Download NOT ONLY THE WIND AND THE WAVES–BUT ALSO THE

NOT ONLY THE WIND AND THE WAVES–BUT ALSO THE DEMONIC FORCES
THAT DESTROY HUMAN PERSONALITY ARE SUBJECT TO JESUS
Mark 5:1-20
5.1 Καὶ λθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τν [Γερασηνν]. 5.2 καὶ
ἐξελθόντος αὐτο ἐκ το πλοίου [εὐθὺς] ὑπήντησεν αὐτ ἐκ τν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν
πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, 5.3 ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εχεν ἐν τος μνήμασιν, καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι
οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δσαι 5.4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ
διεσπάσθαι ὑπ̓ αὐτο τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν
δαμάσαι· 5.5 καὶ διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐν τος μνήμασιν καὶ ἐν τος ὄρεσιν ν
κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν λίθοις.
5.1 And they came to the other side of the Sea, into the country of the [Gerasenes].
5.2 And he, coming out of the boat, [immediately] there met him, out of the tombs, a person
with an unclean spirit, 5.3 who was having the dwelling-place among the tombs; and not even
with a chain was anyone being able any longer to bind him. 5.4 Because he had many times
been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and the
shackles had been broken, and no one was having (the) strength to subdue him. 5.5 And
throughout every night and day, among the tombs and in the hills he was crying out, and
cutting himself with stones.
5.6 καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν ̓Ιησον ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔδραμεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτ 5.7 καὶ κράξας
φων μεγάλῃ λέγει, Τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, ̓Ιησο υἱὲ το θεο το ὑψίστου; ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, μή
με βασανίσῃς. 5.8 ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτ, ῎Εξελθε τὸ πνεμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ το ἀνθρώπου. 5.9
καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν, Τί ὄνομά σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτ, Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν. 5.10 καὶ
παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα μὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τς χώρας.
5.6 And seeing the Jesus from afar, he ran and fell upon his face before him. 5.7 And,
crying out with a loud voice, he says, “What do you and I have in common, Jesus, Son of the
God, the Highest? I put you under oath, by the God, that you should not torment me.” 5.8 For
he was saying to him, “Come out, the spirit, the unclean one, out from the person.” 5.9 And
he was asking him, “What is your name?” And he says to him, “Legion is my name, because
we are many.” 5.10 And he was begging him over and over that he should not send them out
of the country.
5.11 Ην δὲ ἐκε πρὸς τ ὄρει ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγάλη βοσκομένη· 5.12 καὶ
παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Πέμψον ἡμς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν. 5.13
καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτος. καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ
ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ το κρημνο εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἐπνίγοντο ἐν τ
θαλάσσῃ. 5.14 καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς
ἀγρούς· καὶ λθον ἰδεν τί ἐστιν τὸ γεγονός .
5.11 Now there was being there beside the hill a large herd of pigs, feeding. 5.12 And
they begged him, saying “Send us into the pigs, so that we may enter into them.” 5.13 And he
permitted them. And, having come out, the spirits, the unclean ones, entered into the pigs,
and the herd rushed down the cliff into the Sea, some two thousand, and they were drowning
in the Sea. 5.14 And the ones herding them fled, and they reported (it) in the city and in the
399
countryside. And they came to see what it is that had happened.
5.15 καὶ ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν ̓Ιησον καὶ θεωροσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον καθήμενον
ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοντα, τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγινα, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν. 5.16 καὶ
διηγήσαντο αὐτος οἱ ἰδόντες πς ἐγένετο τ δαιμονιζομένῳ καὶ περὶ τν χοίρων. 5.17 καὶ
ἤρξαντο παρακαλεν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεν ἀπὸ τν ὁρίων αὐτν.
5.15 And they come to the Jesus, and they see the one being demon-possessed,
sitting, having been clothed, and being of sound mind, the one having had the “Legion”; and
they were made afraid. 5.16 And those seeing how it happened to the one being demonpossessed, and concerning the pigs, related (it all) to them. 5.17 And they began to beg him
to depart from their regions.
5.18 καὶ ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτο εἰς τὸ πλοον παρεκάλει αὐτὸν ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς ἵνα μετ̓
αὐτο . 5.19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτ, ῞υπαγε εἰς τὸν οκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς
σούς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτος ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε. 5.20 καὶ ἀπλθεν
καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν ἐν τ Δεκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτ ὁ ̓Ιησος, καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον.
5.18 And as he is getting into the boat, the one who was demon-possessed was
begging him that he might be with him. 5.19 And he did not permit him, but rather, he says to
him: “Go to your home, to your family; and report to them what things the Lord has done for
you, and (how) he had mercy on you.” 5.20 And he departed, and began to proclaim in the
Ten-City Area what things the Jesus did for him; and everyone was being amazed.
Text with Footnotes:632
632In
our study of the Gospel of Mark, we have seen its
introduction of Jesus, the Son of God, and the Anointed King for
God’s people–who has entered into human history, and who has come
from his home in Galilee to the Jordan River to be immersed by John,
where he received divine acknowledgement for who he is. Then,
immediately following 40 days of testing, we have been told
concerning his novel, exciting ministry in Galilee–where he
proclaimed the Good News that the time has been fulfilled, and the
Kingdom of God has drawn near–calling upon all people to turn their
lives around, and to believe in the Good News. Mark has described
how his ministry began at the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus called
people to follow him, as he would make them “fishers of people.” We
have also seen how that “fishing expedition” began, with Jesus’
remarkable ministry of teaching, and healing, and casting out of all
evil that thwarts human life. He was indeed “throwing out a large
net,” seeking to reach all the people–including women and children,
and the outcasts of society, such as people infected with leprosy,
and the hated tax-collectors.
Mark has described how the
rejected Jesus, deciding to put
ministry was breaking all their
such people, and because of the
Jewish leaders from Jerusalem
him to death–because this kind of
ancient traditions of separation from
newness of what Jesus was doing. But
400
while there was this growing, murderous opposition, Mark has also
pictured the crowds of people who kept on coming to Jesus, listening
for his teaching, longing for his healing touch. Out of their number
there was beginning to grow an “inner circle” of believers, who
became the nucleus of the “Church”–or the “New Israel,” the “Family
of Jesus,” with its twelve envoys representing Jesus–who would share
in his ministry of teaching the Good News, and casting out all evil.
We have read Mark’s description of the kind of Message that Jesus
gave–revealing the “Mystery of the Kingdom of God”–as being like a
farmer planting wheat seed in varying types of soil. In the same
way, Jesus and his followers were not only a “fishing expedition,”
seeking to catch all people; they were also “farmers,” engaged in
planting the divine seed of the Word of God in human hearts. Jesus
taught his followers that their responsibility was to be faithful in
this task of planting the seed, and he assured them that from that
faithful planting, a great harvest, even a universal harvest, would
one day come.
But who was this one who had come, leading these common Galilean
people into such a “fishing expedition,” and showing the way of
“sowing the seed of the Word of God” in human hearts? What right did
he have to reach out across the barriers imposed by Judaism, in such
a novel ministry, breaking the Jewish traditions? Was he simply
another Jew, claiming to be the Messiah, the Anointed One, but who
would soon be proven to be an imposter, leading the people astray?
Mark has related the story of how Jesus, so obviously human, was
able to speak an authoritative word of command to the storm on Lake
Galilee, causing it to become calm– and Mark has told that story in
order to give his readers insight into who this Jesus really is–the
astounding fact is that Jesus is none other than YHWH God in human
flesh–the Creator himself, coming to his creatures, overwhelming the
chaotic forces that surround and threaten them, giving them peace in
the midst of life-threatening storms. So this first of the Gospels
believes, and reports.
Now, in Mark 5:1-20, this same theme continues. No sooner did
Jesus command the storm to be still, than he was confronted by an
individual on the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee–whose life had
been dominated by the darkest forces of human evil imaginable, a
person whose life had been twisted and destroyed by terrifying dark
powers of evil. Not only is Jesus able to calm the stormy seas; he
is fully able to calm the inner storms that dominate and destroy
humanity’s life. Mark tells of Jesus’ “remarkable control over the
untamable force of a man possessed not just by one demon but by a
whole army of them.” (France, p. 226). This Jesus is the one who can
meet humanity’s deepest needs for inner cleansing, healing, and
wholeness. What a claim. Jesus is, according to Mark, the great
Victor over all the dark forces of evil in human history. Do we dare
401
to believe this ancient and earliest report of the Good News?
Please read Mark 5:1-20 in at least two or more modern English
translations, and then see if you can answer the following questions
before going on with these study-notes:
1. Where does Mark say Jesus went? How do you deal with the
many differences concerning his destination as reflected in the
various Greek manuscripts? If the story is this fuzzy with regards
to the geographical location, how accurate do you think it is in the
other details? Do you think this makes the historical reliability of
this story questionable?
2. How should we understand Mark’s description of this person
as having “an unclean spirit”? Did the author witness this event
himself, or had he received it by reports from others? Did the
author hear Peter tell this story in the City of Rome? Should we
characterize Mark’s description of what happened as “actual,
historical fact”? Or
should we rather say that Mark is reporting the stories about Jesus
told by first-hand witnesses, such as Peter in his preaching and
teaching in Rome? How do you think a
modern nespaper reporter would tell this same story–especially if the
person was
suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction, or was labeled as
“criminally insane”?
3. If
possession,
uncleanness
that “comes
4.
the source of spiritual “uncleanness” is demonhow do you explain the teaching of Jesus in Mark 7 that
originates in the human heart, not in anything external,
from without”?
What do you take the overall point of this story to be for
Mark?
5. In earlier stories in Mark, Jesus has been described as
forbidding the persons healed from reporting what has happened to
them. But here, Jesus refuses to let this person stay with him, and
instead, sends him to report to others what he has experienced. Why
the difference?
6. Does this ancient story have any real relevance to the
modern world and its problems? What is that relevance, if any?
Should we conclude from this story that the only real hope for the
mentally ill and “insane” is exorcism by priests (or “Spirit-filled
healers”), not the type of psychiatric medicine that is practiced by
modern professional doctors in the mental health field?
402
5.1 And they came633 to the other side of the Sea,634 into the country of the
[Gerasenes].635 5.2 And coming out of the boat, [immediately]636 there met637 him, out of the
7. The author of these notes holds that this story has great
meaning and
importance for the modern world. It pictures Jesus as tackling the
most difficult problems known to first century society, and doing
victorious battle with the toughest evils that afflicted people.
Even though the picture is painted in terms of the first-century
world-view, a view that is very difficult (or impossible) to hold in
the modern western world, the story still has importance and valid
meaning–because it shows how Jesus and his followers are sent into
the world of human suffering, to do battle with the most difficult
and grievous of human problems; and at the same time it assures the
reader that Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate Victor over every form
of human evil and uncleanness. What do you think?
633The third person plural aorist verb λθον, elthon, “they
came,” is changed to the third person singular form of the same verb
h=lqen, elthen, “he came,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus (probably),
Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 28, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 2542, some other Greek
manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript q, the Syriac tradition, the
Bohairic Coptic and Epiphanius of Constantia (who died 403 A.D.).
The variant does not change the meaning of Mark, but only makes
it center in Jesus himself, rather than in Jesus and his disciples.
634What Mark evidently means is that Jesus and his followers went
across the northern end of the Sea of Galilee, from the northwest
shore to somewhere on the eastern side of the Sea. Compare footnote
605 on Mark 4:35.
635The name Γερασηνν, Gerasenon, “(of the) Gerasenes” (as is
also read by Luke 8:26), is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, Bezae, Minuscule 2427 (probably), the entire Latin
tradition and the Sahidic Coptic.
It is changed to read (as does Matthew 8:28) Gadarhnw/n,
Gadarenon, “(of the) Gadarenes,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the
Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac.
It is changed to read Gergusthnw/n, Gergustenon, “(of the)
Gergustenes,” by W.
It is changed to read Gergeshnw/n, Gergesenon, “(of the)
Gergesenes,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, L, Delta, Theta, Family 1
of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424,
403
2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac and the
Bohairic Coptic.
With this array of variant readings, it is very difficult to say
what the original reading actually was. Taylor notes that “The
textual variations are due to the fact that both Gerasa (30 miles to
the southeast)...and Gadara (6 miles to the Southeast) are too far
from the lake, and to the necessity of finding a site where the
mountains run down steeply into the lake...” (P. 278)
France likewise comments that “The complicated textual variants
among the three synoptic versions are perhaps best accounted for by
an original Gadarhnw/n, Gadarenon in Matthew and an original
Γερασηνν, Gerasenon in Mark and Luke, with Gergeshnw/n, Gergesenon
and related variants as subsequent attempts (perhaps originating with
Origen...) to provide a more suitable lakeside location...Near El
Kursi, further north on the east shore, there is a suitably steep
bank. Hence the attraction of the later reading Gergeshnw/n,
Gergesenon, since ‘Gergesa’ is traditionally associated with El
Kursi, and the existence there of an impressive Christian church of
the fifth century suggests that it had some traditional association
with the story...” (Pp. 226, 227)
We agree with Taylor and France in this evaluation, and because
of the many variant readings, place the name of the country within
brackets. And even so, these alternative locations are unknown
archaeologically as far as the coast-line of the Sea of Galilee is
concerned. To say the least, the geographical location is
problematical. The variant readings do not change the meaning of
Mark, but they do place the exact location in great doubt, and may
indicate that the story is non-historical.
If we accept the reading “(of the) Gerasenes,” we may conclude
that the text implies that the City of Gerasa (modern “Jerash”), some
thirty miles to the southeast, owned territory that extended all the
way to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. The fact is that
there is simply insufficient evidence to determine the exact site
intended by Mark; and it may well be that the divergent textual
evidence is a result of Mark’s own geographical inexactitude, or even
perhaps due to the fact that the story is non-historical, symbolical
and theological in nature. What do you think?
636The adverb εὐθu,ς, euthus, “immediately,” is omitted by
Vaticanus, W, Minuscule 2427, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses,
the Sinaitic Syriac and the Peshitta Syriac.
Here the weight of the textual evidence is favorable for
including the adverb; but Mark’s constant use of the adverb may have
lead copyists to insert the word. The adverb is placed within
404
tombs,638 a person639 with an unclean spirit,640 5.3 who was having the dwelling-place among
brackets to denote uncertainty as to its originality.
637The 3rd person singular aorist verb ὑπήντησεν, hupentesen,
which we have translated “there met (him)” (since the subject of the
verb will be given later in the sentence, “a person”), is read by
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta, Theta,
Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 579, 700, 1424,
2427, 2542, Lectionary 2211 and some other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read avph,nthsen, apentesen, a synonym with
the same meaning, by Alexandrinus, W, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority
Text.”
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but
says the same thing in a slightly different way.
France comments that “The man’s voluntary approach to Jesus is
surprising in view of the attempt at disassociation in the next
verse. Is it that there is something irresistable about Jesus’
presence? Or is there an element of conflict within the man himself
between his own desire to meet Jesus and the reluctance of the
‘resident’ demons? (P. 227)
638Or, “out of the graveyard.”
Taylor notes that “It was a
popular belief that cemeteries were haunted by demons, and according
to verse 3, the man has his dwelling-place there.” (P. 279) France
comments that “Few more suitable places of shelter would be available
to one ostracized from normal society than rock-cut tombs or burial
caves.” (P. 227)
Luccock interprets this element of the story allegorically,
stating that “One of the most powerful and vicious evil spirits at
work in the world has been, and is, the mentality of those who live
in the tombs of yesterday...The greatest obstacle to social and
spiritual progress is the influence of those who have their beings in
the tombs of yesterday.” (P. 712) This is a good example of how
allegory quickly reads ideas into a story that were never really
intended by its author. Granted, it may make “good preaching”–but
the question is, “Is this really what this story means?” Our answer
is, “No, it is not.”
639The phrase ἐκ τν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος, ek ton mnemeion
anthropos, “out of the tombs, a person,” is changed to read ἄνθρωπος
ἐκ τν μνημείων, anthropos ek ton mnemeion, “a person out of the
tombs,” by Bezae, W, Theta, Minuscules 565, 700 and a majority of the
Old Latin witnesses.
It is changed to read only the word ἄνθρωπος, anthropos, “a
person,” by Minuscule 1355, a few other Greek manuscripts, a few
405
manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate and the Sinaitic Syriac.
The first variant does not change the meaning of Mark at all; it
is simply replacing the original word-order with a different one that
means the same thing. The omission of the phrase that describes the
person as coming “out of the tombs” has very slight textual evidence,
and should probably be considered as simply an oversight on the part
of these copyists and translators. The omission does not change the
meaning of Mark.
640Literally, “in an unclean spirit.”
As Swete notes, the Greek
preposition ἐν, en, “in,” means “in the sphere of,” or “under the
influence of.” (P. 92). See footnote 124 on Mark 1:23 for a
discussion of his matter of “unclean spirits.”
Maclaren comments that this story “...Paints for us not merely a
maniac, but a demoniac. He is not a man at war with himself, but a
man at war with other beings, who have forced themselves into his
house of life. At least, so says Mark, and so said Jesus; and if the
story before us is true, its subsequent incidents compel the
acceptance of that explanation. What went into that herd of swine?”
(P. 178)
But even if we agree with Maclaren’s argument, and interpret
this story in a literal way, what does it mean for our own selfunderstanding, and for our ministry in this modern world? Shall we
see “demon-possession” in every person who acts in “bizarre, even
crazy, self-destructive ways”? Shall we dismiss the findings of
modern psychology and
psychiatry, and insist that the only solution to the problem of
mental illness is to get “exorcists” to do their work in the mental
hospitals instead of on channel television or in tent-revivals?
The fact is that no matter how we may choose to interpret this
story–whether literally, or symbolically, or in terms of an outdated, pre-scientific way of describing mental illness–the fact
remains that we are always involved in a mysteriously difficult
matter whenever we seek to describe the “interior life” of human
beings, especially when we are dealing with unusual, bizarre behavior
that defies our usual understanding.
Whenever we try to describe the “inner beings” of persons, what
is happening “within” others, and ourselves, we are attempting to
speak of and describe that which is intangible, mysterious, and
incapable of being described literally and exactly. We acknowledge
this, confessing by our language that we live in a world surrounded
by the mysterious, by the intangible, by realities far greater than
the physical senses are able to describe.
The stories we tell, or the psychological models we use, to
describe these realities are not to be taken exactly, and literally
406
(for example, the “id,” the “ego,” and the “super-ego”), but they are
certainly to be taken seriously. They point to the reality of these
unseen, mysterious beings or forces that are at work in our lives,
that cause us to do what we do, whatever their exact nature.
The ancient world chose to describe these unseen, mysterious
realities in terms of “demons” or “unclean spirits.” Our modern
world chooses to use descriptive terms that have grown out of the
study of depth psychology and mental illness. It is obvious that our
modern understanding and descriptive language has changed markedly as
various schools of psychology have held sway.
But regardless of the inability to arrive at a uniform, exact
descriptive language, the reality of these unseen, inner forces at
work in human personality simply cannot be successfully denied.
There is far more to a human being than just a physical body
that is born, that moves through life, and then dies, to be no more.
There is within every human being a mysterious “spiritual reality”
that defies description, but that is nonetheless known, and real, and
of far greater value than simply bones and flesh and hair. And all
too often, that mysterious “inner being” becomes divided and
confused, and comes under the powerful influence of “unclean forces”
that are destructive of human personality. This fact cannot be
avoided–and the biblical documents do not seek to avoid it, but
confront it openly and frankly.
When these biblical documents (such as Mark) seek to describe
this reality in terms of people being under the influence and control
of “unclean spirits,” what are we to understand by this? Must we, in
their light, forsake the modern view, with its psychological language
and models, and return to that earlier, first-century view, in which
the earth is pictured as being inhabited by spirits and demons, by
good and evil “angels” fighting for the possession of human hearts?
If so, there is little chance that the biblical message is going to
get a fair hearing in our modern world.
But even if we are unable to share in this ancient way of
describing this mysterious reality, the fact is that there are still
many people in this modern world who have been overcome by, and who
live under the influence of, “unclean spirits.” They have lost
control of their “inner lives,” and they have come under the control
of destructive, terribly harmful forces. Instead of directing their
lives to positive, pure, morally upbuilding goals, they move
relentlessly towards negative, immoral, destructive ends–towards
ruin. They hurt themselves and those around them. They throw away
family fortunes, and even take their own lives in dangerous pursuits
and addictions.
407
Their “inner being,” their “spirit,” however we may choose to
describe it, instead of being a governing force for good and truth
and purity, and instead of being in control, has lost control, and
has become the source of life-threatening destructive forces. Is
this not a fact of human experience in our modern world, one that is
all too real in many a broken family, and in every city and country
of our modern world? How else can we explain what we today label
“alcoholism” or “sexual perversion,” or “drug addiction,” or
“criminal insanity”? Do not all of these labels point to the
experienced fact that something has gone wrong “inside” persons, that
their “inner being” or “spirit” has gone terribly wrong, and has
become “twisted,” or “perverted”?
In the first century, the authors of the Gospels such as Mark,
deeply influenced by their surrounding culture and world-views,
sought to describe such universal human experiences in terms of being
“possessed,” as “having a demon,” or as being under the dominating
influence of “an unclean spirit.” The first century Jewish world had
come under the powerful influence of Persian religion, with its
“dualism,” its God of Light (“Ahura Mazda”) and its God of Darkness
(“Ahriman”), with an array of heavenly angels and hellish demons.
The Jewish people, including Jesus, and the writers of the New
Testament, were deeply influenced by that “dualistic” world-view as
they described the reality of evil inner forces in human lives.
But is the student of Mark, or the disciple of Jesus in the
modern world, bound to accept that ancient “world-view,” that first
century manner of explanation and description? Is it not much better
to realize the culturally conditioned nature of that first century
description, and admit that it is no longer appropriate in the light
of our modern way of understanding and explanation?
We insist that even though Mark, and Jesus, may have used this
way of describing the destructive inner forces in human personality,
it is also true that according to Mark 7:1-23, especially verses 1423, Jesus taught that the origin of uncleanness in the human spirit
is from within, not from without, and placed responsibility for
spiritual uncleanness squarely on the individual’s inner thoughts and
desires.
“And again having called the crowd together, he was saying to
them, ‘All of you, listen to me and understand. There is nothing
from outside the person, which entering into him, can make him common
[or unclean]. But rather, those things that come out of the person
are the things that make the person common [or, unclean].’ And when
they had entered into a house, (away) from the crowd, his followers
were asking him (concerning) the puzzling comparison. And he says to
them, ‘Are you also likewise without understanding? Don’t you
understand that everything that enters into the person from the
408
outside is not able to make him common [or unclean]? Because it does
not enter into his heart, but rather, into the stomach, and goes out
into the toilet.’ (He is making all foods clean.)
“And he was saying that ‘that which comes out of the person,
that is what makes the person common [or unclean]. For from within,
out of the heart of the people the evils plans
come out–sexual misconduct, thefts, murders, violations of marriage
covenants, desires to always have more, malicious acts, deception,
lack of self-control, stinginess, abusive
speech, haughty pride, lack of moral judgment–all these evil things
come out from within, and make the person common [or unclean].”
In spite, then, of using descriptive language that can be
understood as meaning that the source of moral impurity is
“external,” coming into a person from the outside, from unclean,
demonic forces, Jesus taught his followers specifically and pointedly
that the source of moral impurity is internal, not external; that the
origin of defilement in human character is “the heart,” the internal
“spirit”–not something outside the human being.
What an important teaching this is for our understanding of
Jesus. We must always evaluate whatever the New Testament says
concerning “demons” or “unclean spirits” in the light of this
teaching. But however we may describe such phenomena, and however
inexact, inadequate, and culturally conditioned both the biblical and
our own description of these phenomena may be, this matter of people
“having an unclean spirit” is dreadfully, painfully real.
Human history is not the simple story of the always upward and
onward march of humanity from simple, backward, low moral beginnings,
to much higher, purer, intellectual goals of sweetness and light.
No, there is evil–real, destructive, powerful evil that can overtake
our inner beings, and overwhelm every impulse for goodness and truth
and purity. There is a “spirit of uncleanness” that can take over
our inner lives and pervert
our characters.
And, as we realize this discouraging fact, and contemplate the
meaning of Mark about Jesus and the unclean spirits, we will begin to
hear the Good News. It is that all the chaotic powers of evil and
moral impurity–in whatever way we may choose to describe them–have
met their match in Jesus of Nazareth. The fact of human experience
in relationship to Jesus is nothing less than this: any person who
“turns around” and “places deep-seated confidence” in Jesus and his
authoritative teaching, can find deliverance from all those evil
forces and unclean spirits that inhabit and control their inner
beings, and that thereby thwart and threaten and destroy their lives.
409
the tombs; and not even with a chain was anyone being able any longer to bind him.641 5.4
Because he had many times been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been
torn apart by him, and the shackles had been broken,642 and no one was having (the) strength
to subdue643 him.644 5.5 And throughout every night and day,645 among the tombs and in the
641The
implication of this statement is that at one time, people
had been able to bind him with a chain; but now he had become even
more violent, and it was no longer possible. See the next sentence,
that makes this fact explicit.
642The lengthy phrase διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ
ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ̓ αὐτο τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ
τὰς πέδας συντετρφθαι, dia to auton pollakis pedais kai
halusesin dedesthai kai diespasthai hup’ autou tas haluseis kai tas
pedas suntetriphthai, “Because he had many times been bound with shackles and
chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and the shackles had been broken,” is
changed to read o`,ti polla,kij auvto.n dedeme,non pe,daij
kai. a`lu,sesin evn ai-j ev,dhsan diespake,nai kai. ta.j
pe,daj suntetrife,nai, hoti pollakis auton dedemenon pedais kai
halusesin en hais edesan diespakenai kai tas pedas suntetriphenai,
“Because oftentimes he, having been bound with shackles and with
chains in which they bound (him), he had torn apart and the shackles
he had broken,” by Bezae, W (see), Family 1 of Minuscules (see),
Minuscules 28 (see), 565 (see), 700 (see), 2542 (see), the Latin
Vulgate (see), some of the Old Latin witnesses (see), the Sinaitic
Syriac (see), and the Peshitta Syriac (see).
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but rewords it in a slightly different way, in a way found time and again
in the Bezae manuscript of Acts.
643Or, “tame (him)...”
Maclaren comments that “He has superhuman
strength, and has known no gentle efforts to reclaim, but only savage
attempts to ‘tame’ by force, as if he were a beast.” (P. 178)
644Luccock asks, “What more perfect picture could be drawn of a
futile dealing with a grave social problem?” (P. 713) He goes on to
point out how this method of dealing with mental illness–the use of
chains and fetters, “was inadequate in the Palestine of Jesus’ day.
But almost nineteen centuries went by without making any
difference...The hoary superstition of the power of fetters and
chains has flourished. There has been a blind trust in force as the
only reason in dealing with conditions where force is no solution at
all, but an acute aggravation of the disease.
“It is true in penology–centuries of fetters and chains, of
revenge and punishment, have brought no healing to the disease of
crime. Poverty has at odd times been treated with stone walls and
iron bars...We even try to meet the spreading disease of war with
410
hills he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.646
force and more force. The ancestral delusion about ‘making our
nation so strong with weapons that no other nation will dare to
fight’ is the most often exploded superstition on earth. And still
we labor under it.
“Jesus approached this social problem in a different way–with
understanding, coming to the demoniac as a person, reaching into the
seat of the trouble, the deranged mind and spirit behind the outward
signs, and bringing with him the power to expel the evil spirit
lodged within.” (P. 713)
We appreciate very much Luccock’s deep social concern which he
brings to the text, and with which he interprets it–but we doubt very
much whether this is the meaning of Mark–the abolition of force in
the treatment of the criminally insane, or the abolition of defensive
weapons on the part of world governments. It is always tempting for
pacifist-oriented interpreters to read such matters into certain
texts–while completely omitting or avoiding the powerful biblical
motif of “Holy War,” and that of the “Divine Warrior” who uses human
armies to accomplish his will–which is that of conquering evil, with
the ultimate goal of bringing universal peace to the world.
645The lengthy phrase καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι·
καὶ
διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας, kai oudeis ischuen auton damasai;
kai dia pantos nuktos kai hemeras, “and no had strength to subdue him. And
throughout every night and day,” is changed to read kai. mh,dena auvto.n
ivscu,ein dama,sai. Nukto,j de kai. h`me,raj, kai medena auton
ischuein damasai, nuktos de kai hemeras, “and no one had strength to subdue him; but
then night and day...” by Bezae, W (see), Minuscules 565 (see), 700 (see),
and the Old Latin Manuscript e.
This variant gets rid of Mark’s over-statement, but does not
change the meaning of Mark.
This phrase, “throughout every night and day,” is a literal and
exact translation of the Greek text, and is another example of Mark’s
committing the “all-fallacy.” Swete attempted
to water this down: “That is, at intervals during the night and the
day...yet without any prolonged intermission–practically ‘throughout
every.’” (P. 178) We agree that this is probably what Mark means;
but just as we ourselves commonly do, Mark in fact overstates the
fact.
646Swete comments that “...His body may in this way have been
gashed and scarred all over.”
Maclaren interprets this as follows:
“Insensible to pain, and deriving some dreadful satisfaction from his
own wounds, he has gashed himself with splinters of rock, and howled,
in a delirium of pain and pleasure, at the sight of his own blood.”
411
5.6 And seeing the Jesus from afar, he ran and fell upon his
face647 before him.648
5.7
And, having cried out with a loud voice,
(P. 178)
Lane holds that the individual was suicidal, attempting to take
his own life in despair at ever finding sanity: “At intervals during
the night and the day he would be seen among the tombs or on the
mountains, wildly shrieking, cutting his flesh with sharp stones,
attempting to destroy himself and bring to an end the torment of an
unbearable existence.” (P. 182)
This person would today, in a country like ours, be sent to a
State Hospital, and would be restrained with chemotherapy. His
diagnosis would be that of a borderline personality–a person who
takes on the character of his surroundings. Such a person finds
nothing good enough within himself to identify with and hang onto–and
therefore cannot help being influenced by whatever there is in his
environment.
This unique individual found himself, according to Mark’s story,
split into 6,000 (the approximate number of soldiers in a Roman
“Legion”) or more personalities. There was no cohesion for his life
and character, but only little bits and pieces, due to the total lack
of a coherent “self.” In meeting Jesus, he found the kind of person
he could look up to, and imitate–enabling him to find the coherence
he lacked, and become able to hold himself together. At least this
is the way one modern Psychologist has explained this story.
We would simply say, in happening upon Jesus, this formerly
“mad” person found someone who would not run from him, or fear him,
but who would reach out to him with
healing and sanity. This is the Good News of the story; the “how”
(or the “where”) it happened is beyond our investigation.
647The aorist verb used here, προσεκύνησεν, prosekunesen, means
“he worshiped,” “he prostrated (himself),” literally “he kissed
towards.”
For the only other use of this verb in Mark, see 15:19, where it
used of the mocking “worship” of Jesus by the Roman soldiers.
648The dative singular pronoun αὐτῳ, auto, literally “to him,” is
read by Sinaiticus, Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”
It is changed to the accusative singular form of the pronoun,
auvto,n, auton, “him” as the direct object of the verb, by
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Minuscules
412
he says,649 “What do you and I have in common,650 Jesus, Son of the
892, 1241, 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
The variant reading is in the nature of a grammatical correction
of the original text, with these copyists holding that the accusative
form of the pronoun is more correct grammatically than the dative.
But the variant does not change the meaning of Mark. We are reminded
of the many grammatical corrections made to the grammar of the
original text of Revelation by later copyists and translators.
France comments that “...Two spiritual powers are here in
confrontation, and the nature of the man’s approach makes it clear
which is the superior.” (P. 228)
649Here again (see footnote 601 on Mark 4:35), Mark uses a
present tense verb, thereby making his readers a sort of
“contemporaries” with the story being told.
650Literally, “What to me and to you...?”
Compare Mark 1:24. Of
course, the implication of the question is that “We have nothing in
common.”
Luccock sermonized that “In a deeper sense it has been through
the years a standard question put to Jesus both by individuals and by
disordered societies...The answer to the demoniac was that Jesus had
much in every way to do with him...Jesus has much to do with the
individual disordered in body and mind.
One of the most notable advances of the present [20th] century in
the whole realm of medicine is the discovery of the place and power
of religious faith in healing. We are learning that the line between
body and spirit can never be rigidly drawn. Physical ills have a
close relationship to mental and spiritual states. Jesus has much to
do with illness, in the bringing of the gifts of a real faith–peace
of mind, inner security, the calming of fears and neurotic storms,
the calling forth of new interests, lifting life out of the shallow
miseries of a debilitating self-concern.
“Jesus has much to do with chaotic lives, not torn with physical
disease so much as torn with conflicting desires, making an anarchy
rather than a kingdom...Jesus has much to do with turning chaos into
harmony, coming into disintegrated lives, and making ‘out of the
many, one.’ He has much to do with society...He has much to do with
marriage, and the home, with education, with profit making...Jesus
has cast out unclean spirits from men and women, the unclean spirits
of greed, licentiousness, aggression, pride, race hatred. That is
not theory; it is history. It is history reaching back to the dawn
of the Christian era, to Peter and Zaccheus, to thieves and runaway
slaves. It is contemporary history wherever life has been brought
into one great allegiance to Jesus as master, out of the frenzies of
413
God, the Highest?651
I put you under oath, by the God, that you
should not torment me.”652
many passions.”
5.8
For he was saying to him, “Come out,
(P. 714)
Surely this kind of interpretation is a proper understanding of
this text–not the kind of interpretation that rejects the modern view
of mental illness, and spends its energies in attempting to defend
this ancient way of describing mental illness as “demon possession.”
651See Mark 1:1 with its footnote 7, and Mark 1:11 with its
footnote 54. This crazed person with an “unclean spirit” makes a
completely orthodox confession concerning who Jesus is–“Son of the
Highest God.” See the earlier story in Mark 1:23 with its footnotes
114 and 115.
!Ay*l.[, lae
“Highest God” is
, )el (elyon in Hebrew-see Genesis 14:18, 19 where it is the name used by the Canaanite
Priest of God Most High [το θεο το ὑψίστου, tou theou tou
hupsistou], Melchizedek, which is then adopted by Abraham and later
used by others in Israel in their description of YHWH, God of Israel,
and which is the exact phrase used by Mark at this point.
Especially in the Hellenistic Dispersion (when so many Jews were
scattered across the Empire of Alexander the Great and his
successors--the “Seleucids,” the “Ptolemies” and others, during the
centuries prior to the coming of Jesus), this name for God was
commonly used, for example, a common name for Zeus was “Zeus Most
High,” Zeuj u[yistoj, Zeus hupsistos.
652The person with an unclean spirit recognizes Jesus as his
dangerous “opponent,” as one who can “torture me by judicial
examination” (με βασανίσῃς, me basanises), which implies “destroy me
legally.”
Compare Mark 1:24, where the unclean spirit cries out
that Jesus “has come to destroy him” (see footnote 128 on that
passage). The implication is certainly that Jesus has judicial
authority over the unclean spirit within the person, and can “pass
legal sentence” over that spirit. Jesus is recognized as the supreme
Judge of humanity and its inner life in such a “confession.” See
Revelation 18:7-8 and 20:1-3, 7-10, for this matter of punishment of
the demons. Taylor comments that “Foiled in his hope of appeasing
the strange exorcist and rendering him powerless by the use of his
name, the demoniac in his terror makes a frantic appeal, ‘I adjure
thee by God torment me not.’” (P. 280)
France comments that this is “an attempt to bind Jesus by oath
to leave the demons alone. The use of ovrki,zw, orkizo by the demon
is surprising, since the term is more normally associated with the
exorcist who binds the demon by oath to come out, as in Acts 19:13.
414
the spirit, the unclean one, out from the person!”653
5.9
And he was asking him, “What is your name?”654
And he
says655 to him,656
Is this a deliberate attempt by the demons to reverse the normal
encounter, and to pre-empt Jesus’ expected use of such an oath
formula? It is certainly an attempt to establish control over
Jesus...There is plenty of evidence in the magical papyri that to
know and declare the name of a person or spirit was believed to give
power over them...The expectation on the part of the demons that
Jesus’ purpose must be to torment them assumes that his relation to
them is one not only of superiority but also of hostility.” (P. 228)
653This means that already, before the unclean spirit’s speaking
to Jesus, Jesus had commanded (more than once, since Mark uses the
imperfect tense, ἔλεγεν, elegen, “he was saying”) the unclean spirit
to come out of the person. Does this use of the imperfect tense also
imply that Jesus was unable to cast out the unclean spirit with only
one command? Note the use of the imperfect tense in the next
sentence also, “And he was asking,” ἐπηρώτα, eperota.
Taylor wants to avoid this conclusion, holding that “Mark’s
ἔλεγεν, elegen is used in the sense of the pluperfect, ‘He had been
saying’...This explanation is preferable to the view that Mark means
that Jesus was repeatedly saying ‘come forth...’” (P. 281) But we
think that it makes the Greek tenses almost meaningless if we can
arbitrarily say the imperfect is meant as pluperfect.
654The implication of Mark’s use of the imperfect here is that
the unclean spirit refused to answer Jesus’ question when first
asked, causing Jesus to repeat the question. Taylor comments that
the question as to the unclean spirit’s name is “...connected with
the ancient belief that knowledge of the name carries with it power
over an adversary
(compare Genesis 32:29) and over a demon...Wellhausen suggests that
perhaps the
demon avoids giving its name, giving its number instead...” (P. 280)
See footnotes 653 and 660.
655For this use of the present tense, compare footnote 649, and
see the next footnote for the variant readings in which the aorist
tense is used instead of the present.
656The phrase λέγει αὐτ, legei auto, “he says to him,” is changed
to read avpekri,qh, apekrithe, “he answered,” by Bezae, a few other
Greek manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
It is changed to read avpekri,qh le,gwn, apekrithe legon, “he
answered, saying,” by E, Minuscules 565, 700 and many other Greek
manuscripts.
The variants do not change the meaning of Mark.
415
They both are
“Legion657 is my name,658 because we are many.”659
5.10
And he was
simply different ways of saying the same thing, the first changing
from the present tense to the aorist, and the second changing to the
aorist with a present participle.
657The name Legiw,n, Legion, is read by the first writer of
Sinaiticus, the first writer of Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae
(see), L, Delta, Minuscules 579, a corrector of 700 (probably), 2427
and a few other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read Legew,n, Legeon, an alternative way of
spelling the name Legion, “a Legion,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, a corrector of Vaticanus, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13
of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”
In the Greek inscriptions starting in the first century A.D.,
the name often appears, and it is spelled in both of these ways in
those inscriptions.
“Legion” is a Roman military term [legio], found often in Roman
military inscriptions, and used by both the Greeks and the Jews as a
“loan-word.” It indicates an army or band consisting of some 6,000
soldiers, usually with approximately the same number of auxiliary
troops. As Swete notes, “To a Palestinian of our Lord’s time the
name would connote not only vast numbers...and submission to a
superior will...but the miseries of a military occupation by a
foreign power...” (P. 95) France comments that “Jesus is not
confronted by one demon, but by an army of them.” (P. 229)
Luccock comments that “One of the great services of Jesus to
individuals is the integration of personality...’Conversion’ is the
unification of life, the end of the inner civil war by the great
peace of a unified mind and spirit, the making of one out of the
many... How many there are who can truly say: ‘My name is Legion.
There are many persons in me, pulling in opposite directions, many
clamorous voices in the town meeting of the mind, with no gavel in
the hands of a powerful chairman to bring them to order.’” (Pp. 71415) Compare footnote 646.
658The present indicative active, 3rd person singular verb
evsti,n, estin, “it is,” is interpolated into the text by Vaticanus,
Bezae (see–with a different word order), Family 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscule 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and
some of the Old Latin witnesses.
This variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but
only makes explicit what is already implicit in the original text.
659The strange combination of singular and plural with reference
416
begging him over and over660 that he should not send them661 out of the
to this one person who is “many” is striking. The same combination
of singular and plural is found in the earlier story of a possessed
person in Mark 1:21-28, where in verse 24 the person with an unclean
spirit cries out saying, “What do we have in common, Jesus of
Nazareth? You have come to destroy us. I know you, who you are–the
Set-apart One of God.”
Swete interprets as follows: at first, the individual spoke in
the singular because the “spirits” were still working through one
conscious “ego.” But then, when the “spirits” saw that they were
about to be driven out of the individual, they returned to using the
plural. “The spirits at length dissociate themselves from the man,
for they know that their hold over him is at an end, and the plural
is consequently used.” (P. 96)
Maclaren is more to the point with his statement, “Note the
momentary gleam of the true self in the first word or two, fading
away into the old confusion.” (Pp. 180-81) It seems that we should
see in this combination of singular and plural verbs the marks of the
“border-line personality,” in which the individual, while struggling
for self-identity and control, is still under the control of all
sorts of influences from the environment. Taylor quoted Bartlett:
“In applying this name to himself the possessed man appealed to
Christ’s pity. It meant that he felt himself a mere congeries of
uncoordinated impulses and evil forces–lacking a moral unity of will,
and so not one, but an aggregate of many.” (P. 281)
660Literally,
“And he was begging him many things (or,
‘much’)...” The implication of the imperfect verbs used in this
story is that there was a lengthy conversation and struggle between
Jesus and this person with an unclean spirit. Compare footnotes 653
and 654.
661The
phrase αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ, auta aposteile, literally “them
(neuter accusative plural) he might send forth,” is read by
Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta and Theta (in a different wordorder).
It is changed to read auvtou.j avpostei,lh|, autous
aposteile, literally “them (masculine accusative plural) he might
send forth,” by Bezae, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,”
and in a different word order by Alexandrinus, Family 1 of
Minuscules, Minuscules 579, 1241, Lectionary 2211, some other Greek
manuscripts, and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
417
country.662
5.11
Now there was being there beside the hill663 a large herd of pigs,664 feeding.
It is changed to read auvto.n avpostei,lh|, auton aposteile,
literally “him (masculine accusative singular) he might send forth,”
by Sinaiticus, L, Minuscule 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the
Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac
and the Bohairic Coptic.
This last reading, but in a different word order, is found in K,
W, Minuscule 892 and some other Greek manuscripts.
The variant readings are rooted in the ambiguity of the text as
to the nature of the demon-possessed, whether he should be considered
as one person or many, and whether the demon(s) should be referred to
as masculine or neuter. But the variant readings do not change the
meaning of Mark.
662Taylor notes that “The idea implicit in ‘out of the country’
was widely held in the ancient world. Demons, it was held, were
specially associated with a particular locality from which they were
loath to be removed.” (P. 282) France notes that “Luke...understands the alternative as much more drastic than a mere change of
earthly location: eij thn abusson apelqein, eis ten abusson
apelthein (compare Revelation 20:1-3).” (P. 230)
663In Israel still today, it is common to see animals being kept
in cave-like holes in the side of hills–by far the easiest way to
care for animals in a land where trees are so scarce, and where the
rock is relatively easy to cut and dig into. This is probably what
we are to imagine in this story.
664The early commentators on this story point to how appropriate
it was that the “unclean spirits” should be sent into the “unclean
pigs.” France mentions that “a Babylonian exorcistic incantation
offers a pig as an alternative host for the expelled demon.” (P.
230) On the Jewish attitude towards pigs, see the following
passages: Leviticus 11:7 (the chapter lists the “unclean” animals);
Deuteronomy 14:8 (see verses 1-22 for a shorter list of “unclean”
animals and foods); Isaiah 65:2-7; 66:3, 17 and Proverbs 11:22. Note
especially the passages from Isaiah:
“I spread out my hands all the day to a faithless people, who
walk in a way that is not good, to people who provoke me to my face
continually; who sacrifice in gardens and burn incense upon bricks,
who crouch in tombs, and spend the night in caverns; who eat swine’s
flesh, and broth of unclean things is in their vessels; who say,
‘Stay where you are, do not come near me, for I make you unclean.’
They are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that burns all the day.
418
Behold, it is written before me: ‘I will not keep silent, until I
have requited it, I repay into their bosom their iniquities, and your
fathers’ iniquity together,’ says YHWH. Those who burn incense upon
the mountains and speak sacrilegiously of me upon the hills, to them
I will measure the recompense into their laps.” (Isaiah 66:2-7)
It is obvious from this passage that the eating of swine’s flesh
was part of a fertility ritual, much akin to “black magic,” in which
such eating was held to give the participants “power” with the
deities being worshiped. As Claus Westermann points out, “‘Crouching
in tombs’ was for the purpose of obtaining oracles from the dead, and
‘spending the night in caverns’ signifies incubation [in Greek and
Roman religion, a rite of sleeping on a skin or on the ground in
order to enter into communion with the earth-gods through dreams]
rites.” (Isaiah 40-66, p. 401) We think it quite possible that the
eating of the swine’s flesh was combined with the drinking of the
animal’s blood, in an effort to have the powerful “spirit” of the
swine enter into the worshipers, imparting new life and power to the
worshipers that would make them a “source of uncleanness” to others.
It was this kind of “idolatrous worship” that called down the
judgment of doom against these people of Israel who were forsaking
the worship of YHWH God.
“He who slaughters the ox–kills a human being; he who sacrifices
a sheep–breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a cereal offering–it is
swine’s blood; he who offers incense–he blesses the idol...’ Those
who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the garden behind one
in the midst eating swine’s flesh and [reptiles] and mice, shall come
to an end together,’ says YHWH.” (Isaiah 66:3, 17)
Here again, the Spokesperson is crying out against perversions
of true worship; the worship of Israel has become detestable to YHWH.
Involved in this worship is some usage of swine’s blood and mice–and
it seems clear that if we knew more about the use of these animals in
the fertility religions that they would be understood as having
sexual, magical functions in such a “debased” religion (at least in
the eyes of the Spokespersons for
YHWH in Israel). It may well be that the “one in the midst” who goes
out into the garden
with the worshipers is the sacred prostitute.
At any rate, even though nothing more than a bare mention is
made of swine in these passages, it is clear that Israel connected
swine with idolatrous worship, and felt that their use in worship was
both debasing and immoral. Swine were included among God’s “very
good” creatures, according to Genesis 1:1-2:3. But something had
happened in history to make these originally “clean” animals
“unclean”–as is made clear by the passages in Leviticus and
Deuteronomy. What had caused this? Our answer is that the swine had
419
5.12 And they begged him, saying665 “Send us into the pigs, so that we may enter into them.”
5.13 And he permitted them.666 And, having come out, the spirits, the unclean ones, entered
been made unclean by being used in the magical rites of the fertility
religions surrounding Israel, as these two passages from Isaiah 66
make abundantly clear.
665The masculine nominative plural present participle, λέγοντες,
legontes, “(they are) saying,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,
Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules
892, 2427 and some other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read pa,ntej, pantes (this word is missing in
K, Minuscule 579 and some other Greek manuscripts) oi` dai,monej
le,gontej, hoi daimones legontes, “all the demons are saying,” by
Alexandrinus, Minuscule 33 (probably) and the “Majority Text.”
It is changed to read panta, panta (this word is missing in
Bezae) ta. daimo,nia eiv,ponta, ta daimonia eiponta, “all the
demons, saying” (with an aorist participle instead of the present
participle), by Bezae, Theta, Minuscules 565, 700 (see), a few other
Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscript a.
It is changed to read parakale,santej ei=pon, parakalesantes
eipon, “begging, they said,” by W, Family 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 28 and 2542.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but
demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to
make slight changes and commentary-like additions to the original
text in an effort to enhance its reading.
666The phrase ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτος, epetrepsen autois, literally “he
permitted to them,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, L, W, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 579
(see), the first writer of 892, 2427, 2542, the Old Latin Manuscripts
b, e, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic
and Epiphanius of Constantia (who died 403 A.D.).
It is changed to read ev,pemyen auvtou,j, epempsen autous (+
o` vIhsou/j, ho Iesous, by Minuscules 565 and 700), “he sent them
(the Jesus),” by Theta, Minuscules 565 and 700.
It is changed to read euvqe,wj ku,rioj vIhsou/j ev,pemyen
auvtou,j eivj tou.j coirou,j, eutheos kurios Iesous epempsen
autous eis tous choirous, “immediately Lord Jesus sent them into the
pigs,” by Bezae, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin
Manuscripts c (see), a corrector of ff, I (see), and a corrector of
r.
420
into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the cliff667 into the Sea, some two thousand, and they
were
drowning668 in the Sea.669 5.14 And the ones herding them fled, and they reported (it)670 in the
It is changed to read evpe,treyen auvtoi/j euvqe,wj o`
vIhsou/j, epetrepsen autois eutheos ho Iesous, literally “he
permitted to them immediately the Jesus,” by Alexandrinus, Family 13
of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 1241 (in a different word-order), the
“Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses,
and the Harclean Syriac.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but do
change the pronoun from dative to accusative, and then add in
additional words that are already implied in the original text. Here
again we witness the freedom felt by later copyists and translators
to make slight changes to the text being copied / translated, without
altering its overall meaning.
France comments that “The appeal pe,myon h`ma/j, pempson
hemas, ‘send us,’ underlines further the total submission of the
demons to Jesus’ authority. There is no question that he will send
them away; the only issue is where.” (P. 230)
667Or, “down the steep slope” (kata. tou/ krhmnou/, kata tou
kremnou), used in Classical Greek for the steep bank or edge of a
river.
668The 3rd person plural imperfect passive verb ἐπνίγοντο,
epnigonto, means “they were choking,” or “they were strangling,” or
“they were drowning.”
669Johannes Weiss holds that “It was the paroxysm accompanying
the exorcism which set the herd in motion. The man hurled himself
upon the swine, struck terror into them, and drove them down the
steep. For long he had been overpowered by the idea that the demons
by whom he was possessed would like to enter into them, and he
recognized the opportunity provided by the strange exorcist who asked
him his name...” (Quoted by Taylor, pp. 282-83)
Some have, on the basis of this passage, charged Jesus with
something akin to the destruction of private property through
allowing the demons to enter the pigs, and thereby becoming
responsible for their destruction. Lane responds to such criticism
with the words “Jesus allows the demons to continue their destructive
work, but not upon a person.” He adds, “Jesus allowed the demons to
enter the swine to indicate beyond question that their real purpose
was the total destruction of their host.” (P. 186)
According to Mark, both the unclean spirits and the unclean
421
city and in the countryside.671 And they came to see what it is that had happened.
5.15 And they come672 to the Jesus, and they see673 the one being demonpossessed,674 sitting, having been clothed, and being of sound mind,675 the one having had the
swine were driven by Jesus into the depths of the sea, thereby
totally destroying those unclean, chaotic elements that threaten
humanity. Jesus, just like YHWH God in the Hebrew Bible, is the
conqueror of chaos.
France comments that “Jesus’ acceptance of the appeal [of the
demons] results in the destruction of a large herd of pigs [2,000!].
Neither Mark nor the other synoptic evangelists show any awareness of
the moral questions which so naturally arise in a
modern Western mind with regard to both the gratuitous and largescale loss of animal life as well as the substantial economic loss
inflicted on an innocent third party.” (P. 230)
670The 3rd person plural aorist indicative verb ἀπήγγειλαν,
apeggeilan, literally “they announced,” is read by Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,
Bezae, K, L, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 579, 700,
892, 1241, 1424, 2427 and many other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read avnh,ggeilan, aneggeilan, with the same
meaning, by W, Delta, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565,
2542, Lectionary 2211, many other Greek manuscripts and Epiphanius of
Constantia (who died 403 A.D.).
The variant reading is another example of the freedom felt by
copyists to substitute a synonym for the word used in the original,
without changing the meaning of Mark.
671Literally, “...and into the fields,” or “...and into the farmvillages” (εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς, eis tous agrous).
672This verb, e;rcontai is in the present tense, “they come,” as
is the following verb,
qewrou/sin, “they see,” thereby placing the
reader in the story as an eye-witness. Compare footnotes 649 and
655.
673See the preceding footnote.
674The word translated “demon-possessed” is an accusative present
participle in Greek (τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον, ton daimonizomenon), and it
seems that Mark would have used a different tense–like the perfect,
“who had been demon-possessed,” as he does in the phrase that
follows, “the one having had the legion” (τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγινα,
ton eschekota ton legiona) and in verse 18, δαιμονισθεὶς,
daimonistheis, “having been demon-possessed.”
675In the description of this person, four present participles
are used--δαιμονιζόμενον, καθήμενον, ἱματισμένον, καὶ σωφρονοντα,
422
“Legion”;676 and they were made afraid. 5.16 And those seeing how it happened to the one
being demon-possessed,677 and concerning the pigs, related (it all) to them. 5.17 And they
began to beg him678 to depart from their regions.679
daimonizomenon, kathemenon, himatismenon, kai sophronounta, “being
demon-possessed, sitting, being clothed, and being of sound mind.”
As Swete points out, this “possessed” person is now pictured as
“...free from the slavery of headstrong passions, master of himself
again.” (P. 98) What a change it makes in human character to get in
touch with Jesus–still today, almost 2,000 years later!
676The
phrase τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγινα, ton eschekota ton
legiona, “the one having had the legion,” is read by the first writer
of Sinaiticus, L, Delta, Minuscules 579, 2427, the Old Latin
Manuscript aur and some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.
It is changed to read to.n evschko,ta to.n legeo,na, ton
eschekota ton legeona, “the one having had the legeon,” by a
corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0107, Families 1 and 13 of
Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”
The phrase is omitted by Bezae, the Latin Vulgate, some of the
Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark. The
first variant is simply the alternative way of spelling “legion” (see
footnote 643). The omission of the phrase may be an expression of
the desire of these copyists and translators to shorten the text by
eliminating unnecessary words–since the omission does not change the
meaning in any way.
For this name “Legion,” or “Legeon,” see footnote 657.
677Compare footnote 674.
Here again, strangely, the present
participle is used, τ δαιμονιζομένῳ, to daimonizomeno, “to the one
being demon-possessed.”
678The phrase ἤρξαντο παρακαλεν αὐτὸν, erksanto parakalein
auton, “they began to beg him,” is changed to read pareka,loun,
parekaloun, “they were begging,” by Bezae, Theta, Minuscules 565,
700, 1424, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript a
and a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic.
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but
says the same thing as the original, only in a briefer way.
679Literally, “from their boundaries.”
France comments that
“Jesus’ meek acceptance of the local people’s desire to be rid of him
423
5.18 And as he is getting into the boat,680 the one who was demon-possessed681 was
begging him that he might be with him.682 5.19 And he did not permit him,683 but rather, he
is assumed without comment.”
(P. 232)
Strange reaction, isn’t it? Luccock, while admitting that this
story has many “opaque” features, holds that this is an all too
typical response of our world to the transforming power of Jesus.
“Apparently they feared sanity less than insanity...Many people
today, and through the years, concerned for the continuation of some
existing order or custom, either because it works to their advantage,
or because of the dead weight of inertia, fear sanity far more than
the perpetuation of delusion. They are afraid of man in his right
mind. The militarist fears with congealing terror the spectacle of a
humanity struggling to emerge from the delusions of force. The
disciples of ‘white supremacy’ fear the debunking of humbug on the
subject of race...It is easy to grow indignant and scornful about the
blind folk, like these villages of Gerasa, who prefer the evils of
disorder to sanity of mind and spirit. But the question comes home
to each of us. Are we infected in any way by that blindness? Can we
listen in our day to the voice of Jesus saying, ’Come out...you
unclean spirit’?” (P. 716)
Schweizer comments on verses 15-16 that “Accurate eyewitness
accounts may be helpful–but all this does not result in the
understanding of faith.” (P. 106)
680Maclaren notes, “And he goes away.
The tragedy of life is
that we have the awful power of severing ourselves from His
influence. Christ commands unclean spirits, but He can only plead
with our hearts.” (P. 184)
681Here, in contrast to the preceding two present participles
used to describe the demon-possessed person (verses 15 and 16), Mark
here uses the aorist participle, ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς, ho daimonistheis,
which means “the one who was possessed” (but now is not).
682For the phrase “to be with Jesus,” compare Mark 3:14 with its
footnote 406. “Being with Jesus” was the first prerequisite for
becoming an “envoy” for Jesus in the world. Is this what the
formerly demon-possessed person desires to become? And what could
possibly be wrong with this request?
683We have entitled the section Mark 3:7-12 “Loving Deeds of
Ministry to All People–On His Own Terms, Not Theirs.” There, Mark
pictured Jesus as warning people who had been cleansed of unclean
spirits against making him known–see footnote 395 on that passage.
Jesus retains the authority to call his “envoys,” and to
determine who will be with him. He does not simply do whatever
people desire him to do. So it is with this formerly demon-possessed
person. He desires to become a close associate of Jesus, perhaps to
become one of his envoys–but Jesus has other plans for his future.
424
says to him: “Go to your home, to your family;684 and report685 to them what things the Lord686
Maclaren comments on the refusal of Jesus to grant this request:
“Strange that Jesus should put aside a hand that sought to grasp His
in order to be safe; but His refusal was, as always, the gift of
something better, and He ever disappoints the wish in order to
satisfy the need.” (P. 184)
France comments that “The reason for his refusal is...the
positive one that this man has an opportunity, which is uniquely his,
to spread the news of what God is doing through Jesus of Nazareth
among those who have known what he was before, and who therefore
cannot ignore the dramatic change which has resulted from his
encounter with Jesus.” (P. 232)
684Literally, “your house, to those who are yours” (οκόν σου
πρὸς τοὺς σούς, oikon sou pros tous sous).
As Swete notes, “the man’s first duty was to his own house
(where he had long been a stranger) and to his relatives and
acquaintances...His tale was to be told in his own circle first.”
(P. 99)
Schweizer comments that “Jesus’ answer shows how impossible it
is to have a stereotyped definition of discipleship. One person is
taken away from home and family (1:16-20), another is sent back to
them contrary to his own wishes. Discipleship is not a way of
salvation by which the individual can secure his own happiness. The
concern of discipleship is always how the Good News can best be
proclaimed and passed on to others.” (P. 114)
Luccock comments that “These final words to the healed demoniac
have a permanent and universal meaning for all who have in any way
been recipients of the restoration, the healing, the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Go into your familiar and accustomed world and
there bring your steady witness to the power of the Master. It is
the hardest thing to do, but it is also the most fruitful...
“That refusal [of Jesus to allow the demoniac to stay with him]
has much to say to us all in the great business of channeling
religious emotion into duty and service. So often this flow is
blocked by an emotional desire to stay with the original religious
experiences, to keep life fixed at that point...There is the
allurement of new surroundings and scenes of operation. It seems
like an anti-climax to a great experience to go back to the familiar
and perhaps prosaic routine of ordinary life. But Jesus gave the
test of religious devotion, ‘Go home to your friends, and tell them.’
Go into the family, into the workshop, into civil life, where there
425
has done for you,687 and (how) he had mercy on you.”688 5.20 And he departed, and began to
is endless need for effective witness.” (P. 717)
685The 2nd person singular aorist imperative verb ἀπάγγειλον,
apaggeilon, “report!” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Delta, Theta, Minuscules 579, 2427 and a few other Greek
manuscripts.
It is changed to the form dia,ggeilon, diaggeilon, meaning the
same thing, by P45, Bezae, W, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 28, 700, 2542 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read avna,ggeilon, anaggeilon, meaning the
same thing, by Alexandrinus, L, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Minuscule 33
and the “Majority Text.”
The variant readings are examples of the freedom felt by later
copyists to substitute synonyms for words found in the original,
without changing its meaning. See the use of this same verb in verse
14.
686Swete notes that “the Lord” is the same as “YHWH” or “Adonay”
in the Jewish Bible.
Commentators are divided over whether this means “Tell them what
I, the Lord, have done for you,” or “tell them what YHWH, Adonay, has
done for you.” But it seems obvious that the text means to identify
Jesus as “the Lord,” as the one in whom and through whom YHWH, the
God of Israel, Adonay, is at work in human history.
France comments that “In this narrative context o` ku,rioj, ho
kurios, ‘the Lord,’ used in Jesus’ words as a third-person
designation of the one who is the source of the ev,leoj, eleos,
‘mercy,’ must surely refer to God rather than Jesus himself (Luke has
explicitly o` qeo,j, ho theos, ‘the God’)...” (P. 232) What do you
think?
687The phrase ὁ κύριός σοι, ho kurios soi, “the Lord for you,” is
read by Sinaiticus (see), Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta,
Theta, Minuscule 2427 and the first writer of the Old Latin
Manuscript ff.
It is changed to read soi o kurioj, soi ho kurios, “for you
the Lord,” by Alexandrinus, L, W, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Families 1
and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Latin
Vulgate and some of the Old Latin witnesses.
It is changed to read, as does Luke 8:39, soi o` qeo,j, soi ho
theos, “for you, the God,” by Bezae and Minuscule 1241 (see).
426
proclaim689 in the Ten-City Area690 what things the Jesus did for him; and everyone was being
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark,
especially the change in word-order does not. The change from “the
Lord” to “the God” is a typical variant reading, and makes little
difference for the narrative.
688It is unusual for Mark that here the cleansed person is
charged by Jesus to report, to tell what Jesus has done, and the
mercy shown to him. Elsewhere in Mark those who have been healed are
forbidden to tell anyone–compare for example, Mark 1:44 with its
footnote 216, and Mark 3:12 with its footnote 395.
France comments that “The contrast with Jesus’ command to
silence in 1:44 (and subsequently in 5:43; 7:36; 8:26) is striking,
and prompts the question why Jesus is so keen to avoid publicity
among Jews but has no objection to Gentiles hearing about his
miracles. This is, of course, part of the whole enigma of the theme
of secrecy in Mark. But if it is true that publicity among the Jews
posed the risk not only of inconvenient popular enthusiasm (compare
1:45-2:2) but also of a misguided popular assessment of his messianic
role...in Gentile territory this risk did not exist, since it was far
from the scene of Jesus’ regular ministry and there was no ready-made
messianic expectation to contend with.” (Pp. 232-33)
We agree with France. This former demon-possessed person lives
in the area to the east of the Sea of Galilee–in the “Ten-City Area,”
and his telling of what Jesus has done is not nearly so apt to bring
more crowds and trouble to Jesus as he leaves that country and
returns to Galilee. Swete suggests that “The request is refused,
because the man is wanted for immediate service. The eastern shore
of the lake was for the present closed against Jesus and the Twelve.
A preparatory publication of the demoniac’s story was necessary in
anticipation of a later visit (Mark 7:31ff). What had been
prohibited in Galilee (Mark 1:43-44) is under other circumstances not
only permitted but commanded in Decapolis.” (P. 99)
689The infinitive verb is κηρύσσειν, kerussein, “to proclaim
aloud (as a herald),” “to preach.”
Swete notes that “the man became a kh,rux, keruks [‘herald,’
‘preacher’], sharing in his measure the ministry of Christ and the
Apostles (1:14; 3:14).” (P. 100)
France comments that “The use of κηρύσσειν, kerussein suggests
that here is a genuine Gentile equivalent to the proclamation which
is being made both by Jesus (1:14, 38-39) and by his disciples (1:45;
3:14) among the Jews of Galilee.” (P. 233)
427
amazed.691
690The
noun (in the dative) is Δεκαπόλει, Dekapolei, literally
“in (the) Ten City [Area].” It is the name of a league of originally
ten cities, in the area now occupied by Jordan. Its northern
boundary was Damascus; its southern boundary was Philadelphia; one of
its cities (Scythopolis) was on the western bank of the Jordan River.
691Here is a description of one of the earliest “preachers”; his
successful proclamation resulted in many (Mark again commits the
“all-fallacy” here by stating that “everyone was amazed”) people
being attracted to the possibility of a divine manifestation having
occurred in Jesus.
Anderson thinks that “the Greek verb in ‘they were afraid’
[ἐθαύμαζον, ethaumazon, the 3rd person plural imperfect, literally
‘they were being afraid’] signifies religious awe for Mark (see
especially 4:41 and 16:8) and would here denote awe before the
mystery of Jesus’ authority.” (P. 147)
France comments that “Already the foundation has been laid for
the extension to the Gentiles of the ministry and mission of the
Jewish Messiah (13:10; 14:9).” (P. 233)
But what shall we make of this story, occurring as it does in
such a powerful document as the Gospel of Mark?
The American preacher, Halford Luccock, admitted frankly, “The
story reflects the demonology of the day, with additional features,
resembling a folk story...about demons conjured into swine, joining
unclean spirits with unclean animals...Surely the long and fruitless
debate over this story between Huxley and Gladstone, with Huxley
rejecting the whole story and Gladstone defending to the death the
literal truth of every detail, points out the futility of literalist
dealing...The chief point is...the calm confidence and courage with
which Jesus handles the demoniac. All else is secondary. Yet there
are valid suggestions, taken not as doctrine, but as first aid to the
imagination, picturing the resources of Christ for disordered minds
and a society in the grip of evil spirits.” (P. 712)
This is quite a subjective judgment; how are we to distinguish
between what is “primary” in the story, and what is only “secondary”?
Schweizer characterizes the story as “...One of the strangest
stories in Mark. One suspects that an account of a healing by Jesus
has been combined with a popular fairy tale about a ‘defrauded
devil’...An ancient story about Jesus casting out a demon [which] has
been enlarged by the addition of various legendary features, but
primarily through the addition of the folksy description of the pigs
which rushed into the water.” (Pp. 111-112)
428
Taylor, however, evaluated this story in a much more positive
manner: “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 proclaimed in the Decapolis, are details taken from life. We
have good reason to classify the narrative as Petrine [that is, as
having been told by Simon Peter in Mark’s hearing] in origin. It is
another question how we are to interpret what is told...
“The greatest difficulty is the account of the swine. If we
reject mythical explanations, or the suggestion...that a secular
story has been incorporated...and if we accept a psychological
explanation of possession, we must explain the panic of the
swine...as occasioned by the paroxysm of the man’s cure.” (P. 278)
Compare footnote 669.
Maclaren states that “The awful picture of this demoniac is
either painted from life, or it is one of the most wonderful feats of
the poetic imagination. Nothing more terrible, vivid, penetrating,
and real was ever conceived by the greatest creative genius.” (P.
177) We think that Maclaren is greatly overstating the case, and
that writers of fiction can oftentimes duplicate such a horrifying
story. See, for example the movie The Exorcist.
A more recent student of Mark, Lane, holds that “The vivid
details appear to reflect in part eyewitness report and in part the
explanation supplied by townspeople long familiar with the history of
the violent man of the tombs. Mark has not included the narrative in
his Gospel merely because he delights in a well-told story. This
account, more graphically than any other in the Gospels, indicates
that the function of demonic possession is to distort and destroy the
image of God in man. The subordinate detail of the destruction of
the herd of swine has bearing upon this fact. For this very reason
Jesus could not avoid a significant confrontation with demonic
possession. His sovereign authority and the quality of his salvation
that he brings finds graphic illustration in this historic account.”
(P. 180)
What should we conclude from all of this, with its array of
conflicting opinions concerning the nature of this biblical story?
We should
description of
footnote 640);
in this story,
recognize forthrightly the story’s culturally limited
mental illness in terms of “demon possession” (see
and in the light of this, we should acknowledge that
a first-century author, who held to the ancient
429
world’s way of understanding and describing mental illness (indeed,
what else could he do? This is what we call the “human element” in
the story), is giving his testimony to the healing power of Jesus.
But at the same time, we should recognize that this story is
dealing with a timeless problem, one which we continue to face at the
beginning of the twenty-first century. And we should be open to the
possibility of hearing in this story the Good News of God’s
deliverance through Jesus that is being offered to a humanity that
suffers under the powerful influence of mental illness and distorted
character.
According to this story, our Creator God has entered into human
history, to do battle with, and overcome, all the evil, chaotic
forces that pervert and destroy human character. He who could bring
peace to the raging storm at sea, has been just as victorious over
all those raging storms within the human psyche, at great cost–and as
a result of his victory, offers suffering humanity sanity and
wholeness of life. This (what we call the “divine element” in the
story) we can believe and proclaim–and it is indeed Good News for
each of us, and for the whole world.
Of course, if we can solve all our problems by ourselves–if our
children are not involved in drug addictions, or in mental illnesses,
or in suicides--and if we have the answers to criminality, and to
sexual perversions that lead to AIDS and other venereal diseases, as
well as to crimes against others (even little children)–then we can
simply dismiss such an ancient story as worthless, and something we
can easily afford to neglect,
refusing to take it seriously.
But if we find ourselves and our families trapped in our human
weaknesses and folly, and down-right sinfulness, we will quickly
recognize that such an attitude is utter foolishness. The fact is,
we are weak and sinful; the world we live in is plagued with tragic
mental illness and disease, and social aberrations and evils that
threaten us with destruction.
Indeed, in a symbolic way, this individual named “Legion” could
stand for modern, twenty-first century humanity–with the preceding
century’s terrible possession of the demons of Nazism, and Atheistic
Communism, and Materialism, and the worship of Pleasure and
Selfishness, and murderous Racism. Dare we think that all of these
terrifying demons have been exorcized from the twenty-first century?
The fact is, we desperately need a divine source of sanity, of
being set free from the terrible chaotic forces that attack and
destroy human happiness and hope and justice and peace. Jesus of
Nazareth, according to the Good News of Mark, is just such a source–
430
the One sent from God with the power to overcome all the forces of
chaos that threaten and destroy human life.
Mark wants us to know that we are not alone in this struggle
against the chaotic evils that confront us in human history. No, our
Creator God has taken our side in the fight. He himself has entered
into history, to do battle with all the dark forces of evil. The
Good News is that in Jesus of Nazareth he has won the victory.
That’s the Good News of Mark.
Mark 5:1-20 informs its readers that the Creator God, YHWH of
Israel, who has come to us in Jesus of Nazareth, is none other than
the Victor over all the chaotic forces of evil that afflict and
distort humanity in history. The manifold evils that inhabit our
innermost beings have met their Conqueror in Jesus. The unclean
spirits and the demonic forces that hinder and confuse and blind and
bind us have met their match–we are not engaged in a helpless fight
with no hope of victory. We are assured of ultimate triumph, and we
do not have to be afraid of the powers of darkness. Our victorious
King has come–he has conquered all the forces of evil–and in
following him, we too are assured of victory. That’s the Good News
of Mark.
431
432
PRAYER
O God, we confess that in the presence of your greatness, we are weak and small; we
are unable to save ourselves apart from your powerful action on our behalf. We are part of a
modern world faced with seemingly incurable problems–with drug addictions, and with mental
illnesses that weigh down upon us like a heavy hand, leaving us unable to pull ourselves up by
our own bootstraps. We do not have the answers to crime, to terrorism, or to drug addiction,
or to crime, or to the juvenile violence that fills our schools and city streets. The AIDS
epidemic has struck deep into our midst, and even though we are making some strides in
controlling the disease, still hundreds of thousands of lives are lost every year to this scourge,
world-wide, especially in the countries of Africa–but also in our own cities and counties of the
USA. Our homes are broken, and our marriages fall apart; our children rebel against us, and
wreck their lives.
No, we are not the strong and the powerful, who are in control of our futures–we are in
truth people who are weak and sinful, and dying. We face dark, evil forces–unclean demonic
powers that have taken control of our world in the twentieth century, such as the dark forces of
Nazism, and Atheistic Communism, and closer to home, our Racism, and a Materialism that
denies your name, and seeks to find ultimate meaning in life through devotion to physical
pleasures and sensations. We have come to worship Pleasure, and Power, and Possessions
–and by whatever name they are called, truly they are “Legion”–and we are their victims. They
take up their dwelling-place within our personalities, and lead us to destroy ourselves.
O God, how deeply we need a divine source of sanity and purity, that will enable us to
be freed from the terrifying demonic forces that attack and destroy human happiness, and
hope, and peace. We have gathered here today to rejoice in the Good News that we find in
our Bible–telling us that Jesus of Nazareth is just such a source of wholeness of mind and
genuine goodness and purity. He is the One sent from you, to overcome all the demonic
forces of evil that threaten to destroy us, and we can be victorious over all demonic evil, if we
will only let him cast out our evil, and restore our right minds.
Yes, you yourself have taken our side in this fight to the finish with evil. You have
entered into our history in Jesus, to do battle with all the dark forces of evil–and through him,
you have won eternal victory for us. Through him, the manifold evils that inhabit our innermost
beings have met their Victor–and therefore we are not engaged in a hopeless fight, but are
assured of eternal victory–because our King has come, and has taken our side, and has won
the victory for us. Thanks be to you, our God. Eternal praise and glorious radiance be yours
forever and ever.
Let us here and now, resolve to hide our lives in Jesus, commiting ourselves to his
guidance and care, letting him win the victory over evil in our own hearts and lives. In this way,
grant us the victory, through our Lord and King, Jesus. In his name we pray. Amen.
433
SIGNS OF THE COMING KINGDOM:
SICKNESS AND DEATH CONQUERED BY THE KING
Mark 5:21-43
5.21 Καὶ διαπεράσαντος το ̓Ιησο [ἐν τ πλοίῳ] πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν συνήχθη ὄχλος
πολὺς ἐπ̓ αὐτόν, καὶ ν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 5.22 καὶ [ἰδοὺ] ἔρχεται ες τν
ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι ̓Ιάϊρος, καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτο 5.23 καὶ
παρακαλε αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθς τὰς
χερας αὐτ ἵνα σωθ καὶ ζήσῃ. 5.24 καὶ ἀπλθεν μετ̓ αὐτο.
5.21 And when the Jesus had crossed over [in the boat] again, to the other side, a
great crowd was gathered to him, and he was being beside the sea. 5.22 And [look–] one of
the synagogue-rulers, by name, Jairos, comes, and having seen him, falls at the feet of his.
5.23 And he begs him over and over, saying that "The little daughter of mine is at the point of
death–so that, having come, you might lay the hands on her, so that she may be made well,
and may live." 5.24 And he departed with him.
Καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτ ὄχλος πολύς καὶ συνέθλιβον αὐτόν. 5.25 καὶ γυνὴ οσα ἐν ῥύσει
αἵματος δώδεκα ἔτη 5.26 καὶ πολλὰ παθοσα ὑπὸ πολλν ἰατρν καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παῤ
αὐτς πάντα καὶ μηδὲν ὠφεληθεσα ἀλλὰ μλλον εἰς τὸ χερον ἐλθοσα, 5.27 ἀκούσασα
[τὰ] περὶ το ̓Ιησο, ἐλθοσα ἐν τ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο το ἱματίου αὐτο· 5.28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ
ὅτι ̓Εὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τν ἱματίων αὐτο σωθήσομαι. 5.29 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ το
αἵματος αὐτς καὶ ἔγνω τ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τς μάστιγος.
And a great crowd was following him, and they were pressing in on him. 5.25 And a
woman, who is in a hemorrhage (for) twelve years, 5.26 and who has suffered much under
many physicians, and who has spent everything she has, and who has profited nothing, but
rather, who has become even more severe; 5.27 who has heard [the things] concerning the
Jesus, who has come in the crowd, from behind, touched the robe of his. 5.28 For she was
saying that, "If I could touch just the robes of his, I will be made well." 5.29 And immediately
the source of the bleeding of hers was dried up, and she knew in the body that she has been
made well from the torment.
5.30 καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ ̓Ιησος ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτ τὴν ἐξ αὐτο δύναμιν ἐξελθοσαν
ἐπιστραφεὶς ἐν τ ὄχλῳ ἔλεγεν, Τίς μου ἥψατο τν ἱματίων; 5.31 καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτ οἱ μαθηταὶ
αὐτο, Βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε, καὶ λέγεις, Τίς μου ἥψατο; 5.32 καὶ περιεβλέπετο
ἰδεν τὴν τοτο ποιήσασαν. 5.33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεσα καὶ τρέμουσα, εἰδυα ὃ γέγονεν
αὐτ, λθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτ καὶ επεν αὐτ πσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 5.34 ὁ δὲ επεν αὐτ,
Θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τς μάστιγός σου.
5.30 And immediately the Jesus, knowing within himself the power that had gone out,
out from him, turning around in the crowd, was saying, "Who touched the robes of mine?" 5.31
And the disciples of his were saying to him, "You see the crowd pressing in on you, and you
say, 'Who touched me?'" 5.32 And he was looking around to see the one having done this.
5.33 So then the woman, being fearful and trembling, having known what had happened to
her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 5.34 So then he said to her,
"Daughter, the faith of yours has made you well; depart into peace, and be healthy from the
434
torment of yours."
5.35 ῎Ετι αὐτο λαλοντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ το ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι ΄Η θυγάτηρ
σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον; 5.36 ὁ δὲ ̓Ιησος παρακούσας τὸν λόγον
λαλούμενον λέγει τ ἀρχισυναγώγῳ, Μὴ φοβο, μόνον πίστευε. 5.37 καὶ οὐκ ἀφκεν οὐδένα
μετ̓ αὐτο συνακολουθσαι εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ ̓Ιάκωβον καὶ ̓Ιωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν ̓Ιακώβου.
5.38 καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οκον το ἀρχισυναγώγου, καὶ θεωρε θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ
ἀλαλάζοντας πολλά, 5.39 καὶ εἰσελθὼν λέγει αὐτος, Τί θορυβεσθε καὶ κλαίετε; τὸ παιδίον
οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 5.40 καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτο.
5.35 While he is still speaking, they come from the synagogue-ruler, saying that "The
daughter of yours died. Why bother the teacher any more?" 5.36 But then the Jesus, having
overheard the word being spoken, says to the synagogue-ruler, "Don't be afraid. Only
believe!" 5.37 And he did not allow anyone to follow with him, except the Peter, and Jacob,
and John, the brother of Jacob. 5.38 And they come into the house of the synagogue-ruler,
and he observes an uproar, and crying and wailing many things. 5.39 And, entering, he says
to them, "Why are you making an uproar, and crying? The child did not die, but is sleeping."
5.40 And they were ridiculing him.
αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν πάντας παραλαμβάνει τὸν πατέρα το παιδίου καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ
τοὺς μετ̓ αὐτο καὶ εἰσπορεύεται ὅπου ν τὸ παιδίον. 5.41 καὶ κρατήσας τς χειρὸς το
παιδίου λέγει αὐτ, Ταλιθα κουμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε.
5.42 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει· ν γὰρ ἐτν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν
[εὐθὺς] ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ. 5.43 καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτος πολλὰ ἵνα μηδεὶς γνο τοτο, καὶ
επεν δοθναι αὐτ φαγεν.
So then he, having thrown them all out, takes along the father of the child and the
mother, and those with him, and he enters where the child was being. 5.41 And, taking hold
of the hand of the child, he says to her, Talitha, koum, which is, being translated, "The little
girl, I tell you, arise!" 5.42 And immediately the little girl got up and she was walking around,
for she was being twelve years old. And they were beside themselves [immediately] with great
amazement. 5.43 And he ordered them over and over so that no one should know this; and
he said it should be given to her to eat.
Text with Footnotes:692
692Mark
wants its readers to concentrate attention upon the identity of Jesus of
Nazareth. He is the Son of God--and the reality of who he is can be seen in his power to
speak to the storming wind and its waves, commanding them to be still. It can be seen in his
ability to command the most powerful of unclean spirits that inhabit the heart of humanity,
destroying, crippling, and ruining human existence. He can cast all the chaotic powers of evil
into the depths of the sea. So Mark tells us--this Jesus is the divine Victor over all of the dark
forces of chaos that threaten and destroy human life. And in addition to this, he is the "Great
Physician"--who has come to touch and to heal, especially those people counted the least
worthy in first century society--elderly women with long-time sicknesses that caused them to
be considered "unclean" among the Jews, and frail, dying little girls--who were considered
"nobodies" by many in the first century world. Before continuing with the study of Mark 5:2143, please ask yourself the following questions:
435
5.21693 And when the Jesus had crossed over [in the boat]694 again, to the other
1. Does Mark emphasize Jesus' relationship with older, suffering, penniless women
and little girls with terminal illness in this passage? Do you think that this is intentionally
emphasized by Mark in order to show that Jesus was different from the typical male
chauvinists of his time and place, who would have discounted both of these females as
worthless drains on society, undeserving of the attention of a religious leader such as Jesus?
2. In describing Jesus' relationship to sickness and death, and specifically to two such
individuals as are depicted in this passage, what is Mark trying to tell its readers?
3. What is the relationship of Jesus to modern medicine and physicians? Is this
passage a “proof text” for the New Testament’s rejection of medical science, in favor of
“spiritual healing” apart from medical doctors and medicines?
693France notes that in verse 21 “The essential scenery for the
following narrative is put in place.” (P. 235)
694The phrase το ̓Ιησο ἐν τ πλοίῳ, tou Iesou en to ploio, “the
Jesus in the boat,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus
(see), Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of
Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427 (see), the “Majority Text,” the Latin
Vulgate, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac, some manuscripts
of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic.
It is changed to read only το ̓Ιησο, tou Iesou, “the Jesus,”
by P45 (probably), Bezae, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules
28, 565, 700, 2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, a majority of the
Old Latin witnesses and the Sinaitic Syriac.
It is changed to read ἐν τ πλοίῳ το ̓Ιησο, en to ploio tou
Iesou, “in the boat the Jesus,” by W and some manuscripts of the
Sahidic Coptic.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark,
especially the change in word order doesn’t. The omission simply
shortens the wording of the original text, without changing its
meaning.
France comments that “The absence of [‘in the boat’] in several
early texts (and its location before [‘the Jesus’] in W), and the
varying order and occasional absence of [‘again’] and [‘into the
other side’], produce a number of permutations none of which affects
the sense of Jesus’ return across the lake to the western shore.
There seem to be no obvious reason for the differences other than
stylistic preference...” (P. 233)
436
side,695 a great crowd696 was gathered697 to him,698 and he was being beside the sea.699 5.22
695The
phrase πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν, palin eis to peran, “again into
the other side,” is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family
1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427 (see), the “Majority Text,”
the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, l, the Latin Vulgate, the Harclean
Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic.
It is changed to read εἰς τὸ πέραν πάλιν, eis to peran palin,
“into the other side again,” by the first writer of Sinaiticus,
Bezae, Minuscules 565, 700, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses and
the Peshitta Syriac.
It is changed to read only πάλιν, palin, “again,” by P45 and the
Old Latin Manuscript f. It is changed to read εἰς τὸ πέραν, eis to
peran, “into the other side,” by Theta, a few other Greek
manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac and some manuscripts of the Bohairic
Coptic.
It is changed to read pa,lin h=lqen eivj to. pe,ran, palin
elthen eis to peran, “again he came into the other side,” by Family
13 of Minuscules, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Sahidic
Coptic (see).
In spite of this array of variants, none of them change the
meaning of Mark. See France’s comment in footnote 694. We suspect
that there has been a problem in the primitive text at this point,
and that later copyists and translators have dealt with it in the
best way they could. Here, to. pe,ran, to peran, "the other side," means the
western shore, perhaps at Capernaum. Compare footnote 605 on Mark 4:35.
696For Mark's references to a "great crowd," see 4:1; 5:21, 24; 6:34; 8:1; 9:14, and
12:37.
Once again Mark emphasizes the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that of
the ordinary rabbi of his day--in its openness and welcome to all people, regardless of their sex
or background, or ritual purity or impurity, or age. All were welcomed by Jesus.
697The 3rd person singular aorist passive verb συνήχθη, sunechthe, "was gathered
together," is the verb from which the noun sunagwgh,, sunagoge, "synagogue" or
"gathering place" has been formed.
The sea-side has become Jesus’ chosen “synagogue.”
698Literally, "...upon him." Mark's language can be understood as emphasizing the
"pressure" of the crowd that was surrounding Jesus. See verse 24.
699Mark means, of course, the "Sea of Galilee."
437
And [look–]700 one of the synagogue-rulers,701 by name,702 Jairos703 comes,704 and having
the conjunction Kai,, Kai, “And,” the demonstrative
particle ivdou,, idou, “look!” is interpolated into the text by P45,
Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Uncial Manuscript 0107, Families 1
and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Old
Latin Manuscripts c, f and the Harclean Syriac.
700Following
This word is not read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, L, Delta,
Theta, Minuscules 892, 2427, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin
witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac or the Coptic
tradition.
The interpolated word does not change the meaning of Mark, but
the evidence for its originality is so balanced that the word is
enclosed within brackets in the text, to indicate uncertainty as to
its originality.
701What were the ἀρχισυναγώγων, archisunagogon, "synagogue-rulers"? The
synagogue was not peculiar to Israel, but was found throughout the Greek and Roman world of
the first century. The word simply means a "gathering" of people, and is applied to the
"building" in which the people gathered.
Wolfgang Schrage, in an article in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII,
pp. 844-47, states that "We find an avrcisuna,gwgoj, archisunagogos [‘synagogueruler’] in pagan cults and guilds...and commonly in the cultic unions of Greece...
“The function of the [ruler of the synagogue] in a society was obviously that of the
president (often he was also the founder) who convened and led the [synagogue]...Whether
the title of the Jewish synagogue president was taken from the sphere of the Greek guild or the
latter borrowed from Judaism one can hardly say. At any rate it took on greater importance in
the synagogue than in the guild...
“The rights of synagogue ownership and administration were vested in the
congregation. Since in a Jewish population this was identical with the civil community, civil
and synagogal government were one and the same...[Thus, this ‘synagogue-ruler’ would be
the equivalent in some ways to a modern ‘city council member,’ who is also a devout church
leader. As France notes, “he is an ‘important man’...’a man of consequence.’ P. 235]
"There is abundant testimony to [synagogue-rulers] in literature and inscriptions from all
parts of the Roman world. Synagogue presidents were highly regarded [being called ‘most
honorable,’ ‘remarkable,’ and ‘shining’]. One of the tasks of the president of the synagogue
was to conduct worship and to apportion functions in it, i.e., to choose those who would recite
the prayer and [calls to worship], and read and expound the portions of Scripture. He was also
responsible for erecting and maintaining the building...Often the office remained for
generations in the same family...
“The New Testament accounts agree with Jewish records that the 'ruler' of the
synagogue is responsible for the order and progress of worship." In the uncovering of ancient
438
seen him, falls at the feet of his.705 5.23 And he begs706 him over and over,707 saying that
synagogues throughout Galilee, corner-stones have been found with lengthy inscriptions
detailing the work and importance of synagogue-rulers.
702The phrase ὀνόματι ̓Ιάϊρος, onomati Iairos, “by name, Jairos,”
is changed to read w`| ov,noma Ia,iroj, ho onoma Iairos, “to whom
a name, Jairos,” by W, Theta, Minuscules 565 and 700.
The phrase is omitted by Bezae and a majority of the Old Latin
witnesses.
We see no reason for the omission of the phrase, and consider it
simply a mistake on the part of Bezae and the Old Latin witnesses
(who may have followed Bezae). The other variant does not change the
meaning of Mark at all, but is simply a different way of saying the
same thing. France thinks that the omission in Bezae, etc., “is more
likely to be accidental (or perhaps influenced by the absence of the
name in Matthew) than a reflection of an original text omitting the
name.” (P. 233)
703This name Ἰ άϊρος, Iairos, is an attempt to place a Hebrew name in Greek letters.
The Hebrew name is probably
ryaiÛy",
Ya)iyr, "He (God) will enlighten," or
ry[iªy", Ya(iyr, "He (God) will arouse."
704Here
again Mark uses the present tense, thereby placing the reader in the midst of
the historical scene as a witness. Interestingly, the present tense is used predominantly with
reference to the ruler of the synagogue and his daughter, while verbs in the past tense are
used predominantly with reference to the woman who touched his robe in verses 24-34.
705Swete comments that "The prostration [at the feet of Jesus] is the more remarkable
as that of a dignitary in the presence of a crowd. His dignity was forgotten in the presence of a
great sorrow; he recognized his inferiority to the Prophet who had the power to heal." (P. 101)
Luccock notes that "Here was a new teacher, reputed to be a healer; perhaps he could
help. His mind was not closed, and he made the venture. Think how many obstacles stood in
the way of his coming and kneeling and making his unreserved venture. He was a ruler of the
synagogue, a little world in which tradition, not experiment, ruled. He had to cast aside his
rank, his prestige, in falling at the feet of an unauthorized, itinerant teacher. But he could open
his mind to the new, to the possibility that a divine power was at work in an unexpected and
even unlikely person. Seeing Jesus, he made the venture of faith." (P. 718)
How many other prominent people there are who have experienced this same thing.
Proud, egotistical, sensing no need of help, they make their own way through life, asking for
nothing from anyone, cynical of weaklings who cry out for help from a higher power. But then
when their precious child--a daughter or a son--falls victim to a sickness, or accident, or
addiction, over which they have no power, the story quickly changes. Then, they come to
whatever source of help they may sense is available, humbly asking for help. Do we have to
wait that long before we recognize and call upon the divine help that is ours in Jesus?
439
A fellow-student at Duke University, who was doing his doctoral dissertation on the
Gospel of Mark, and who was teaching in the undergraduate religion department, told many
times how he delighted in knocking the “Sunday School religion” out of his students, and made
fun of their pious beliefs in prayer, etc. I wondered what in the world he was doing studying
and teaching the New Testament.
Then one day, this fellow-student came to my study-desk in the Duke library, greatly
worried, and wanting to talk. I listened to him as he told how his wife was pregnant, and the
medical doctor had warned them that the baby might be mentally defective or malformed
because of his (the father’s) use of LSD, a popular “recreational drug.” He asked if I would be
willing to pray for the baby. Of course, I was glad to do so–but was puzzled as to where his
proud rejection of “Sunday School religion” had suddenly gone.
Maybe Jairos was like that. He knew the opposition to Jesus by the Separatists, and all
the things that were being said warning against Jesus. But now, his little daughter was dying–
and he came to Jesus for help.
Luccock points out that Jairos came to Jesus because of his concern for another life.
"That has been true especially of parents. The coming of children into the home has made
them see and feel that the child needs an equipment for life, a wholeness, a fortification,
something they cannot give of themselves. So they come to One who has much to give and
say, 'My little daughter,' 'My little son...'" (P. 718)
706The phrase καὶ παρακαλε, kai parakalei, “and he begs,” the
present tense, is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, L, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 892, 1241, a few other Greek
manuscripts, the Sahidic Coptic and a few manuscripts of the Bohairic
Coptic.
It is changed to read kai. pareka,lei, kai parekalei, “and he
was begging,” the imperfect tense, by Vaticanus, W, Theta, Uncial
Manuscripts 0107, 0132, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule
2427, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin
witnesses and the Bohairic Coptic.
It is changed to read the present participle without the
conjunction, parakalw/n, parakalon, “begging,” by Bezae, the Latin
Vulgate (see), some of the Old Latin witnesses (see) and the Sinaitic
Syriac (see).
These same textual witnesses change the later word polla,,
polla, “many (things),” to the conjunction kai,, kai, “and.”
These variants do not change the meaning
change the tense of the verb–from present, to
participle--demonstrating the freedom felt by
translators to make such minor changes to the
440
of Mark, but only
imperfect, to a present
copyists and
text being copied /
"The little daughter708 of mine is at the point of death--709 so that, having come, you might lay
the hands
on her,710 so that she may be made well, and may live."711 5.24 And he departed with him.712
translated.
707The nominative singular masculine adjective polu,j, polus, “much,” “many,” is
used here as an adverb in the accusative plural, πολλὰ, polla–literally “many things,” which we
have translated by "over and over." It is used as an adverb to mean "greatly," "earnestly,"
"strictly," "loudly," or "often." Compare Mark 5:10 with its footnote 660.
708The feminine singular noun Θυγάτηρ, thugater means "daughter"; the neuter
singular noun used here, θυγάτριόν, thugatrion, means "little daughter," and probably is
meant as a term of endearment, rather than as an indication of size or age. (The little girl is 12
years old–see verse 42.)
709The phrase ἐσχάτως ἔχει, eschatos echei, literally, "(My little daughter)
finally has," an idiom in Greek that means "My little daughter is terminally ill (or, ‘is dying’)."
The deep anxiety that lies behind these troubled words is obvious. The wealthy, prominent
citizen has oftentimes been able to provide for his own needs, and those of his family and
community. But now he is confronted with a desperate need which he is powerless to meet,
regardless of his fame or financial standing. In desperation he falls before Jesus for help. As
France notes, “he is asking for miraculous healing before she dies, that she may be cured
(swqh|/, sothe) and thus may continue to live (zh,s|h, zese),” both of which are
subjunctive verbs.
Are we today so different from this prominent citizen? Are we able to provide for our
beloved children when terminal cancer, or automobile accident, or drug overdose, or the desire
to commit suicide threatens to bring their lives to an end?
710The phrase ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθς τὰς χερας αὐτ, hina elthon
epithes tas cheiras aute, “so that having come, you might lay the
hands on her,” is changed to read evlqe. a-yai auvth/j evk tw/n
ceir/wn sou, elthe hapsai autes ek ton cheiron sou, literally,
“come, to touch her out of the hands of yours,” by Bezae, a majority
of the Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac (see) and the
Peshitta Syriac (see).
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is
only another way of saying the same thing. We are reminded in this
variant of many of the variants in Acts that are given by these same
witnesses.
France notes that “For the laying on of hands as a natural
gesture of healing compare 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; and compare the
mention of touch already in 1:31, 41.” (P. 236)
711The words seem hurried, as if "tumbling over" one another, caring little that they form
an incomplete sentence--as the anxious father begs Jesus to come and heal his little daughter.
It is not a time for the niceties of correct grammar.
441
And a great crowd was following him,713 and they were pressing in on him. 5.25 And a
woman,714 who is in a hemorrhage715 (for) twelve years, 5.26 and who has suffered716 much717
Luccock preached on this passage to Christian parents: "Jairus begged Jesus to lay his
hands on a child. Can Christian parents make the same prayer unreservedly? All too often
there is trace of fear lest Christ lay his hands too closely on a young life; lest the youth take
him too seriously, and follow him into unusual paths, perhaps dangerous ones; lest the young
life be not stamped with the familiar pattern of a social set. The future of Christianity depends
in a real way on the number of parents who will say to Christ, 'Lay thy hands upon this child.'"
(P. 719)
712Luccock observed that "What Jesus had been planning for this day we do not know;
but certainly it was not that he be taken aside on a journey into which was inserted still another
aside. To the eye of a modern efficiency expert, skilled in the organization of time and
planning, it might well look like a ruined day...We can readily imagine someone else, not
Jesus, under such circumstances saying: 'Why bother me? I'm a busy [person]. Can't you
see the crowd waiting? I have my work all laid out here. Come back in a few days.'
"This record of a day of interruptions in Jesus' life reminds us that a detour may be
God's straight line to his purposes. The story warns us of the danger of setting a schedule
above the call of life and the need for the service of love...Jesus could always be bothered by
people in need. That was God's priority...No man can have two masters. He cannot serve
God and the order of the day." (Pp. 719-20)
713France comments that “A further mention of the crowd (compare
verse 21) prepares for the scene which follows.” (P. 236)
714Following the noun γυνh,, gune, “a woman,” the indefinite
pronoun tij, tis, “a certain one,” is interpolated into the text by
Bezae, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of
Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts a, f and
the Syriac tradition.
The indefinite pronoun is not read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 33, 892, 2427, 2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, the
Latin Vulgate or some of the Old Latin witnesses.
It appears to be a later addition to the original text, designed
to “enhance” its reading, but whether read or not makes no difference
for the meaning of Mark.
Following this phrase, "And a woman..." come some seven participles (one present
participle, six aorist participles) each introducing a descriptive phrase, enabling a word-picture
of this woman in great detail (we have introduced each participle with "who," in order to
indicate this Markan usage). The actual continuation of "And a woman" comes at the end of
verse 27, "...she touched his robe."
Taylor notes that "This passage [verses 25-27] is remarkable as being one of the very
442
under many physicians,718 and who has spent everything she has,719 and who has profited
few examples in Mark of a longer Greek [sentence] with subordinating participles, in contrast
to the repeatedly used...construction [of placing short sentences side by side]." (P. 289)
France comments that “The second suppliant, whose social standing is in marked
contrast to that of Jairus, is introduced in a sentence which piles seven participial clauses on
one another before reaching the main verb (h`,yato, epsato) in verse 27. This interesting
departure from Mark’s more usual paratactic [‘the coordination of grammatical elements such
as phrases or clauses without the use of coordinating elements such as conjunctions’] style
allows the reader (or hearer) to build up a sympathetic mental portrait of the woman’s situation
before her story begins...” (P. 236)
715Literally, "...who being in a flow (or, "flowing") of blood..." It is the present participle
that is used here (οσα, ousa, "being").
France comments that “In Decapolis Jesus confronted ‘unclean spirits,’ located among
tombs, and appropriately transferred into pigs, as unclean animals. Now back on the west
bank he confronts the uncleanness of a menstrual disorder, and (assuming that she really was
dead) of a corpse, and yet in both cases Mark records physical contact (verses 27, 41).
Since the issue of uncleanness, and of Jesus’ apparently cavalier attitude to the laws of
purity, will become a central feature of the story in chapter 7, it may be that Mark has
deliberately prepared the way by this sequence of narratives. But it must be confessed that
the issue is implicit rather than explicit in the account of the woman with the hemorrhage, and if
anyone noticed the problem of potential defilement in the case of Jairus’ daughter Mark gives
no hint of it.” (P. 235)
“Menstrual impurity is a prominent concern in the Old Testament (especially Leviticus
15:19-33) and was later to become the subject of a whole tractate of the Mishnah (Niddah;
compare also Zabim); defilement through contact with even a normally menstruant woman
must be scrupulously avoided. This woman’s long and fruitless search for a cure was
therefore motivated not only by physical distress but by her social and religious isolation.”
(Ibid., p. 236)
716Here, the feminine singular aorist active participle is used, παθοσα, pathousa,
“who has suffered,” or “having suffered.”
717The adjective πολλὰ, polla, “many things,” here translated "much" is the same word
that is used in verse 23, where it is translated "over and over." See footnote 707. This word
can be used as either an adjective or an adverb, and as a result can mean "many things" or
"greatly," and it is difficult to determine which is meant. Compare Mark 5:10 with its footnote
660.
718For a discussion of the history of medicine and physicians in the ancient world, and
especially in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, see the article of Albrecht Oepke in
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, pp. 194-215.
"About the only thing primitive [humanity] can understand as a cause of physical ailment
is the wound received in battle. By way of analogy he comes to regard sicknesses which he
cannot understand as 'attacks.' The assailants suspected are more or less personally
443
conceived evil powers which either strike [humanity] down, bombard him with less powerful but
more artful shots, or even take possession of him. He expects healing through
the overcoming of these hostile powers by magic, if necessary by counter-magic, or by
propitiatory offerings." (P. 195)
"Medicine first developed among the ancient Egyptians in the third millennium. But it
was the Greeks who first established the art of healing on an empirical and rational
foundation." Oepke discusses the Ebers Papyrus which describes medical developments in
Egypt between 2600-1600 B.C. In this document, physicians play a large role, lancing sores,
setting broken bones, stitching up wounds, and filling teeth; they prescribed the use of drugs,
and even used a primitive inhalation device. Oepke holds that medical science in Egypt later
degenerated into magic, and rejects the view that medical science developed out of magic.
In Greece, Oepke finds that "True medicine arises from the 6th century [B.C.] onwards
in the colonies of Asia Minor, Greater Greece and Africa, as the doctors themselves develop
into a kind of guild. Doctors are publicly appointed and a special levy is raised to pay them.
The Hippocratic oath bears fine witness to the growing ethics of the profession...'I will follow
that method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit
of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly
medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a
woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and
practice my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering with a stone, but will leave this to be
done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I may enter, I will go into them for the
benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary art of mischief and corruption; and
further myself from the seduction of females or males, bond or free. Whatever, in connection
with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of men
which ought not to be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be
kept secret.'
"Alcmaion of Croton (c. 500 B.C.) and Hippocrates of Cos (c. 420 B.C.) were not only
pioneers and discoverers; they also founded famous schools..." (P. 196) But, Oepke warns,
"We must not form exaggerated ideas as to the general spread of scientific medicine.
Alongside it there flourished in every age superstition and religion. The boundaries are fluid.
Religion was recognized as an independent force by medicine, nor did it wholly scorn to make
alliance with the latter. From around the 1st century A.D. the scientific enlightenment was
checked by a new growth of religion, and also of superstition." (P. 196)
Among both the Greeks and the Romans, Asklepios or Aesculapius was looked upon as
the god of healing (along with other gods). The sanctuary of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,
located on the eastern shore of the Greek Peloponnesus, was one of the most famous healing
centers of the ancient world, and much can be learned from the archaeological discoveries
made there. It was an ancient "Lourdes." Other centers of healing were to be found in Athens,
Pergamos, and Jerusalem (just to the north of the Temple Mount), but especially at Cos, on an
island off the coast of southwestern Turkey.
For a beautiful Jewish description of the worth of a physician, see Sirach (or
Ecclesiasticus), chapter 38:1-15:
444
“Honor the doctor for his services, for the Lord created him. His skill comes from the
Most High, and he is rewarded by kings. The doctor's knowledge gives him high standing and
wins him the admiration of the great. The Lord has created medicines from the earth, and a
sensible person will not disparage them. Was it not a tree that sweetened water and so
disclosed its properties? The Lord has imparted knowledge to human beings, that by their use
of his marvels he may win praise; by using them the doctor relieves pain and from them the
pharmacist makes up his mixture. There is no end to the works of the Lord, who spreads
health over the whole world.
“My son, if you have an illness, do not neglect it, but pray to the Lord, and he will heal
you. Renounce your faults, amend your ways, and cleanse your heart from all missing of the
mark. Bring a savory offering and bring flour for a token and pour oil on the sacrifice; be as
generous as you can. Then call in the doctor, for the Lord created him; do not let him leave
you, for you need him. There may come a time when your recovery is in their hands; then they
too will pray to the Lord to give them success in relieving pain and finding a cure to save their
patient's life. When a person has sinned against his maker, let him put himself in the doctor's
hands."
Oepke shows how belief in YHWH effectively and largely did away with magic in Israel,
but not completely. In the Talmud there are many references to conjurations, exorcisms, and
the use of "sympathetic magic." But rational medicine was slowly developed, beginning with
Israel's experience in Egypt. "The great prophets presuppose that there are doctors and
balsam to help wounds to heal (Isaiah 3:7; Jeremiah 8:22...)." (P. 201) "But the true and
only doctor is Yahweh. To define the relationship between His creative power and human skill
is more difficult than in the non-biblical world. Yet the tendency is towards a both-and rather
than an either-or, with the accent on the ultimately omni-causal power of Yahweh."
In speaking of Jesus as the physician, Oepke states that "Hardly another image
impressed itself so deeply on early Christian tradition as that of Jesus as the great Physician."
(P. 204) Then, in a theological appraisal of the healing miracles of Jesus, Oepke states,
"Whether in the form of plain rejection, of reinterpretation, or of the evaluation of what is
recounted in terms of myth, religious history, or symbol, a threadbare rationalism may indulge
in radical criticism of all miracle stories. On the other hand, an exclusive supernaturalism may
press for a complete schematic isolation of the miracles of Jesus. These are two modes of
approach which are more or less equally ruled out by the actual data.
"Many miracles of healing from many different sources, both ancient and modern, are
well attested. Furthermore, recent scientific research has shown us how relative are natural
laws. Greater elasticity is thus demanded as regards our view of what is possible or not
possible...Modern medicine has overcome the abstract separation of soul and body and the
isolated material or psychological treatment of an earlier day..." And, Oepke asks, "Where
God intervenes so expressly in human history, who is to measure His work by ordinary
standards?" (P. 211)
Oepke adds, "Jesus cares for the soul as well as the body...In general, non-Christian
miracles are performed for their own sake. The Gospel miracles, however, have a material
point outside the miracle itself. This is usually pastoral...The miracles of Jesus are signs, but
they are not spectacles...The miracles of Jesus are simple and yet powerful signs that the
445
nothing, but rather, who has become even more severe;720 5.27 who has heard [the things]721
prophecies of the age of salvation are beginning to be fulfilled...In face of them the Baptist
ought to see, and even opponents are forced to recognize, that the royal dominion of God has
come to them...The miracles are themselves partial victories of God's rule. The host of
demons flees...Each partial victory is a foretaste and guarantee of the final victory...
“As the Hero of God who perfects creation, Jesus invades the kingdom of Satan with
power...He conquers, and nothing can resist Him. Even though He is put to death, the
kingdom of God comes thereby. This Messianic and eschatological context gives to the
earliest records (Mark) the distinctive impetus for which there are not the slightest parallels in
Aesculapius or Dionysus. In spite of every analogy, the miraculous healings of Jesus thus
occupy a unique position in religious history. They are inseparably connected with the
uniqueness of Jesus and with His unparalleled sense of mission." (Pp. 212-13)
719The phrase τὰ παῤ αὐτς, ta par’ autes, literally “the things
with her,” (i.e., her belongings), is read by Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, L, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 33, 2427 and the “Majority Text.”
It is changed to read simply e`auth/j, heautes, “her own,” by
Bezae, W, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28 (with a
different word-order; see), 565, 700, 1424, 2542, and a few other
Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to read par v e`auth/j, par’ heautes, “with her
own,” by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, K, Delta, Minuscule 1241,
Lectionary 2211 and some other Greek manuscripts.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but are
simply alternative ways of saying the same thing.
720Literally, "...but rather, more into the worse having come."
France comments that “Mark’s unflattering account of the medical profession provides
a sharp (and perhaps deliberately humorous?) contrast with the completeness and immediacy
of the cure she receives through touching Jesus.” (Pp. 236-37)
721Following the feminine singular aorist active participle
ἀκούσασα, akousasa, “who has heard,” or “having heard,” the
accusative plural definite article ta,, ta, “the things,” is
interpolated into the text by the first writer of Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Minuscule
2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
The text without the definite article is read by a corrector of
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae,
L, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132 (probably), Families 1 and 13 of
Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Syriac tradition
and the Coptic tradition.
446
concerning the Jesus,722 who has come in the crowd, from behind touched the robe of his.723
5.28 For she was saying724 that, "If I could touch just the robes of his, I will be made well." 725
This textual evidence is fairly evenly balanced, and so the
article is placed in the text, but within brackets, to indicate
uncertainty with regards to its originality. Whether read or not
makes no difference for the meaning of Mark.
722Luccock asked his readers to "...Consider those who spread the report about Jesus...
This woman came because they had brought her a report of One who could restore life, and
her hope lived again. It is a great role, that of a reporter; frequently anonymous, as with the
unseen company in this story, but vital..." (P. 721)
We must ask ourselves, "Have persons ever come to Jesus because of what they heard
from us?" “Have they been turned away from coming to Jesus because of what they have
heard, and seen in us?”
723The implication of the adverb ὄπισθεν, opisthen, "from behind," is that the woman
was very bashful, not desiring to act openly or publicly, but in as inconspicuous a manner as
possible. It is also possible to read this adverb with the preceding verb, i.e., "she had come
behind him,” instead of our “from behind she touched his robe.” Taylor holds that "She comes
secretly...because the malady rendered her ceremonially unclean and would convey
uncleanness to all who came in contact with her (compare Leviticus 15:25)." (P. 290)
France comments that “...In other individual cases in Mark’s narrative it is Jesus who
touches rather than who is touched...The woman’s idea that to touch Jesus’ clothes without his
knowledge would convey the same effect as to be touched by him suggests a more ‘primitive,’
even ‘magical,’ understanding of miraculous healing (and one which will reach even more
elaborate lengths in the expected effects of Peter’s shadow, Acts 5:15, and of Paul’s clothing,
Acts 19:12)...
“Modern readers often find it remarkable that Jesus does not repudiate her approach...
and indeed seems rather to accept it as not only practically effective but also an example of
true pi,tij, pistis [i.e., ‘belief,’ or ‘faith’]...Mark’s Jesus is less bound by correct procedure,
and even correct theology, than some of his followers.” (P. 237)
724Mark does not mean that she was "saying" this openly, for others to hear. What it
means, we think, is that she was saying this to herself. Here the author of Mark plays the role
of the omniscient editor, who reveals the inner thoughts of his characters.
725The 1st person singular future passive verb σωθήσομαι, sothesomai has been
translated "I will be made well." This is the verb that is commonly translated "I will be saved."
Sw,zein, sozein has the root meaning "to make safe or sound." In the New Testament it
is used in the various meanings "to save," "to keep from harm," "to preserve," and "to rescue."
It is used in the sense of preservation or rescue from natural dangers and afflictions--for
example, being saved from death, or being brought out safely from a situation in which there is
mortal danger. It is used of being saved or freed from disease (as in this case in Mark, and
also in the story of Jairos’ daughter, see verse 23). It is used of being kept or preserved in
447
5.29726 And immediately727 the source728 of the bleeding of hers729 was dried up, and she
knew
good condition. In the passive, it is used to mean "to thrive," "to prosper." This verb is also
used in the sense "to save or preserve from eternal death," that is, from eternal judgment, and
from all that might lead to such death, for example, "missing of the mark." Used in this way, it
points to the eternal salvation that Jesus imparts to his people.
We think that Mark’s language implies that both of these females–the Synagogueruler’s daughter, and this 12 year old little girl, are examples of people being “saved” (“made
whole”) through the ministry of Jesus.
Maclaren described this woman's faith as being little more than magical superstition,
and yet as having been respected and rewarded by Jesus. Taylor states that "In ancient belief
even handkerchiefs and aprons carried from the healer's person possessed healing virtue
(compare Acts 19:12), and also his shadow (Acts 5:15). The person of the healer himself
was regarded as potent, and his garments or shadow, as the case might be, were looked upon
as extensions of his personality." (P. 290) Such is the case here, with respect to this suffering
woman’s faith. Here again, we see the closely parallel relationship between religion and
magic.
726France comments on verses 29-30 that “The narrative continues
in a similarly ‘primitive’ vein [compare footnote 723], in that the
effect of the cure is immediately felt both by the patient and by the
healer. V,Egnw tw|/ sw,mati, egno to somati, ‘she knew in the
body,’ presumably refers to the woman’s physical sensation of wellbeing, while evpignou.j evn e`autw|/ th.n evx auvtou/
du,namin evxelqou/san, epignous en heauto ten eks autou dunamin
ekselthousan, ‘recognizing in himself the power going out, out of
him,’ suggests that this healing perceptibly ‘took something out of’
Jesus, in a way not paralleled in other gospel healing narratives...
“The sequence might suggest an almost mechanical sense of
physical ‘transfer’ of [power] from one body to the other...though
Mark is careful to counter this impression both by stressing that it
was not mere physical contact that mattered (since many others were
pressing against Jesus at the time) and that the basis of this
healing, as in other synoptic miracles, is in fact pi,stij, pistis
(verse 34).” (P. 237)
727Once again we hear Mark's typical language of immediacy, of action. See footnote
55 on Mark 1:10 and footnote 733.
728Literally, "the spring," "the fountain" (ἡ πηγὴ, he pege).
448
in the body that she has been made well730 from the731 torment.732
5.30 And immediately733 the Jesus, knowing within himself the power that had gone
out, out from him,734 turning around in the crowd, was saying,735 "Who touched the robes of
mine?" 5.31 And the disciples of his were saying to him, "You see the crowd pressing736 in on
you, and you say, 'Who touched me?'"737 5.32 And he was looking around to see the one738
729Literally,
"her blood."
notes that the perfect passive tense of the verb ἴαται, iatai, “she has been
made well,” "...transfers the reader into the region of the woman's thoughts: the conviction
flashed through her mind, iv,amai, iamai: 'I have received a permanent cure.'" (P. 104)
Here again we sense the omniscient editor’s comment. Compare footnote 724.
731Or, perhaps, “her” torment, but the text reads “the torment.”
732The feminine singular genitive noun used here, μάστιγος, mastigos, means "(from
the) lashing" or "(from the) lashes." It is used figuratively for "torment" or "suffering," or
"scourge." Lane aptly comments, "Her existence was wretched because she was in a constant
state of uncleanness [from a Jewish viewpoint] and would be generally shunned by people
since contact with her rendered others unclean...A woman suffering from this complaint was
called a zabah, and came under the restrictions of Leviticus 15:25-33. So important was
considered the regulation of life for such a person that the tractate Zabim of the Mishnah is
devoted to this topic." (Pp. 191-92) Perhaps Lane is correct, but it seems more obvious to
relate the “torment” to the constant physical discomfort of the bleeding itself.
733Compare footnote 727 for this indication of Mark's "language of immediacy."
734Swete comments that "The Lord also experienced an instantaneous sensation in the
sphere of his consciousness...amounting to a definite knowledge of the fact...He was fully
aware that this power had gone forth from Him..." (P. 104) Compare footnote 728.
735The imperfect verb ἔλεγεν, elegen, “he was saying,” is changed
to the aorist verb ei=pen, eipen, “he said,” by Bezae, W, Theta,
Minuscules 565 and 700.
730Swete
The change in tense does not change the meaning of Mark, but
demonstrates the freedom felt by Bezae and these other copyists to
make such minor changes to the original text being copied.
736Literally, "pressing together."
737The words of Jesus' followers are meant as a "rebuke," implying that Jesus' question
is silly and unnecessary. Compare footnote 619 on Mark 4:38. Similar "rebukes" of Jesus by
his followers are to be found at Mark 6:37 and 8:4.
Luccock comments that "It might be said with some show of truth that if you wish to find
the particular glories of the Christian gospel, you must look at the things for which the disciples
rebuked Jesus. Such passages are of high historical value, as being least likely to have been
reported by compilers or revised by 'editors.' Here Jesus is impatiently reproached because of
his concern for a single individual in the mass...Jesus responded to the shy approach of
individual need as surely and deftly as a magnetic needle responds to the North Star..." (P.
449
having done this.739 5.33 So then the woman, being fearful and trembling,740 having known
what had happened to her,741 came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.742
722)
France comments that “Jesus’ sudden challenge takes everyone by surprise. The
commonsense response of the disciples (to which Jesus does not even deign to reply) serves
to heighten the peculiarity of his question; how can one ‘touch’ be singled out among a jostling
crowd? The effect is again to set Jesus apart as one with supernatural insight, who can
perceive the special situation of the one among the many.” (P. 238)
738Literally, "the (one)." But in Greek, both "the" and the phrase "who had done" are
feminine.
739France continues (see footnote 737), “That supernatural insight [of
Jesus] does not, however, apparently extend to an instant recognition of the culprit...” (P. 238)
740Following the aorist participle τρέμουσα, tremousa,
“trembling,” the phrase dio. pepoi,ekei la,qra, dio pepoiekei
lathra, “because she had acted secretly,” is interpolated into the
text by Bezae, Theta (see), Minuscules 28, 565, 700 (see), a few
other Greek
manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
This interpolation appears to be of the nature of early
commentary on the original text, seeking to give a reason for the
woman’s “fear and trembling.” It is a good explanation–but not part
of the original text. This again reminds us of the manner in which
Bezae has treated the text of Acts in so many instances.
France comments that “ her fear may derive not only from her awe
in the presence of the miraculous healer and the general
embarrassment of the situation, but also from the awareness that in
touching Jesus without permission she has made him ritually unclean;
if that is the case, however, neither Jesus nor Mark mentions the
point.” (P. 238)
741The feminine singular dative pronoun αὐτ, aute, “to her,” is
read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L,
Minuscules 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211 and a few other Greek
manuscripts.
It is changed to read evp v auvth|/, ep’ aute, “upon her,” by
Alexandrinus, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 1 of
Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”
It is changed to read evp v auvth,n, ep’ auten, “upon her”
(using the accusative instead of the dative) by Phi, Family 13 of
Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 1241 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but
450
5.34 So then he said to her, "Daughter,743 the faith744 of yours has made you well;745 depart
demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to
slightly change the grammar of the text being copied in order to
improve its reading–we think, unnecessarily so at this point.
Here again Mark uses a series of three participles to describe this woman--compare the
second paragraph of footnote 714.
742The accusative singular noun ἀλήθειαν, aletheian, “truth,” is
changed to read aivti,an auvth/j, aitian autes, literally, “case of
hers,” by W, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 1 (see), 28, 2542
and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic.
This change in reading demonstrates the freedom felt by these
copyists and translators to slightly change the original text, as
they change from “the truth” to “her case.” But this makes little
difference for the meaning of Mark.
743The feminine singular nominative noun Θυγάτηρ, thugater,
“daughter,” is read by Vaticanus, Bezae, W, Minuscules 28, 2427, a
few other Greek manuscripts and apparently by the first writer of
Ephraemi Rescriptus, although this last witness is almost illegible.
It is spelled quga,ter, thugater in the vocative case, “O
daughter,” by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi
Rescriptus (probably), L, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Families 1
and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”
The word is omitted by Minuscule 579 and a few other Greek
manuscripts.
These variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark.
France comments that “No one else in the gospels is addressed by
Jesus as Θυγάτηρ, thugater, ‘daughter,’ the nearest parallel is the
use of te,knon, teknon, ‘child,’ for the paralytic in 2:5.” (P.
238)
Sometimes people are heard addressing Jesus as "Father" in their prayers, and more
"orthodox" people want to correct such "incorrect theological language." However, here in
these words Jesus addresses this suffering woman as his "daughter," using language
appropriate to a father addressing his child. It seems obvious that for Mark, Jesus is the
embodiment of YHWH God in human history--and that therefore he can be addressed as
"God," and looked up to as the heavenly Father reaching out in mercy to fallen humanity.
However this may be, it is obvious from such language that Jesus "identifies" with this suffering
woman, and addresses her as a "member" of his "family."
744France notes that “For pi,stij, pistis, ‘belief,’ ‘faith,’ as
the basis for healing compare 10:52 (where the same formula is used)
and 2:5; 5:36; 9:23-24; for the same condition for miracles generally
451
into peace,746 and be healthy747 from the torment of yours."748
see also 4:40; 11:22-24...
“Such pi,stij, pistis consists more of a practical conviction
of Jesus’ [power, authority] than of a theologically developed
understanding of who he is; even this woman’s ‘superstitious’ belief
in healing by physical contact is sufficient to count.” (P. 238)
The πίστις, pistis ("faith," "confidence," "belief") of this woman is far more than
"intellectual assent" to some religious dogma. It is an attitude of longing that causes her to
reach out to touch Jesus, to trust in his power to make her well again.
Can people truly claim to have "faith" without such a "reaching out" to touch Jesus,
confident that he will act on their behalf? Schweizer comments, "...It was the woman's
manner--'a little craftiness, a little modesty, a little shyness due to her own uncleanness, and
through it all an unlimited confidence in him' (Lohmeyer)--which expressed the faith that made
her well." (P. 118)
745The 3rd person singular, perfect indicative active verb σέσωκέν, sesoken (see
footnote 725 for a discussion of the verb sw,zein, sozein) is in the "perfect" tense; it means
"your faith has saved you," "your faith has made you well."
Maclaren preaches a sermon on this passage entitled "The Power of a Feeble Faith."
He points out how this woman's faith was largely ignorant and self-seeking, but that Jesus
responded to that imperfect faith with healing, granting her wish. Her faith was almost
"magical" in orientation, believing as she did that her healing could come by a finger's touch of
his robe. Maclaren argued that none of us have "perfect faith"--but that even the most
inadequate of faith will be rewarded by Jesus, if it insists on reaching out to him while he is
passing our way. (Pp. 199-212)
746What wealth of meaning can be heard in this divine command of Jesus. It is the role
of the "Messianic" King that he will bring peace to the nations. And it is the conviction of the
New Testament that Jesus indeed imparts such "peace" to his followers.
France comments that “The Old Testament formula of reassurance and blessing,
u[page eivj eivrh,nhn, hupage eis eirenen, ‘depart into peace’ (compare Judges
18:6; 1 Samuel 1:17; 2 Samuel 15:9), confirms that she may now enjoy at last the
~Al+v', shalom, ‘peace,’ ‘prosperity,’ which she has long needed...”
747The
(P. 238)
feminine singular nominative adjective ὑγιὴς, hugies means "healthy," "sound."
France comments that “the further assurance i;sqi u`gih.j avpo. th/j
ma,stigo,j sou, isthi hugies apo tes mastigos sou, ‘be whole from the torment of
yours,’ makes it clear that her cure is not a merely temporary remission...The effect of the cure
will be...to remove her impurity and restore her to a normal place in society.” (P. 238)
452
5.35 While he is still speaking, they come749 from the synagogue-ruler,750 saying that
"The daughter of yours died.751 Why bother752 the teacher753 any more?" 5.36 But then the
Jesus, having overheard754 the word being spoken,755 says to the synagogue-ruler, "Don't be
748A
large amount of legend has surrounded this story, giving the name "Veronica" to
this woman, and telling of a statue built in her honor at Caesarea Philippi, or presenting her as
a princess of Edessa--see Swete, p. 106.
749Here again the use of the present participle and present tense verb is obvious, as the
author of Mark wants his readers to enter into this story, to identify with what "is happening,"
as if they were actually present. Compare footnote 601 on Mark 4:35. Swete comments that
"The coincidence [of their coming] was a happy one for the [woman who had just been healed],
for the new arrival at once diverted the attention of the crowd." (P. 106)
750See footnote 701.
751France comments that “The interrupted narrative is resumed with the news that the
delay has proved to be fatal.” (P. 238) Those are harsh, cold words, "Your daughter died..."
Isn't there some easier way to say it, some other words to use that won't cut so sharply and so
deeply? No, there is not. No matter how we may try to ease the pain, the death message is
always harsh and cold and cutting, no matter how delicately and kindly phrased. Whether we
like it or not, the death message comes, whether soon or late, to each of us. It may be our
mother, or father, our son or daughter--but one day it comes for every one of us, to cut us to
the quick. How shall we be prepared to receive that message?
752The 2nd person singular, present indicative active verb σκύλλεις, skulleis means "you
are wearying," "you are harassing"; "you are troubling," "you are annoying."
Swete observes that "The remark shows that the power of raising the dead was not yet
generally attributed to Jesus..." (P. 106) France comments that “It is...assumed that the
appeal lapses, and Jesus has no more to contribute. Mark does not say whether Jairus
shared this assumption–Jesus gives him no time to express his opinion.” (P. 238)
753Jesus is called "the teacher" 12 times in Mark's Gospel. See footnote 618 on Mark
4:38.
754The masculine singular aorist active nominative participle
παρακούσας, parakousas, “over-hearing,” or “having over-heard,” is
read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, and a later corrector;
Vaticanus, L, W, Delta, the first writer of Minuscule 892, Minuscule
2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscript e.
It is changed to the shorter and simpler verb avkou,saj,
akousas, “hearing,” or “having heard,” as is found Luke 8:50, by a
corrector of Sinaiticus, Bezae, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0126,
Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, a corrector
of 892, 1241, 1424, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the Latin
Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses and the Coptic tradition.
It is changed to read euvqe,wj avkou,saj, eutheos akousas,
“immediately hearing,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, N (in a
453
different word-order), Uncial Manuscript 0132, Minuscule 33, the
“Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript a (see) and the Harclean
Syriac.
France thinks that avkou,w, akouo, “to hear,” is “likely to
have been substituted for parakou,w, parakouo in the majority of
manuscripts as the more familiar verb...The fact that parakou,w,
parakouo can also mean ‘ignore’ or even ‘disobey’ may have influenced
the substitution. ” (Pp. 233-34)
BAGD gives the following three meanings for this verb: (1)
"hear what is not intended for one's ears," "overhear"; (2) "pay no
attention to," "ignore"; or (3) "refuse to listen to," "disobey."
Either of the first two meanings would be appropriate here, and it is
difficult to determine which meaning was intended.
France notes that this verb “suggests that the report was made
personally to Jairus, but that Jesus overheard it.” Jesus is “the
one person who is not deflected by the report, and proposes to press
on regardless. He takes charge of the situation and expects faith,
even in the face of death.” (P. 238)
Luccock, understanding this verb as meaning "ignoring," comments
that "...The art of ignoring, here illustrated by Jesus, is one of
the fine arts of faith...The place that seemed to be a blank wall, a
dead end, was to Jesus a place from which he would go on, with the
resources of God entering the situation. To Jesus men's report on
anything was never the last word. The last word belongs to God.
Jesus did not deny the reports. He entered into no argument with
them. He simply ignored them. Christian faith ignores the rumors
that hope has died, and remembers other words, 'I will build my
church, and the powers of
death shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18), not even the
bewildering powers of
death that in an atomic age can be let loose at a moment's notice."
(P. 723)
755The phrase to.n lo,gon lalou,menon, ton logon laloumenon,
‘the word being spoken,” is changed to read to.n lo,gon to.n
lalou,menon, ton logon ton laloumenon, “the word, the one being
spoken,” by Vaticanus and Minuscule 2427 (see).
It is changed to read tou,ton to.n lo,gon, touton ton logon,
literally, “this the word,” by Bezae and a majority of the Old Latin
witnesses.
These variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but
demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to
make such minor changes to the text being copied / translated, in
order to enhance its reading.
454
afraid. Only believe!"756 5.37 And he did not allow anyone to follow with him,757 except the
Peter,758 and Jacob, and John, the brother of Jacob.759 5.38 And they come into the house of
756This
is what Jesus says to the person who has just received the harsh, cutting words
of a death message: "Don't be afraid; only believe, only have confidence." There isn't much
need for fearlessness or confidence when everything is going our way, when there is no
trouble or heart-ache. But when death comes to our loved ones, then comes the testing of our
inner beings--will we be strong, will we have the strength, will our confidence hold? At that
very time Jesus speaks to his people, saying that we don't need to be afraid of death, and that
this is the time to put our confidence / faith / belief to work for us. And what the great
Physician and Shepherd of the sheep says is true.
757The phrase οὐδένα μετ̓ αὐτο συνακολουθσαι, oudena met’ autou
sunakolouthesai, literally, “anyone (or no one) with him to follow
with,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L,
Delta, Minuscules 892 and 2427.
It is changed to read ouvde,na auvtw|/ sunakoluqh/sai,
oudena auto sunakoluthesai, literally “anyone (or ‘no one’) him to
follow with,” meaning exactly the same thing, but omitting the
preposition met v, met’, and changing the genitive pronoun to the
dative, by Alexandrinus, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of
Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”
Alexandrinus, K, Minuscules 33 and 1241 leave off the prefixed
sun-, sun- from the infinitive avkoluqh/sai, akolouthesai, “to
follow.”
The phrase is changed to read ouvde,na auvtw|/
parakoluqh/sai, oudena auto parakolouthesai, “anyone (or no one)
with him to follow beside,” by Bezae, W, Family 1 of Minuscules,
Minuscules 28, 565, 700, the first writer of 2542 and a few other
Greek manuscripts.
The variants do not change the meaning of Mark, but show the
freedom felt by later copyists to make such minor changes to the text
being copied.
758The original text τὸν Πέτρον, ton Petron, literally “the
Peter,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta,
Minuscules 2427 and 2542.
The definite article is changed to read mo,non, monon, “alone,”
by W.
The article is omitted by Alexandrinus, Bezae, L, Theta, Uncial
Manuscript 0132, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and
the “Majority Text.”
455
the synagogue-ruler, and he observes an uproar,760 and crying and wailing many things.761
5.39 And entering, he says to them, "Why are you making an uproar, and762 crying? The child
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, and the
omission of the article may only reflect the differing convictions on
the part of Greek writers across the centuries as to whether or not
the article should be used with nouns and names. The change from the
article to mo,non, monon may reflect the desire of the copyist of W
to enhance the meaning of the text while omitting the article found
in the original.
759It is because of the mention of these three individuals, Peter, Jacob and John, here in
Mark 5:37, then again in 9:2 and in 14:33, that it has been concluded that these three formed
an "inner circle" of close associates of Jesus from among the twelve. Swete comments that
"...So careful is the Lord not to invade at such a time the seclusion of the home life. Three
were sufficient as witnesses..." (P. 107)
760The masculine singular accusative noun θόρυβον, thorubon is used of the noise and
confusion of excited crowds.
761The phrase καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας, kai klaiontas kai
alalazontas, “both crying and wailing...” is changed from the
accusative form of the participles to the genitive form, klaio,ntwn
kai. avlala,zontwn, klaionton kai alalazonton, with the same
meaning, by Bezae, Minuscule 565 (see) and the Old Latin Manuscript
a.
This is a grammatical correction of the original, or at least a
change in grammar, as the original is just as understandable as the
correction. It does not change the meaning of Mark.
The verb avlala,zein, alalazein implies a shrill, ringing noise, "wailing" loudly over
the death of someone in "lamentation." Undoubtedly this has reference to professional
"mourners" called in and paid by the family to assist in the "proper" ritual of mourning the dead.
France comments that “The presence of noisy mourners is a clear
indication that there was no doubt about the girl’s death, and Jesus’
response assumes that is why they are there.” (P. 239)
762Following the conjunction kai,, kai, the interrogative
accusative singular pronoun ti,, ti, “why,” is interpolated into the
text by Bezae, Theta, Minuscule 28 and a majority of the Old Latin
witnesses.
The interpolation does not change the meaning of Mark, but is
another example of later copyists and translators attempting to
enhance the reading of the original by such minor additions.
456
did not die, but is sleeping."763 5.40 And they were ridiculing764 him.
763What
did Jesus mean by this strange, enigmatic statement? Is he denying that death
is real? Or, is he insisting that the pronouncement of death has been mistaken? Is he to be
understood as saying that the little girl is not dead, but only "asleep," or "in a coma"?
How many times when the death message has come to us, have we rejected it as false,
and clung to the hope that it is mistaken, that in truth it was someone else who has died, that
our loved one is really still alive? Is Jesus guilty of this same thing--of rejection and denial of
the reality of death?
Swete holds that "The Lord's meaning seems to be: 'a death from which there is to be
so speedy an awakening can only be regarded as a sleep.'" (P. 108) Taylor, after extended
discussion of what Jesus might have meant, states that "...It is possible that, while [‘she is
sleeping’] does not mean death as men use the word, it describes it as God sees it, namely, as
a sleep from which there is to be a speedy awakening." (P. 295) Schweizer agrees with this,
stating, "Jesus' statement is an expression of the fact that he views the child in the same way
that God does. For him the coming resurrection is so certain that even now it is more real than
the testimony of human eyesight. In the same way Jesus views the future kingdom as already
active in the present." (P. 119)
Maclaren states, in a sermon on this text, that "Christ's great word was spoken for us all
when our hearts are sore and our dear ones go...Sleep is rest, and bears in itself the pledge of
waking. So Christ has changed the 'shadow feared of man' into beauty, and in the strength of
His great word we can meet the last enemy with 'Welcome, friend.'" (Pp. 196-97) Then he
added, "It is strange that any one reading this narrative should have been so blind to its
deepest beauty as to suppose that Jesus was here saying that the child had only swooned,
and was really alive. He was not denying that she was what men call 'dead,' but He was, in
the triumphant consciousness of His own power, and in the clear vision of the realities of
spiritual being, of which bodily states are but shadows, denying that what men call death
deserves the name." (P. 197)
764The 3rd person plural, imperfect indicative active verb κατεγέλων, kategelon means
"they were laughing at,” “they were ridiculing." Rengstorf states that "This obviously denotes
scornful laughter on the basis of supposedly better information and therefore of a superiority
which is not slow to make itself felt." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, p.
660)
Luccock comments that "There they were, confronted by the final fact, death. Anyone
who suggested that there might be anything more on the other side of that fact, anyone who
ventured beyond the fixed limits of their world, was someone to be laughed at...Whenever
Jesus, his teaching, his gospel, have cut across the finalities of any settled world of thought
and custom, men have laughed at him...There were any number who laughed at the vision of a
universal Christ and a universal salvation for all men. And how the pagan worshipers of Mars
[the god of war] have always laughed...These people in Jairus' house laughed because Jesus
refused to accept death as the last word. Who is he to deny the common-sense fact that the
undertaker and the gravedigger have the last word about death? Diffused throughout the
whole nineteenth century was an ill-concealed note of laughter--laughter at the impossible
romanticism of the Christian faith..." (P. 724)
457
So then he,765 having thrown them all out,766 takes along the father of the child and the
mother, and those with him, and he enters where the child was being. 767 5.41 And, taking
We can today add to Luccock's comment that this same "laughter" at basic Christian
teachings was to be heard throughout the 1960's in American schools and universities (and
even seminaries), as supposedly Christian teachers proclaimed "The Death of God" and
ridiculed such things as the reality of a living God, or the genuine hope of resurrection and
eternal life. Later, in the 1990's such cynical unbelief came to be recognized for what it is, and
the very teachings laughed at a few decades prior once again became the treasured
possession and joyful proclamation of the people of God.
765The phrase, auvto,j de, autos de, literally “he, then,” is
read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta,
Theta, Minuscules 33, 579, 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211 and a few other
Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to o` de,, ho de, another way of saying the same
thing, by Alexandrinus, W, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of
Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”
It is changed to read o` de. vIhsouj,, ho de Iesous, “the
Jesus, then,” by Phi, Family 1 of Minuscules, a few other Greek
manuscripts and the Harclean Syriac (with markings to indicate this
reading was not found in the exemplar being copied / translated).
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but
demonstrate the freedom felt by later copyists and translators to
slightly change the original text being copied / translated.
766The masculine singular nominative aorist participle evkbalw,n, ekbalon, literally
“casting out,” or “having cast out,” may well have connotations of "driving out," "expelling,"
literally "throwing out." However, it is also used without the connotation of force, "send out,"
"remove."
Luccock, commenting on this, notes that "Only with difficulty does the Christian faith
shine through the...[sad expressions] of mourning and burial. So much suggests a pagan
darkness; so little, comparatively, suggests the faith of a glorious resurrection, a faith in the
God of the living. All such conventional attitudes and practices Jesus puts outside, as he put
the noise-makers outside the home of Jairos...There is always a new situation when Jesus
comes in, and faith drives out despair and fear." (P. 724)
767Following the word παιδίον, paidion, “child,” the accusative
singular neuter active participle avnakei,menon, anakeimenon,
“lying,” is interpolated into the text by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”
A synonym, katakei,menon, katakeimenon, is read by W, Theta,
Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542 and a
few other Greek manuscripts), the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old
458
hold of the hand of the child, he says to her, Talitha, koum,768 which is, being translated,769
"The little girl, I tell you, arise!"770 5.42 And immediately771 the little girl got up and she was
Latin witnesses and the Syriac tradition.
The text without any interpolation is read by Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, Bezae, L, Delta, Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek
manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
The interpolations do not change the meaning of Mark, but are
apparently the additions of later copyists and translators.
768The phrase (quoting Jesus in Aramaic) Ταλιθα κουμ, Talitha
koum, literally “The little girl, arise.” is changed to read Taliqa
koumi, talitha koumi, with the same meaning, by Alexandrinus, Theta,
Uncial Manuscript 0126, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,”
the Old Latin Manuscript q, the Latin Vulgate and the Harclean
Syriac, in an attempt to sharpen the grammar of the Aramaic
quotation.
It is changed to read only the one word, Tabiqa, Tabitha, a
proper name that has been taken from Acts 9:40, by W, the Old Latin
Manuscripts a, a corrector of r, and with the addition of koumi,
koumi by a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
It is strangely changed to read r`abbi. qabita koumi, hrabbi
thabita koumi, by Bezae.
We think that the reading of the proper name is an indication of
the inability of the copyist and the Latin translators to read
Aramaic. The difference between κουμ, koum and koumi, koumi is the
difference between the masculine singular imperative and the feminine
singular imperative in Aramaic, so that the first variant reading is
a grammatical correction of the original text by these later copyists
and translators who obviously understood Aramaic. See Metzger, p.
87.
The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but
demonstrate the difficulty found by Greek writers and others in
understanding Aramaic.
769The present passive nominative neuter singular participle
μεθερμηνευόμενον, methermeneuomenon, means "when being translated."
770Mark's "translation" adds in some words not in the Aramaic statement quoted from
Jesus.
Some scholars have concluded, on the basis of such quotations of Jesus, in which
Aramaic is used (see also Mark 7:34 and 15:34), that Jesus' original language was Aramaic.
459
walking around,772 for she was being twelve years old.773 And they were beside themselves774
[immediately]775 with great amazement.776 5.43 And he ordered them over and over777 so that
But this is a very questionable conclusion. Time and time again (far more than a hundred to
one) Jesus is quoted as speaking in Greek. Why then should we not conclude that his original
language was Greek?
The best conclusion to draw is that Jesus was bi-lingual or tri-lingual, that he could
speak Aramaic, in the native Jewish homes, or read Classical Hebrew in the synagogues, but
that he could and did speak Greek in the heavily cosmopolitan Galilee of his day (Sepphoris,
the seat of Roman power, with its Greek language, was only four miles from Jesus’ hometown). What we are learning from archaeological discoveries in Capernaum and Sepphoris is
that first century Galilee was much more cosmopolitan and multi-lingual than was previously
thought.
Luccock comments that "...This picture of Jesus, taking the hand of the little girl and
bidding her to rise, suggests vividly what he has meant to young womanhood. His influence in
lifting the crushing burdens which society has so often bound on the frail shoulders of little girls
can never be measured or even described. Man's inhumanity to little girls is a special and
agonizing brand of man's inhumanity to man. In the Mediterranean world, in the first century
A.D., they were so often merely unwanted things. They were exposed to the elements, a fairly
common form of child murder. Even where such cruelty did not prevail, they were regarded
more as a misfortune than as a blessing. The new valuation of persons, which the gospel of
Jesus brought, changed the conception of them: they were no longer things, but persons,
precious in the sight of God.
"Another of the dark chapters of the history of childhood is that of the coming of the
industrial revolution to England. Little girls under ten crawled around mine pits and worked
long hours in factories. It took a long time--far too long--before the aroused Christian social
conscience spoke effectively the words of Jesus, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’ The voice of
the Master sounded out through the devoted life of Josephine Butler, who strove to bring within
the circle of mercy and love girls condemned to prostitution." (P. 725)
771Compare footnotes 727 and 733 for this typically Markan "language of immediacy."
772Taylor notes that "The tenses are carefully distinguished and should be given their
full force: the child arose and continued walking." (P. 297)
773Why does Mark add this statement "...For she was twelve years old"? Is it because
its readers might think of the child as being too young to walk around? The woman just healed
by Jesus had been sick for twelve years–throughout the life of this little girl. Are we to see any
significance in the two-fold use of "twelve" here? If so, it is not obvious.
774This is the same verb that was used in Mark 3:21 by those closest to Jesus, when
they sought to take hold of him, saying that "He's beside himself,” or “he’s gone crazy." See
footnote 442 on that passage. Here, instead of meaning "gone crazy," it means "to be
amazed," "to be astonished and filled with fear," "out of their senses" because of the unusual,
miraculous nature of what has happened.
775The adverb euvqu,j, euthus, “immediately,” is read by
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Minuscules 33,
579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, some manuscripts of
460
the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic.
It is changed to pa,ntej, pantes, “everyone,” by Bezae, a
majority of the Old Latin witnesses, some manuscripts of the Sahidic
Coptic and a few manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic.
It is omitted by P45, Alexandrinus, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13
of Minuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the
Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac and
some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic.
Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark.
We do not agree that the adverb should be placed in the text, even
though within brackets.
776Literally, "...with a great ecstasy." This is the language of "Theophany," describing
the kind of amazement and "ecstasy" that are felt in the presence of divine revelation. See the
use of this same noun in Mark 16:8, the verse with which the oldest (and in our opinion, the
best) Greek manuscripts of Mark end.
Schweizer comments that "The fact that God became a concrete reality within the
experience of these human beings immediately produced fear. This shows how uncomfortable
the presence of God is, because it disturbs the status quo in which [humanity] feels more or
less at home." (P. 120)
France comments that “The raising of the dead fits in appropriately with Jesus’ other
acts of power, rather than being singled out (as it is more clearly in John 11) as a miracle sui
generis [‘unique’]. It is possible that the use of the verbs ev,geire, egeire, ‘arise’ and
avne,sth, aneste, ‘she rose up,’ both of which occur frequently in the New Testament to
denote the resurrection both of Jesus and of believers, served to suggest to Mark’s readers
the idea that in this resuscitation of a dead girl there was a fore-shadowing of the power over
death which would be the basis of the Christian faith. But the verbs are common ones, and in
this story could hardly have been avoided; Mark gives no overt indication that he wishes to
suggest a resurrection typology. This was, after all, a return to earthly life (and subsequent
death), not resurrection.” (P. 240)
777The adjective πολλα,, polla, which we have translated “over
and over,” is omitted by Bezae, Minuscule 1424, a few other Greek
manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.
The omission changes the text slightly–instead of Jesus being so
insistent that no one know what had happened, it is, with the
omission, simply mentioned that they
should not let anyone know.
Literally, πολλα,, polla means "...many things,” or “much." Compare Mark 3:12;
5:10 (with its footnote 660), and footnotes 707 and 717.
461
no one should know this;778 and he said it should be given to her to eat.779
778Again
we confront what scholars have called the "Messianic Secret" in Mark. France
comments that “The command to secrecy is by now a familiar refrain in Mark, though 5:19-20
has provided a fascinating exception to the rule. This time the command stands even less
chance of success, in a setting where the dead girl must soon be presented alive to the
mourning neighborhood.” (P. 240)
Why does Jesus want to keep this matter unknown or secret? It seems obvious that
premature knowledge of the nature of Jesus' mission and work could have easily led to
hindrance to, and even prevention of, his fulfilling his mission in Galilee. See Mark 1:44 with
its footnote 216; also Mark 3:12 with its footnote 395. By way of contrast, compare footnote
688.
Even for modern students of Mark, the same thing is true. If we learn from passages
such as this to look upon Jesus as God's chosen King who conquers sickness and death-without connecting this victory with the necessity for his own suffering and death and
resurrection--we too will greatly misunderstand who Jesus is. He is not the conqueror of
sickness and death apart from his own suffering and death. Only the risen Lord, in his eternal
kingdom, can be humanity’s hope. We think that this is what lies at the heart of the so-called
“Messianic Secret.”
779Instead of seeking to receive glory and recognition for who he is, Jesus centers his
concern on the welfare and health of the little girl who has been restored to life.
Swete comments that in this "...We have fresh evidence of the sympathetic tenderness
of the Lord, and His attention to small details in which the safety or comfort of others was
involved. In the excitement of the moment the necessity of maintaining the life which had been
restored might have been overlooked. But life restored by miracle must be supported by
ordinary means; the miracle has no place where human care or labor will suffice." (P. 110)
Anderson, however, insists that "The request to give the child something to eat is not so
much a testimony to Jesus' very human concern for the child's needs as impressive
confirmation of her restoration to normal bodily existence, i.e. confirmation of the reality of the
miracle." (P. 156)
These two views of Swete and Anderson are not exclusive, and should be combined-here is an attention to detail that in fact confirms the reality of the miracle.
Schweizer comments that "Mark presents the raising of this dead person as a single
exception [to the normal finality of death], which, although it demonstrates Jesus' authority,
does not solve [humanity's] problem of death. The fact that in a particularly tragic case Jesus
restored a dead person to [her] family for a few more years does not mean that [she] had
overcome death..." But by this story, says Schweizer, "The believer can...learn through Jesus
to take the reality of the God who raises the dead more seriously than the apparent reality of
death. Then, by the side of a casket or on his own death-bed he will be able to believe in a life
which is more concrete and real than anything on earth which is called personal life." (Pp.
120-21)
462
Schweizer also states, "Undoubtedly, [this story is] reporting a straight-forward miracle
of resurrection. Of course, a thing like this might seem almost natural to them, since such
miracles were attributed to Greek wonder-workers and even were authenticated by the
testimony of physicians. We, however, live in a completely different situation...The situation of
[people] today is so different that [our] attention becomes fixed upon the miracle itself--whether
or not [we] believe it to be true. In the process the story loses its 'symbolic' meaning.
"It must be recognized that the resuscitation of a corpse and the person's return to what
for all practical purposes is the same kind of an earthly life...is the exact opposite of what the
Bible calls resurrection--recreation by God to an existence which is entirely new. It is life in a
manner that is inconceivable, because it is existence in fellowship with God. To be sure, God
provides signs for this. But to transfer the question of faith from the thing itself to the sign
would be fatal...The real miracle in this story is the emergence of faith which believes God is
able to triumph over death." (Ibid.)
Anderson holds a very similar view: "...Even if the miracle itself were proven, we should
then only have an isolated, local instance of the restoration of a child to normal day-to-day
existence--and that might merely teach us in the presence of death to expect a similar kind of
physical miracle. Such expectation (doomed to disappointment.) is to be sure radically
different from the faith that is not broken by death but goes on believing in God's power to
conquer it and to bestow that new life (of the resurrection) that unimaginably transcends our
present everyday existence...So the Evangelist would have understood this story (whose
historical credentials he would not, like us, have paused to question) as paradigmatic for faith,
faith in God's victory over death...Mark's reader is asked to believe in the creative power of
God's word in Jesus, as well in the face of death as in everyday living." (Pp. 156-57)
Lane sums up the story by saying, "The resuscitation of Jairus' daughter is both a deed
of compassion and a pledge of the conquering power of Jesus over the combined forces of
death and unbelief, in which the Kingdom of God was disclosed as a saving reality. It is
precisely in deliverance from death that the salvation which Jesus brings finds its most pointed
expression." (P. 199) He quotes G. Sevenster: "The dead are raised, because in Jesus'
action that Kingdom is beginning to be realized in which there will be no more death
(Revelation 21:4 and 20:14)." That is why we have named this study, "Signs of the Coming
Kingdom: Sickness and Death Conquered by the King." It was in the light of a life-time spent
in translating such stories as this, that the English scholar and translator, J. B. Phillips, wrote
the following words:
"Christ taught an astonishing thing about physical death: not merely that it is an
experience robbed of its terror, but that as an experience it does not exist at all. To 'sleep in
Christ,' 'depart and be with Christ,' 'fall asleep,'--these are the expressions the New Testament
uses. It is high time the 'icy river,' 'the gloomy portal,' 'the bitter pains,' and all the rest of the
melancholy images were brought face to face with the fact: Jesus Christ has abolished death."
Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) wrote: "Death is not death if it raises us in a moment
from darkness into light, from weakness into strength, from sinfulness into holiness...Death is
not death if it rids us of doubt and fear, of chance and change, of space and time, and all which
space and time bring forth and then destroy."
463
What about us? What will we say in the face of death? Are we able to share in this
unshakeable confidence of Jesus?
464
465
PRAYER
Lord Jesus, we are learning from the Gospel of Mark who You are:
You are the Son of God, who can speak to the storming wind and waves,
commanding them to be still. You are the One who can command the
unclean spirits in human hearts, getting rid of those evil forces
that destroy and cripple and ruin our lives. More than that, You are
the Great Physician, Who reaches out to touch and heal those who are
suffering–especially those people considered the least worthy in
first-century society–elderly women with long-time sicknesses,
considered “unclean”; and frail, dying little girls, considered
“nobodies” by many in the first century world. How thankful we are
that You reached out to them with Your mercy and healing!
For we still need Your touch today, in our twenty-first century
world. In spite of our abundance of medical facilities, we are still
the victims of life-threatening accidents, of terminal cancer, and
heart attack, and numerous dread diseases. Sometimes we ourselves,
and our beloved children, become addicted to drugs, or get caught up
with companions that lead us in the wrong direction. There is
nothing better that we can ask for ourselves, and for our beloved
children, than that You, Lord Jesus, will lay Your hands upon us and
them, filling us with Your Spirit and life. O Lord, let us today, as
we worship, reach out to You, opening our hearts and our lives to
Your saving presence. Let us not allow our worship to be empty, or
hollow ritual–but rather, let us together earnestly seek Your
presence! We desperately need Your touch!
Today, all around us, we still hear the voice of cynical despair
and of unbelief; we hear the crude mockery of things divine, denying
Your reality, or the possibility of new life here, or of eternal life
beyond the grave. O Lord, let us refuse to pay attention to those
voices, and instead pay attention to Your voice, saying to us, “Don’t
be afraid. Only believe!” Give us strength of faith to believe that
death is little more than a sleep, and that Your hand will raise us
up from death into the eternal, resurrected life of Your Kingdom,
where death is conquered and powerless, and where love and goodness
and truth and joy reign forever. Let us never give in to the common
view that the under-taker and grave-digger have the last word about
death!
O Lord, death is not death if it raises us in a moment from
darkness into light, from weakness into strength, from sinfulness
into purity. Death is not death it if rids us of doubt and fear, of
chance and change, and all which space and time bring forth and then
destroy. You have abolished death; You have given us life that knows
no end. Thanks be to You, Lord Jesus! Amen.
466