A rotina é algo que consegue tirar a motivação de qualquer pessoa. Muitos começam suas carreiras profissionais super motivados, até mesmo empolgados com a perspectiva de sucesso profissional, porém, anos depois, tudo o que existe são reclamações da rotina escravizante e sugadora das forças que mantém o ânimo e a alegria da vida. A rotina não é somente responsável por fazer do trabalho uma das piores coisas da vida (há excessões), mas também é responsável por destruir relacionamentos (de um simples namoro até um casamento sólido), por tirar a poesia da vida, por estagnar o ser humano, fazendo dele um ser mecânico, limitado aos hábitos do dia-a-dia, sem a coragem de enfrentar o novo ou desconhecido.
Entre várias definições para a palavra rotina, uma me chamou a atenção. Rotina significa obedecer normas, evitar alterações ou mudanças. Talvez e acho que eu esteja certo, a grande razão da rotina ser tão devastadora, é justamente o fator não-mudança. Ainda que o ser humano não sobreviva sem certos hábitos, do tipo, alimentar-se, escovar os dentes, tomar banho, dormir e acordar todos os dias, ainda certos padrões de comportamentos, o fator mudança sempre fará parte da vida humana. Por mais que os conceitos entre hábito e rotina sejam semelhantes, não creio que as duas palavras sejam sinônimas. Na verdade, creio que é impossível viver sem hábitos, porém, acho que sobreviveríamos sem a rotina.
A palavra rotina, em si, carrega uma conotação negativa, como algo que traz maus sentimentos para quem dela faz uso. Já o hábito, em muitos casos, é sinônimo até de preservação de algo. Como por exemplo, comportamentos adquiridos em processos habituais de seres humanos da mesma comunidade.
Creio que as coisas pioram quando fazemos do nosso relacionamento com Deus uma coisa “rotineira”, ou seja, mecânica. O fator não-mudança no relacionamento com Deus, pode paralizar e congelar a nossa vida com Ele. Deus não muda em Seus atributos, porém, sempre trará mudanças na vida do homem que quer se aproximar e crescer nEle (em graça e em conhecimento). Esta dinâmica de mutabilidade de um Deus imutável se dá porque Deus conhece a necessidade humana de crescer, de melhorar, de transformar, de mudar. E Ele oferece está vida abundante, para aqueles que querem e que se aproximam com as motivações corretas.
Infelizmente, a religião tem o poder de operar contrariamente ao que Deus pode fazer em nós. A religião pode se tornar uma catalisadora de rotinas na alma humana. E ao fazer isto, a religião se torna responsável em destruir a vida de alegria e de contentamento, como também de consciência das responsabilidades, de um relacionamento saudável entre Deus e os homens.
Concluo dizendo que também encontramos em nós uma parcela de culpa, quando deixamos o nosso relacionamento com Deus paralizar por conta do poder nocivo da rotina da religião. Sim, pois o fator comodismo neste caso tem um papel importantíssimo. A vida cristã não se limita aos sermões da igreja, à adoração na igreja, ou aos projetos feitos pela igreja. Nós somos muito mais responsáveis pela manutenção da nossa vida cristã, do que a igreja. A nossa saúde espiritual deve ser preservada, ainda que não tenhamos um prédio para irmos aos finais de semana. Ou até mesmo se tivermos um, mas o virmos como um lugar apenas para marcar presença. Em ambos os casos, repousa sobre nós a responsabilidade de não deixarmos que a rotina massacrante da vida e da religião, apague o amor e a chama da presença de Deus em nossos corações.
Rodrigo Serrão
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Cansado
Estou cansado. Cansado fisicamente pelo tanto que leio. Parece que ler por um longo período de tempo tem o poder de cansar mais que um dia inteiro de exercícios físicos. Não estou frustrado com meu curso (Teologia), mas cansado. Na verdade, as vezes bate uma frustração-zinha lá no fundo da alma. As vezes me pergunto se não já sei o suficiente para falar sobre o Evangelho a toda criatura. As vezes me pergunto para que serve todo o conhecimento ensinado em Seminários. Gostaria de saber qual a porcentagem do uso de tudo aquilo para a vida prática, para os problemas reais da vida.
O conhecimento acadêmico tem o poder de seduzir as pessoas. Essa sedução se dá porque o conhecimento trás poder para quem o possui. E isto nem sempre me seduz!
De fato, resolvi aplicar para fazer uma viagem missionária neste verão, para permanecer vivo durante o meu tempo de Seminário, pois caso contrário, terei que encomendar um caixão para enterrar a minha alma. E foi esta a resposta que dei ao meu líder de grupo, no final-de-semana passado, quando ele me perguntou o porquê de eu querer ir à essa viagem missionária. Minha resposta foi simples e clara – Eu quero sobreviver ao sair do Seminário!!
Tenho me convencido mais e mais que não faz sentido se entregar a um chamado (ao ministério), se eu só fico estudando o dia inteiro (a carga de coisas para se estudar é tão grande que não se tem tempo para quase mais nada). Deixei de ver sentido nesta overdose de assuntos e teorias, e estou vendo que falta mais da prática dentro das instituições de ensino teológico.
Porém, quando digo prática, não me refiro a ministérios de igreja do tipo, professor de EBD, ministro de louvor, diretor de coral, ministério infantil, etc. Não vejo como prática algo que se limita às quatros paredes de um prédio. Acho que seremos muito mais úteis – e aqui falo aos seminaristas – do lado de fora das igrejas. Principalmente porque tudo que lá (igrejas) acontece segue uma rotina que mata qualquer um, principalmente aqueles quem já vivem em uma rotina permanente de estudos. Creio que o chamado de Deus para minha vida é para fora, para o mundo, para as pessoas “doentes”. Não que os de dentro também não estejam doentes (na maioria das vezes estão pior que os de fora). O que adianta sal dentro do saleiro e luz dentro de uma gaveta?
Tenho lutado cada dia mais contra a idéia de sistemas religiosos, principalmente aqueles que abusadamente falam sobre o Santo nome de Jesus (não acredito que Jesus veio à Terra para fundar uma religião). Não tenho visto nenhum sentido em sistemas que monopolizam o Soberano, clamando seguirem o Senhor Jesus (que é a encarnação do amor), mas que possuem uma história marcada de sangue, intolerância, guerras, desamor, ódio, manipulação, morte, etc. Essa é a história da “igreja” que tanto me entristece e me faz pensar milhões de vezes, se foi para isso mesmo que eu fui chamado. Sim, porque assim como todo sistema humano, uma vez dentro, ou você se “molda” a eles, ou inicia-se uma revolução, mas que com certeza não tem resultados positivos no final. Por outro lado, não me vejo fazendo outra coisa, que não seja ligado à pregação e ensino da Palavra.
Eu creio que ser discípulo de Jesus é outra coisa. Creio que o verdadeiro discípulo põe as mãos no barro da vida, e as suja! Ele se identifica com os esquecidos, os pecadores (como se houvesse alguem que não o fôsse), com os da periferia, com os pobres, com as viúvas, com os marginalizados, etc. Tiago disse no seu livro “A religião pura e imaculada diante de nosso Deus e Pai é esta: Visitar os órfãos e as viúvas nas suas aflições e guardar-se isento da corrupção do mundo.” (Tg 1.27).
O sociólogo Tony Campolo disse aqui onde eu estudo, que deveríamos ter cuidado com o pacote que é vendido em Seminários, pois nós não fomos chamados para fazer parte de instituições, fomos chamados sim, mas para pregar o Reino de Deus a toda a criatura. Ele disse que se tivéssemos que escolher entre título (diploma) e testemunho, que preferíssemos escolher testemunho.
O problema é que neste sistema mundano o título é a chave para se conseguir um “emprego”. Especialmente aqui nos EUA, onde a igreja é de fato uma grande empresa, onde tudo gira em torno de números, orçamentos e controle de qualidade.
Não sei o que me aguarda no futuro!
Minha oração é que eu chegue ao final da minha vida com a mais absoluta certeza de que não vendi a minha alma, e que consegui tanto o título, quanto o testemunho.
Rodrigo Serrão
O conhecimento acadêmico tem o poder de seduzir as pessoas. Essa sedução se dá porque o conhecimento trás poder para quem o possui. E isto nem sempre me seduz!
De fato, resolvi aplicar para fazer uma viagem missionária neste verão, para permanecer vivo durante o meu tempo de Seminário, pois caso contrário, terei que encomendar um caixão para enterrar a minha alma. E foi esta a resposta que dei ao meu líder de grupo, no final-de-semana passado, quando ele me perguntou o porquê de eu querer ir à essa viagem missionária. Minha resposta foi simples e clara – Eu quero sobreviver ao sair do Seminário!!
Tenho me convencido mais e mais que não faz sentido se entregar a um chamado (ao ministério), se eu só fico estudando o dia inteiro (a carga de coisas para se estudar é tão grande que não se tem tempo para quase mais nada). Deixei de ver sentido nesta overdose de assuntos e teorias, e estou vendo que falta mais da prática dentro das instituições de ensino teológico.
Porém, quando digo prática, não me refiro a ministérios de igreja do tipo, professor de EBD, ministro de louvor, diretor de coral, ministério infantil, etc. Não vejo como prática algo que se limita às quatros paredes de um prédio. Acho que seremos muito mais úteis – e aqui falo aos seminaristas – do lado de fora das igrejas. Principalmente porque tudo que lá (igrejas) acontece segue uma rotina que mata qualquer um, principalmente aqueles quem já vivem em uma rotina permanente de estudos. Creio que o chamado de Deus para minha vida é para fora, para o mundo, para as pessoas “doentes”. Não que os de dentro também não estejam doentes (na maioria das vezes estão pior que os de fora). O que adianta sal dentro do saleiro e luz dentro de uma gaveta?
Tenho lutado cada dia mais contra a idéia de sistemas religiosos, principalmente aqueles que abusadamente falam sobre o Santo nome de Jesus (não acredito que Jesus veio à Terra para fundar uma religião). Não tenho visto nenhum sentido em sistemas que monopolizam o Soberano, clamando seguirem o Senhor Jesus (que é a encarnação do amor), mas que possuem uma história marcada de sangue, intolerância, guerras, desamor, ódio, manipulação, morte, etc. Essa é a história da “igreja” que tanto me entristece e me faz pensar milhões de vezes, se foi para isso mesmo que eu fui chamado. Sim, porque assim como todo sistema humano, uma vez dentro, ou você se “molda” a eles, ou inicia-se uma revolução, mas que com certeza não tem resultados positivos no final. Por outro lado, não me vejo fazendo outra coisa, que não seja ligado à pregação e ensino da Palavra.
Eu creio que ser discípulo de Jesus é outra coisa. Creio que o verdadeiro discípulo põe as mãos no barro da vida, e as suja! Ele se identifica com os esquecidos, os pecadores (como se houvesse alguem que não o fôsse), com os da periferia, com os pobres, com as viúvas, com os marginalizados, etc. Tiago disse no seu livro “A religião pura e imaculada diante de nosso Deus e Pai é esta: Visitar os órfãos e as viúvas nas suas aflições e guardar-se isento da corrupção do mundo.” (Tg 1.27).
O sociólogo Tony Campolo disse aqui onde eu estudo, que deveríamos ter cuidado com o pacote que é vendido em Seminários, pois nós não fomos chamados para fazer parte de instituições, fomos chamados sim, mas para pregar o Reino de Deus a toda a criatura. Ele disse que se tivéssemos que escolher entre título (diploma) e testemunho, que preferíssemos escolher testemunho.
O problema é que neste sistema mundano o título é a chave para se conseguir um “emprego”. Especialmente aqui nos EUA, onde a igreja é de fato uma grande empresa, onde tudo gira em torno de números, orçamentos e controle de qualidade.
Não sei o que me aguarda no futuro!
Minha oração é que eu chegue ao final da minha vida com a mais absoluta certeza de que não vendi a minha alma, e que consegui tanto o título, quanto o testemunho.
Rodrigo Serrão
Monday, February 20, 2006
Book Review - The Humanity of God
Barth’s work in this book does not focus on just one issue. On the contrary, the book is an answer for three major issues within Christianity: 1) The role of Theology, particularly in this case with 19th century theology; 2) Christology and the question of the humanity of God; and 3) Human freedom and the issue of Christian ethics. Each one of these issues is strongly connected but at the same time they can exist in complete independence and separation from each other.
Karl Barth is considered the greatest theologian of the 20th century not only because of his great works, especially Church Dogmatics, but also because he brought Christianity back to the near-forgotten orthodoxy. Barth wrote about 19th century theology (from Schleiermacher to Ritschl) and shed light on their theology by pointing out where they failed as theologians and the reasons for why that happened. Barth was aware of the cultural context where those theologians were involved, and how that particular culture negatively influenced the construction of a sound theology. Theologians of the 19th century were “first animated and nourished by Herder and the Romantics, as well as by the religious and national awakening of the Napoleonic era” (pg. 13). For Barth, theology had “turned into philosophy of the history of religion in general, and of Christian religion in particular” (pg. 13). He also says, “There was scarcely a theologian who did not also consider himself a professional philosopher” (pg. 21). Barth then moves towards several minor criticisms of the aspects of that theology, from ethics to spirituality, from the apathy of the Christian life to evangelistic zeal. Barth’s major resistance was against the thought of an exaggerated anthropocentrism that permeated and influenced many, if not all great theologians of the 19th century. Clearly the key word for this first essay would be anthropocentrism. It is here where all the difference is made. The question that rises when you approach 19th century theology could be who you will focus your attention upon the most, on man or on God?
Karl Barth’s second essay entitles the book. Although, for a distracted reader the subject discussed in this essay appears to have nothing to do with the first one. But in reality, there are connections between both essays. Actually, Barth’s Christology can be better compared to theologians from the age of reformation or even earlier than that, but it is in total disparity from the theology of the 19th century. Therefore, this essay could be seen as the orthodox or in Barth’s case the “neo”-orthodox response to the theology of the 19th century. His major thesis in this chapter is undoubtedly the doctrine of Christ, His humanity and His deity. For Barth, the knowledge of Christ’s humanity and deity cannot be derived from one another. They are strictly interrelated. He says on page 46, “It is precisely God’s deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity.” For Barth, Jesus is the perfect expression of God. He says, “In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man” (pg. 46). And his humanity is the perfect link between God and man, “even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father” (pg. 53). In Barth’s articulation of the glorious salvation provided by God to all men, he enters into a concept that can lead someone to think that he is defending universalism. On page 60 he states that “the human spirit is naturally Christian.” One may charge Barth as a defender of universalism. Even he recognizes the closeness of his teachings with the doctrine of universalism. He closes his view about salvation in Christ and the issue of universalism by saying that “we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ” (pg. 62).
He also brings up the concept of outsiders and insiders when he says that “the so-called ‘outsiders’ are really only ‘insiders’ who have not yet understood and apprehended themselves as such” (pg. 59). This essay contains some key words. The most evident ones are humanity, and deity. But we can also say that the word relationship plays a great role in Barth’s teaching of the humanity of God, especially among the persons of the Trinity.
Following a logical sequence, Karl Barth takes us to his last essay of the book. Now we come to the application of what has been discussed so far. We come to the issue of Christian freedom. He starts speaking about God’s own freedom, and then he moves towards man’s own freedom. For Karl Barth, the freedom of man is totally tied to the freedom of God. For him, God’s freedom is the source of human freedom (pg. 71). In relating human freedom to God’s, Barth erases the thought of an “I can do whatever I want” type of freedom. He says that “God’s freedom is essentially not freedom from, but freedom to and for” (pg. 72). And he connects this type of freedom with human freedom. Personally, I think that Barth’s idea of “human freedom is freedom only within the limitations of God’s own freedom.” does not make me feel totally comfortable. I cannot think of a God that is limited in any circumstance, even by His freedom. But, on the other hand, I agree with him when he limits man’s freedom. This is why this major thesis of human freedom breaks up in the minor thesis of Christian ethics. Freedom is related to the grace of God, and grace upon man. Barth says, “Human freedom is the gift of God in the free outpouring of His grace” (pg. 75). And he concludes by saying “the gift is total, unequivocal, and irrevocable. It remains the gift of freedom even though it may be turned into man’s judgment if misunderstood or misused” (pg. 76). Perhaps the reason that Barth ties men’s freedom with God’s freedom is to not leave room for the possibility of sin. Indeed, Barth says that “in human freedom there is no room for sin by fiat” (pg. 77). Furthermore, Barth will say that human freedom is to accomplish the causa Dei in the world. This will be the mission of each Christian, as he says, “this is the meaning of God’s covenant with man…this is the freedom of discipleship bestowed upon him” (pg. 81).
As a second part of this third essay, Barth concentrates on Christian ethics and its implications after his teachings on human freedom. He states that “ethics is reflection upon what man is required to do in and with the gift of freedom” (pg. 87). For him, a proper understanding of the freedom offered by God to His children, will determine a correct manner to proceed in all nuances of life. A misunderstanding of this freedom, will compromise human conduct and relationship with the One who deliberates this freedom.
He concludes by speaking about the “special ethics” of free theologians, and all the implications that follow this concept. He calls this theme “the ethics of theology itself and the ethos of the free theologians” and for him it is a “small and often neglected area” (pg. 89). It is interesting to notice that he starts the book with an overall view on 19th century theology and theologians, and finishes it by talking about theologians and theology as well. Barth points out five characteristics that make a free theologian complete. For him, a free theologian will always begin his thinking at the beginning (talking about the resurrection of Christ), will be scripturally supported, will not be ashamed of his philosophical views, will think and speak in the context of the Church and will always be in communication with other theologians.
Undoubtedly, the word free and freedom play the major role in Barth’s last essay. He articulates with talent all the implications of these two words in the life of the people of God, bringing a full understanding of this controversial issue.
Rodrigo Serrao
Karl Barth is considered the greatest theologian of the 20th century not only because of his great works, especially Church Dogmatics, but also because he brought Christianity back to the near-forgotten orthodoxy. Barth wrote about 19th century theology (from Schleiermacher to Ritschl) and shed light on their theology by pointing out where they failed as theologians and the reasons for why that happened. Barth was aware of the cultural context where those theologians were involved, and how that particular culture negatively influenced the construction of a sound theology. Theologians of the 19th century were “first animated and nourished by Herder and the Romantics, as well as by the religious and national awakening of the Napoleonic era” (pg. 13). For Barth, theology had “turned into philosophy of the history of religion in general, and of Christian religion in particular” (pg. 13). He also says, “There was scarcely a theologian who did not also consider himself a professional philosopher” (pg. 21). Barth then moves towards several minor criticisms of the aspects of that theology, from ethics to spirituality, from the apathy of the Christian life to evangelistic zeal. Barth’s major resistance was against the thought of an exaggerated anthropocentrism that permeated and influenced many, if not all great theologians of the 19th century. Clearly the key word for this first essay would be anthropocentrism. It is here where all the difference is made. The question that rises when you approach 19th century theology could be who you will focus your attention upon the most, on man or on God?
Karl Barth’s second essay entitles the book. Although, for a distracted reader the subject discussed in this essay appears to have nothing to do with the first one. But in reality, there are connections between both essays. Actually, Barth’s Christology can be better compared to theologians from the age of reformation or even earlier than that, but it is in total disparity from the theology of the 19th century. Therefore, this essay could be seen as the orthodox or in Barth’s case the “neo”-orthodox response to the theology of the 19th century. His major thesis in this chapter is undoubtedly the doctrine of Christ, His humanity and His deity. For Barth, the knowledge of Christ’s humanity and deity cannot be derived from one another. They are strictly interrelated. He says on page 46, “It is precisely God’s deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity.” For Barth, Jesus is the perfect expression of God. He says, “In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man” (pg. 46). And his humanity is the perfect link between God and man, “even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father” (pg. 53). In Barth’s articulation of the glorious salvation provided by God to all men, he enters into a concept that can lead someone to think that he is defending universalism. On page 60 he states that “the human spirit is naturally Christian.” One may charge Barth as a defender of universalism. Even he recognizes the closeness of his teachings with the doctrine of universalism. He closes his view about salvation in Christ and the issue of universalism by saying that “we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ” (pg. 62).
He also brings up the concept of outsiders and insiders when he says that “the so-called ‘outsiders’ are really only ‘insiders’ who have not yet understood and apprehended themselves as such” (pg. 59). This essay contains some key words. The most evident ones are humanity, and deity. But we can also say that the word relationship plays a great role in Barth’s teaching of the humanity of God, especially among the persons of the Trinity.
Following a logical sequence, Karl Barth takes us to his last essay of the book. Now we come to the application of what has been discussed so far. We come to the issue of Christian freedom. He starts speaking about God’s own freedom, and then he moves towards man’s own freedom. For Karl Barth, the freedom of man is totally tied to the freedom of God. For him, God’s freedom is the source of human freedom (pg. 71). In relating human freedom to God’s, Barth erases the thought of an “I can do whatever I want” type of freedom. He says that “God’s freedom is essentially not freedom from, but freedom to and for” (pg. 72). And he connects this type of freedom with human freedom. Personally, I think that Barth’s idea of “human freedom is freedom only within the limitations of God’s own freedom.” does not make me feel totally comfortable. I cannot think of a God that is limited in any circumstance, even by His freedom. But, on the other hand, I agree with him when he limits man’s freedom. This is why this major thesis of human freedom breaks up in the minor thesis of Christian ethics. Freedom is related to the grace of God, and grace upon man. Barth says, “Human freedom is the gift of God in the free outpouring of His grace” (pg. 75). And he concludes by saying “the gift is total, unequivocal, and irrevocable. It remains the gift of freedom even though it may be turned into man’s judgment if misunderstood or misused” (pg. 76). Perhaps the reason that Barth ties men’s freedom with God’s freedom is to not leave room for the possibility of sin. Indeed, Barth says that “in human freedom there is no room for sin by fiat” (pg. 77). Furthermore, Barth will say that human freedom is to accomplish the causa Dei in the world. This will be the mission of each Christian, as he says, “this is the meaning of God’s covenant with man…this is the freedom of discipleship bestowed upon him” (pg. 81).
As a second part of this third essay, Barth concentrates on Christian ethics and its implications after his teachings on human freedom. He states that “ethics is reflection upon what man is required to do in and with the gift of freedom” (pg. 87). For him, a proper understanding of the freedom offered by God to His children, will determine a correct manner to proceed in all nuances of life. A misunderstanding of this freedom, will compromise human conduct and relationship with the One who deliberates this freedom.
He concludes by speaking about the “special ethics” of free theologians, and all the implications that follow this concept. He calls this theme “the ethics of theology itself and the ethos of the free theologians” and for him it is a “small and often neglected area” (pg. 89). It is interesting to notice that he starts the book with an overall view on 19th century theology and theologians, and finishes it by talking about theologians and theology as well. Barth points out five characteristics that make a free theologian complete. For him, a free theologian will always begin his thinking at the beginning (talking about the resurrection of Christ), will be scripturally supported, will not be ashamed of his philosophical views, will think and speak in the context of the Church and will always be in communication with other theologians.
Undoubtedly, the word free and freedom play the major role in Barth’s last essay. He articulates with talent all the implications of these two words in the life of the people of God, bringing a full understanding of this controversial issue.
Rodrigo Serrao
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Caldeirão
Sei que ultimamente não tenho escrito textos de interesse mais amplo na língua portuguesa, com ênfase no cotidiano da vida cristã. Acho que para piorar, os textos que tenho escrito recentemente são trabalhos acadêmicos que muitas vezes não interessa a quase ninguém.
Estou ciente disto, porém, mesmo sem está escrevendo, tenho lido, visto e ouvido a muitos aqui.
A comparação disto seria como alguém que apenas observa, mas que quase não abre a boca para falar. Tenho lido, sobre quase tudo no campo da teologia, entre teólogos liberais, ortodoxos, neo-ortodoxos, neo ou pós-liberais. Tenho lido teologia produzida no Brasil (de boa e de má qualidade), nos EUA (idem), na Europa, e até na Africa.
O caldeirão de idéias não pára por aí. Tenho feito amizades com pessoas de diferentes religiões, culturas e histórias. Com isto, eu vejo como se comportam pessoas que são de orientação cristã da India, da Alemanha, da Africa, da China ou Korea. Outras que não são cristãos, mas pertencem à religião oficial dos seus respectivos países, como Hindus do Nepal, ou Mulçumanos da Turquia. Todos estes trazem ao caldeirão da minha vida as suas experiências, suas lutas e suas esperanças. E eu não sou cego para que não veja a diversidade de cada indivíduo neste grande spectrum de ideologias e crenças.
Porém, ainda que pareça que tudo isto seja suficiente, ainda posso dizer que tem mais. Congrego em uma igreja Batista, localizada no coração do Texas, no que chamamos de “Bible Belt”, ou seja, o cinturão da Bíblia. Ou como outros preferem chamar, os “Southern Baptists” que quer dizer Batistas do Sul. Esta região, e mais especificamente este grupo Batista, pode ser considerado um dos grupos religiosos mais fundamentalistas do planeta. Em dizendo isto, não quero trazer nenhuma conotação negativa, nem tão pouco positiva. Isto é apenas uma característica que eu estou apontando. Tenho ouvido semana após semana, os sermões que procedem da boca de pregadores de diversas partes do Estado do Texas. Também tenho parado em salas de aula do Seminário, para ouvir teólogos (as) e historiadores. Cheguei ao ponto de ouvir até a esposa de um dos professores que falava sobre o papel da esposa do pastor e sua influência sobre a congregação. Cada um destes que citei acima das mais diferentes linhas de pensamento, posições e ações. Portanto, dá para se notar que tenho “ouvido” bastante.
A sensação que eu tenho é que todas essas influências estão de certa forma sendo processadas em meu cérebro, onde juntamente com a leitura da Bíblia, especialmente em uma perspectiva totalmente Cristocêntrica, não apenas em termos teológicos, mas também em termos hermenêuticos, ou seja, Jesus (vida e ministério) como a única lente da interpretação bíblica, e a cruz do Calvário como a demonstração maior do amor e graça de Deus sobre os homens, trazendo sobre mim a noção de que eu não sei de quase nada e que Deus é mistério puro.
Sei que estou sendo bastante relativo e pluralista, mas quando se vive neste caldeirão, apenas os que não tem uma mente crítica, ousaria dizer que sabem alguma coisa. Quando saímos do nosso mundo, da nossa realidade, da nossa segurança, e partimos para aquilo que não conhecemos, percebemos que existem muito mais realidades fora, onde meus olhos não alcançam, do que dentro, onde eu posso até tocar com as minhas mãos.
E o resultado de tudo isto? Seria bom ou mau? Trágico ou esperançoso? Para a vida ou para a morte? Não sei! O que sei é que hoje, mais do que nunca, creio que existe um Deus acima de mim, que não ama apenas as pessoas dos mais variados segmentos religiosos, mas que ama o mundo inteiro igualmente. Sei que existe um Jesus, que caminhou neste planeta, que amou aqueles que não mereciam e nEle a plena divindade e a plena humanidade se encontraram e se beijaram. Isto são convicções que estão arraigadas em meu coração e que de lá não sairão jamais. O resto eu não sei, e creio que jamais vou saber em sua completude, e não tenho medo de confessar isto. Sou relativo e estou em processo, e assim estarei até o dia em que o Senhor da vida me levar. Enquanto isto não acontece, eu leio, vejo e ouço o que todos dizem ser a verdade para elas. E quanto mais faço isto, mais eu me lembro das palavras de Jesus que diz: “Ame o teu Deus de todo o teu coração, e ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo”. É neste caldeirão, onde eu vejo o amor de Deus e onde eu tenho a oportunidade de mesmo em meio aos mais diferentes estilos de vida e de adoração, mostrar e viver o amor de Deus através da minha consciência em Jesus Cristo, como o único Senhor e Salvador da humanidade.
No amor de Cristo,
Rodrigo Serrão
Estou ciente disto, porém, mesmo sem está escrevendo, tenho lido, visto e ouvido a muitos aqui.
A comparação disto seria como alguém que apenas observa, mas que quase não abre a boca para falar. Tenho lido, sobre quase tudo no campo da teologia, entre teólogos liberais, ortodoxos, neo-ortodoxos, neo ou pós-liberais. Tenho lido teologia produzida no Brasil (de boa e de má qualidade), nos EUA (idem), na Europa, e até na Africa.
O caldeirão de idéias não pára por aí. Tenho feito amizades com pessoas de diferentes religiões, culturas e histórias. Com isto, eu vejo como se comportam pessoas que são de orientação cristã da India, da Alemanha, da Africa, da China ou Korea. Outras que não são cristãos, mas pertencem à religião oficial dos seus respectivos países, como Hindus do Nepal, ou Mulçumanos da Turquia. Todos estes trazem ao caldeirão da minha vida as suas experiências, suas lutas e suas esperanças. E eu não sou cego para que não veja a diversidade de cada indivíduo neste grande spectrum de ideologias e crenças.
Porém, ainda que pareça que tudo isto seja suficiente, ainda posso dizer que tem mais. Congrego em uma igreja Batista, localizada no coração do Texas, no que chamamos de “Bible Belt”, ou seja, o cinturão da Bíblia. Ou como outros preferem chamar, os “Southern Baptists” que quer dizer Batistas do Sul. Esta região, e mais especificamente este grupo Batista, pode ser considerado um dos grupos religiosos mais fundamentalistas do planeta. Em dizendo isto, não quero trazer nenhuma conotação negativa, nem tão pouco positiva. Isto é apenas uma característica que eu estou apontando. Tenho ouvido semana após semana, os sermões que procedem da boca de pregadores de diversas partes do Estado do Texas. Também tenho parado em salas de aula do Seminário, para ouvir teólogos (as) e historiadores. Cheguei ao ponto de ouvir até a esposa de um dos professores que falava sobre o papel da esposa do pastor e sua influência sobre a congregação. Cada um destes que citei acima das mais diferentes linhas de pensamento, posições e ações. Portanto, dá para se notar que tenho “ouvido” bastante.
A sensação que eu tenho é que todas essas influências estão de certa forma sendo processadas em meu cérebro, onde juntamente com a leitura da Bíblia, especialmente em uma perspectiva totalmente Cristocêntrica, não apenas em termos teológicos, mas também em termos hermenêuticos, ou seja, Jesus (vida e ministério) como a única lente da interpretação bíblica, e a cruz do Calvário como a demonstração maior do amor e graça de Deus sobre os homens, trazendo sobre mim a noção de que eu não sei de quase nada e que Deus é mistério puro.
Sei que estou sendo bastante relativo e pluralista, mas quando se vive neste caldeirão, apenas os que não tem uma mente crítica, ousaria dizer que sabem alguma coisa. Quando saímos do nosso mundo, da nossa realidade, da nossa segurança, e partimos para aquilo que não conhecemos, percebemos que existem muito mais realidades fora, onde meus olhos não alcançam, do que dentro, onde eu posso até tocar com as minhas mãos.
E o resultado de tudo isto? Seria bom ou mau? Trágico ou esperançoso? Para a vida ou para a morte? Não sei! O que sei é que hoje, mais do que nunca, creio que existe um Deus acima de mim, que não ama apenas as pessoas dos mais variados segmentos religiosos, mas que ama o mundo inteiro igualmente. Sei que existe um Jesus, que caminhou neste planeta, que amou aqueles que não mereciam e nEle a plena divindade e a plena humanidade se encontraram e se beijaram. Isto são convicções que estão arraigadas em meu coração e que de lá não sairão jamais. O resto eu não sei, e creio que jamais vou saber em sua completude, e não tenho medo de confessar isto. Sou relativo e estou em processo, e assim estarei até o dia em que o Senhor da vida me levar. Enquanto isto não acontece, eu leio, vejo e ouço o que todos dizem ser a verdade para elas. E quanto mais faço isto, mais eu me lembro das palavras de Jesus que diz: “Ame o teu Deus de todo o teu coração, e ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo”. É neste caldeirão, onde eu vejo o amor de Deus e onde eu tenho a oportunidade de mesmo em meio aos mais diferentes estilos de vida e de adoração, mostrar e viver o amor de Deus através da minha consciência em Jesus Cristo, como o único Senhor e Salvador da humanidade.
No amor de Cristo,
Rodrigo Serrão
Friday, February 03, 2006
Exegesis on Mark 5.1-20
Gerasene Demoniac: Mark 5.1-20
(All Scripture references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version)
I - Introductory Matters
A. Biblical Context
1. Author:
a. Anonymous
“The second Gospel, like the other three, is anonymous. It does not even allude to authorship (Cf. Lk 1.1-4; Jo 21.24)” (Guelich, Intro, xxv).
b. Early Church Tradition
“There is a strong and clear early tradition that Mark was its author and that he was closely associated with the apostle Peter, from whom he obtained his information about Jesus” (Wessel, 605). “But who was Mark? The answer has generally been based on information from a lost five-volume work of Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis cited by Eusebius” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15):
“Traditionally, ‘Mark’ has been identified with the Mark of 1 Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.13; 15.37-39 and the Pauline corpus. He was ‘John Mark’”. (Guelich, Intro, xxviii).
2. OT Comparisons: Prophet Isaiah
a. “Isa. 65.1-15 contains what could be read by the church as an allusion to Jesus’ entering the Decapolis” (65.1).
b. “Those ‘who sit in tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine’s flesh’” (v. 4)
c. “who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me’” (v. 5).
d. “The LXX adds to v. 3b, ‘burning incense upon bricks to demons (tois daimoniois - tois daimonios) which have no existence” and to v. 11, “who set a table for the demon (to daimonion - to daimonion; Heb., “Fortune”)” (Wink’s endnotes, 183).
3. Exorcisms in the Gospels
a. Synoptic Gospels
(1) Man with Unclean Spirit in Synagogue at Capernaum
(Mark 1:23-28, Luke 4:33-37) (Just, catholic-resources.org)
(2) Beelzebul Controversy
(Mark 3:22-30, Matt 12:22:30, Luke 11:14-15) (Ibid.)
(3) Gerasene Demoniac
(Mark 5:1-20, Matt 8:28-34, Luke 8:26-39) (Ibid.)
(4) Syro-Phoenician Woman's Daughter
(Mark 7:24-30, Matt 15:21-28) (Ibid.)
(5) Boy with an Epileptic Spirit
(Mark 9:14-29, Matt 17:14-21, Luke 9:37-43a) (Ibid.)
(6) Another Exorcist
(Mark 9:38-41, Matt 10:42, Luke 9:49-50) (Ibid.)
b. Gospel of John
“There are no exorcism stories in the Gospel of John” (Ibid.).
4. Synoptic Comparisons
a. Matthew 8.28-34 – Matthew’s narrative of this passage calls the place where the event took place the country of the Gadarenes, instead of, Gerasenes as Mark and Luke do. Matthew’s narrative reports two demon possessed people. Mark and Luke only repot one. Also, Matthew’s account is shorter including only 6 verses, whereas, Mark’s account has 20 verses and Luke 13.
b. Luke 8.26-39 – Luke follows Mark’s narrative, omitting some information, for instance Mark’s verses 3-5.
B. Social-Cultural Context
1. The Decapolis: Home of Gentiles
“The social location of this passage is crucial. For this is Jesus’ first entry into the Decapolis, ten proud Greek cities founded or enlarged by Alexander the Great and his successors and settled with Macedonian veterans.” (Wink, 44)
2. Gerasa
“Boasted of a temple to Zeus Olympus (to whom pigs were sacrificed) and, from 22-23 C.E. on, a temple dedicated to the cult of Caesar. Pompey brought them under Roman control. Augustus awarded Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis to Herod; when the Gadarenes failed in their petition against Herod’s cruelty they suffered even more cruelty.” (Ibid.)
C. Literary Criticism: Features that raise questions on how many different authors
(Several features raise the question whether, despite the smooth flow of the narrative as a whole, more than one hand has shared in fashioning the story as we have it.)
1. Doublets and repetitions
“Verses 2 and 6 (Jesus meeting the demoniac), vv. 3 and 5 (the demoniac’s home in the tombs, vv. 10 and 12 (the request of the demon), vv. 14 and 16 (the swineherds’ account of the incident)” (Rudolf, 351)
2. Afterthoughts
“Verse 6 (the demoniac had seen Jesus from a distance), v. 8 (Jesus had ordered the demon to leave the man), v. 15c (the remainder that the demoniac had had the legion), v. 16b (the swine are mentioned as an afterthought)” (Ibid.).
3. Discrepancies
“Between v. 2 and 6 (Jesus met the demoniac immediately on leaving the boat/the demoniac saw Jesus from a distance and ran towards him)” (Ibid.).
4. Use of a different vocabulary
“Verse 2 mnhmeiwn(mnemeion), v. 3 and v. 5 mnhma (mnema), vv. 15 e 16 daimonizomenoV (daimonizomenos) and v. 18 daimonisqeiV (daimonistheis)” (Ibid.).
D. Different approaches
1. René Girard’s interpretation of the passage
René Girard is a famous French Philosopher, Historian and Philologist (those who study ancient texts and languages) who has approached the passage of the Gerasene demoniac in a totally unique manner. “According to René, the townspeople have a more deep relationship with the Demoniac. He argues that it is really possible to fashion chains too powerful for anyone to break. ‘The Gerasenes and their demons have for some time settled into some sort of cyclical pathology,” Girard writes” (Wink, 45). “In short, the possessed man had become a perpetual scapegoat for the community. It is curious that the swineherds asked Jesus to leave in response to a healing that supposedly, they wanted. Girard argues that the swineherds were actually angry over being deprived of their scapegoat” (Andrew, ATR, fall 1998). The townspeople need him to act out their own violence. “The possessed imitates the Gerasenes who stone their victims, but the Gerasenes also imitate their possessed. It is a relationship of doubles and mirrors that exist between persecuted and this persecuting persecuted individual. The relationship is one of mimetic antagonism” (Wink, 46).
2. Father Cyrille Argenti’s symbolic approach
Father Cyrille Argenti is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church in Marseille. His views on Mark 5.1-20 have interesting meditation insights.
He says: “So you notice that before exorcising the evil spirits from the demoniac, he [Jesus] first calms the waves. And this reminds what takes place in the Orthodox ceremony of Baptism. Before christening the child or the adult, in other words, before freeing him from bondage to the enemy, we bless the water – a sign that Christ restores not only the fallen man but the whole fallen creation . . . First he [the demoniac] is in chain and fetters. When man falls under the power of the devil, he becomes a slave” (Argenti, 401). “He [St. John Chrysostom] mentions first who have become slaves of erotic passion. Passion makes a man loses his freedom. But, he stresses more another form of slavery. He speaks of avarice” (ibid, 402).
II - Exegesis Proper
A. Jesus and the Demoniac (v. 1-13)
1. Description of the Demoniac (v. 1-5)
a. Verse 1 – They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes
“By its repetition of the preposition eiV, the Greek text draws attention to the two fold description of the location. It is firstly “the other side of the sea” (a purely geographical location), but it is also “the country of the Gerasenes” (an ethico-religious indication). Far from being accidental, this wealth of detail is extremely significant” (Starobinski, 382). Or perhaps “The very name ‘Gerasa’, which may be a fanciful allusion to the Hebrew grs, ‘to drive out, cast out, expel’” (Wink, 43).
(1) Place’s name controversy or dilemma
Gerashnwn - in Mark and Luke you read – Gerasenes - (30 miles from the shore)
Gadaphnwn - in Matthew the name of the place is – Gadara - (6 miles from the shore)
(2) A better option
“Gergeshnwn - the similarity of name indicates that it has been confused with the nearer Gergesa” (Gould, 87). “A ruin much nearer the shore and called Khersa has been discovered and may have been in the district subject to Gadara” (Turlington, 307). “Not far from this site there is a cliff within forty meters of the shore and some old tombs” (Wessel, 657).
b. Verse 2 – And when he had stepped out of the boat
(1) Chronological Tension
“Many interpreters have noted the chronological tension between this story, which transpires during the day, and the previous one, which occurs during the night” (Guelich, 277).
(2) No Tension
“This position is not held by Wessel: Since it was already evening (Cf. 4.35) when they started across the lake, by the time they reached the other side it was probably dark” (Wessel, 657).
c. Verse 2 continued – Immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him
“First of two encounters (Cf. 5.6)” (Guelich, 277). “Verse 6 clarifies the situation. The man actually saw Jesus from a distance and came running to him” (Wessel, 657)
d. Verses 3-5 – He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.
(1) Markan Exclusivity
These verses are exclusive to Mark’s account of the passage.
(2) Why Cemeteries?
“Cemeteries were believed to be the abode of demons” (Anderson, 148)
(3) Characteristics of Madness
“Talmudic prescriptions provide four tests of madness: spending the night in a grave, tearing one’s clothes, walking around at night, and destroying anything given. All such signs are present in this case” (Mann, 278).
(4) Midrashic Development
“The break coupled with reference to the man’s dwelling and the presence of five hapax legomena may support the thesis that the verses represent a midrashic development of the tradition based on Isa 65.4-6 and Ps 67.7” (Guelich 277).
2. Demoniac’s Encounter with Jesus (v. 6-10)
a. Verse 6 – When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him;
(1) From a distance - apo makroqen (apo makrothen)
“This verse resumes and develops the action in 5.2 (Anderson, 148). It is possible that in this verse we find some slight evidence for the two narratives telescoped in Matthew. In this verse the story is resumed, but here the demoniac sees Jesus from a distance, while in v. 2 Jesus meets him as soon as he leaves the boat” (Mann, 278).
(2) The Demoniac’s Plea
“He must have supposed in his demented condition that by prostrating himself before Jesus, by asking him not to meddle with him, by identifying him as Jesus, Son of the Most High God, and by his plea in God’s name not to torment him, maybe Jesus would leave him alone” (Turlington, 308)
b. Verse 7 – And he shouted at the top of his voice, “what have you to do with me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.
(1) The Most High God
“The specific name “the Most High God” has particular relevance for this “gentile” setting, since it almost always occurs in the LXX on the lips or in the context of Gentiles” (Guelich, 279).
(2) Demoniac’s Intention
“Although his rushing up to prostate himself before Jesus suggests a gesture of worship appropriate to Jesus’ identity, the demoniac’s words reflect a desire to drive Jesus away that is characteristic of the exorcism genre” (Perkins, 583; Wessel, 657). “To keep the Son of God off their back – to protect themselves” (Garland, 204).
c. Verse 8 – For he had said to him, “come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" (1) Command not obeyed?
“Without doubt, the comment stands in awkward tension with what has gone before by implying a previous ineffectual command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man. Thus, Haenchen (192-3) attributes this to a redactor’s misunderstanding of 5.2-7” (Guelich, 280).
(2) Harmonizing the tension
“Jesus had been saying (the verb is imperfect) to the unclean spirit, Come out of the man. However, the deep distress of the man was not readily banished. So Jesus began asking him (again the verb is imperfect and implies some repetition), what is your name?” (Turlington, 308). “Was already saying - elegen (elegen) - This imperfect tense may be used as a pluperfect, ‘he had been saying’, or even in a Semitic sense of ‘command’, but we have attempted to suggest that Jesus was repeating the injunction – a simple command was insufficient, given the gravity of the case. In this view, the question in v. 9 is far more explicable” (Mann, 279)
d. Verse 9 – Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” he replied, “my name is legion; for we are many.”
(1) What’s in a name?
“Typically, this request for the name represents a ploy used by the exorcist in gaining control over the spirit”. (Guelich, 280)
(2) Origin
“There was the Hebrew word Ligyon from the Latin legion. It is possible that a Semitic word denoting host or legion has been translated by Mark into the nearest Latin word” (Ibid)
(3) Legion
“For we are many” - oti polloi esmen (oti polloi esmen) - makes clear that the ‘name’ primarily connoted a vast number rather than an identity by which the exorcist might gain control over the unclean spirit. (Ibid)
(4) Conclusion
“Whatever was the name, it signified a host of evil spirits which made their human host both homicidal and suicidal” (Bowman, 143-44). “Jesus does not confront just one unclean spirit but a whole body of Satan’s troops” (Williamson, 105).
e. Verse 10 – And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.
‘“Out of the country” - exw thV cwraV. (ego tes koras) - what preferences they (the demons) should have for one country over another is one of the mysteries connected with these stories of demoniacal possession. It can be explained only as part of the hallucination of the demoniac” (Gould, 91, Guelich, 281)
3. Jesus Deliverance of the Demoniac (v. 11-13)
a. Verse 11 – 13 – Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “send us into the swine, let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
(1) Pig Characteristics
“When the unclean spirit entered the pigs they became utterly “unpiglike”. Nothing is more certain than that pigs do not move as herds. They are very liable to panic, and then they scatter. The miracle in the story lay in the pig’s forming themselves up to two thousand strong, and rushing over the cliff.” (Duncan, 5)
(2) Evil Spirit Characteristics
“It was popular belief in the first century that evil spirits were not content to wander aimlessly about. They abhor a vacuum and want to inhabit something. A human is best, wanting that, a bunch of pigs will do” (Garland, 204).
(3) Morality issues – Jesus vs. Animal Protective Association
(a) Does Jesus care about animals?
“Why did Jesus, having exorcised the demons, allow them to enter the pigs, an act that ultimately resulted in the destruction of the entire herd? A tentative answer is that Jesus wanted to give tangible evidence to the man and to the people that the demons had actually left him and that their purpose had been to destroy him even as they destroyed the pigs” (Wessel, 658).
(b) A Jewish account
“Some have explained it as a “Jewish” story originally, as though this unintended slur made it more palatable for “Christian” readers. If, as has been suggested, this part of the story stems from a later expansion of an earlier exorcism story set in Gerasa, we only ignore the question by arguing that Jesus did not actually destroy someone’s herd of swine” (Guelich, 282-83).
B. Jesus and the Townspeople (v. 14-17)
1. Verse 14-15 – the swineherds ran off, and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.
a. Contrast in the narratives
“There is a contrast in the narratives of Matthew and Mark at this point. In Mark the dwellers in the countryside - agrouV (agrous) - come out to see the demoniac, whereas in Matthew Jesus is the center of attention” (Mann, 280)
b. Community reaction
“When the community arrives, they are not frightened by what has happened to the pigs but by seeing this man now clothed and in his right mind! They do not rejoice at his recovery but are afraid” (Garland, 205). Or perhaps “Their fear was no doubt caused by the presence of one with power to perform such a miracle” (Wessel, 658).
c. Were they also possessed?
“The crowd’s desire to be rid of Jesus, their discomfort in his presence, demonstrates that they too, are in fact demon possessed, subjected to a power or powers hostile to the Kingdom of God” (Williamson, 106)
2. verses 16-17 – Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood.
“This is the only case in our Lord’s ministry in which his miracles operated against him in this way, and it is to be accounted for by the strange element in this case, the mixture of gain and loss in the result” (Gould, 93). For them, Jesus was a dangerous person to have around the district.
C. Jesus and the Demoniac, conclusion (v. 18-20)
3. Verse 18-20 – As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. But Jesus refused, and said to him, “go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.
a. Work done
“Although the exorcism story proper ends with the evidence that the man has been healed, this episode has been expanded to provide Jesus with his first Gentile missionary. Mark concludes the episode by presenting the man as a missionary in the cities of the Decapolis.” (Perkins, 584-85) “Haenchen (195) notes that Jesus leaves because his work is completed, not because he has been defeated by either the demons or by the people’s rejection of his ministry” (Guelich, 284).
b. Contrast of commands
“The command that Jesus gave is in marked in contrast to Jesus’ instructions to the cleansed leper in 1.44 – ‘See that you don’t tell this to anyone.’ This is probably because in the case of the demoniac Jesus was in Gentile territory where there would be little danger that popular messianic ideas about him might be circulated.” (Wessel, 659)
c. Decapolis (See also Social-Cultural Context in the beginning of this exegesis)
“The Decapolis was a league of ten originally free greek cities located (except Scythopolis) on the east of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They had been organized on the Greek model during the Seleucid period, brought under Hasmonean control by John Hyrcanuns, and liberated by the Roman general Pompey” (Wessel, 659). “Josephus mentions it four times, but Pliny gives us our earliest list of the ten cities (Damascus, Philadelphia, Rapana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo or Hippos, Dion, Pella, Galasa or Gerasa, Cantha)” (Guelich, 286).
d. Yahweh or Jesus?
(1) Lord as God
“kurioV (kurious) - Lord – The message Jesus gives him (demoniac) does not concern our Lord (Jesus) himself, but God, to whom kurios evidently refers” (Gould, 94).
(2) Lord as Jesus
“Undoubtedly ‘Lord’ in v. 19, kurios, means Yahweh. However, it was applied by early Christians to Jesus and this is what the ex-demoniac takes it to mean (v. 20)” (Bowman, 144).
(3) Lord as God and Jesus
“The change from Lord (verse 19) to Jesus (verse 20) serves to illumine the Marcan idea that in Jesus quit particularly and concretely the very grace and mercy of God are experienced” (Anderson, 150)
III – Conclusions
A. Christology
“Without any doubt, the passage in a whole has a single point: the amazing power of Jesus” (Williamson, 103). Jesus is the one who delivers humanity from the power of Satan. It is very clear that Jesus went to the other side of the sea with a specific purpose. His passage by that region was remarkable. He not only showed His love, care and power, but He also “prepared” and sent a missionary for that community. Even for those who went to Him, asking Him to leave; Jesus will always be remembered as the one who had power over the evil spirits and the one who destroyed the herd of swine. There was also another group of people in that district who, “were amazed” when they saw and heard the ex-demoniac speaking about the encounter that changed his life forever.
B. Conflict
As we can see above, there are many tensions within the passage. The correct location of the event, the number of possessed men, a command not obeyed, and the morality problem with the destruction of the herd of swine.
C. Implication
“The possessed man’s encounter with Jesus made him fully human again, with a family, a home, and a mission in life. He was no longer a beast whom people thought needed to be tamed, but a human being called to proclaim the explosion of God’s mercy in his life” (Garland, 212).
The real existence of evil forces is also another implication to be pointed out from this episode. Western society is becoming more and more unaware of demons and their power. What happens today is a tenebrous attraction to what is considered evil and dark (in a spiritual sense). The growing number of movies and books that exalt black magic, witchcraft, vampires, werewolves, demons and all kinds of evil beings has extremely increased in our age. Others - including Christians - are totally skeptical and do not believe at all in the existence of these forces.
Bibliography
Anderson, Hugh. The New Century Bible Commentary. Black, Matthew ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., Grand Rapids, 1976.
Argenti, Cyrille. "Meditation on Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 398-408.
Bowman, John, The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah. Boer, P. A. H. ed. Netherlands: Leiden E. J. Brill, 1965.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 3 (Ap 1979): 2-17.
Garland, David E., The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. Muck, Terry ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Gould, Ezra P. Rev, The International Critical Commentary: Critical and Exegetical Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Mark. Driver, Samuel R., Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs ed. Edingurgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1983.
Guelich, Robert A., Word Biblical Commentary. Hubbard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker ed. Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1989.
Just, Felix. “Demons and Exorcisms in the Gospels.” 9 October 2005. Catholic Resources for Bilbe, Liturgy, and More. 01 February 2006
Kleist, James A. b. 1873. "The Gadarene Demoniacs." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9, no. 1 (Ja 1947): 101-105.
Mann, C. S., The Anchor Bible Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. first edition, Albright, William F., and David N. Freedman ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986.
Marr, Andrew. Anglican Theological Review, fall 1998.
Perkins, Pheme. The New Interpreter's Bible. Keck, Leander E. ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Pesch, Rudolf. "Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 349-376.
Starobinski, Jean. "Essay in Literary Analysis: Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 377-397.
Turlington, Henry E., The Broadman Bible Commentary. Allen, Clifton J. ed. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1969.
Wessel, Walter, W., The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Mays, James Luther ed. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1983.
Wink, Water. Umasking the Powers the Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
__________________________
Rodrigo Serrao
February 03, 2006
(All Scripture references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version)
I - Introductory Matters
A. Biblical Context
1. Author:
a. Anonymous
“The second Gospel, like the other three, is anonymous. It does not even allude to authorship (Cf. Lk 1.1-4; Jo 21.24)” (Guelich, Intro, xxv).
b. Early Church Tradition
“There is a strong and clear early tradition that Mark was its author and that he was closely associated with the apostle Peter, from whom he obtained his information about Jesus” (Wessel, 605). “But who was Mark? The answer has generally been based on information from a lost five-volume work of Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis cited by Eusebius” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15):
“Traditionally, ‘Mark’ has been identified with the Mark of 1 Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.13; 15.37-39 and the Pauline corpus. He was ‘John Mark’”. (Guelich, Intro, xxviii).
2. OT Comparisons: Prophet Isaiah
a. “Isa. 65.1-15 contains what could be read by the church as an allusion to Jesus’ entering the Decapolis” (65.1).
b. “Those ‘who sit in tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine’s flesh’” (v. 4)
c. “who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me’” (v. 5).
d. “The LXX adds to v. 3b, ‘burning incense upon bricks to demons (tois daimoniois - tois daimonios) which have no existence” and to v. 11, “who set a table for the demon (to daimonion - to daimonion; Heb., “Fortune”)” (Wink’s endnotes, 183).
3. Exorcisms in the Gospels
a. Synoptic Gospels
(1) Man with Unclean Spirit in Synagogue at Capernaum
(Mark 1:23-28, Luke 4:33-37) (Just, catholic-resources.org)
(2) Beelzebul Controversy
(Mark 3:22-30, Matt 12:22:30, Luke 11:14-15) (Ibid.)
(3) Gerasene Demoniac
(Mark 5:1-20, Matt 8:28-34, Luke 8:26-39) (Ibid.)
(4) Syro-Phoenician Woman's Daughter
(Mark 7:24-30, Matt 15:21-28) (Ibid.)
(5) Boy with an Epileptic Spirit
(Mark 9:14-29, Matt 17:14-21, Luke 9:37-43a) (Ibid.)
(6) Another Exorcist
(Mark 9:38-41, Matt 10:42, Luke 9:49-50) (Ibid.)
b. Gospel of John
“There are no exorcism stories in the Gospel of John” (Ibid.).
4. Synoptic Comparisons
a. Matthew 8.28-34 – Matthew’s narrative of this passage calls the place where the event took place the country of the Gadarenes, instead of, Gerasenes as Mark and Luke do. Matthew’s narrative reports two demon possessed people. Mark and Luke only repot one. Also, Matthew’s account is shorter including only 6 verses, whereas, Mark’s account has 20 verses and Luke 13.
b. Luke 8.26-39 – Luke follows Mark’s narrative, omitting some information, for instance Mark’s verses 3-5.
B. Social-Cultural Context
1. The Decapolis: Home of Gentiles
“The social location of this passage is crucial. For this is Jesus’ first entry into the Decapolis, ten proud Greek cities founded or enlarged by Alexander the Great and his successors and settled with Macedonian veterans.” (Wink, 44)
2. Gerasa
“Boasted of a temple to Zeus Olympus (to whom pigs were sacrificed) and, from 22-23 C.E. on, a temple dedicated to the cult of Caesar. Pompey brought them under Roman control. Augustus awarded Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis to Herod; when the Gadarenes failed in their petition against Herod’s cruelty they suffered even more cruelty.” (Ibid.)
C. Literary Criticism: Features that raise questions on how many different authors
(Several features raise the question whether, despite the smooth flow of the narrative as a whole, more than one hand has shared in fashioning the story as we have it.)
1. Doublets and repetitions
“Verses 2 and 6 (Jesus meeting the demoniac), vv. 3 and 5 (the demoniac’s home in the tombs, vv. 10 and 12 (the request of the demon), vv. 14 and 16 (the swineherds’ account of the incident)” (Rudolf, 351)
2. Afterthoughts
“Verse 6 (the demoniac had seen Jesus from a distance), v. 8 (Jesus had ordered the demon to leave the man), v. 15c (the remainder that the demoniac had had the legion), v. 16b (the swine are mentioned as an afterthought)” (Ibid.).
3. Discrepancies
“Between v. 2 and 6 (Jesus met the demoniac immediately on leaving the boat/the demoniac saw Jesus from a distance and ran towards him)” (Ibid.).
4. Use of a different vocabulary
“Verse 2 mnhmeiwn(mnemeion), v. 3 and v. 5 mnhma (mnema), vv. 15 e 16 daimonizomenoV (daimonizomenos) and v. 18 daimonisqeiV (daimonistheis)” (Ibid.).
D. Different approaches
1. René Girard’s interpretation of the passage
René Girard is a famous French Philosopher, Historian and Philologist (those who study ancient texts and languages) who has approached the passage of the Gerasene demoniac in a totally unique manner. “According to René, the townspeople have a more deep relationship with the Demoniac. He argues that it is really possible to fashion chains too powerful for anyone to break. ‘The Gerasenes and their demons have for some time settled into some sort of cyclical pathology,” Girard writes” (Wink, 45). “In short, the possessed man had become a perpetual scapegoat for the community. It is curious that the swineherds asked Jesus to leave in response to a healing that supposedly, they wanted. Girard argues that the swineherds were actually angry over being deprived of their scapegoat” (Andrew, ATR, fall 1998). The townspeople need him to act out their own violence. “The possessed imitates the Gerasenes who stone their victims, but the Gerasenes also imitate their possessed. It is a relationship of doubles and mirrors that exist between persecuted and this persecuting persecuted individual. The relationship is one of mimetic antagonism” (Wink, 46).
2. Father Cyrille Argenti’s symbolic approach
Father Cyrille Argenti is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church in Marseille. His views on Mark 5.1-20 have interesting meditation insights.
He says: “So you notice that before exorcising the evil spirits from the demoniac, he [Jesus] first calms the waves. And this reminds what takes place in the Orthodox ceremony of Baptism. Before christening the child or the adult, in other words, before freeing him from bondage to the enemy, we bless the water – a sign that Christ restores not only the fallen man but the whole fallen creation . . . First he [the demoniac] is in chain and fetters. When man falls under the power of the devil, he becomes a slave” (Argenti, 401). “He [St. John Chrysostom] mentions first who have become slaves of erotic passion. Passion makes a man loses his freedom. But, he stresses more another form of slavery. He speaks of avarice” (ibid, 402).
II - Exegesis Proper
A. Jesus and the Demoniac (v. 1-13)
1. Description of the Demoniac (v. 1-5)
a. Verse 1 – They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes
“By its repetition of the preposition eiV, the Greek text draws attention to the two fold description of the location. It is firstly “the other side of the sea” (a purely geographical location), but it is also “the country of the Gerasenes” (an ethico-religious indication). Far from being accidental, this wealth of detail is extremely significant” (Starobinski, 382). Or perhaps “The very name ‘Gerasa’, which may be a fanciful allusion to the Hebrew grs, ‘to drive out, cast out, expel’” (Wink, 43).
(1) Place’s name controversy or dilemma
Gerashnwn - in Mark and Luke you read – Gerasenes - (30 miles from the shore)
Gadaphnwn - in Matthew the name of the place is – Gadara - (6 miles from the shore)
(2) A better option
“Gergeshnwn - the similarity of name indicates that it has been confused with the nearer Gergesa” (Gould, 87). “A ruin much nearer the shore and called Khersa has been discovered and may have been in the district subject to Gadara” (Turlington, 307). “Not far from this site there is a cliff within forty meters of the shore and some old tombs” (Wessel, 657).
b. Verse 2 – And when he had stepped out of the boat
(1) Chronological Tension
“Many interpreters have noted the chronological tension between this story, which transpires during the day, and the previous one, which occurs during the night” (Guelich, 277).
(2) No Tension
“This position is not held by Wessel: Since it was already evening (Cf. 4.35) when they started across the lake, by the time they reached the other side it was probably dark” (Wessel, 657).
c. Verse 2 continued – Immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him
“First of two encounters (Cf. 5.6)” (Guelich, 277). “Verse 6 clarifies the situation. The man actually saw Jesus from a distance and came running to him” (Wessel, 657)
d. Verses 3-5 – He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.
(1) Markan Exclusivity
These verses are exclusive to Mark’s account of the passage.
(2) Why Cemeteries?
“Cemeteries were believed to be the abode of demons” (Anderson, 148)
(3) Characteristics of Madness
“Talmudic prescriptions provide four tests of madness: spending the night in a grave, tearing one’s clothes, walking around at night, and destroying anything given. All such signs are present in this case” (Mann, 278).
(4) Midrashic Development
“The break coupled with reference to the man’s dwelling and the presence of five hapax legomena may support the thesis that the verses represent a midrashic development of the tradition based on Isa 65.4-6 and Ps 67.7” (Guelich 277).
2. Demoniac’s Encounter with Jesus (v. 6-10)
a. Verse 6 – When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him;
(1) From a distance - apo makroqen (apo makrothen)
“This verse resumes and develops the action in 5.2 (Anderson, 148). It is possible that in this verse we find some slight evidence for the two narratives telescoped in Matthew. In this verse the story is resumed, but here the demoniac sees Jesus from a distance, while in v. 2 Jesus meets him as soon as he leaves the boat” (Mann, 278).
(2) The Demoniac’s Plea
“He must have supposed in his demented condition that by prostrating himself before Jesus, by asking him not to meddle with him, by identifying him as Jesus, Son of the Most High God, and by his plea in God’s name not to torment him, maybe Jesus would leave him alone” (Turlington, 308)
b. Verse 7 – And he shouted at the top of his voice, “what have you to do with me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.
(1) The Most High God
“The specific name “the Most High God” has particular relevance for this “gentile” setting, since it almost always occurs in the LXX on the lips or in the context of Gentiles” (Guelich, 279).
(2) Demoniac’s Intention
“Although his rushing up to prostate himself before Jesus suggests a gesture of worship appropriate to Jesus’ identity, the demoniac’s words reflect a desire to drive Jesus away that is characteristic of the exorcism genre” (Perkins, 583; Wessel, 657). “To keep the Son of God off their back – to protect themselves” (Garland, 204).
c. Verse 8 – For he had said to him, “come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" (1) Command not obeyed?
“Without doubt, the comment stands in awkward tension with what has gone before by implying a previous ineffectual command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man. Thus, Haenchen (192-3) attributes this to a redactor’s misunderstanding of 5.2-7” (Guelich, 280).
(2) Harmonizing the tension
“Jesus had been saying (the verb is imperfect) to the unclean spirit, Come out of the man. However, the deep distress of the man was not readily banished. So Jesus began asking him (again the verb is imperfect and implies some repetition), what is your name?” (Turlington, 308). “Was already saying - elegen (elegen) - This imperfect tense may be used as a pluperfect, ‘he had been saying’, or even in a Semitic sense of ‘command’, but we have attempted to suggest that Jesus was repeating the injunction – a simple command was insufficient, given the gravity of the case. In this view, the question in v. 9 is far more explicable” (Mann, 279)
d. Verse 9 – Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” he replied, “my name is legion; for we are many.”
(1) What’s in a name?
“Typically, this request for the name represents a ploy used by the exorcist in gaining control over the spirit”. (Guelich, 280)
(2) Origin
“There was the Hebrew word Ligyon from the Latin legion. It is possible that a Semitic word denoting host or legion has been translated by Mark into the nearest Latin word” (Ibid)
(3) Legion
“For we are many” - oti polloi esmen (oti polloi esmen) - makes clear that the ‘name’ primarily connoted a vast number rather than an identity by which the exorcist might gain control over the unclean spirit. (Ibid)
(4) Conclusion
“Whatever was the name, it signified a host of evil spirits which made their human host both homicidal and suicidal” (Bowman, 143-44). “Jesus does not confront just one unclean spirit but a whole body of Satan’s troops” (Williamson, 105).
e. Verse 10 – And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.
‘“Out of the country” - exw thV cwraV. (ego tes koras) - what preferences they (the demons) should have for one country over another is one of the mysteries connected with these stories of demoniacal possession. It can be explained only as part of the hallucination of the demoniac” (Gould, 91, Guelich, 281)
3. Jesus Deliverance of the Demoniac (v. 11-13)
a. Verse 11 – 13 – Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “send us into the swine, let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
(1) Pig Characteristics
“When the unclean spirit entered the pigs they became utterly “unpiglike”. Nothing is more certain than that pigs do not move as herds. They are very liable to panic, and then they scatter. The miracle in the story lay in the pig’s forming themselves up to two thousand strong, and rushing over the cliff.” (Duncan, 5)
(2) Evil Spirit Characteristics
“It was popular belief in the first century that evil spirits were not content to wander aimlessly about. They abhor a vacuum and want to inhabit something. A human is best, wanting that, a bunch of pigs will do” (Garland, 204).
(3) Morality issues – Jesus vs. Animal Protective Association
(a) Does Jesus care about animals?
“Why did Jesus, having exorcised the demons, allow them to enter the pigs, an act that ultimately resulted in the destruction of the entire herd? A tentative answer is that Jesus wanted to give tangible evidence to the man and to the people that the demons had actually left him and that their purpose had been to destroy him even as they destroyed the pigs” (Wessel, 658).
(b) A Jewish account
“Some have explained it as a “Jewish” story originally, as though this unintended slur made it more palatable for “Christian” readers. If, as has been suggested, this part of the story stems from a later expansion of an earlier exorcism story set in Gerasa, we only ignore the question by arguing that Jesus did not actually destroy someone’s herd of swine” (Guelich, 282-83).
B. Jesus and the Townspeople (v. 14-17)
1. Verse 14-15 – the swineherds ran off, and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.
a. Contrast in the narratives
“There is a contrast in the narratives of Matthew and Mark at this point. In Mark the dwellers in the countryside - agrouV (agrous) - come out to see the demoniac, whereas in Matthew Jesus is the center of attention” (Mann, 280)
b. Community reaction
“When the community arrives, they are not frightened by what has happened to the pigs but by seeing this man now clothed and in his right mind! They do not rejoice at his recovery but are afraid” (Garland, 205). Or perhaps “Their fear was no doubt caused by the presence of one with power to perform such a miracle” (Wessel, 658).
c. Were they also possessed?
“The crowd’s desire to be rid of Jesus, their discomfort in his presence, demonstrates that they too, are in fact demon possessed, subjected to a power or powers hostile to the Kingdom of God” (Williamson, 106)
2. verses 16-17 – Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood.
“This is the only case in our Lord’s ministry in which his miracles operated against him in this way, and it is to be accounted for by the strange element in this case, the mixture of gain and loss in the result” (Gould, 93). For them, Jesus was a dangerous person to have around the district.
C. Jesus and the Demoniac, conclusion (v. 18-20)
3. Verse 18-20 – As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. But Jesus refused, and said to him, “go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.
a. Work done
“Although the exorcism story proper ends with the evidence that the man has been healed, this episode has been expanded to provide Jesus with his first Gentile missionary. Mark concludes the episode by presenting the man as a missionary in the cities of the Decapolis.” (Perkins, 584-85) “Haenchen (195) notes that Jesus leaves because his work is completed, not because he has been defeated by either the demons or by the people’s rejection of his ministry” (Guelich, 284).
b. Contrast of commands
“The command that Jesus gave is in marked in contrast to Jesus’ instructions to the cleansed leper in 1.44 – ‘See that you don’t tell this to anyone.’ This is probably because in the case of the demoniac Jesus was in Gentile territory where there would be little danger that popular messianic ideas about him might be circulated.” (Wessel, 659)
c. Decapolis (See also Social-Cultural Context in the beginning of this exegesis)
“The Decapolis was a league of ten originally free greek cities located (except Scythopolis) on the east of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They had been organized on the Greek model during the Seleucid period, brought under Hasmonean control by John Hyrcanuns, and liberated by the Roman general Pompey” (Wessel, 659). “Josephus mentions it four times, but Pliny gives us our earliest list of the ten cities (Damascus, Philadelphia, Rapana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo or Hippos, Dion, Pella, Galasa or Gerasa, Cantha)” (Guelich, 286).
d. Yahweh or Jesus?
(1) Lord as God
“kurioV (kurious) - Lord – The message Jesus gives him (demoniac) does not concern our Lord (Jesus) himself, but God, to whom kurios evidently refers” (Gould, 94).
(2) Lord as Jesus
“Undoubtedly ‘Lord’ in v. 19, kurios, means Yahweh. However, it was applied by early Christians to Jesus and this is what the ex-demoniac takes it to mean (v. 20)” (Bowman, 144).
(3) Lord as God and Jesus
“The change from Lord (verse 19) to Jesus (verse 20) serves to illumine the Marcan idea that in Jesus quit particularly and concretely the very grace and mercy of God are experienced” (Anderson, 150)
III – Conclusions
A. Christology
“Without any doubt, the passage in a whole has a single point: the amazing power of Jesus” (Williamson, 103). Jesus is the one who delivers humanity from the power of Satan. It is very clear that Jesus went to the other side of the sea with a specific purpose. His passage by that region was remarkable. He not only showed His love, care and power, but He also “prepared” and sent a missionary for that community. Even for those who went to Him, asking Him to leave; Jesus will always be remembered as the one who had power over the evil spirits and the one who destroyed the herd of swine. There was also another group of people in that district who, “were amazed” when they saw and heard the ex-demoniac speaking about the encounter that changed his life forever.
B. Conflict
As we can see above, there are many tensions within the passage. The correct location of the event, the number of possessed men, a command not obeyed, and the morality problem with the destruction of the herd of swine.
C. Implication
“The possessed man’s encounter with Jesus made him fully human again, with a family, a home, and a mission in life. He was no longer a beast whom people thought needed to be tamed, but a human being called to proclaim the explosion of God’s mercy in his life” (Garland, 212).
The real existence of evil forces is also another implication to be pointed out from this episode. Western society is becoming more and more unaware of demons and their power. What happens today is a tenebrous attraction to what is considered evil and dark (in a spiritual sense). The growing number of movies and books that exalt black magic, witchcraft, vampires, werewolves, demons and all kinds of evil beings has extremely increased in our age. Others - including Christians - are totally skeptical and do not believe at all in the existence of these forces.
Bibliography
Anderson, Hugh. The New Century Bible Commentary. Black, Matthew ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., Grand Rapids, 1976.
Argenti, Cyrille. "Meditation on Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 398-408.
Bowman, John, The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah. Boer, P. A. H. ed. Netherlands: Leiden E. J. Brill, 1965.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 3 (Ap 1979): 2-17.
Garland, David E., The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. Muck, Terry ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Gould, Ezra P. Rev, The International Critical Commentary: Critical and Exegetical Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Mark. Driver, Samuel R., Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs ed. Edingurgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1983.
Guelich, Robert A., Word Biblical Commentary. Hubbard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker ed. Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1989.
Just, Felix. “Demons and Exorcisms in the Gospels.” 9 October 2005. Catholic Resources for Bilbe, Liturgy, and More. 01 February 2006
Kleist, James A. b. 1873. "The Gadarene Demoniacs." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9, no. 1 (Ja 1947): 101-105.
Mann, C. S., The Anchor Bible Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. first edition, Albright, William F., and David N. Freedman ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986.
Marr, Andrew. Anglican Theological Review, fall 1998.
Perkins, Pheme. The New Interpreter's Bible. Keck, Leander E. ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Pesch, Rudolf. "Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 349-376.
Starobinski, Jean. "Essay in Literary Analysis: Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 377-397.
Turlington, Henry E., The Broadman Bible Commentary. Allen, Clifton J. ed. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1969.
Wessel, Walter, W., The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Mays, James Luther ed. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1983.
Wink, Water. Umasking the Powers the Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
__________________________
Rodrigo Serrao
February 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)