹. Both cures take place on the Sabbath, and so become points of contention. Indeed, both stories, though relating cures, eventually focus heavily on the Sabbath circumstance². Both stories have Jesus refer to the treatment of animals on the Sabbath in defense of his acts and as a kind of a minore ad majus³ argument on his behalf. Should these similarities suggest the conclusion that Luke is simply repeating himself⁴, solely, let us say, so as to present one miracle on behalf of a woman, the other on behalf of a man⁵? But Luke is not inclined to needlessly duplicate stories⁶; he has so often eliminated apparent duplicates found in his sources⁷ and, when he has presented like stories, he does so because they