Genesis 43:16-34

16 When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house, "Bring the men into the house, and slaughter an animal and make ready, for the men are to dine with me at noon." 17 The man did as Joseph said, and brought the men to Joseph's house. 18 Now the men were afraid because they were brought to Joseph's house, and they said, "It is because of the money, replaced in our sacks the first time, that we have been brought in, so that he may have an opportunity to fall upon us, to make slaves of us and take our donkeys." 19 So they went up to the steward of Joseph's house and spoke with him at the entrance to the house. 20 They said, "Oh, my lord, we came down the first time to buy food; 21 and when we came to the lodging place we opened our sacks, and there was each one's money in the top of his sack, our money in full weight. So we have brought it back with us. 22 Moreover we have brought down with us additional money to buy food. We do not know who put our money in our sacks." 23 He replied, "Rest assured, do not be afraid; your God and the God of your father must have put treasure in your sacks for you; I received your money." Then he brought Simeon out to them. 24 When the steward had brought the men into Joseph's house, and given them water, and they had washed their feet, and when he had given their donkeys fodder, 25 they made the present ready for Joseph's coming at noon, for they had heard that they would dine there.

26 When Joseph came home, they brought him the present that they had carried into the house, and bowed to the ground before him. 27 He inquired about their welfare, and said, "Is your father well, the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?" 28 They said, "Your servant our father is well; he is still alive." And they bowed their heads and did obeisance. 29 Then he looked up and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said, "Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me? God be gracious to you, my son!" 30 With that, Joseph hurried out, because he was overcome with affection for his brother, and he was about to weep. So he went into a private room and wept there. 31 Then he washed his face and came out; and controlling himself he said, "Serve the meal." 32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. 33 When they were seated before him, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, the men looked at one another in amazement. 34 Portions were taken to them from Joseph's table, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. So they drank and were merry with him. (Genesis 43:16-34, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 23, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing from March 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Yesterday’s reading closed with the brothers standing “before Joseph” (Gen. 43:15). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz, “before Joseph,” here means “at his government office where the people came to purchase corn” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 43:15). In any event, they could be observed (cf. v. 16), but were not in the immediate presence of Joseph himself (cf. v. 26). As today’s reading begins, the narrator says, “When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house (OtyBe-lfa rw,6x3l1&, la’ ^ašer ‘al-bêthô), ‘Bring the men into the house, and slaughter an animal and make ready, for the men are to dine with me at noon’ ” (v. 16). “The steward of his house,” says Rabbi Hertz, is “lit. ‘him that was over his house’ ” (ibid., on v. 16). He identifies the house here as “Joseph’s private residence,” and adds that “dine with me at noon . . . is interesting as indicating the time when meat was eaten in the house of the upper classes in ancient Egypt” (ibid.). The steward follows the instruction; he “did as Joseph said, and brought the men [from the government office, apparently, cf. the comment of Rabbi Hertz on v. 15] to Joseph’s house” (v. 17).

Joseph’s brothers are still unnerved; they mistrust this apparently favorable reception, and are in fact “afraid because they were brought to Joseph’s house, and they said, ‘It is because of the money, replaced in our sacks the first time, that we have been brought in, so that he may have an opportunity to fall upon us, to make slaves of us and take our donkeys” (v. 18). Of the “money that was returned ” (JPS 1917, for “money, replaced” NRSV), the Rabbi says, “The brethren fear that they are entrapped and about to be punished” (ibid., on v. 18). Of “take us for bondmen” (JPS, for “make slaves of us” (NRSV), he explains, “as detected thieves; cf. Ex XXII, 2). According to Ronald Hendel, “Because of the possible charge of theft on account of the returned money, the brothers were afraid (v. 18). Their fear is unfounded this time, but anticipates the next time when Benjamin will be implicated (44:1-17). Joseph is playing on their fears as part of the test” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 43:16-23).

Anticipating such charges, the brothers consider the best course to take the initiative and explain about the money. “So they went up to the steward of Joseph's house and spoke with him at the entrance to the house” (v. 19). “Before crossing the threshold,” says Rabbi Hertz, “they would clear themselves of the suspicion against them” (op. cit., on v. 19). “They said, ‘Oh, my lord, we came down the first time to buy food; and when we came to the lodging place we opened our sacks, and there was each one's money in the top of his sack, our money in full weight. So we have brought it back with us” (vv. 20-21). “They say this,” says the Rabbi, “to forestall the suspicion of theft” (ibid., on v. 21). “Moreover,” they add, “we have brought down with us additional money to buy food. We do not know who put our money in our sacks’ ” (v. 22). According to the Rabbi, “They emphasize their ignorance of the entire transaction” (ibid., on v. 22). But the steward responds to quell their fears. “He replied, ‘Rest assured, do not be afraid; your God (Mk,yhelox$, ’ ^elōhêkem) and the God of your father (Mk,yb9x3 yheloxv2%, wē’lōhê ’ ^avîkem) must have put treasure in your sacks for you; I received your money.’ Then he brought Simeon out to them” (v. 23). Rabbi Hertz says, “Doubtless on the instruction of Joseph, the steward reassures them that what they found in their sacks was God’s gift” (ibid., on v. 23). Hendel says, “The steward, who had probably planted the money (see 44:1), gives a theological explanation by attributing matters to God (v. 23). This answer, even if insincere, rightly raises the theme of divine providence.” (loc. cit.). According to David M. Carr, “The Egyptian steward anticipates the emphasis of the story on divine providence (44:16; 45:5-8; 50:20” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 43:23). Levenson puts it this way: “Joseph’s steward senses the hand of a beneficent providence in these strange events. Much to their surprise, the brothers’ honesty works to their advantage. It even restores one lost brother, the hostage Simeon” (op. cit., v. 23). So the steward provides for them and their donkeys, in preparation for Joseph’s coming. “When the steward had brought the men into Joseph's house, and given them water, and they had washed their feet, and when he had given their donkeys fodder, they made the present ready for Joseph's coming (JseOy xOB-dfa, ‘ad-bô’ Yôsēph) at noon, for they had heard that they would dine there” (vv. 24-25). Rabbi Hertz comments on “against Joseph’s coming” (JPS v. 25 literal, for “for Joseph’s coming” NRSV). “Here [the expression] means ‘so as to be ready when Joseph arrived.’ This is the old use of ‘against,’ in the sense of ‘in readiness for the time when’ ” (op. cit., on v. 25). He appears to refer to the meanings of the English word “against,” not those of the Hebrew preposition dfa (‘ad) which, according to William L. Holladay, basically means “until, up to, upon” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. dfa, ‘ad).

In due time, Joseph arrives. “When Joseph came home,” we are told, “they brought him the present that they had carried into the house, and bowed to the ground before him” (v. 26). Carr says, “With all eleven brothers now bowing down (cf. v. 15), they unknowingly fulfill the first dream in 37;:5-8 (see 50:18n)” (op. cit., on v. 26). In the later note Carr observes that, after Jacob’s death, when the brothers again fear Joseph’s wrath, “For the first time, the brothers knowingly subject themselves to Joseph (cf. 43:26), fulfill Joseph’s first dream (37:5-7), and thus refute their own challenge of his destiny (37:8)” (ibid., on 50:18-21). In the present context, Joseph, still unknown to his brothers, “inquired about their welfare (MOlWAL4, l ^ešālôm), and said, ‘Is your father well (Mk, yb9x3 MOlwAh3, h ^ašālôm ’ ^avîkem), the old man of whom you spoke? Is he still alive?’ ” (v. 27). Commenting on “of whom ye spoke” (JPS, for “of whom you spoke” NRSV), Rabbi Hertz says, “Joseph carefully avoids betraying himself to his brethren” (op. cit., on v. 27). According to Hendel, Joseph inquires about their welfare (shalom), which in a sense completes his interrupted journey to see if it is well (shalom) with his brothers (37:14), but in totally changed circumstances. His twofold inquiry about their father shows us Joseph’s intense concern for him (v. 27)” (op. cit., on vv. 26-31).

The brothers respond to Joseph’s questions. “They said, ‘Your servant our father is well; he is still alive.’ And they bowed their heads and did obeisance” (v. 28, cf. v. 26). At this point, “then he [i.e., Joseph] looked up and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son, and said, ‘Is this your youngest brother, of whom you spoke to me? God (Myh9lox$, ’ ^elōhîm) be gracious to you, my son!” (v. 29). The words “his mother’s son,” says Rabbi Hertz, “augment the pathos of the situation” (op. cit. on v. 29). “With that,” we are told, “Joseph hurried out, because he was overcome with affection for his brother, and he was about to weep. So he went into a private room and wept there” (v. 30). As Carr reminds us, “Joseph was overcome with affection for Benjamin, his only full brother through Rachel” (op. cit., on vv. 29-30). This, says Hendel, is “a rare direct description of inner emotions. Joseph the trickster almost loses his disguise, but he manages to control himself” (loc. cit.). “Then,” says the narrator, “he washed his face and came out; and controlling himself he said, ‘Serve the meal’ ” (v. 31). According to Levenson, “Joseph’s emotion is described as more intense here than in 42:24. The harsh self-presentation of Pharaoh’s vizier is rapidly yielding to the Hebrew man’s love of father and brothers” (op. cit., on vv. 30-31).

The dinner meal arrangements take an unexpected turn–at least for our perspective. It’s not that the Hebrews were cautious about violating the later kosher food regulations, for they were not in control of the situation in any case, but “the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews”: “They served him [i.e., Joseph] by himself,” says the narrator, “and them [i.e., the brothers] by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians” (v. 32). According to Levenson, “It is unclear why Egyptians would find it abhorrent to dine with Hebrews. The phenomenon is probably connected to the reports that Egyptians found shepherds to be ‘abhorrent’ (46:34; cf. Exod. 8:22), a tradition lacking historical corroboration” (op. cit., on v. 32). But the Rabbi takes the text at face value. “As an Egyptian noble he would have his food apart from his retinue, and, of course, apart from the Hebrews, who were foreigners in the eyes of the Egyptians. The Hyksos conquerors soon adopted the old Egyptian exclusiveness in intercourse with foreigners” (op. cit., on v. 32). Hendel sees symbolism here. “At the meal Joseph eats separately from his brothers and the Egyptians, signifying his liminal status between identities” (op. cit., on vv. 32-34).

In another twist, the brothers are surprised by the seating arrangement. “When they were seated before him, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, the men looked at one another in amazement” (v. 33). Rabbi Hertz comments on “the men marvelled [one with another]” (JPS, for “the men looked at one another in amazement” NRSV): “How could the Egyptian know their ages? They looked at one another in astonishment” (op. cit., on v. 33). Hendel says, “The brothers’ astonishment at the correct seating order, from firstborn to youngest, shows again the crossed perspectives. Joseph is knowledgeable and the brothers deceived; Joseph is again toying with them” (loc. cit.). In a further test of the brothers’ good will, “Portions were taken to them from Joseph's table, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs. So they drank and were merry with him” (v. 34). According to the Rabbi, “The extra portion given to ?Benjamin was a special mark of respect” (op. cit., on v. 34). According to Carr, “Just as benjamin (42:4, 38; 43:6-14) and before him Joseph (37:3-4) was favored by Jacob, so here–through Joseph’s actions–the brothers watch a son of Rachel enjoy special privilege in the Egyptian court” (op. cit. on v. 34). “Joseph,” says Levenson, “no sooner reaffirms the principle of seniority . . . than he reenacts the favoritism for the youngest that once proved so problematic to the family. This time, however the brothers show no resentment. This meal contrasts poignantly with the meal to which the brothers sat down after throwing Joseph into the pit (37:25; see also 42:21)” (op. cit., on vv. 33-34).

1 Corinthians 7:10-24

Advice to the Married

10 To the married I give this command--not I but the Lord--that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Advice to the Rest

12 To the rest I say--I and not the Lord--that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

Advice to Each

17 However that may be, let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. 20 Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.

21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. 22 For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. 24 In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. (1 Corinthians 7:10-24, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of September 26, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from February 23, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from September 29, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated from March 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Paul’s advice about marriage and related matters continues. “To the married I give this command–not I but the Lord–that the wife should not separate from her husband . . . and that the husband should not divorce his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11b). However, he says parenthetically, “if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (v. 11a). Note that the command not to divorce is reciprocal, applying to the wife and to the husband. For the parentheses (v. 11a RSV, NRSV) compare the dashes in Kurt Aland, and others, editors, The Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975), in verse 11. In verse 10, where the NRSV has dashes, The Greek New Testament has commas. The attributing of this advice to a command of the Lord (Jesus) (cf. Mk. 10:6-9, 11-13; Lk. 16:18) is one of a few such instances in Paul’s letters. Richard A. Horsley cites 9:14 and 11:23-25 as similar examples (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 7:10). One can compare Paul’s teaching with that of Jesus in other instances as well, for example, his emphasis on love as fulfilling the law (Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Mt. 22:39-40, parallel passages and cross-references).

Paul next advises not to divorce an unbelieving wife or husband. “To the rest I say–I and not the Lord–that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (vv. 12-13). We note that this advice is presented by Paul as his own, not a command of the Lord. He states a reason. “For the unbelieving husband is made holy (hJgivastai, hēgiastai) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy (hJgivastai, hēgiastai) through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy ( a{gia)” (v. 14). In other words, the unbelieving spouse, and the children as well, are “made holy” through the believing spouse. According to Victor Paul Furnish,

Made holy, or ‘sanctified’ (see 1:2) [is] by God, not by the marriage as such. The overall point is that God’s sanctifying power is stronger than unbelief. The exact meaning, however, is obscure, both here and when Paul describes the children in families where only one parent is Christian. Children seem to be regarded as holy so long as the Christian parent remains in the marriage, but as unclean when that parent leaves the marriage. (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 7:14)

Ben Witherington III sees here another indication that Paul’s advice is not motivated by “ascetic” principles (cf. comments cited from him yesterday). But Paul allows for an exception. “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you” (v. 15). However, there is a good reason to remain with one’s spouse. “Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife” (v. 16; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-3).

Witherington asks, “Is Paul’s advice to ‘remain as you are’ and then live ‘as if not’ a baptizing of a fragile status quo in the wake of a larger ascetic trend?” He explains:

One key to understanding Paul’s somewhat puzzling advice is to realize that he is reacting against men and women who are trying to ‘depart,’ that is, abandon their pagan families. To them, Paul wishes to make clear that they are not defiled by such a relationship. Indeed, they have an opportunity to be a sanctifying influence in the situation, and this is one reason for his advice to ‘remain. (Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 178, on 1 Cor. 7:1-40)

“However that may be,” says Paul, “let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches” (v. 17). If circumcised when called, one should “not seek to remove the marks of circumcision”; and on the other hand, if uncircumcised when called, one should “not seek circumcision” (v. 18). Paul discounts the value of circumcision or of not being circumcised. “Circumcision is nothing,” he says, “and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything” (v. 19). Rather, “each one [should] remain in the condition in which you were called” (v. 20).

As for a condition of slavery, Paul asks, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever” (v. 21 NRSV). The final phrase here is elliptical, ma:llon crh:sai (mallon chrēsai, “use it rather” AV/KJV), and may refer to the condition of slavery (hJ douleiva, hē douleia) or the condition of freedom (hJ ejleuqeriva, hē eleutheria). Construing the verb “make use of” (cravomai, chraomai) with “slavery” (th:/ douleiva/, tē(i) douleia(i), dative case of hJ douleiva, hē douleia) is supported by “the Peshitta, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many modern interpreters and translators [including] Goodspeed, NRSV . . .” whereas others construe it with “freedom” (th:/ ejleuqeriva/ tē(i) eleutheria(i), dative case of hJ ejleuqeriva, hē eleutheria), which is supported by “Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, FGodet, Lightfoot, Zahn, Moffatt, RSV, NRSV mg., REB” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. cravomai, chraomai, meaning no. (1) (a) ). Horsley sides with the latter.

The phrase your present condition now more than ever is not in the Greek, where the last, elliptical clause, make use of [it] or ‘rather use it,’ requires completion from the context, i.e., from the nearest noun, freedom. Thus the alternative translation in NRSV footnote a is to be preferred, with the sense being, ‘If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity!’ Since the slave-free relation is not analogous to the male-female or the circumcised-uncircumcised relations, Paul makes an exception to his rule when it comes to slaves–following the pattern of the four preceding and one following sections of the argument, where he gives a general rule and then makes an exception. Slaves should seize any opportunity to become free. (op. cit., on v. 21).

But more important for Paul is the principle that one “called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ” (v. 22). “For Paul,” says Witherington,

the one thing of eternal significance that humans can do in this world is serve the Lord, proclaiming the good news of eternal salvation available through the crucified Jesus . . . [not all as] full time missionaries like himself, but . . . all must bear witness in whatever social situation they find themselves . . . And there is another reason. . . . What is really important is not one’s social position but one’s soteriological condition [condition with respect to salvation]. Even a slave can be the Lord’s freedman. (op. cit., p. 179).

“You were bought with a price,” says Paul; “do not become slaves of human masters” (v. 23). He says, rather, “In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God” (v. 24, repeating the advice of v. 20). Paul thus uses his general egalitarian principle (cf. Gal. 3:28) to illustrate his advice on marriage relationships.

Mark 5:1-20

Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac (Mt 8.28-9.1; Lk 8.26-39)

5:1 They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." 8 For he had said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" 9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits begged him, "Send us into the swine; let us enter them." 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.

14 The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. 15 They came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. 17 Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood. 18 As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. 19 But Jesus refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you." 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed. (Mark 5:1-20, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of July 23, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were repeated from January 24, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from March 15, 2009 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from February 23, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 26, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were combined with further editing and supplement and repeated from earlier dates (as noted there).

This account of one of Jesus’ exorcisms is more detailed than most, with features that fit the setting in Gentile territory of the Decapolis, notably the swine and swineherds. This story has a close parallel in Luke 8:26-39, which was discussed in the comments for May 14, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year One); for recent comments on the story in Matthew’s version, see the comments of October 5, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One). Matthew 8:28-34 is located in “the country of the Gadarenes,” and mentions “two demoniacs” (Mt. 8:28). Mark’s story and Luke’s locate the event in “the country of the Gerasenes” (Mk. 5:1; Lk. 8:26). Gadara (modern Umm Qeis, according to J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 8:28-34) and Gerasa (modern Jerash, according to Richard A. Horsley, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 5:1), are about thirty miles apart, Gadara in northern trans-Jordan, and Gerasa in central trans-Jordan. According to Horsley, Gadara is seven or eight miles from the southern end of the Sea of Galilee, separated by a wadi (stream) and some hilly country, and so provides “a setting that fits the narrative somewhat better” (ibid., on Mk. 5:1). According to Overman, as “one of the cities of the Decapolis” (loc. cit.), Gadara would have a mostly Gentile population; so Gerasa (Horsley, loc. cit.). There is one more intriguing possibility. Some manuscripts suggest Gergesa (“the country of the Gergesēnōn,” Mk. 5:1 x^c L D Q and others; Mt. 8:28 x^c C^mg [at beginning of section] K L W and others; Lk. 8:26 x L X Q X and others; as noted in the apparatuses of Kurt Aland and others, The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., United Bible Societies, 1975). This reading, suggested first by Origen, points to a town about six miles south of Bethsaida on the east side of the Sea of Galilee–though modern scholars differ on its exact location–which has a cliff overhanging the lake, and so fits the story well (cf. comments of Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to Mark, 1959, on Mk. 5:1).

The three parallel accounts are presented in a table in the separate file, The Gadarene Demoniacs/The Gerasene Demoniac.

Vincent Taylor points to a “feature of the narrative,” with shifting scenes: “interest shifts from the man (1-10) to the herd of swine (11-13), then to the townspeople (14-17), and finally back again to the man by the lakeside (18-20). He calls it a rudimentary “little drama in four acts,” adding, “And yet we do not receive the impression of imaginative artistic creation; the story is what it is because it describes what happened” (ibid., pp. 277-278, on Mk. 5:1-20).

The Troubled Man

As Mark tells the story, the demoniac met Jesus’ boat, as it were. After Jesus’ stilling of the the storm while crossing the lake (Mk. 4:35-41; Mt. 8:23-27; Lk. 8:22-25), “They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him” (Mk. 5:2; cf. Lk. 8:27). According to Mark, the crossing was at evening (Mk. 4:35), so he has perhaps compressed the time frame a little. Matthew describes “two demoniacs coming out of the tombs . . . so fierce that no one could pass that way” (Mt. 8:28b). Luke says that the man “for a long time . . . wore no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs” (Lk. 8:27b). Mark does not refer to clothes, but describes the man’s condition in some detail.

He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones. (Mk. 5:3-5, NRSV)

When the man sees Jesus, his reaction seems to be a confused mixture of deference, bowing down, and fear. “When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure (oJrkivzw, horkizō ) you by God do not torment me’ ” (vv. 6-7). The voice comes from the man, but the words are those of the demon, as in the cry of the unclean spirit expelled from the man in the capernaum synagogue (1:24). According to Frederick William Danker, the demon’s verb “adjure” implies “command as under oath” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. oJrkivzw, horkizō ); but it is futile, for Jesus is clearly in control. Mark tells us that “he [i.e., Jesus] had said ( e[legen, elegen, imperfect tense, ‘was saying’) to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” (Mk 5:8); compare, “for Jesus had commanded (parhvggeilen, parēngeilen, aorist [past] tense, ‘commanded,’ or ‘had commanded’) the unclean spirit to come out of the man” (Lk. 8:29a). Jesus’ command preceded the demon’s question and attempt to put Jesus under oath. Neither Matthew nor Luke refers to the attempted adjuration. Matthew, who has two demoniacs, says, “Suddenly they shouted, ‘What have you to do with us, Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?’ ” (Mt. 8:21); compare Luke’s version, from one demoniac, shouting “at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me” (Lk. 8:28). As indicated in each of the Gospels, the demons are fully aware of Jesus’ identity (cf. Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34). “What is your name?” asks Jesus (Mk. 5:9a; cf. Lk. 8:30a–the demoniacs remain nameless in Mt.). “My name is Legion, for we are many” says Mark’s demoniac (Mk. 5:9b; cf. Lk. 8:30b, where Luke himself explains the meaning of the name). The “ideas lying behind the question” about the name, says Taylor, “are connected with the ancient belief that knowledge of the name carries with it power over an adversary (cf. Gen. xxxii. 29) and over a daemon (cf. Deissmann, 261 n.)” (op. cit., p. 281, on v. 9). According to Mark, the man (the demon?) “begged him [Jesus] earnestly not to send them out of the country” (Mk. 5:10). Luke reports that “They [presumably the legion of demons] begged him not to order them to go back into the abyss” (Lk. 8:31). “Legion,” says C. Clifton Black, revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, is “a Roman regiment of approximately six thousand soldiers. Ther may also simply refer to a large number” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 5:9). Marion Lloyd Soards defines the “Abyss [as] a place of confinement for demonic forces which, though hostile to God, are ultimately under his control (Rev. 9:1-11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1-3)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 8:31).

The Herd of Swine

Mark introduces the herd of swine. “Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding” (Mk. 5:11; cf. Mt. 8:30; Lk. 8:32a) and the demons’ request: “and the unclean spirits begged him,” says Mark, “ ‘send us into the swine; let us enter them’ ” (Mk. 5:12; cf. Mt. 8:31; Lk. 8:32a). With Jesus’ permission, “the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea” (Mk. 5:13; cf. Mt. 8:32; Lk. 8:32b, 33). “Swine,” say Black and Collins, “like tombs and demonic spirits [were] regarded by Jews as unclean (Lev. 11:7-8;Deut. 14:8; Isa. 65:4; 66:17).

The Townspeople

According to Mark, “The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the country” (Mk. 5:14a; cf. Mt. 8:33; Lk. 8:34). This report has immediate consequences. “Then people came to see what it was that had happened” (Mk. 5:14b; cf. Mt. 8:34a; Lk. 8:35a). What they find is “the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion” (Mk. 5:15a; cf. Lk. 8:35a). Their reaction is not joy, gratitude for the cure, as we might have hoped, but fear, for “they were afraid” (Mk. 5:15b; Lk. 8:35b). According to Black and Collins, “They were afraid, either awestruck in the presence of the supernatural . . . or fearful of Jesus’ power (see. v. 17)” (op. cit., on Mk. 5:15). Matthew does not spell out these reactions, but simply concludes with the report that, “when they saw him [Jesus, since Mt. has 2 demoniacs], they begged him to leave their neighborhood” (Mt. 8:34b; cf. Mk. 5:17; Lk. 8:37). Mark and Luke hint at the spreading of the story by rumor. “Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it” (Mk. 5:16; cf. Lk. 8:36).

The Restored Man by the Lakeside

Mark concludes the story by describing the man’s desire to follow Jesus. “As he [Jesus] was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him” (Mk. 5:18; Lk. 8:38). Jesus wants him to be a “follower,” by remaining in his home country. “Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you” (Mk. 5:19; cf. Lk. 8:39a). And we are told that “he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed” (Mk. 5:20; cf. Lk. 8:39b). “Decapolis,” say Black and Collins, was “a group of ten cities. One, Scythopolis (Beth-shan), was west of the Jordan River, the rest east of it. Their populations were primarily gentile, although each was also home to a Jewish minority (see also 7:31)” (ibid., on Mk. 5:20).

Against Bultmann’s characterization of the narrative as a typical “Miracle-story (exorcism)”–implying a set, stereotyped pattern, mainly “in its original form,” Taylor says,

This opinion hardly does sufficient justice to the narrative. It is not yet reduced to the rounded form which miracle-stories possess when they have been handed down through a succession of narrators, and stands appreciably nearer the record of an eyewitness. This view is suggested by the unevenness of the narrative. Verses 6 f., with their picture of the demoniac seeing Jesus from afar, running, and falling down before Him read almost like the beginning of a separate account, while 3-5 stand apart as the vivid statement of neighbours long familiar with the man’s violence. Verse 8 appears to reflect the Evangelist’s embarrassment in coping with an excess of material. These features are well explained if we infer that he had heard the story told more than once and was telescoping his recollections. (op. cit., p. 277, on Mk. 5:1-20)

Taylor criticizes the “critics” who would discount its authenticity, by quoting J. Weiss, “The most natural assumption always abides, that here we have a tradition of something which actually happened” (ibid., p. 278, citing J. Weiss).

There’s no denying that Jesus performed many healing and exorcism miracles. These days, few biblical scholars would challenge that statement. But it is still refreshing to have it put the way Vincent Taylor does. Modern persons are sometimes troubled by “demons” in many forms, substance abuses, abuse in family and personal relationships, severe depression–not that we should accuse any of these of being demon-possessed.. But the one who dealt with the Gerasene demoniac by the lake, now our risen Lord, is sufficient for any of these conditions. He may work through many various professional helpers, but he will bring peace to troubled hearts. When the townspeople came, they “saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion” (Mk. 5:15). It’s sad that their only response was fear. Taylor says:

The many artless details, the picture of the man smashing his fetters and cutting himself with stones, the dialogue, the expulsion, the description of the man “sitting, clothed, and in his right mind,” the attitude of the spectators, the kind of message the man proclaims in the Decapolis, are details taken from life. We have good reason to classify the narrative as Petrine in origin. (ibid.)

The final reference to “the narrative as Petrine in origin” is based on the early Christian tradition (from Papias of Hierapolis, near Colossae) that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, and that after Peter died Mark wrote what Peter had said in his preaching. Taylor sees “the greatest difficulty” in interpreting the story as “the account of the swine.” He adds, “if we accept a psychological explanation of possession, we must explain the panic of the swine, as Weiss explains it, as occasioned by the paroxysm of the man’s cure” (ibid.). Even if we don’t wish to “psychologize” the story, it provides a graphic paradigm of Jesus’ deliverance for one whose life is in total disarray.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net