Liberation from Empire: Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark (Studies in Biblical Literature) [1 ed.] 9781433117497, 9781453909270, 1433117495

Citation preview

ADVANCE PRAISE FOR

Liberation FROM Empire “This important volume by Cheryl S. Pero makes a contribution both to methodology and to exorcism studies. Pero roots her work in a unique combination of linguistic, narrative, and social science approaches set within the context of empire studies. The result is an innovative look at Jesus and unclean spirits within the larger imperial realities reflected in the developing plot of Mark’s Gospel. Students and scholars alike will be interested in the rich detail and thoughtful insights throughout this study.” David Rhoads, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago “Cheryl S. Pero has performed the great service in this work of exploring for us the many layers that make up the Gospel of Mark and the richness of its meaning for us today. She focuses on the first-century text and context with twenty-first-century sensibilities—in such a way as to honor the integrity of the ancient work while at the same time she delivers a message that goes to the heart of our concerns today. This is nowhere clearer than her incredible success in showing how the often bizarre and misunderstood practice of exorcism functions to lay bare the bondages in which we humans live and point a way to liberation. Her sophistication in deploying narrative, social science, and post-colonial methodologies is a joy to behold. Thereby she sharpens our understanding of both the ancient text and the possibilities that the text opens up for contemporary readers. As a theologian who is not an expert in biblical exegesis, I find this work full of delightful surprises and exceedingly rich in its implications for contemporary understanding. Pero has changed the way in which I will read Mark.” Philip Hefner, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago “Cheryl S. Pero offers a careful, compelling and comprehensive treatment of the complex subject of demonic possession and exorcism in the Marcan gospel. The exegetical fruits of her work derived through the application of narrative, social scientific and postcolonial analyses are informative, enlightening, and instructive for contemporary times. The book is a must for all within and beyond those communities who are keen to explore and understand the phenomenon and its many implications.” Monica J. Melanchthon, MCD University of Divinity

Liberation FROM Empire

Studies in Biblical Literature

Hemchand Gossai General Editor Vol. 150

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

CHERYL S. PERO

Liberation FROM Empire Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark

PETER LANG

New York y Washington, D.C./Baltimore y Bern Frankfurt y Berlin y Brussels y Vienna y Oxford

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pero, Cheryl. Liberation from empire: demonic possession and exorcism in the Gospel of Mark / Cheryl S. Pero. pages. cm. — (Studies in biblical literature; vol. 150) Includes bibliographically references and index. 1. Demonic possession. 2. Bible. N.T. Mark— Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. II. Series: Studies in biblical literature; v. 150. BS2545.D5P47 235’.4—dc23 2012026560 ISBN 978-1-4331-1749-7 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-4539-0927-0 (e-book) ISSN 1089-0645

Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources.

© 2013 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in Germany

This book is dedicated to all those who struggle for liberation from oppression and possession anywhere.

kai\ [I)hsou=j] proskalei=tai tou\j dw/deka kai\ h1rcato au0tou\j a0poste/llein du/o du/o kai\ e\0di/dou au0toi=j e0cousi/a n tw=n pneuma/t wn tw=n a0kaqa/rtwn.

And [Jesus] was summoning the twelve and he began to send them out two by two and he was giving them authority over the unclean spirits. —Mark 6:7

Table of Contents Series Editor Preface

xi

Preface

xiii

Acknowledgments

xv

List of Abbreviations Chapter 1: Introduction

xvii 1

Chapter 2: Methodologies

15

Chapter 3: The Markan Landscape

41

Chapter 4: The Beelzebul Controversy

69

Chapter 5: Summaries, Commissionings, and Incidents

93

Chapter 6: The Markan Exorcisms

135

Chapter 7: Conclusions

219

Bibliography

247

Index of Modern Authors

255

Index of Ancient Authors and Literature

261

Series Editor Preface

M

ore than ever the horizons in biblical literature are being expanded beyond that which is immediately imagined; important new methodological, theological, and hermeneutical directions are being explored, often resulting in significant contributions to the world of biblical scholarship. It is an exciting time for the academy as engagement in biblical studies continues to be heightened. This series seeks to make available to scholars and institutions, scholarship of a high order that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. This series includes established and innovative directions, covering general and particular areas in biblical study. For every volume considered for this series, we explore the question as to whether the study will push the horizons of biblical scholarship. The answer must be yes for inclusion. In this volume, Cheryl Pero argues that Jesus’ exorcisms of demonic spirits in the Gospel of Mark were not only real, but indeed were an integral part of the building of an Empire within the concreteness of historical geopolitical realties, that in themselves were in opposition to the inauguration of this kind of Empire. Thus, the recording of the exorcisms is a manner in which Mark pointed to the expansion of the Empire. Moreover Pero argues that exorcism is a critical means of restoration to both family and community of those who have been affected by demonic spirits. In so doing purity within the community is also restored. Thus, she concludes that Jesus’ exorcisms in Mark are not to be equated with healing of illnesses and diseases, important as those might be, but a larger systemic issue that sought to establish and restore the Kingdom of God. This copious and extensive volume provides for the Church a platform for a renewed interest and commitment to the liturgical and theological importance of exorcism. This study will undoubtedly provoke a renewed discussion of the role of exorcism and the manner in which it might lead to richer understanding of the ministry of Jesus. The horizon has been expanded. Hemchand Gossai

Preface

B

y the grace of God I was able to investigate the topic of Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark in my dissertation. I have come to understand that there are a multiplicity of levels of oppression and possession from which Jesus is liberating people through exorcism in the Gospel of Mark. We, in the twenty-first century, explain demonic possession by means of psychology and medical pathology, in a postenlightenment, rational, scientific manner. Mark’s understanding was that demonic spirits were real and that Jesus’ exorcisms were statements about building the Empire of God in historical geopolitical and spiritual circumstances that were antithetical to God’s kingdom building directive. Demonic possession and exorcism in Mark serve to illuminate the conflicts with both human and nonhuman forces, empires, if you will. By introducing Jesus Messiah as the Son of God at the very beginning of the gospel (1:1), the Markan narrator identifies the protagonist in this narrative as Jesus. The audience is drawn into the story in empathy with Jesus. Jesus’ baptism was the pivotal empowering event for his own commissioning. Initially the plotline is straightforward: Mark’s Jesus, inaugurating the kingdom of God, comes into conflict with nonhuman forces, representing the kingdom of Satan. This plotline becomes complicated very quickly when Jesus comes into conflict with human forces in the characters of scribes and the Jerusalem authorities, and sometimes even the disciples. Jesus calls and commissions a cadre of twelve men, passing on his own power and authority to them. Although he cannot change human behavior, Jesus’ words and actions become his way of modeling resistance to all those who are struggling to think in divine ways as they too challenge empire. With every exorcism, Jesus binds the strong one and Satan’s minions, continually expanding the boundaries of God’s empire. With every exorcism, the kingdom of God draws closer. With every exorcism, Jesus liberates those who are oppressed and possessed by forces beyond their control. Empire in this material is about both spiritual and geopolitical forces, non-human and human adversaries. Through the centuries since Jesus lived, audiences of every age have

xiv

Cheryl Stewart Pero

been invited to participate in kingdom building. And the invitation is still there for those who have faith in the power of God to change the way things are. My hope is that this material contributes to our contemporary ecclesial discussions about baptism and the denunciation of the demonic that we make in that sacrament. Through our baptism we too have been given the power and authority to exorcize the demonic, to liberate the oppressed and the possessed, and to participate in Jesus’ kingdom building activity.

Acknowledgments

I

would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Heidi Burns, Executive Editor at Peter Lang, for initiating this project by seeking me out. I would also like to thank Ms. Jackie Pavlovic, the Publishing Supervisor at Peter Lang, for her patience in overseeing my work during these very long months. These two women have worked with me to make sure that all was in order during the past year. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Dr. Lynn Kauppi, a colleague and a friend who took on the job of copyediting this book as a labor of love. Dr. Hemchand Gossai, the Studies in Biblical Literature editor at Peter Lang Publilshers, brought a new set of eyes to the manuscript; thank you for your sharp observations and clear attention to the details. None of this would have been possible without my Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago colleagues and Dr. David M. Rhoads, my advisor in the PhD program at LSTC and the person who directed my dissertation writing. Special thanks is also extended to my family members and friends who supported me in this enterprise. But very special thanks goes to my husband, Dr. Albert “Pete” Pero, Jr., without whose encouragement, affirming focus and persistent urging this project would not have come to fruition.

Abbreviations Ancient Literature Miscellaneous LXX

the Septuagaint

JPS

JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New JPS translation. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999.

NA27

Novum Testamentum Graece. Based on the edition of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle. Edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001.

PGM

Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. Edited by Karl Preisendanz. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928.

Hebrew Bible Gen

Genesis

Exod

Exodus

Lev

Leviticus

Num

Numbers

Deut

Deuteronomy

Judg

Judges

1 Sam

First Samuel

1 Kgdms

1 Kingdoms

xviii

Cheryl Stewart Pero

1 Kgs

1 Kings

1 Chron

1 Chronicles

Ps(s)

Psalm(s)

Isa

Isaiah

Hos

Hosea

Zech

Zechariah

Apocrypha Bar

Baruch

Pseudepigrapha 1 En.

1 Enoch

Jub.

Jubilees

T. Levi

Testament of Levi

Dead Sea Scrolls 1QapGen

Genesis Apocryphon

1QHa

Hodayot (Thanksgiving Hymns)

1Q10

Psalms copy a

4Q201

Enoch, copy a

4Q202

Enoch, copy

4Q242 PrNab ar

Prayer of Nabonidus

4Q560 Exorcism ar

Exorcism

11Q5

Psalms

11Q13

Melchizedek fragment

New Testament Matt

Matthew

Gal

Galatians

Eph

Ephesians

Rev

Revelation

xix

Liberation from Empire

New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Gos. Thom.

Gospel of Thomas

NHC

Nag Hammadi Corpus

Greco-Roman Literature J.W.

Josephus, The Jewish War

Morb. Sacr.

Hippocrates, De Morbo Sacro (The Sacred Disease)

Philops.

Lucian, Philopseudes (The Lover of Lies)

Vit. Apoll.

Philostratus, Vita Apollonii (The Life of Apollonius)

Modern Literature AARSR

American Academy of Religion Studies in Religion

AB

The Anchor Bible

ANET

Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by James B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

BDAG

Frederick W. Danker, W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDF

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by F. Blass and A. Debrunner. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

BETL

Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium

BibInt

Biblical Interpretation

GBS

Guides to Biblical Scholarship

xx

Cheryl Stewart Pero

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

IBT

Interpreting Biblical Texts

IDB

Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. 4 vols. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

JSJSup

Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

NIGTC

New International Greek Testament Commentary

NTS

New Testament Studies

QD

Quaestiones disputatae

SBLSP

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers

SNTMS

Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SP

Sacra Pagina

TDNT

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

TTJ

Trinity Theological Journal

WBC

Word Biblical Commentary

WUNT

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

h C

H A P T E R

1 g

Introduction

F

Presuppositions

rom the extremely enticing voice of the serpent in the Garden of Eden to a herd of pigs jumping off a cliff to their own demise in the sea to a little girl’s swirling head spewing green vomit,1 possession and exorcism have been intriguing, curious phenomena. Demonic possession has become equated with evil, and exorcism has signified the triumph of good over evil. The canonical Gospel of Mark presents contemporary Christian audiences with narratives describing demonic possession and exorcism in ancient SyroPalestine. As I investigate these episodes in Mark, I shall demonstrate that while demonic possession leads to destructive domination, exorcism leads to liberation from the oppression and possession of empire. The most vivid picture of Jesus’ ministry recorded in the Gospel of Mark is one of exorcism. In the biblical world, Jesus’ exorcisms were holistic and powerful events. Jesus not only restored to wholeness and community2 those who were broken and marginalized, but also, in the process, attempted to restore the broken community itself to wholeness, urging those whom he had exorcized to return home. In this manner, Jesus’ exorcisms not only demonstrated that the kingdom of God had drawn near, but also gave individuals and communities an actual experience of God’s empire. Mark’s understanding of “demonic” includes any force that dominates over others (see 10:41–44). In the Markan witness, the demonic is manifested in two basic forms: in the figures of Satan and the demons/unclean spirits3 who are Satan’s minions; in the figures of the authorities, in particular, the rulers of the Gentile nations (the Roman Empire) and their collaborators in Palestine (the High Priests and other leaders). These characters dominate those whom they rule. The connection between the rule of Satan and the rule of Rome is made clear in several places in the Markan text because there is a parallel in Mark between the “empire of Satan”—which possesses, occupies, dominates people—and the “empire of Rome”—which possesses, occupies, dominates first-century Palestine. In both cases, the people are victims of possession. Just as we must take account of the influence of Satan and the demons, so we must

2

Cheryl Stewart Pero

account for the full impact of the oppressive nature of the religio-political environment, in terms both of Roman imperialists and of the Judean authorities. For Mark, God’s people lived in fear of both Roman and Judean authorities, as well as other malevolent non-human forces that had the potential for tearing families and communities apart through, for example, isolation, enslavement, deportation, death, and purity regulations. For the ancients, malevolence was real and manifested itself in various ways, but especially in demonic possession. The demonic in Mark caused communities and families to become broken. Mark’s Jesus addressed this brokenness tangibly by demonstrating that the kingdom of God was real and present. His use of authority and power allowed those who initially did not see Jesus as Messiah, including the twelve, or those who were demon possessed, to grow in faith and to experience liberation from God through Jesus. The very essence of God’s salvation, liberation, was at stake in Jesus’ ministry as he engaged Satan and the demonic in an ongoing cosmic struggle, as I will demonstrate in this investigation. Where there is demonic possession, there must also be a method of becoming “unpossessed” by a demon. “Exorcism” is the technical term that describes the act of expelling the demonic. According to Eric Sorenson, there is a long and respected tradition of treating demonic affliction traceable back to the third millennium bce in ancient Mesopotamia and Persia, where the practice of exorcism most likely arose.4 There are some references to demons, demonic possession, and exorcism in ancient extrabiblical materials (e.g., Lucian’s “The Lover of Lies,” Philostratus’ Apollonius of Tyana, the Greek Magical Papyri, and Hippocrates’ De Morbo Sacro), but there are scant references to demons, demonic possession and exorcism in Hebrew scripture and intertestamental literature. What we see in contemporary extrabiblical materials is that popular folk healers’ exorcisms followed a particular ritual and used particular language.5 Jesus’ exorcisms, on the other hand, changed the ritual and formula because, unlike folk healers, he used no special secret ritual, and employed no charms, protective items, or magical incantations. Jesus simply commanded unclean spirits to leave their hosts. Because all of his exorcisms were successful, Jesus established not only the model for exorcism but also the name by which other exorcists/folk healers exorcized successfully, as in Mark 9:38: “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name….” The canonical Gospel according to Mark records eight summaries of exorcistic activity, four exorcisms performed by Jesus, and the narration of the Beelzebul controversy, where Jesus is himself accused of being demon possessed. Yet Mark never uses the verb e0cori/zw or e0corki/zw [to exorcize]. Mark uses particular nouns: ta\ daimo/nia [the demons], to\ pneu=ma to\

Liberation From Empire

3

a)ka/qarton [the unclean spirits], and o( Satana=j or Satana=n [Satan]. Mark’s also uses particular verbs: Jesus e)peti/mhsen [rebuked], e0kba/llwn [cast out], and Jesus commanded the possessing entity e)/celqe [to come/go out from/of]

those whom they possessed. The Markan narrator uses a combination of these nouns and verbs in three basic phrases to describe Jesus’ exorcistic activity: e0ce/balen ta daimo/nia [he cast out the demons] in 1:34 and 1:39, and in 3:11–12 ta\ pneu/mata ta\ a0ka/qarta…e0peti/ma [the unclean spirits…he rebuked]. In 1:28 Jesus e0peti/mhsen to\ pneu=ma to\ a)ka&qarton [he rebuked the unclean spirits]. In 3:14–15, Jesus gives the disciples authority e0kba/llein ta\ daimo/nia [to cast out demons]. In 6:7 the Markan narrator refers to Jesus conferring authority on the twelve over tw=n pneuma/twn tw=n a0kaqa/rtwn [the unclean spirits]. In 6:13 Mark tells his audience that the disciples daimo/nia polla\ e0ce/ballon [cast out many demons]. Mark’s third phrase is found first in 5:8, where Jesus uses a form of e!rxomai when he commands: e1celqe to\ pneu=ma to\ a)ka&qarton e0k tou= a)nqrw&pou [Come out of the man unclean spirit!]. In 7:29 the Markan narrator has Jesus tell the Syrophoenician woman: e)celh/luqen…to\ daimo/nion [the demon has gone out.…]. In 9:24 Jesus e0peti/mhsen tw~| pneu/mati tw~| a)kaqa&rtw [he rebuked the unclean spirit] saying: “e1celqe [come out]” and the unclean spirit e)ch=lqen [came out of] the young boy. The combination of these nouns and verbs in the Markan narrative establish the parameters of the passages and episodes that I will be examining more thoroughly later. In his foundational 1968 article, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” Howard Clark Kee undertakes a thorough examination of Mark’s language of exorcism beginning with the connection between the Semitic root rog [meaning “the exercise of power over the forces that stand in the way of the fulfillment of God’s purpose”] and its New Testament equivalent e)pitima=w [to rebuke6] by way of an examination of texts from Qumran (especially 1QapGen, XX, 28–9), Hebrew scripture, intertestamental literature, the LXX, rabbinic miracle stories, and literature contemporaneous with the New Testament. He concludes: “One significant factor which binds [Jesus’ exorcisms] to that specific form of [eschatological] hope as it was expressed in literature of sectarian Judaism is the term rog (= e)pitima=n7), by which was meant the word of command that brought the hostile powers under control.”8 Ethelbert Stauffer also connects Hebrew Scripture with the LXX, understanding rog as God’s “reproving Word which calls down destruction….”.9 He continues: “e0pitima=w becomes a technical term for the powerful divine word of rebuke and threat.”10 The New Testament builds on this tradition limiting the word of rebuke to usage by God and Jesus, as God’s

4

Cheryl Stewart Pero

agent. “He is also Lord over the demons and bends them to his will. He is the Stronger who penetrates into the house of the strong man and drives out demons…. Mark graphically depicts the way in which Jesus, proclaimed by God as the Son, takes up the struggle against the demon… Thus the unconditional lordship of Jesus is powerfully revealed in this e)pitima=n.”11 And, although Jesus rebukes unclean spirits in much the same way that he rebukes sickness/illness and nature, my examination is restricted by the nouns in the accusative (and sometimes the dative) that identify the objects of Jesus’ exorcisms. The first definition of e0kba/llw in the BDAG entry is to “force to leave, drive out, expel…—Used esp. of the expulsion of spirits who have taken possession of a person….”12 Illuminating this definition, Friedrich Hauck asserts that there is a sense in which expelling/repelling/casting out is particularly associated with “demons, who have settled into men [sic] as in a house…into which they have unlawfully penetrated.”13 Because Jesus has authority over demons, demons cannot ignore him, and he needs no special rituals to expel them, as did exorcists contemporaneous to Jesus. Jesus’ exorcisms are “a sign that the kingdom of God is being inaugurated…. He thus engages in exorcism in conscious connection with His preaching of the coming of the kingdom of God. Hence He charges His messengers…to exorcise as part of their commission.”14 And Jesus’ exorcisms are so successful that eventually others will exorcize in Jesus’ name (9:38)! Finally, Mark uses forms of the verb e!rxomai [to come, to go] as imperatives in Jesus’ direct speech to unclean spirits and demons (5:8, 9:24) as well as in the pluperfect and the perfect in his descriptive summaries of Jesus’ exorcistic activity in the exorcism episodes proper (7:29, 9:24). What emerges is that Mark’s language of exorcism included e0kba/llwn ta\ daimo/nia [casting out demons], e)peti/ma to\ pneu=ma to\ a)ka/qarton [rebuking unclean spirits], and forms of e!rxomai with both spirits/unclean spirits and demons, an expansion of Kee’s analysis of Mark’s language of exorcism. The three Markan summaries of Jesus’ ministry all use two of the nouns and two of the verbs that I have discussed: Jesus both “casts out demons” and “rebukes unclean spirits.” In the passages where the twelve are commissioned and sent out, they are “given authority to cast out demons.” The incident with Peter demonstrates how Satan can influence humans; Jesus’ rebukes Peter for acting Satan-like. The unknown exorcist is “casting out demons in Jesus’ name.” The Beelzebul controversy not only frames the meaning of exorcism, but also fits into Mark’s language of exorcism; Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul. Jesus’ exorcism episodes proper include all three nouns and verbs related to exorcism in Mark.

Liberation From Empire

5

Whenever Jesus performed an exorcism, he gave the people a glimpse of God’s kingdom, God’s empire. When Jesus broke boundaries and reformed community, he subverted the authority and power of Rome and the Jerusalem religious establishment. When he proclaimed the nearness of the kingdom of God, he was modeling resistance to empire and the toppling of the kingdom of Satan, offering as a substitute to Satan’s authority and power, the authority and power of the kingdom of God. The Markan eschatological and cosmological constructions of the world— very different from that of the Roman Empire—were intertwined. Implicit in Mark are the competing claims of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Caesar, and the kingdom of Satan. In Mark’s eschatology, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan were engaged in a war for authority and power over the creation where Satan seeks to control God’s creation. Jesus, according to the will of God, is commissioned to eliminate Satan’s minions, the unclean/demonic spirits, in order to prove that Satan can never win God’s creation over to Satan’s purposes. Mark demonstrates that the kingdom of God does overcome Satan. However, Jesus’ struggle with human powers of malevolence is more complex than his struggle with Satan and the demonic. Jesus seems to lose battles with human powers because he has no power to control other human beings, in contrast to his power to control demons. In each exorcism, creation is, in some sense, restored to its original wholeness. The ultimate eschatological end remains unwritten, though, because audiences in every age are invited to participate in the spread of the kingdom of God.

A Brief History of Interpretation First-century CE Mediterranean peoples presupposed the presence of an active spirit world inhabited by both good and evil spirits.15 During the period described in Hebrew scripture, the existence of a spirit world was acknowledged and spirits were understood as relatively benign beings.16 This most likely was a result of the practice of theocracy with YHWH as the head of state combined with “the development of monotheism” where the ideas of “daimons and spirits tend to become subordinated to the central figure and regarded as his ministers or ‘angels’.”17 Eric Sorensen reports that some approved magical acts, e.g., the interpretation of dreams and divination of signs, were performed within the Yahweh cult; these were in contrast to magical acts that were not approved, i.e. e., predicting the future, practiced in the surrounding cultures.18 Although the Israelites interacted with other cultures, during the postexilic and intertestamental periods the impact of Persian culture19 evolved into collective thinking about the spirit world that differentiated between two distinct and opposed realms reflecting good and bad.20 If good things happened

6

Cheryl Stewart Pero

one could attribute one’s good fortune to the presence of good spirits; if bad things happened it was due to the influence of bad spirits. This dualism became the norm during the New Testament period.21 The life struggle of individuals, communities, and even the cosmos itself was perceived to be a battle between the forces of good and bad. Interestingly, disease was attributed to the presence of the demonic in both the second temple and New Testament periods.22 But demonic possession is different from sickness/illness and exorcism is different from healing for the Markan narrator, as I intend to demonstrate. Graham Twelftree’s interest in the new quest for the historical Jesus led him to examine the Jesus of the Gospel writers through the lens of exorcism to rediscover and gain a clearer picture of Jesus. He found that 1 Enoch, Tobit, Jubilees, the Qumran Scrolls, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, the magical papyri, Lucian of Samosata, Philostratus’ Vita Apollonii, and rabbinic literature can help to reconstruct ancient “understandings of spirits, demons, possessions, magic, healing, healers, exorcism and exorcists”.23 He concludes that Jesus was an exorcist, that exorcism was a unique, important part of Jesus’ ministry, and that the early church “remembered Jesus as an exorcist.”24 These above-references writings, in addition to the Hebrew and Christian Testaments, are relevant to the Gospel of Mark for understanding the “cosmo-spiritual” context of Jesus’ exorcistic ministry. There are two references in Hebrew scripture to demons, Deut 32:17 and Ps 106:37, both of which address the Israelites’ idolatrous sacrifices to demons. There are three citations25 referring to Satan in Hebrew scripture: Num 22:22– 35; Job 1:6–12, 2:1–7; and Zech 3:1–2. Numbers 22:22 describes the angel of the Lord26 standing in the road in order to guide Balaam: “But God was incensed at his going; so an angel of the Lord placed himself in his way as an adversary” (JPS). In vs. 34 Balaam acknowledges that the angel of the Lord was present on his journey to oppose him from disobeying God. The Hebrew common noun used to identify the angel of the Lord, “as an adversary,” is Nfc(h), a satan. In Job 1:6–12 (repeated in 2:1–7), the satan is identified as a tester of Job, one who “advises Yahweh to test him by stretching out his hand against him. Yahweh gives the satan power over all his goods….”.27 Zechariah 3:1 says: “Then he showed me the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him” (NRSV). Hebrew Scripture texts depict the satan as an adversary, an opposer, a tester of humans related to God. Eric Sorenson adds that references to possessing entities in the Hebrew Scriptures “appear as non-possessing figures in the service of God.”28

Liberation From Empire

7

He explores incidents of exorcism and includes 1 Sam 16:14–23 among his texts, where David’s harp playing soothes Saul’s rages with the result that the “evil spirit” possessing Saul departs. He also includes Zech 3:2 (where God rebukes Satan) as a text that demonstrates the presence of possessing entities that were subject to exorcism. Second Temple pseudepigraphal references include 1 Enoch, Jubilees and, to a lesser extent (due to the late dates of composition), the Testament of Solomon. Additional references to Satan in apocryphal/intertestamental literature are found in Tobit and Baruch. First Enoch seems to expand Gen 5:21–24 where Enoch, the patriarch, is introduced as a descendant of Adam, and Gen 6:1–4 where “the sons of God” married daughters of humans on earth. First Enoch does not mention Satan but citations in 1 En. 6–16 (especially 15:8–12), 19, 55:3–4, 64, and 69 narrate the faithlessness of the “sons of God.” Henry Kelly summarizes: “Enoch’s main revelation is that 200 Angels, the Sons of God known as Watchers…sinfully abandoned their supervisorial duties over the Earth by lusting after Human women and mating with them, begetting the Giants.”29 Sorensen adds that the evidence for exorcism, particularly in 1 En. 7:1–8:4 and 4Q201 and 4Q202, is elusive,30 although the language of possession also appears in other Qumran documents.31 Jubilees 2:2; 4:16–22; 5:1–6, 6–10; 10:1–2, 5–9; 11:3–4, 11; 17:16; and 18:1– 13 also explain the Genesis narrative plus part of Exodus. For example, Noah complains to God about the uncontrollable nature of unclean demons, “…the spirits or Ghosts of the Giant offspring of the Watcher/woman unions.”32 The author of Jubilees introduces Mastema, in 10:8, “the chief of the spirits” who spreads death and destruction. God places Mastema, identified in 10:11 as Satan, in control of punishing humans for their wickedness. Kelly notes: “However the punishment that he inflicts upon men [sic] for their wickedness is a curious one: he makes them still more wicked, by enticing them to commit more sins. In other words, they will become even more deserving of being wiped out in the Deluge to come.”33 Tobit 3:8, 17; 6:5–7, 17–18; and 8:2–3, describe how the archangel Raphael instructs Tobias to exorcize the demon, Ashmedeus, from Sarah. In Bar 4:7 the prophet informs the Babylonian exiles how deeply their sacrifices to demons hurt God and in 4:35 the prophet assures the exiles of God’s loving care as he pronounces an indictment of Babylon: “…and for a long time she will be inhabited by demons.” In the earliest writings of the New Testament, Paul refers to Satan in Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians.34 The overarching picture of Satan and his minions that emerges from these references is that of a heavenly being related to God who tests humans and the ruler of the world (1 Corinthians). Other aspects of the characterization in these letters include:

8

Cheryl Stewart Pero 1. Romans 16:17–20. Satan is an entity that will be crushed underfoot by God, one who impedes humans and tempts them to discouragement. He punishes and rehabilitates sinners and tempts to sin.35 2. 1 Corinthians 5:5, 10:14, 20–21, 12:2. As in Deut 32:17, demons are worshipped as idols. Satan tempts with challenges related to asceticism and works with the civil authorities against humans. 3. 2 Corinthians 2:10–11, 11:12–15, 12:7. Satan’s tactics need to be observed because he tends to manipulate people by outwitting and/or cheating them. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Satan gave Paul a thorn in the flesh, perhaps preventing Paul from sinning.36 4. 1 Thessalonians 2:18, 3:5. Satan is responsible for Paul’s inability to return to visit the church in Thessalonica by placing obstacles in Paul’s way.

The deuteropauline books, pastoral letters, and non-Pauline epistles contain a few references to Satan and demons. In Eph 6:11–12, Satan is the ruler of the cosmic powers that have been lodged in high spiritual places.37 In 2 Thessalonians Satan deludes unbelievers. In 1 Timothy Satan functions as “an obstructer, agent provocateur, police chief, judge, jailer and disciplinarian.”38 The author of the book of Hebrews understands Satan to have the power of death. The respective authors of 1 Peter and James describe Satan as a cowardly-lion,39 one who is responsible for persecuting people. James 2:19 states that even demons are fearful of God: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (NRSV). In the canonical gospels, Satan and the devil are synonymous. The authors of the gospels focus on the exorcist, the possessing entity, and the response of the crowd as a way to demonstrate Jesus’ authority and power; the possessed person, the demoniac, gets little attention.40 According to Sorensen, biographical details about the possessed tend to point to the exorcist’s “public display of power and authority” and “to corroborate the demoniacs as the innocent and passive victims of malicious spirits.”41 Mark’s cosmology presents an active spirit world where exorcism (deliverance/liberation) is a visible sign of the eschatological overthrow of the kingdom of Satan.42 According to Kelly, Mark’s Satan attempts to persuade people to “deviate” from fulfilling their responsibilities. Satan’s work is “to prevent people from understanding their duty.”43 Matthew 4:1–11 and Luke 4:11–13 present a detailed narrative of Satan as one who is, first and foremost, the adversary responsible for Jesus’ testing/temptation. Matthew’s Satan challenges Jesus to perform miracles and to take a position as Satan’s assistant. Luke’s Satan is the ruler of the world (4:6–7). Mark 4:15 and Matt 13:18, 38–39 add another aspect

Liberation From Empire

9

to Satan’s characteristics through their use of the parables of the sower: Satan snatches the word from peoples’ hearts and sows harmful weeds. While John records no exorcisms, in 8:44 he does identify Satan as the “father of lies,” and in 13:2a and 13:27 as one who takes over people and peoples’ hearts, in this case Judas’. John also proposes a narrative reversal in 12:31–32 where the ruler of the world, Satan, is cast down and Jesus is lifted up. Acts 5:3–4 and 10:38 record Peter’s preaching about Satan, who is portrayed as filling the hearts of humans and causing them to sin. Acts 13:6–11 records Paul’s opposition to Elymas, the magician, and a “son of the devil.” Paul exorcizes a woman demoniac enslaved to the sons of Sceva in Acts 19:11–16. In Acts 26:17–18, Luke’s audience learns that Paul might have even equated his own conversion with exorcism, deliverance “from the power of Satan.” The classic biblical portrayal of Satan is recorded in the book of Revelation 2:13, 2:24, 3:9, 12:9, 20:2 and 20:7. When the angels of the Lord read their letters to Pergamum, Thyatira, and Philadelphia, respectively, they mention Satan, alluding to him as the tester of the post-Easter communities, the one who lures people and communities to give their allegiance to Rome. I know where you are living, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives. (2:13, NRSV) But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call ‘the deep things of Satan,’ to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. (2:24, NRSV) I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but are lying—I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you. (3:9, NRSV)

Revelation 12:8–9 states that, after losing the battle with the archangel Michael, the dragon/serpent, “who is called the devil and Satan,” and his angels are ousted from heaven, losing their places with God. This is followed by a celestial hymn celebrating the dragon’s defeat. At the beginning of the hymn, in 12:10, Satan’s role is identified as the heavenly one who accuses God’s people before God. Revelation 13 reveals that the dragon gives power and authority to the beasts from the sea and the earth.44 In Rev 20:2 and 20:7, after again identifying the dragon as Satan, Satan is bound for one-thousand years and then released for one-thousand years. According to Kelly, other portrayals of Satan in Revelation include ones as humanity’s tester and humanity’s accuser in God’s heavenly court.45 The biblical witness presents no concrete etiology explaining the origin of Satan in Hebrew Scripture but rather a consistent picture of Satan as an

10

Cheryl Stewart Pero

adversary and a tester who has a relationship with God. The apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books also represent Satan as an adversary and a tester/accuser related to God. In the gospels, Satan is portrayed as interacting with Jesus and possessing Judas’ heart. Kelly believes that demons are not tempters but, rather, unwanted, annoying bodily inhabitants46 that both know and are fearful of Jesus; they serve as “fallen angel spirit-parasites” connected to Satan who test human virtue or lack thereof.47 Greco-Roman literature containing references to demonic possession and exorcism comparable to what we find in Mark’s Gospel include excerpts from Lucian (Philops. 16) and Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 3.38, 4.20). Sorensen explains that the Greeks understood demons to be intermediary beings situated between humans and the gods in the cosmic hierarchy.48 These verbal images paint a picture that shows not only the regular nature of possession and exorcism but also the differences between Jesus’ exorcisms and those of other exorcists. In addition to these resources, Sorensen details Dead Sea Scroll materials that refer to exorcism and its applications from the Community Rule documents: 1Q10.21; hymns in 1QHa 5.21, 15.3; and psalms recorded in 11Q5 24.12–13. He also examines documents from Qumran that: 1) connect exorcism to conjuration and 2) emphasize the ritual associated with exorcism as represented in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen), 11Q13, 4Q560 Exorcism ar, and 4Q242 PrNab ar.49 Twelftree examines the same materials50 and arrives at the following conclusions in concert with Sorensen: 1. “…understanding of exorcism and exorcists in the first century was not limited to what we can discover from stories roughly parallel to the Jesus stories.”51 2. “…the [ancient] world was infested with beings hostile to man [sic], against which protection or relief was sought.”52 3. “The methods of…individual healers in literature and history seem to vary….And finally, the success, in the literature (Solomon) or in actual terms (Jesus), of these particular individual healers is reflected in their names being used in ‘incantational’ exorcisms (cf. ANET 8:46–9, Mark 9.38//Luke 9.49, and Acts 16.17; 19.13).”53 Chapter 2 describes each of the hermeneutical methods I employ in the rest of this book: narrative criticism, social science criticism, and postcolonial criticism. In chapter 3, I establish the Markan landscape by examining the Markan narrator’s literary and rhetorical devices, as well as Mark’s Sitz im Leben. Chapter 4, “The Beelzebul Controversy,” examines Mark’s technique of establishing the character of the Jerusalem scribes in direct contrast to Jesus. It

Liberation From Empire

11

also establishes the meaning and significance of Jesus’ exorcisms. Chapter 5 explores Mark’s summary statements concerning Jesus’ ministry, the commissioning of the disciples, and two specific incidents. Chapter 6 involves a close reading of Mark’s four major possession/exorcism episodes in the larger context of Mark’s story of Jesus as a whole, followed in Chapter 7 by my conclusions. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are mine. I follow The Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style for abbreviations, documentation style, and the spelling of technical terms. My New Testament textual base and text critical abbreviations are from NA27.

NOTES 1

This image comes from the 1973 film, The Exorcist, directed by William Friedkin (Burbank, Calif.: Warner Brothers Pictures, 1973).

2

Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Scientific Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 182.

3

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. Often used interchangeably, ‘demon’ was a Greek term and ‘unclean spirit’ an Aramaic term.

4

Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (WUNT 2/157; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 18.

5

See Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories” NTS 14 (1968): 232–46; also Campbell Bonner, “The Technique of Exorcism” HTR 36 (1943): 39–49; James D. G. Dunn and Graham H. Twelftree, “Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament” Churchman 94 (1980): 210–25; and Todd E. Klutz, “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World” The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism (ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis; JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 156–65.

6

BDAG, 384: “to express strong disapproval of someone, rebuke, reprove, censure, also speak seriously, warn in order to prevent an action or bring one to an end”; slightly altered, emphasis theirs.

7 8

Kee, 237. Kee understands “to rebuke” to be too weak a translation of the Semitic verb. Kee, 246. According to Kee’s analysis, Jesus’ exorcisms were examples of God regaining control over a cosmos “under subjugation to the powers of Satan.” Note that 1QapGen was labeled 1QGA in Kee.

9

Ethelbert Stauffer, “e0pitimaw~,” TDNT 2:624.

10 Stauffer, 624.

12

Cheryl Stewart Pero

11 Stauffer, 626. 12 Slightly adapted from BDAG, 299; their emphasis. 13 Friedrich Hauck, “ba/llw,” TDNT 1:527. 14 Hauck, 1:528. 15 John J. Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999), 159. 16 T. H. Gaster, “Demon, Demonology,” IDB 1: 817–18. 17 Gaster, 818. 18 Sorenson, 48. 19 Gaster, 821. 20 Gaster, 821. 21 Gaster, 822. 22 Gaster, 823; Malina and Rohrbaugh, 210–211; Sorensen, 50. 23 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 16–17. See further, idem: Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999) where Twelftree examines exorcism as part of the miracle tradition practiced by Jesus and narrated in the Synoptic Gospels; and idem, In The Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) in which he focuses on the role of the disciples and the purpose of discipleship, using Jesus’ exorcisms as the vehicle for examining the behavior of the twelve. 24 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 129. 25 A potential fourth citation is 1 Chron 21:1 “Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.” 26 For additional references to the angel of the Lord, see also 1 Chron 12, 15–16, 27, and 30. 27 Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 21– 22. 28 Sorensen, 51. 29 Kelly, 34–35. 30 Sorensen, 63. 31 Sorensen, 64. 32 Kelly, 27. 33 Kelly, 37. 34 Although Paul does not mention Satan in Galatians, in Gal 4:8 and 5:19–21 Paul suggests that Satan has delegated responsibility to minions who enslave humans to “works of the flesh.” As with Galatians, Satan is not mentioned in Colossians, but appears to delegate responsibility to his angels in 2:8, 18, and 20.

Liberation From Empire

13

35 Kelly, 64. 36 Kelly, 64. 37 Kelly, 124. 38 Kelly, 170. 39 Kelly, 171. 40 Sorensen, 125. 41 Sorensen, 126. 42 Sorensen, 128–129. 43 Kelly, 84. 44 Kelly, 157. Kelly suggests that this depiction of the beast from the sea is an “allegory of the Roman Empire and the cult of Emperor worship.” The candidate for the beast from the sea was a reincarnated Nero. 45 Kelly, 172. 46 Kelly, 300. 47 Kelly, 303. 48 Sorensen, 75. 49 Sorensen, 65; he cites 11Q13 as 11QMelch. 50 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, esp. 22–47. 51 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 49. 52 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 50. 53 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 52.

C

H A P T E R

2

Methodologies

I

intend to explore how the gospel writer Mark employed demonic possession and exorcism in his depiction of the cosmic battle between Jesus and Satan in light of the first-century CE Mediterranean sociopolitical context.1 This is an emic2 (or insider/synchronic) examination seeking to explain demonic possession in terms of the first century construction of the world, in contrast to an etic3 (or outsider/diachronic) point of view. Like placing sheets of Mylar overlays on a basic map, highlighting different but specific details in an effort to reveal particular topographical data, the methodologies I employ are placed one on top of the other in order to elicit a full picture of demonic possession and exorcism in the Gospel of Mark. Following a brief linguistic analysis focusing on those features of the text relevant to my topic, I undertake narrative, social science and postcolonial analyses. Each hermeneutical method utilizes and evaluates a different set of Markan contours. These multiple analyses enhance the final interpretation in that all three methods overlap. This overlap is constructive and demonstrates how the use of several hermeneutical methods enhances interpretation rather than stifles it. The composite picture that emerges will reveal more than any single overlay. The narrative overlay will examine the Markan narrator’s presentation of the story of Jesus by describing the geographical setting, where the episode under scrutiny fits into Mark’s overall plot, and how the narrator characterizes the actors in the episode or incident. As the Markan narrator’s story evolves, it becomes clear to the audience that his characterization of Satan and demons is developed in direct contrast to Jesus’ characterization, particularly in their ongoing power struggle for cosmic control. Both the social scientific and postcolonial interpretations of the exorcism passages under scrutiny assist in comprehending the manner in which the inherent tensions and threats to the community’s wellbeing, both from Satan and from human domination, are resolved in the Markan story world. The social science analysis uses models that bridge the temporal gap between twenty-first century interpreters and Mark’s first-century audience. It will unveil Mark’s cosmology and explore what the presence of an active spirit world meant to the Markan audience in light of the phenomenon of demonic possession and Jesus’

16

Cheryl Stewart Pero

exorcistic activities. The postcolonial analysis examines the text for Mark’s antiimperial bias and methods of resistance to imperialism utilized by Jesus and other characters in Mark’s story, exposing how non-human forces take control of humans, taking into consideration dynamics related to the uses of power (hegemony) and strategies of resistance in Mark’s story: ambivalence, mimicry and/or hybridity.

Narrative Criticism Over thirty years ago, a New Testament scholar on the faculty of Carthage College, Dr. David M. Rhoads, invited an English professor, also at Carthage, Dr. Don Michie, “to show his students what it would be like to read one of the Gospels the way one would read a short story.”4 In 1982, their collaboration led to the publication of Mark as Story and narrative criticism was born. A subset of literary criticism, narrative criticism emerged in the discipline of biblical studies because of the genre of the gospels and the book of Acts: narratives about Jesus’ birth, life, death, resurrection, and the post-Easter Christian community. The historical critical tradition paid scant attention to the content and narrative of the gospels and Acts. Powell writes: “…the historical critical method attempted to interpret not the stories themselves but the historical circumstances behind them.”5 Narrative criticism enhances historical criticism by examining the world of the stories in the context of the ancient world. The focus of narrative criticism is on the story (narrative) that the implied author communicates to the implied reader.6 The goal of narrative criticism is to read the text as the implied reader. Narrative criticism is “interested in reconstructing the effect the narrative is intended to have on its readers in terms of their value judgments, beliefs, and perceptions.”7 In order to read the text in an authentic and ethical manner, the narrative critic examines the narrative elements in the story, paying particular attention to those details that comprise a narrative: the role of the narrator, the events, the settings, the plot, the characters, and the rhetorical features used by the narrator. Narrative criticism also examines the narrative’s discourse, evaluating the narrator’s use of rhetorical devices and patterns. In the case of the Gospel of Mark, for example, these rhetorical devices and discourse patterns might include the repetition of a particular word (parataxis), two-step progressions, or intercalation. Narrative criticism allows interpreters to enter into “the world of the text,” the Markan story world itself. One key to Mark’s presentation of the topic of demonic possession and exorcism is the narrator’s construction of characters. My utilization of narrative criticism focuses on the narrator’s characterization of the major actors involved in demonic possession and exorcism episodes: Jesus,

Liberation from Empire

17

the demoniacs, and the unclean spirits. While the Markan narrator tells the story of Jesus by showing how different characters fulfill particular roles, my focus will be only on those characters involved in the episodes and summaries about demonic possession and exorcism. Mark Allan Powell appropriately refers to the Markan narrator’s construction of a world in which two essential forces, God and Satan, stand in binary opposition to each other.8 Drawn into the truth of who Jesus is and in whose name Jesus acts, the Markan implied audience ultimately is challenged by the narrator to choose between these two opposing forces. The narrator is by no means objective or neutral; on the contrary, Mark’s narrator “leads the reader to approve of Jesus and to reject those who oppose him.”9 The narrator constructs an evaluative point of view for each of the major actors. With every bias, norm, belief, and value, the narrator presents characters whose evaluative standards of judgment draw the audience closer through empathy or distance them through antipathy. The Markan narrator evokes audience empathy and sympathy for the protagonist, Jesus, and antipathy for the antagonists, Satan and the demonic. The Markan narrator plays a pivotal role as the one not only telling the story of Jesus but also persuading the implied audience to make their own assessment about Jesus and the ultimate outcome of the cosmic struggle (even the audience has a stake in Jesus’ exorcistic activity!). The narrator uses Jesus’ teachings and exorcisms in order to demonstrate what the kingdom of God brings. The narrator also uses the crowds’ reactions to Jesus’ exorcisms in 1:27, 5:14–20, and 9:2610 to elicit the interest of the audience. This comprehensive narrative approach yields a clearer picture of the phenomenon of exorcism in Mark’s narrative portrayal and a clearer picture of Mark’s purpose in emphasizing Jesus’ ministry of exorcism. Characterization is that method within narrative criticism by which actors, both human and non-human, are given depth and meaning. It is “the process through which the implied author provides the reader with what is necessary to reconstruct a character from the narrative.”11 The Markan narrator uses a descriptive method to invest the characters with their standards of judgment and their reliability. Powell identifies four planes on which the characters do this: the spatial-temporal (their actions), the linguistic/phraseological (their speech), the psychological (their thoughts), and the ideological (their beliefs and values).12 The evaluative points of view, “the norms, values, and general worldview that governs a character’s perspective and judgments,”13 are established by their affiliation either to true or untrue points of view. In Mark, the true points of view (the way some characters act, think, speak and believe) are consistent with God and the untrue ones are consistent with Satan.

18

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Mark’s presentations of Jesus’ exorcisms serve as narrative paradigms for identifying Markan cosmology, cosmic victory, and eschatological fulfillment. James Robinson asserts: “…Mark could with the descent of the Spirit on Jesus at baptism launch the kind of eschatological struggle he saw as the meaning of Jesus’ history. … Once Jesus’ history is launched in this way, the traditions about Jesus as exorcist and miracle worker…can be given exemplary significance.”14 Robinson believes that Mark presents a history of Jesus (and the church) that came to him in the form of an oral tradition of connected units about an itinerant preacher/teacher.15 Furthermore, Mark’s narrative creates a new history of a new society, the church, during the time between Jesus’ resurrection and Parousia, whose existence is characterized as a struggle. This new society has been snatched from their historical settings by eschatological faith and catapulted into a new kinship relationship that recognized new customs and traditions. When he refers to Mark’s use of cosmic language, Robinson understands that Mark makes specific allusions “to the cosmic forces which transcend historical immanence and yet participate in the history Mark records.”16 The cosmic language used in the exorcism narratives is limited to encounters between demons/unclean spirits and Jesus, Son of God. Nowhere are the cosmic terms that Mark uses in the introduction to the gospel (1:1–15) also used in the exorcism episodes and summaries. Yet, he asserts, the exorcisms are the locations where the historical nature of Mark’s presentation of Jesus is clearest because of the human embodiment of the demonic and the public venues of the encounters. Robinson asserts that the cosmic struggle occurs in historical contexts and that Mark uses these struggles “for stating a theological understanding of history.”17 According to Mary Ann Tolbert, Mark’s audience lived at a time during which a battle was being waged between demonic cosmic powers intent upon destroying God’s good earth and Jesus. The purpose of Mark’s author was to persuade the authorial audience (that is, the implied reader) that there was an alternative to the alienation, isolation, and anxiety resulting from the increased mobility and insecurity endemic in Hellenism (the fourth century BCE through the fourth century CE). Mark reveals this alternative as the kingdom of God, the domain of God’s rule or the land over which God reigns. Tolbert understands the kingdom of Satan to be the proliferation of bad soil and the kingdom of God to be good soil. In Tolbert’s analysis of Mark, demoniacs were good soil and exorcism was the method by which they became productive soil. Tolbert further speculates that the Markan author characterizes the evil nature of the Judean and Roman authorities dramatically and typologically:

Liberation from Empire

19

God’s realm…is under the control of an evil, murderous, and faithless generation who, backed by the forces of Satan, refuse to produce fruits of the vineyard for its Creator. …Cosmically, the Gospel of Mark concerns the battle for control of creation between God and the forces of Satan, a battle that God will ultimately win, just as Jesus always dominates the evil spirits he encounters.18

Brian Blount’s perspective leads him to examine Mark sociolinguistically. He analyzes the impact of Mark’s language, especially his conceptual image of the kingdom of God, in order to answer the question: “[D]oes Mark’s narrative present a Jesus whose kingdom message is as social and political as it is spiritual?”19 Mark uses mythological language in his narrative approach that reflects the Jewish cultural environment from within which Jesus emerged. Mark’s narrative plan is the transformation/overhaul of present oppressive realities, whenever and wherever that “present” occurs. The narrator thus presents Jesus as one who transforms the society through his apocalyptic message. In each manifestation of Jesus’ kingdom preaching, his teaching with supernatural authority, his miracles, and his exorcisms, the power of God’s kingdom intervenes in the human circumstance to destroy the satanic boundaries of ignorance, illness, and possession that separate humans from God and from one another. Additionally, in each of those preaching moments the natural boundaries of Sabbath, purity, and cultic code are broken down.20

Blount understands that the interpersonal involvement of the audience, all who bring a particular social location to the text and are invited by the Markan narrator to participate in the proclamation of the kingdom of God, leads to interpretation of the Markan message. Blount discerns the kingdom of God to be both now and future and any analysis of demonic possession concerns itself with kingdom issues. The purpose of Mark’s narrative portrayal of Jesus is “to provoke the audience to do what the women and the disciples fail to do, that is to go to Galilee to meet Jesus. In other words to Go Preach.”21 Blount’s reference to internalized colonialism22 provides a provocative entrée for discussing the implications and ramifications of Roman imperialism and demonic possession. David Rhoads understands that the purpose behind Mark’s narration of the exorcism pericopes and summaries is to document the difficulty Jesus faces in establishing the rule of God. Jesus’ exorcisms caused demoniacs not only to be healed and declared clean,23 but also to become witnesses to the new spreading Jesus movement. Even as the newly exorcized are told to be quiet and return to their homes and communities of origin,24 they insist on proclaiming what they have experienced from Jesus. Rhoads suggests that the first half of Mark’s gospel exposes the reader to the rule of God in Galilee through Jesus’ healings, including exorcisms, and other activities, giving the reader an opportunity to

20

Cheryl Stewart Pero

witness firsthand the rule of God.25 Jesus formed a new dyadic community in which life is “lived for others,”26 for the rule of God included the healed and the exorcized. “If the audience saw their world under the dominion of Satan— with illness, demonic possession, threats of nature, and the tyranny of human rulers—they would be led to see and embrace the new world of possibilities opened up by the presence of the rule of God.”27 Robinson and Blount pay strict attention to Mark’s language. Robinson assertion that Mark’s exorcism stories use cosmic language within the context of a cosmic struggle can be correlated with Blount’s understanding of the purpose for Mark’s use of mythological language. In Blount’s rhetorical analysis, Mark’s rhetoric issues a challenge to the implied reader, those who witness Jesus’ exorcisms as well as those who hear Jesus’ words and see Jesus’ actions, couched in mythological terms. He sees Mark’s mythological terms as recapturing past traditions and encapsulating Jesus’ apocalyptic message of intervention that anticipates immediate change in the social context of the people. Tolbert sees Mark’s rhetoric in the parable of the seed/sower as the means by which the narrator establishes the pivotal role of the faith of the suppliant. Faith is the narrator’s way of referring to productive soil/earth. In both Tolbert’s and Rhoads’ analysis, the faith/belief of the suppliant is critical for healing. Faith/ belief in Jesus as God’s agent predicates participation in kingdom building and moderates fear. Antagonists are intent on robbing the suppliants of their ability to have faith in Jesus. Rhoads illustrates Mark’s additional rhetorical techniques in the narrator’s use of questions and riddles (allegories) in Jesus’ description of the kingdom of God, noting in particular that the reference of Mark’s Jesus to the strong one in 3:22–30 is really about the defeat of Satan. The narrative overlay of demonic possession and exorcism that has emerged from this survey is a composite one. The Gospel’s narrative features work together to expose the subplot of ongoing conflict between God and Satan. At stake is control of the cosmos. Satan initiates the cosmic battle as well as earthly demonic activity as he attempts to maintain control of the cosmos. Jesus, as God’s agent, engages the agents of Satan, the demons, in ongoing cosmic battle in order to win the cosmos for God. The setting of Mark’s story of Jesus occurs on two spheres. First, it is located in the narrative Markan cosmological world, where spirits are actively working to gain control over humans. Second, it is located in first-century Palestine, populated primarily by human beings who are focused on survival while resisting the control of other human beings and unclean spirits. Peasant rebellions were not unusual and messianic hopes were not uncommon. Robinson’s designation of Mark’s story world as “theological history” seems appropriate in light of the challenges that faced the Jewish population.

21

Liberation from Empire

Mark narrates his Gospel from an omniscient third person point of view, demonstrated in his intimate knowledge of events, characters, and other pieces of insider information that he freely shares with his implied audience. His presentation evokes a sympathetic response to Jesus and an antipathetic response to Satan. He accomplishes this by juxtaposing God with Satan and Jesus with demons/unclean spirits for his audience. In Mark’s story world, Jesus comes from God and is not limited by cultic, temporal or geographical boundaries, any more than other cosmic beings. This identifies exorcisms as narrative directives emanating from God in which Jesus’ power is used to demonstrate the will of God. Jesus’ exorcisms serve to demonstrate that his power of liberation trumps the unclean spirits’ power of possession. Markan characterizations of Jesus and the demonic are significant. The main actors in the exorcisms are Jesus, the protagonist (who functions as an agent of God), and the unclean spirits, the antagonists (who function as agents of Satan). The narrator’s focus on Jesus begins with his possession by the Holy Spirit at his baptism. This is when the source of Jesus’ authority is revealed and his power is bestowed. Jesus’ responsibility is to proclaim the proximity of the kingdom of God. The narrator implies that the source of demonic activity and power is Satan, characterized as the one who engages God through Jesus in an ongoing battle for control of humans. Other Markan characterizations include: the crowds; the disciples and other followers (who appear to be of little help to Jesus in his exorcistic activity); and the demons, who possess knowledge of Jesus’ identity not shared with the implied readers.

Social Science Criticism Postmodern scholarly consensus points out that reading the biblical witness is a cross-cultural experience because of the temporal, social, and cultural differences between the first-century CE Mediterranean world and the twenty-first century CE Western world. Social science biblical criticism is an interpretive method by which cultural anthropology informs the social and cultural interactions within biblical texts. According to John H. Elliott: “Social scientific criticism of the Bible is…the exegetical task which analyzes the…[sociocultural] dimensions of the text and of its environmental context through the utilization of the perspectives, theory, models, and research of the social sciences.”28 Social science criticism complements other exegetical methods, including the historical critical method, by providing insight into the social and cultural worlds inhabited by the implied author and the author’s intended audience. By developing a functional understanding of the social values of the first century Mediterranean world, the reader is better able to interpret what particular behavior communicated.

22

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Exegeting biblical texts with attention paid to social science models provides a comprehensive picture of the social and cultural issues with which early followers of the Way wrestled. Through research on…aspects of ancient social life we have made important strides toward the understanding of early Christianity as an all encompassing social, cultural, and religious phenomenon. By including within the historical-critical method a sociological perspective and methodology, we have made significant advances in exposing and interpreting the social conditions, constraints, capacities, and consequences of the biblical writings and the social forces that shaped the societies and communities within which these writings were produced. Such study has thus achieved a more comprehensive contextualization of the biblical writings and a more accurate understanding of the correlation of religious thought and belief with the realities of ancient everyday life. Finally, by clarifying the difference between the historical conditions, social institutions, and cultural scripts proper to the biblical writings and those proper to the modern interpreter, social-scientific criticism provides a clearer framework for the reading and use of the Bible and biblical history by the contemporary student.29

The social science models I use build on social science reading scenarios and methodologies developed by a variety of social science scholars. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh establish the categories and models that I employ. John J. Pilch evaluates Mark’s taxonomy of illness and healing. Ched Myers’ provides a socioliterary reading of the Gospel of Mark, bringing together the literary, social, and historical character of the text. Christian Strecker introduces an entirely different model for understanding demonic possession and exorcism: transformance. Demonic possession was the description that the Mediterranean culture employed to categorize and explain those deviant behaviors that were not attributable to any known and/or reasonable human causes. If another entity took over the mind and body of a person, that person was understood as not being in control of him/herself. Their person was fully eclipsed by the other and their persona was somehow misplaced, displaced, replaced, or placed elsewhere: Something, or someone, was literally out of place.30 Persons and things out of place were considered “unclean;” they needed to be purified, to be put back into the right relationship with their environment. When a person displayed deviant behavior (out of place) patterns, the community imposed sanctions, perhaps through the gossip network,31 often declaring the person unclean and placing that person outside the dyadic kinship community.32 Exorcism was the means by which the demoniac was purified, thereby being restored, properly re-placed, into community. Demonic possession was perceived firstly as something being out of place in a person; therefore, demon possession was equated with the state of being unclean. In the first-century CE Mediterranean world someone who was consid-

Liberation from Empire

23

ered religiously/ritually unclean was unclean in relation to their family and their community. The concept of uncleanness/impurity permeated the interrelated institutions in the society, having particular impact on a community’s religious life. The religious authorities declared when a person was unclean, what the ritual formula for achieving cleanness entailed, when the unclean person had achieved a state of cleanness, and, finally, when and how the person would be welcomed back into the extended community (see the Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 and the Deuteronomic Code in Deut 12–26). The unclean were separated from family and community by boundaries: physical, social and religious. Anything that an unclean person touched was understood to have the potential to pollute the cleanness of others, thereby jeopardizing the cleanness of the entire community. Anything that was out of order, out of place, in the immediate family and the extended community of faith was perceived as unclean or dirty. While disease was understood to affect the physical body itself, sickness/ illness was perceived as that which was out of order in the individual’s persona. Demonic possession was a social and religious illness, that which was unclean and out of order in the individual. The spirits responsible for possessing the individual were thought to have the potential for polluting the entire community, opening the door to other unclean spirits and potential malevolent influences, thus rendering the entire community ill and unclean. Consequently, when possible the possessed were isolated from the rest of the community in order to prevent the potential pollution of the entire community. While curing sometimes worked for those who diseased, healing always worked for those who were sick and/or ill. Sometimes the entire community experienced healing with the healing of those who were sick and ill.33 Healing was understood to be restoration into community relationships, back into wholeness and holiness, of those who had been excluded because of ritual uncleanness/impurity. Demonic possession34 was, secondly, understood as deviant behavior caused by a non-human entity.35 Deviant behavior was that behavior which caused persons to become dangerous to themselves and others; it caused individuals to become stigmatized,36 ostracized, and isolated from their community.37 Deviant behavior was seen as a phenomenon in which behavior was defined as out of order38 by a shared social interpretation that was intricately bound up with the values of purity and honor/shame within the dyadic community.39 Jesus’ public ministry undermined all the categories of cleanness and uncleanness, purity and impurity, because he, instead of being polluted by that which was considered socially and religiously out of order or impure, spread cleanness/purity. Jesus’ healing was wholistic, in harmony with God and the cosmos, involving the erosion of a number of social taboos.40 Jesus’ ministry overturned cultural maps of times and space and social convention, another

24

Cheryl Stewart Pero

means Jesus employed to break boundaries and bring wholeness to a desperate Palestinian community of faith. The majority of healing miracles performed by Jesus in Mark are exorcisms.41 Malina and Rohrbaugh’s discussion of demons and demon possession42 illustrates how models overlap. What follows stands as an example of the interrelatedness of Demons/Demon Possession and dyadic/collectivistic personality, honor-shame societies, deviance labeling, and purity/pollution. The cosmological structure of the Markan story world was hierarchical. At each level in the hierarchy, the superior being could control the ones below it: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

“Our” God, the Most High God “Other” Gods or sons of God or archangels Lower nonhuman persons: angels, spirits, demons Humankind Creatures lower than humankind.43

The ancients believed in causality; this is to say, “entities” were the agents responsible for causing events to occur. “Every significant effect in a person’s or group’s life was believed to have been caused by a person, human or nonhuman. This was true not only at the level of ordinary society, but at the levels of nature and the cosmos as well.”44 When incidents that could not be explained by human causality occurred in the life of the individual, family or community (the dyadic kinship group) the incident was attributed to spirit activity. Moreover, socially deviant behavior might be potentially explained as possession by another entity. If the behavior was negative and destructive, it might be attributed to the demonic and posed a threat to the purity of the community; if the behavior was positive and constructive, it was attributed to God. Accusations of demon possession were based on the belief that forces beyond human control were causing the effects humans observed. Since evil always attacks good, people expected to be assaulted. …Such attribution was something the community would be concerned to clarify in order to identify and expel persons who represented a threat. Freeing a person from demons, therefore, implied not only exorcising the demon but restoring that person to a meaningful place in the community as well.45

Honor/shame issues emerge when, in order to thwart Jesus’ authority/power and in an effort to control him, the unclean spirits/demons,46 after throwing the demoniacs they possessed to the ground, cried out Jesus’ name, identifying him as the son of the most High God or the holy one of God, as Jesus exorcized them. “The reason for this is that the demons sought to protect themselves against a being of higher standing by magically using that being’s true identity. …”47 They attempt to gain power, honor, over Jesus by naming him but Jesus

Liberation from Empire

25

bests the demonic in each encounter by shaming them. “Jesus’ power over demons is essentially a function of his place in the hierarchy of powers, that is, his ‘authority’.… He is an agent of God, imbued with God’s holy/clean spirit, who overcomes the power of evil.”48 The disciples were commissioned (Mark 3:14– 15, 6:7, 13), another example of the dyadic kinship group, to exercise the same authority over the demonic with which Jesus has been invested: (a) over unclean spirits and (b) to cast out demons. Individuals within one’s kinship group were identified dyadically, in a stereotypical manner related to the uniqueness of that particular group’s general social categories group “…in terms of place of origin, residence, family, gender, age, and any other groups to which they might belong.”49 When one did not act in accord with the stereotypical parameters of one’s kinship group, one could be accused of exhibiting deviant behavior. “Stereotypes could, of course, be either positive (titles such as ‘lord’) or negative (accusations such as demon possession). Negative labeling, what anthropologists call ‘deviance accusations’ could, if made to stick, seriously undermine a person’s place and role in the community.”50 Accusing a person of being possessed by a demon was a deviance label. Incidents of deviance accusations provided the community with an opportunity to scrutinize the deviant and the deviant behavior as well as to explain its causality. Malina and Rohrbaugh illustrate the seriousness of deviance accusations with their explanation of the Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3:20–30): “Most serious of all were accusations of sorcery, that is, being possessed by and having the power of ‘the prince of demons,’ Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). Such labels not only marked one as deviant (outside accepted norms or states) but, once acquired, could be nearly impossible to shake.”51 The accusation was a challenge to Jesus’ honor and God’s credibility; and, because the accusation was made publicly, Jesus had to refute the accusation publicly. He plays the challenge/riposte game with the Jerusalem scribes and not only rejects the deviance label, but also turns the accusation back on his accusers. “By accusing his accusers, Jerusalemites, of ‘blaspheming against the Holy Spirit’ (3:29), Jesus accused them of denying the power of God present in Jesus’ activities.”52 This was the one unforgivable, eternal sin. (Mark 3:29–30). John J. Pilch suggests that exorcism might be perceived as political activity, based in the authority/source of the power of the exorcist. For Ched Myers, exorcism was Jesus’ enactment of the ideology of opposition to oppressive forces, direct liberating action/intervention, a public political repudiation of Roman hegemony.53 Myers connects exorcism with the restoration of the demoniac to “societal wholeness.”54 Jesus’ exorcisms are powerful symbolic acts not only because he exorcized those who were possessed, but also because

26

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Jesus’ actions challenged the dominant structures, revealing them as antithetical to the spread of the kingdom of God. Jesus’ mission redefined the conditions for being part of community The social science criticism overlay explains the ancient socioreligious context, a different method for examining “the world of the text.” Insights from cultural anthropology inform the socio-religio-political construction of the Markan story world. I utilize a variety of reading scenarios/models based on their suitability to the respective references and episodes. Chapter 4 examines the social science implications of the “Beelzebul Controversy” utilizing the models of dyadic community/kinship groups and deviance labeling. In chapter 5, I use the model of honor/shame for the summaries, the model of patronage for the commissionings, and the model of insider/outsider for the specific incidents. In chapter 6, I use the model of purity, clean/unclean (holy/profane), to examine Jesus’ ministry of exorcism.

Postcolonial Criticism Colonialism, as a political, religious and economic phenomenon emerging between the mid-eighteenth and mid-twentieth centuries CE, originated in the northern hemisphere. The deleterious results of colonialism, destructive to both the colonizer and the colonized, have been examined and evaluated from a variety of perspectives: literary, political, spiritual, psychological, philosophical, and economic.55 Its purpose and focus was to expand the geopolitical boundaries of the north into the southern hemisphere. Postcolonial biblical criticism questions the elevation of the Bible as the sacred global text, a text that was recorded in ancient colonial contexts and has been used to justify the spread of modern colonialism/imperialism. R. S. Sugirtharajah explains that postcolonial biblical interpretation seeks to add the voices and insights from the southern hemisphere to those from the north in the task of interpretation: “…postcolonial biblical criticism tries…to liberate the field from one-sided literary emphasis and identify and encourage other forms of expression.”56 According to Sugirtharajah, one of the most prolific and respected exponents of this hermeneutical method, postcolonial criticism is a textual and praxiological practice initially undertaken by people who were once part of the British, European and American Empires, but now have some sort of territorial freedom while continuing to live with burdens from the past and enduring newer forms of economic and cultural neo-colonialism. It was also undertaken by ethnic minorities who live in diaspora, namely British blacks and British Asians in England, and racial minorities in the United States and Canada…who had been victims of old imperialism, who are now current victims of globalization and who have continually been kept away from and represented by the dominant First World elements. Postcolonialism involves

Liberation from Empire

27

investigation into various colonial archives and discussion on a variety of issues ranging from slavery to migration, from gender to ethnic matters. Postcolonial criticism tries to conquer the past by comprehending it, and to overpower the present by exorcising it.57

The emergence of postcolonial biblical criticism in the North American biblical academy resulted from the collaboration between Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia begun in 1997.58 In 1998, they formulated a project and consultation on New Testament Studies and Postcolonial Studies in the Society of Biblical Literature that built on what others in the academy, particularly in the fields of cultural studies and postcolonial studies,59 were already doing. One among many postmodern methods of interpretation, “…postcolonial criticism highlight(s) the question of geopolitics—the realm of the political at the translocal or global level…the relationship between center and periphery, metropolis and margins—in effect, the imperial and the colonial.”60 There are three basic clusters of work in evidence in postcolonial biblical criticism: 1. a critique of liberation theology from a postcolonial perspective, “variously termed contextual hermeneutics, vernacular hermeneutics…or cultural studies…,” e.g., Segovia, Sugirtharajah, Dube;61 2. using “the theme of empire as an exegetical lens through which to reframe and reread selected New Testament texts,” e.g. Horsley, Elliott, Moore;62 3. extrabiblical postcolonial studies that engage the biblical witness, e.g. Donaldson, Liew, Samuel.63 Tat-siong Benny Liew’s64 postcolonial examination of the Gospel of Mark “probes the relationship between Mark’s story of Jesus and colonial politics and, more specifically, the relationship between Mark’s emphasis on the parousia (or the return of Jesus) and his construction of colonial subjects.”65 Mark is concerned about both the Roman and the Jewish authorities, best illustrated by Mark’s narration of the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1–20). Mark’s anti-authoritarian stance might be seen as colonial mimicry; the goal being to replace traditional authority, the tradition of the elders,66 with a new tradition instituted by and incarnated in Jesus. Liew equates Jesus’ authority with Jesus’ power and says: “Mark’s Jesus may have replaced the ‘wicked’ Jewish-Roman power, but the tyrannical, exclusionary, and coercive politics goes on.”67 Jesus was invested at his baptism with “an invisible force…piloting Jesus’ every movement.”68 Mark’s portrayal of Jesus is one that seems to underscore Jesus’ limited agency informed by necessity, dei=, in God’s scheme. Liew observes a balance in Mark’s presentation of Jesus: “pessimism in the present, but faith in the future.”69 Mark’s Jesus mimics the colonial powers in order to un-

28

Cheryl Stewart Pero

dermine them while, simultaneously, posing an alternative vision with God as the ultimate colonial power. In Liew’s final analysis, human resistance to colonization is necessary (dei=) but the colonized, in resisting, must realize that “they also seem to face a constant danger that is indifferent to time and history: the danger of duplicating their colonizers ideology, and becoming oppressors of others.”70 Liew’s understanding of demonic possession is directly related to his understanding of Mark’s apocalyptic framework. Evil and demonic powers are at work in the sociopolitical practices implicit in Roman imperialism. Demonic powers are also at work in the Jewish synagogues and among the Judean Jerusalem elites. Jesus’ promised Parousia, cosmic victory, will effect God’s permanent changes in the sociopolitical-religious landscape, and therein lies hope for the colonized. Both Romans and Judeans are subject to manipulation by Satan, and the kingdom of God, as proclaimed by Jesus, stands in antithesis to the kingdom of Rome. Jesus’ exorcisms were a consistent plundering of Satan’s household though, demonstrating that Satan’s kingdom was doomed to be annihilated through Jesus’ exercise of his divine authority to confront and eliminate Satan’s hold on the world. The power of Satan, though, is demonstrated in the people’s unbelief in Jesus, the object of faith, and in Jesus’ death itself. As Liew examined Jesus’ authority and agency, he concluded that Satan was, ultimately, more powerful than Jesus, “devouring all God’s agents,”71 up to and including the Son of God. Liew calls into question whether God is simply replacing an oppressive Caesar with an oppressive God-self when he problemitizes the uncertainty of empire by juxtaposing the oppressive kingdom of Satan to an equally oppressive kingdom of God, an important postcolonial trope. Richard A. Horsley examines the canonical Gospel of Mark as a complete story that takes seriously the imperial situation within which Mark’s story of Jesus occurs: “It is an anti-imperial story of an anti-imperial movement.”72 No societal separation between the religious and economic institutions existed in the first-century CE Mediterranean context: “The kingdom of God in Mark is not separate from, but encompasses political-economy.”73 Nevertheless, powerrelations figured prominently and “Jesus’ exorcisms of ‘unclean spirits’ turn out to be battles in a wider political struggle.”74 The cosmic battle between Jesus and Satan is symbolized in the political struggle between human institutions/ rulers and Jesus. When Jesus exorcized, the kingdom of God emerged because Jesus’ exorcisms, the public demonstration of his ongoing struggle with Satan and Satan’s minions, were manifestations of the kingdom of God. But Mark’s audience also observes that Jesus’ exorcisms diminish as he becomes more clearly engaged in the political aspects of his struggle.75

Liberation from Empire

29

In Jesus’ first public act in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28), casting out the demonic/unclean spirit, Jesus rebukes, thus conquers or subjects, the demonic, manifesting the restoration of the kingdom of God. Exorcisms are a method by which Jesus demonstrates his power and authority: he overcomes divisive and destructive forces in order to usher in the kingdom of God. In Mark 3:22–30 the conflict lies between the Jerusalem scribal elites, the minions of Satan, and Jesus. Jesus’ exorcisms are a plundering of the house of the strong one and his purpose is to bind Satan and overpower Satan’s demons and minions, a means of establishing the kingdom of God. “Jesus’ response also presupposes that life circumstances involve struggle between God and demonic forces headed by Satan.”76 Jesus’ authority over the demons/unclean spirits is the demonstration that he has the authority, unlike the Jerusalem scribes, to establish the kingdom of God, and Jesus passes this authority on to his disciples. The common people in the villages see and understand this. In Mark 5:1– 20 Horsley points to the symbolic nature of the name of the unclean spirit, Legion, and the symbolism inherent in the demon’s possession of the demoniac, signifying the oppressive influence of imperialism on individuals and communities. While Horsley refers to the other two additional Markan exorcisms, the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30) and the possessed boy (9:14–29), he does not analyze these in any detail. Demonic possession was symbolic of the political and social violence unleashed on first century CE Mediterranean persons and communities by the Roman imperial order.77 Horsley’s observation is that the spiritual struggle between God and Satan is also a political one: For the peoples of ancient Galilee and the surrounding peoples, imperial domination was caught up in a conflict of a higher order, between superhuman spiritual forces, God and Satan, Holy Spirit versus unclean spirits. The effects of Roman military violence and economic exploitation were often attributed to demon possession. Indeed a subject people so possessed…cannot even discern the real, political forces to which they are subject until their demons are exorcized, brought under God’s control.78

Stephen D. Moore’s approach to postcolonial analysis is informed by his engagement with deconstruction, the dismantling of a text in order to examine how it functions.79 For Moore, Mark 5:9 might be viewed as the “hermeneutical key” that unlocks the entire Gospel, the “most exorcistic of gospels.”80 He understands ‘Legion’ to be symbolic of the Romans occupying the land. “With the emergence of a newly sharpened focus on ‘empire’ within the New Testament studies…we do have…compelling reasons for hearing in Mark 5:9 a dual reference to demonic possession and colonial occupation.”81 Mark 5:1–20 is Moore’s point of departure for his postcolonial reading of Mark’s gospel. He centers his

30

Cheryl Stewart Pero

examination of this episode on “those perennial and intractable issues” that are related to colonialism: “land, invasion, occupation, and liberation.”82 The Marcan narrator understood the land and the people of Palestine, particularly Galilee, were in need of exorcism: a purging of the land and the people of demonic occupation. Moore explores the ways in which the episode of the Gerasene Demoniac might be used allegorically, first, from a zealot perspective (an anti-colonial reading viewpoint)83 and, second, from a postcolonial perspective.84 His zealot (anti-colonial) reading of this episode examines anti-imperial messages within the text and reveals that, in Mark’s narrative, both the land and the people are possessed by colonizing forces and desperately in need of exorcism. A postcolonial reading of any text complicates a straightforward reading by attending to issues of empire and, at the same time, problemetizing Jesus’ exorcism. Moore’s postcolonial reading of this biblical text relates to the discourse written by Mark, who himself appears ambivalent85 towards the Roman Empire. Mark lacks a sustained anti-Roman bias and maintains a “quietist”86 attitude. The question is: In what ways does Jesus also seek to establish sovereignty over people in order to usher in the kingdom of God? In the Markan story world, instead of exorcizing Rome from the country of the Gerasenes, Rome is used as God’s instrument to punish the Judean elites for their collusion with the Roman authorities. Jesus is the only human authority the Markan author recognizes. However, in asserting Jesus’ humanity, Mark’s Jesus mimics Caesar. Like Liew, Moore asks if the empire of God, “that inevitably evinces many of the oppressive traits of the Roman Empire,”87 simply replaces Roman imperialism, allegorized as demonic possession. Mark’s construction of the empire of God is both a mimic of and a counter to the Roman Empire. Mark parodies the Roman Empire when his Jesus proclaims the kingdom of God, for in Mark’s narrative, the Roman Empire is not brought to a tragic end, but, instead, is glorified/ idealized. Mark is ambivalent about the role of Rome, suggesting that Rome will not be overturned, but ironically, on the contrary, will raze Palestine. The Markan Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God parodies that of Rome: “In the end, then, Mark’s gospel refuses to relinquish its dreams of empire, even while deftly deconstructing the models of economic exchange that enable empire, even eschatological ones, to function.”88 The “manifest destiny” of Jesus seems to be to exert power over the demonic by healing the land through the act of exorcism, driving out the powers that possess the land and many of the people.89 Colonialism, in Simon Samuel’s understanding, was not only a historical, political, and economic event, but also a phenomenon that has bestowed endur-

Liberation from Empire

31

ing psychological and cultural consequences. As such, colonialism provides a “discursive framework” for discussing the continuing legacy of empire. “Postcolonialism as a literary and counter-cultural discursive strategy engages these remaining and lingering aspects of colonialism.”90 Samuel’s understanding of postcolonialism as “interstitial,” or overlapping, as well as “temporal,” means that postcolonialism is an “omnipresent, inescapable and overwhelming reality in the world.”91 The reading strategy that Samuel utilizes in Mark’s story of Jesus is strategic essentialism and transcultural hybridity.92 This strategy leans heavily on observing and analyzing the postcolonial concepts of mimicry, ambivalence, and hybridity in order to probe the relationship between the colonized and the colonizer. The concept of mimicry is the ambivalent relationship between colonists and colonizers in colonial and postcolonial discourse. In these discourses where the colonized subjects mimic by repeating their colonial masters’ cultural habits, assumptions, institutions voice, etc. The result is never a simple re-presentation or reproduction of those traits but rather a ‘blurred copy’, a ‘camouflage’ which can be quite disruptive.93

The result of mimetic discourse, a potentially menacing resistance strategy, destabilizes colonial authority politically and culturally. The colonized, from their places of social and cultural origin, are able to “enter into the cultural regimes of their colonial masters”94 where they “pose a threat to the dominance of colonial unity and authority.”95 Mimicry has the potential to impact colonial subjects in one of two ways: (1) the colonized appear to develop a transcendent integrity, and (2) the colonizers are faced with an internalized threat. Ambivalence is the attraction/repulsion responses of the colonized to the colonizer, suggesting both compliance and resistance on the part of the colonized. An ambivalence response problemitizes the hierarchical, authoritarian dominance of the colonizer and “produces ambivalent subjects whose mimicry is never far from mockery.”96 It functions as a method of challenging the imperial authority of the colonizer, engaging the cultures of both the colonized and colonizers, and creating, in its wake, a hybridized culture. “The concept is related to hybridity because, just as ambivalence ‘decentres’ authority from its position of power, so that authority may also become hybridized when placed in a colonial context in which it finds itself dealing with, and often inflected by, other cultures.”97 Hybridity captures the notion of “in-betweenness or liminality.”98 Hybrid space, shared by both colonized and colonizer, is the place where not only the discourse of the colonized and the colonizer overlap and displace one another, but also where “the intersubjective and collective experiences of nationness, community interest, or cultural value are negotiated.”99 The colonial in-between

32

Cheryl Stewart Pero

space is the location where hybridity, based on the social and cultural differences and engagements between the colonized and the colonizer, emerges. The concept of hybridity acknowledges the interdependent nature of the colonized/ colonizer relationship. Biblical narratives are products constructed in the interstitial hybrid space. Jesus’ baptism, during which he becomes possessed by the spirit of God, establishes him as the “beloved Son” of God and authorizes him as Son of Man. Links between Mark’s presentation of Jesus and Jesus’ exercise of authority and power include expelling unclean spirits (both for himself and his disciples); cleansing synagogues;100 and intruding into the lives of the synagogue elites. Mark 1:21–28 stands as an example of Jesus not only cleansing the Capernaum synagogue but also exerting authority over unclean spirits on the Sabbath, both challenging and disrupting the authority of the Jerusalem scribes. The Beelzebul controversy in 3:22–30 is an example of Jesus’ disruptive agenda: This disruption affects Jesus’ family, the Galilean leaders, the Jerusalem scribes, and Satan’s household. “The charges and counter-charges (the leaders accusing Jesus of blasphemy and Jesus covertly suggesting their accusations as blasphemous 3.22–30) show the extent of disruption caused by Jesus’ activities.”101 The episode of the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1–20) demonstrates Jesus’ power to subdue Legion while mimicking “Caesar who can cross the stormy sea and conquer the enemy.”102 The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30) is another example of the power and authority exercised by Mark’s Jesus. Samuel makes no mention at all of Jesus’ final exorcism, the possessed boy of 9:14–29. Samuel’s portrait of Mark’s Jesus reflects Jesus’ postcolonial resistance to and understanding of the communities with which he comes into contact. Jesus’ exorcisms challenge certain native customs and traditions as well as relating to the Judean authorities and institutions in order to disrupt their systems of power. Mark’s Jesus addresses an oppressive socio-religio-political situation by means of ‘postcolonial discourse’, as opposed to either pro- or anti-colonial discourse. Jesus’ death on the Roman cross poses Jesus’ final disruption to the Roman and Judean authorities. This disruption is symbolized by the tearing in half of the Jerusalem temple veil and the acknowledgement of Jesus’ identity by the Roman centurion, something that only the cosmic beings in Mark’s story had acknowledged before this incident. Furthermore, the confession of the centurion at the cross and the cooperation between Pilate and Joseph of Arimathea in regards to Jesus’ burial seem to pose a Roman-Judean model of “postcolonial ambivalence and boundary crossing strategy.”103 Mark’s portrayal of Jesus presents a colonial/postcolonial conundrum to the hearers/readers of Mark’s Gospel: one whose origins mimic Caesar, whose early activity classified him as an exorcist and healer, who proclaims a new empire counter to Caesar’s, who

Liberation from Empire

33

creates a trans-cultural community from both sides of the sea, and whose death will ultimately mock the Roman imperium. Because Jesus breaks boundaries, both cosmic and cultural, inviting others to become a part of God’s new kingdom, neither the Romans nor the Judean elites know how to respond to his subversive proclamation. Jesus’ temptation/testing by Satan in the wilderness sets the theme for Mark’s story of Jesus, where the “huios will engage (encounter) the adversary and its historical agents and suffer the inevitable consequences.”104 This testing experience sets Jesus apart in Mark’s narration as “Jesus the son who engaged the satanas of the wilderness for forty days who now acts as the herald and wazir of God’s imperium on earth.”105 Jesus is both the son of God and the Son of Man. As son of God, Jesus engages in an ongoing adversarial cosmic relationship with Satan; as Son of Man he emerges from within a particular culture and context within which he functions socially and adversarially with the Judean elites. In my opinion, issues that postmodern scholars frequently modify as “identity” lie at the heart of the concerns that postcolonial biblical criticism seeks to address.106 How the biblical text is understood and appropriated is based on the interpreter’s cultural and “identity” politics. Until the issues related to identity, as opposed to identifications, are clarified, those whose legacies are inherited from colonialism will continue to grapple with two other significant postcolonial concepts that have emerged in this survey: (a) the trope of the suffering of the colonized, and (b) the construction and implications of internalized colonization. Chapter 4 uses the resistance strategy of mimicry to analyze the Beelzebul Controversy. Chapter 5 will explore Mark’s imperial/anti-imperial language by examining the resistance strategy of hybridity in the summaries, and of mimicry in the commissionings and the specific incidents. In chapter 6, Jesus’ hybridity allows him to exorcize unclean spirits, providing a model for others to emulate in order to resist empire and to continue building the kingdom of God.

34

Cheryl Stewart Pero

NOTES 1

For detailed bibliography for this section, see Cheryl Pero, “Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark: Liberation from Empire” (PhD diss., Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 2010), 15–32.

2

Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 2002), 45; John J. Pilch, Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 59.

3

Myers, 45. See also John H. Elliott, What is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), esp. 38–40, and Pilch, Healing in the New Testament, esp. 59.

4

Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 6.

5

Powell, 2.

6

Powell, 11, 20.

7

Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 120.

8

Powell, 25.

9

David M. Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 44.

10 Mark McVann, “Destroying Death: Jesus in Mark and Joseph in ‘The Sin Eater’,” in The Daemonic Imagination: Biblical Text and Secular Story (ed. Robert Detweiler and William Doty; AARSR 60; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 127. 11 Powell, 52. 12 Powell, 52 13 Powell, 53. 14 James M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark. And other Marcan Studies (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1982), 9. 15 Robinson, 125. 16 Robinson, 81. 17 Robinson, 82. 18 Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 284. 19 Brian Blount, Go Preach! Mark’s Kingdom Message and the Black Church Today (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1998), xi. 20 Blount, xi. 21 Blount, 197.

Liberation from Empire

35

22 Blount, 217. I will discuss internalized colonialism in my postcolonial exegesis of each text I study. 23 David M. Rhoads, Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 170. 24 Rhoads, 125. 25 Rhoads, et al., Mark as Story, 139. 26 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 51. 27 Rhoads, et al., Mark as Story, 144. 28 Elliott, 7. For a more detailed discussion of social science criticism, see Elliott, throughout. 29 Elliott, 35. 30 Stevan L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (New York: Continuum, 1995), 95. 31 Malina and Rorhbaugh, 185. 32 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 192–4, 229–231. 33 Pilch, Healing in the New Testament, 141. 34 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. The Markan narrator uses unclean spirits (the Semitic label) and demons (the Greek label) interchangeably, even within the same episode (see Mark 7:24–30), as simply different names for malevolent entities that take possession of other beings. 35 Malina and Rorhbaugh, 182. 36 Santiago Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism” in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. Wolfgang Stegeman, Bruce Malina and Gerd Thiessen Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 162. 37 Malina and Rorhbaugh, 185. 38 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200–201. 39 Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 163. 40 Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 28. 41 Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 3. I disagree with Twelftree’s definition, however, because, as I will demonstrate, in Mark’s narration there is a distinction between healing and exorcism. 42 The second edition (2003) of their commentary contains more reading scenarios than the initial 1992 edition; additional reading scenarios included in the list above are indicated by an asterisk. 43 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. 44 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 2nd ed.: 350. 45 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. 46 See also Clinton Wahlen’s excellent study, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), in which he asserts that “impure spirits” (what I call unclean spirits) does not identify the same malevolent entities as “demons” (170). “However, almost without exception the expression serves to highlight a particular aspect of impurity

36

Cheryl Stewart Pero and the nature of demonic influence on people.” He goes on to say that contact with Gentile demoniacs did not pose the same threat to the purity of community, as did the Jewish demoniacs. Unclean spirits are depicted as tormentors, “not as tempters (a role reserved for Satan). …” (172). Unclean spirits in Mark tend to act unilaterally, although they “seem to share the same supernatural knowledge.” He asserts: “Mark’s arrangement of the exorcism stories reveals a dual purpose: the first and the last, set among Jews, highlights Jesus’ holiness as the Son and reveal his authority overt the sprits. The exorcisms at the core of the sequence, set among Gentiles, also involve impure spirits, showing that they possess Jews and Gentiles alike and that purity is most clearly defined in relation to Jesus.” (173). I will return to the topic of impurity and Wahlen’s insights when I examine the setting of the exorcism of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter.

47 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 183. 48 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 183. 49 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200. 50 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200. See also Bruce J. Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1998). 51 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200. 52 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 201. 53 Myers, 194. 54 Myers, 146. 55 For further reading on the interdisciplinary impact of colonialism, see Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, eds, The Post-Colonial Studies Reader (London: Routledge, 1995), and Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader (New York: Columbia, 1994). 56 R. S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 95. 57 R. S. Sugirtharajah, The Bible and the Third World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 246–7. Sugirtharajah explains in his introduction (3) that he understands the phrase “Third World” to concisely sum up “a particular way of existence and experience. …It also refers to a people who have been left out and do not have the power to shape their future. It defines a relationship marked by power and mediated through old colonial ties, and currently through the economic and cultural presence of neocolonialism. Such iniquitous relationships exist both globally and locally.” 58 Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia, “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Beginnings, Trajectories, Intersections,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (ed. Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia London: T&T Clark, 2005), 1. Both Segovia and Moore were born and grew up in colonized social contexts: Segovia in Cuba and Moore in Ireland. Both of these scholars had done previous work in the field of biblical and cultural studies and expressed interest in developing cultural biblical criticism as a consultation focus for the Society of Biblical Literature. See Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, Reading from this Place, vol. 2, Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective

Liberation from Empire

37

(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995). See also J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore, Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium (JSOTSup 226; Gender, Culture, Theory 7; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), in which Segovia explains that the purpose of bringing biblical and postcolonial studies together is to “analyze how the imperial-colonial phenomenon bears on” Christian studies, 24. 59 For example, Laura E. Donaldson, ed., Postcolonial and Scriptural Reading, Semeia 75 (Atlanta: Scholars Press: 1996); and R. S. Sugirtharajah, ed., The Postcolonial Bible (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998). 60 Fernando F. Segovia, “Mapping the Postcolonial Optic in Biblical Criticism: Meaning and Scope,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (ed. Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia; London: T&T Clark, 2005), 23. 61 Moore and Segovia, “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism,” 6. 62 Moore and Segovia, “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism,” 7. Chapter 2 will include representatives from the second and third clusters who have addressed the topic of possession and exorcism in the canonical Gospel of Mark. 63 Moore and Segovia, “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism,” 9. 64 Tat-siong Benny Liew, Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually (Leiden: Brill, 1999). 65 Liew, Politics of Parousia, ix. Mark constructs colonial subjects using the lens of first century CE Palestinian politics, Jesus’ authority, and personal agency within the cultural context of Roman imperialism. 66 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 108. Liew understands traditional authority to include “family, ethnicity, and ritual regulations.” Liew sees Mark linking the cleansing of the Jerusalem temple with Satan’s influence, going so far as to suggest that Markan synagogues “are dwelling places of demons,” a corollary implication being that the Jewish authorities might just be demonic. 67 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 107. 68 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 127. 69 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 132. 70 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 158. 71 Liew, Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually (Leiden: Brill, 1999).118. Perhaps this is the illustration of the Markan Jesus’ parable of the wicked tenants in 12:1–12. 72 Richard A. Horsley, “A Response to Robert Gundry,” JSNT 26 (2003), 166. 73 Horsley, “A Response to Robert Gundry,” 168. 74 Richard A. Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Westminster Press, 2001), x. 75 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 148. 76 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 139. 77 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 141.

38

Cheryl Stewart Pero

78 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 146. 79 Stephen D. Moore, “Deconstructive Criticism,” in Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed. (ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 253 n. 2. 80 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 196. There are four exorcisms proper and, in addition, eight references to the demonic in the Gospel of Mark. 81 Stephen D. Moore, “Mark and Empire: “‘Zealot’ and ‘Postcolonial’ Readings,” in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader (ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), 194, his emphasis. 82 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 194. 83 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 194 84 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 197. 85 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 198. 86 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 199. Moore makes this observation in contrast to John’s antiRoman stance in the book of Revelation. 87 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 200. Moore seems to use the terms “empire” and “kingdom” interchangeably. 88 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 203. 89 Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 195. 90 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading Of Mark’s Story of Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 1. 91 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 4. 92 The categories of strategic essentialism and transcultural hybridity are the heuristic handles Samuel uses to describe the Markan author’s literary resistance strategy. Strategic essentialism, i.e., the ambivalence and mimicry of the Markan author, is the method by which Jesus both accommodates (mimics) and disrupts (mocks) Roman imperialism. Strategic essentialism is also the manner in which the Markan author addresses an oppressively imperialistic socio-religio-political situation. Mark’s construction of the Gospel also acknowledges the transcultural hybridity of Mark’s audience, a “both/and” posture or accommodation with a difference, within the Judeo-Roman context. Mark’s portrait of the Roman authorities as well as the Judean elites is one of transcultural hybridity. 93 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 27. Italics his. 94 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 27. 95 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 27. According to Samuel, Homi Bhabha understands mimicry to operate in two ways: 1) “…as one of the most elusive and effective strategies of colonial power”, and 2) “[T]he colonial subjects enter into a complex sphere of mimicry and parody from where they menacingly repeat their masters’ discourses.” 96 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 28. 97 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 28.

Liberation from Empire

39

98 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 28. 99 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 30, his emphasis. 100 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 135. Samuel interprets the cleansing of the Jerusalem Temple as a disruptive exorcism. 101 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 127. 102 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 127. 103 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 153. 104 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 121, his emphasis. 105 Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 121, his emphasis. 106 Jim Wallis, “A Call to Repentance,” Sojourners 37, no. 1 (January 2008): 12–17, citing 13: “To whom do we belong? This is really a question of worship, of baptism, and of fundamental Christian identity. It’s a critical question, because other identities competing senses of belonging—are always tugging at Christians. Are we Christians first, as most believers would in principle agree that we should be, or are we first Americans, or middle-class, or white—or any other racial, economic, or national identity that would compete with our Christian identity?”

C

H A P T E R

3

The Markan Landscape

T

he Gospel of Mark is about the appearance of Jesus Messiah whose ministry is to usher in a new empire, the kingdom of God. Mark’s good news is Jesus Messiah, a counter to the good news inherent in the Roman Empire. Jesus too announces good news: the arrival of a new order of living under the governance of God. The new order stands in continuity with the God of Israel and many of the traditions of Israel. It also represents something radically new—the appearance of a Messiah anointed by the Spirit and authorized to act on God’s behalf. Jesus Messiah inaugurates the new order: a “governance” that liberates people from demonic power, heals illnesses, gives sight to the blind, wields authority over the threats of nature, pardons sins, reinterprets the law to do good, teaches love of God and neighbor, re-inscribes kinship in mutual rather than hierarchical relationships, restores people to God and community, calls for generosity to the poor, challenges oppressors, fosters mutual service, counsels cessation of coercion, and much more. All these represent efforts to bring the created order to its fulfillment of God’s original purpose. The aspect of the governance of God pertinent to this topic is power, the proper use and misuse of power, as well as the choice to refuse to exercise it. In Mark’s depiction, Jesus Messiah faces a world in which power relationships are askew and in disarray. Unclean spirits dominate human beings; illness and infirmity diminish relationships between people; nature threatens to destroy humanity; the leaders of Israel neglect and exploit peasants; the Roman Empire occupies Palestine and oppresses all Palestinians. The ministry of Jesus Messiah is to set these relationships right. As such, the new order of the governance of God challenges every claim to power that dominates and dehumanizes people—demons, illness, nature, Israel’s leaders, and the Roman Empire. In Mark, Jesus Messiah deals with claims to power in different ways. In observing this, we see the strengths and limitations of Jesus’ power from God. In the messiah’s exercise of power, Jesus has authority over demons, illness and nature, but not over people. Jesus uses the force of the Holy Spirit to exorcize demons and liberate people. He uses his authority from God to control nature

42

Cheryl Stewart Pero

in the protection of people. He uses the power of God to heal people and restore physical wholeness. However, Mark’s Jesus can heal only when the suppliant has faith that God’s healing will come through him; he cannot heal when the suppliant does not have faith; the faith of the suppliant is directly related to Jesus’ capacity and ability to exercise healing. Although Jesus uses force to liberate people from demons, he cannot use force against humans: Jesus can only condemn human oppression, call for oppressors to repent, model a refusal to cooperate, and counsel an alternative non-violent way of service. Jesus uses his moral and spiritual authority to condemn the leadership of Israel and the Roman Empire with his words. However, again, he cannot override the human will; he has no power or right in the governance of God to “lord over people.” Because he refuses to use force, he becomes vulnerable to the force and violence of those whom he condemns. Ultimately Jesus must leave liberation from human domination (Israel’s leaders/Romans) to the work of God in the new kinship group to be fulfilled at a later time—perhaps at Jesus’ Parousia. The Gospel of Mark, the earliest record of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Messiah, is a narrative account that describes the actions of Jesus in the community of his day to the community of Mark’s day, approximately forty years later. Mark’s prominent attention to possession and exorcism has apocalyptic, eschatological, and cosmological components, indicating that Mark believed the end of his present age was imminent, announced by Jesus Messiah’s appearance. Demonic possession was one way in which Mark’s present oppressive age was revealed. The “beginning of the end” of this age was confirmed by a series of cosmic battles (power struggles) between Jesus and Satan, and/or Satan’s minions; Jesus’ success is recorded by Mark as exorcisms. Mark demonstrated that, while the demonic had the ability to possess people, Jesus had the authority and power to exorcize the demonic from the possessed. Power, in this material, is the ability to affect human lives for good or ill. Moreover, while Jesus has the authority and power to liberate people from demons and illness, while he has authority and power over nature, he is not able, because he does not have the authority, to exercise power over people. By their own agency, people must choose to come to Mark’s Jesus and trust him, in faith. Amazingly, we will see that demoniacs do not display faith: the demonic entity recognizes Jesus and, in an attempt to distract Jesus, the demonic calls attention to the demoniac in need of liberation; Jesus exorcizes the possessed in every case. This chapter seeks to assess the Markan landscape, revealing the author’s contours that describe and define demonic possession and exorcism. First, I explore Mark’s literary landscape through an assessment of Markan literary

Liberation From Empire

43

characteristics, structure, and form. This allows me to locate Mark and Mark’s community, explaining how Mark persuaded the ancient believers to understand exorcism and to follow Jesus in “the Way.” Second, I investigate Mark’s narrative landscape, the hermeneutical keys provided in Mark 1:1–15. This exploration provides an indicator of Mark’s agenda, alerting his audience to the impending battles between Jesus and Satan in the course of his narrative. Lastly, after contextualizing Mark’s political landscape in the Roman Empire, I describe the socioreligious landscape of Palestinian Jews and southern Syrian Gentiles by focusing on Mark’s eschatological, cosmological, and postcolonial (that is, antiimperialist) constructs. It is clear that something was very wrong in Mark’s world: People were in desperate need of good news about a reformation of the skewed power relationships under which they lived. Mark’s socioreligious constructs demonstrate to the audience how he understood God’s liberating activity. These constructs are further demonstrated by Mark’s presentation of demonic possession and exorcism.

Authorship, Provenance and Dating I assume the canonical Gospel of Mark to be the creation of an anonymous author; furthermore, based on the patriarchal nature of the culture, the implied author was male. I think that the attribution of the Gospel to “Mark” was probably a second century scribal addition; the author most likely wanted the “good news” to speak for itself by attempting to place himself in the background. I further assume that Mark’s story of Jesus was composed during the Jewish Roman war, between 66 and 70 CE, shortly before or after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Ultimately I agree with R. T. France for whom issues of Mark’s “when,” “where,” and “by whom” add little to the exegetical significance of Mark’s gospel.1 Nevertheless, my assumptions are given weight by historical documentation.

Form and Sources Mark was not familiar with any other gospel tradition; on the contrary, Mark introduced a new literary form: the gospel, a form on which later gospel writers, especially Matthew and Luke, based their narratives. This new literary form was similar to, yet different from, ancient aretalogies,2 novels,3 and bi/o i or biographies.4 Although the ancient literary forms told stories of (s)heroes and their (s)heroic acts, the gospel was unlike similar ancient literary forms: Mark included the message of Jesus Christ within the medium of his narrative, portraying not only Jesus’ life but also his death. “Mark is narrative Christology, but it

44

Cheryl Stewart Pero

addresses real issues of life and death, not merely conceptual ones.”5 Mark’s narrative Christology takes the form of an oral tradition rooted in historic belief that evolved into a composition. It seems to be based on the stories of eyewitnesses, the suggested relationship between Mark and Peter in Rome notwithstanding. Mark’s story is based in a living Christian tradition circulated about Jesus in pre-Markan oral materials that included a “sayings” source, perhaps even Q.6 For Mark, Hebrew Scripture references were authoritative:7 “Mark’s ‘pretexts’ are the Jewish Scriptures.”8 Mark understood John the Baptist’s ministry to be a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and the appearance of Jesus to be the fulfillment of the long-promised, long-awaited messiah of Jewish prophecy. Summarized by Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark modeled his narrative after Hebrew Scripture narrative. But Mark went much farther than simply reinterpreting Israel’s historical narrative; he transformed biblical sacred history “first by infusing it with an eschatological and apocalyptic perspective, and, second, by adapting it to the Hellenistic historiographical and biographical traditions.”9 Mark was the first to put Jesus’ story in writing, the first to express faith in Jesus Messiah through the narrative medium of a comprehensive story of Jesus.10 Mark developed a new form of narrative called a gospel. His narrative is christologically focused, centering on the activity of Jesus Messiah, Son of God. Although Mark’s purpose must be deduced from the narrative proper, I presume Mark was insuring that the tradition surrounding Jesus Messiah would not become lost as time and distance separated Jesus’ from his followers. Mark was keeping the person of Jesus alive for those who had not known him; he also was calling them to faith and mission in the service of the kingdom of God.

Literary Characteristics and Structure Mark uses ordinary spoken Greek in his composition. His narrative draws on local oral tradition about Jesus’ activities: controversy and miracle stories, parables and wisdom sayings. In addition, Mark includes stories surrounding Jesus’ final days in Jerusalem. Mark’s use of literary characteristics and structure demonstrates the continuity between oral styles of storytelling and written traditions. Markan literary characteristics include: 1. Use of the historical present as a verb form, giving a narrative feel of immediacy to the story of Jesus;11 2. Use of repetition that speeds up transitional and introductory sentences, as with eu)q u_j and kai\ (parataxis);12 3. Use of doublets13 (for emphasis as well as to form inclusios): calming seas in 4:35–41 and 6:45–52, healings in 5:21–42 and 7:31–37, feeding

Liberation From Empire

45

of the crowds in 6:31–44 and 8:1–10, and healings of blind beggars in 8:22–27 and 10:46–52; 4. Threefold (architectonic) patterns,14 specifically: A. three summaries of Jesus activities in 1:32–24, 1:39, and 3:11– 12; B. the calling and commissioning of the disciples in 1:16–21, 3:13–19, and 6:7–13; C. the predictions of Jesus’ passion in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33–34; D. declarations that Jesus is the Son of God in 1:11, 9:7, and 15:39; E. three prayers of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane linked to the failure of the disciples to keep awake in 14:32–42; F. Peter’s three denials in 14:66–72; 5. Intercalations15 (sandwich patterns/techniques) that cause the audience to focus in on the substance, the meat, if you will, of Mark’s narrative sandwich: 3:21–35; 5:22–43; 6:7–30; 9:1–13; 11:11–25. Mark’s overarching geographical points of reference serve as indicators of narrative seams, in spite of the fact that his specific geographical detail is often inaccurate and/or vague (see 5:1; 6:55; 7:31; 10:1a).16 Joel Williams asserts: “If Mark’s Gospel is like a path, then an outline of the book is a road map.”17 An outline of Mark’s gospel is useful only insofar as it points to the road map features that the individual interpreter desires to stop and explore. My outline highlights Mark’s episodic18 narrative regarding demonic possession and exorcism. The following outline19 identifies Mark’s three-part (perhaps architectonic) story, set between a prologue introducing Jesus as both the good news and its bearer and an epilogue, one that invites the audience to meet the now risen Jesus in Galilee. PROLOGUE (1:1–15): BEGINNING OF THE GOOD NEWS 1:1 Heading/Incipit 1:9–11 Jesus’ Baptism 1:12–13 Jesus’ Testing 1:14–15 Beginning of Jesus’ Galilean Ministry PART I: GALILEE AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 1:16–6:6a Jesus Proclaims God’s Kingdom in Words and Deeds 1:16–3:6 Initial ministry in Galilee and initial opposition from the Pharisees 1:16–20 Call of first four disciples 1:21–29 Exorcism: The Capernaum Synagogue

46

Cheryl Stewart Pero 1:32–34 1:39 3:7–6:6a 3:11–12 3:14–15 3:19b-35 5:1–20 6:6b-8:21 6:6b-13 6:7 6:13 6:14–29 6:30–56 7:1–23 7:24–8:10 7:24–30 8:11–21

Reference: Summary of Jesus’ activity in Capernaum Reference: Jesus’ activity spreads into Galilean villages Jesus’ parables and healings; initial excursion to Gentile territory Reference: Summary of Jesus’ activity in Galilee Commissioning: The commissioning of the twelve The Beelzebul Controversy and Redefinition of Family Exorcism: The Gerasene Demoniac Jesus extends his ministry to Jews and Gentiles beyond Galilee Summary of Jesus’ activity Commissioning: Commissioning of the Twelve Commissioning: Report on mission activity of the twelve Interlude: The passion and death of John the Baptist Jesus the pastor Jesus’ teaching about purity issues Jesus’ works among the Gentiles Exorcism: The Syrophoenician woman’s daughter Jesus’ actions culminate in opposition and misunderstanding

PART II: FROM GALILEE TO JERUSALEM 8:22–10:52 Jesus on the Way to Jerusalem 8:22–26 Transitional giving of sight story 8:27–9:29 The first passion prediction unit 8:32–33 Incident: Jesus’ Rebuke of Peter 9:14–29 Exorcism: The Uncontrollable Boy 9:30–50 The second passion prediction unit 9:38–40 Incident: The Unknown Exorcist 10:1–31 Interlude: Teaching to the crowds 10:32–45 The third passion prediction unit 10:46–52 Transitional giving of sight story PART III: JERUSALEM 11:1–13:37 Jesus’ Actions and Teachings in Jerusalem 11:1–12:44 The ministry and teaching of Jesus in Jerusalem 13:1–37 Jesus’ Markan apocalypse 14:1–16:8 The Passion and Death of Jesus in Jerusalem 14:1–52 From the plot to kill Jesus to his arrest 14:53–15:32 Jesus’ trials, humiliation, and crucifixion 15:33–15:47 Jesus’ death and burial EPILOGUE: 16:1–8 16:1–6 16:7 16:8

The Resurrection of Jesus The women discover an empty tomb Command to return to Galilee The woman are fear-filled witnesses

Liberation From Empire

47

Six of the demonic possession and exorcism references and three of the exorcisms are located in Mark’s Part I, the bulk of which takes place in Galilean and Gentile territory. The narrative moves very quickly in Part I and slows in Part II, where Jesus is “on the Way” to Jerusalem. Two incidents involving references to exorcism as well as Mark’s story of Jesus’ final exorcism are included in Part II. Part III contains Mark’s narration of Jesus’ passion, death, and resurrection, where the action slows down even more.

Mark’s Hermeneutical Key: The Prologue Mark’s prologue, 1:1–15, “functions as the key to the whole narrative….”20 The prologue is a synopsis, a précis, of Mark’s Gospel, introducing the protagonist and giving the audience a glimpse of the story to come. Mark’s story “consists of Jesus’ preaching, teaching, and acts of mercy and healing that created conflict and led to his ultimate rejection in death.”21 I examine Mark 1:1 closely, because this is where Mark establishes Jesus’ identity. I follow this with a brief review of vss. 2–8 and a more detailed examination of vss. 9–15, facilitating my description of Mark’s presentation of Jesus and Jesus’ preparation for ministry; this also isolates Mark’s initial construction of demonic activity in first century Palestine. I describe Mark’s narrative landscape by examining those features in his literary technique that illuminate demonic possession and exorcism. )Arxh\ tou= eu)aggeli/ou 0Ihsou= Xristou= [ui90u= qeou= ].

Beginning of the good news of Jesus Messiah [son of God]. (Mark 1:1)

The first word of this narrative, 0Arxh\ 
 [Beginning], is a nominative absolute.22 The aural audience is probably familiar with the oral practice in which the first word in a title is often anarthrous.23

0Arxh\ can be translated as “rule” or “norm” in addition to “beginning.” As such, it serves not only to indicate that Mark is beginning a unique recitation, but also that Mark’s narrative establishes Mark himself as the authority, the norm, for all subsequent narratives about Jesus. “…[T]he faith and proclamation of Mark’s community have both their ‘beginning’ and ‘rule’ of interpretation in the story of Jesus about to unfold”.24 0Arxh\
 thus introduces both the prologue and the Gospel narrative, the story of Jesus Messiah, to the Markan audience.25
Although

 0Arxh\
 reminds the audience of God’s creative beginnings in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, Mark uses it in a different manner, not referring to the beginning of creation, but to the beginning of the good news, the re-formation of creation.

 Mark then refines
 0Arxh\
 with the prepositional phrase
 tou= eu0aggeli/ou
[of the good news, of the gospel], defining the content of the narrative to follow. “Mark alone among the evangelists uses it without modifiers (‘the gospel’). Indeed Mark’s ‘good news’ is the narrative presentation of the Christ event.” 26

48

Cheryl Stewart Pero

For Mark, “good news” is absolute, referring to the content of both his written narrative and Jesus’ proclamation.27 The phrase forms an inclusio with
 to\ eu0agge/lion tou= qeou= [the good news of God] in vs. 14 and
tw|~ eu0aggeli/w| [the good news] in vs. 15, identifying that the prologue begins at 1:1, runs through 1:15, and forms an inclusive narrative unit. 
 tou= eu)aggeli/ou
also serves as the beginning of Mark’s anti-imperial stance. In this two-word prepositional phrase, Mark presents Jesus in parallel and in opposition to Roman ideology and Roman imperial claims. By the time Mark narrated his Gospel, “good news” had become associated with Roman military victory, the Pax Romana, and the legacy of Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus. 28 Mark’s “good news” involves the audience in “the unfolding story of Jesus…so that they too might be caught up by his message (1:14–15) and be challenged to believe that neither demonic powers nor brutal rulers can ultimately triumph over Jesus or over them.”29 Mark next refines “good news”: he provides an antithesis to Caesar and the kingdom of Rome by identifying Jesus, a unique human being with a common Jewish name. 0Ihsou= is a plenary genitive:30 used both objectively and subjectively, indicating that the Gospel is not only about Jesus but also about what Jesus proclaimed.31 With the addition of another proper noun in the genitive, 32
 Xristou=
 [Messiah], Mark further refines exactly who this Jesus is, the anointed one, pointing to Jesus’ Messianic status.33 Mark begins, then, by announcing what he understands to be the focus of his narrative: the Gospel, the good news, both about and from Jesus Christ.
 0Ihsou= Xristou=,
a double proper name, stands in a synonymous relationship to ui90u= qeou= [Son of God],34 a Markan label used later in the narrative only by demons (1:24, 3:11, 5:7) and the Roman centurion (15:39).35 “Son of God” is a designation that points to Jesus’ identity, a designation that defines not only who Jesus Messiah is but also to whom he is related.36

 Mark’s narrative continues with an announcement of fulfillment (1:2–3) 37 that serves a dual purpose: it summarizes John the Baptist’s ministry in 1:4–8 and foreshadows Jesus’ appearance in 1:9–15. 2

3

As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way; the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’” (NRSV)

Mark introduces prophecy ostensibly from Isaiah, but in actuality it is a conflation of Exod 23:20, Isa 40:3 and Mal 3:1. This citation of Hebrew Bible prophecy adds authenticity and authority to Mark’s record. Mark identifies John as a

Liberation From Empire

49

messenger of God sent to prepare the way for Jesus. Verse 3 introduces an image that will be significant for the Markan narrator in the middle section of the story as Jesus travels from Galilee and environs towards Jerusalem: “the way.” Mark’s next five verses (1:4–8) describe John the Baptist’s role as the fulfillment of the conflated prophecy. 4 5

6 7 8

John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. He proclaimed, “The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals. I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” (NRSV)

John appeared in the “wilderness,” a word linking vss. 3 and 4. The wilderness is a symbolic place in which the Israelites escaping from Egypt, as well as God’s early Hebrew prophets, met with and received instruction from God. In Mark’s narrative, John the Baptist stands with Moses and Elijah. John’s call to a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins”38 (vs. 4) drew crowds from the southern region of Palestine: Judea and Jerusalem (vs. 5). While the people from southern Palestine were confessing their sins, John baptized them in the Jordan River (vs. 5), a baptism in a river that held a symbolic historical meaning for the Israelites. Mark then describes John’s minimalist clothing and food (vs. 6), another method by which Mark associated John with the prophet, Elijah. His dress and clothing might also have been an indication of John’s “desire for ritual purity.”39 In vss. 4–6, then, the narrator summarized for his audience who John the Baptist was in terms of his relationship to God, his semblance to ancient Israelite prophets, where he lived, how he dressed, and what he ate. In vss. 7–8, the Markan audience learns that John’s baptism prepared the southern Palestinian Jewish crowds for baptism by Jesus. Mark discloses the content and focus of John’s proclamation (vss. 7–8) in the following ways: 1. Jesus is the one who is coming after him, the one for whom John has been preparing (vs. 7); 2. Jesus is the stronger one to whom John is inferior (vs. 7); 3. Jesus is the one whose sandal thong John was unworthy to remove; John saw himself as unworthy even to perform the act of a slave! (vs. 7); and 4. Jesus is the one who will baptize the people, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit (vs. 8).

50

Cheryl Stewart Pero

John had been characterized by Mark as the forerunner of Jesus because he was the one who fulfilled Hebrew Bible prophecy, a messenger sent to prepare the way for the Lord. John the Baptist prepared the crowds to receive Jesus Messiah who finally enters Mark’s narrative in person for the first time in vs. 9. The stronger one has arrived. 9 10

11

And it came to pass that at that time Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. And immediately while coming up from the water, he saw the heavens splitting and the Spirit like a dove descending on him; And a voice came from the heaven: You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased. (NRSV)

In counterdistinction to those who flocked to John from Judea and Jerusalem, Jesus came from Galilee in northern Palestine, from the small unremarkable village of Nazareth. This is the closest that Mark comes to identifying a provenance for Jesus: Nazareth is his place of origin, his hometown, from where his dyadic kinship ties emanate.40 Initially Jesus is one among many in John’s pre-baptismal crowd. But by presenting himself to John for baptism, Jesus aligned himself with the people who, after repenting, sought forgiveness of sins. Herman Waetjen suggests that Jesus’ baptism from John cancels all the debts and obligations Jesus owed to his family and community in Nazareth,41 allowing Jesus to be presented to humanity in the ensuing Markan narrative without human obligation or human encumbrance. Mark, however, only narrates that Jesus was baptized by John in the River Jordon. Mark’s use of the passive verb “was baptized” with the dative of agency “by John” in vs. 9 “implies that Jesus was immersed by John in the Jordan as the agent of and not merely as the witness to the baptism….”42 Mark’s narrative describing John’s baptism of Jesus now provides both the occasion for and the literary transition to God’s baptism of Jesus in tandem with the Holy Spirit. While Jesus was emerging from John’s baptism in the Jordan, he had a vision in which the “most dramatic moment in the entire prologue”43 occurred: three cosmic events set Jesus and his baptism apart from the crowd and their Johannine baptism. 1. The heavens split open (vs. 10; a violent eschatological event that foreshadows what will happen to the temple curtain at Jesus’ death in 15:38!), 2. the Spirit44 descends on Jesus like a dove (vs. 10), and

Liberation From Empire

51

3. God’s voice emerges from above (vs. 11), speaking personally and directly to Jesus. God’s voice confirms Jesus’ identity as God’s Son (only later audiences, the demons, and the centurion in 15:39 acknowledged Jesus’ divine sonship!) by substantiating Mark’s explanation of Jesus’ identity in vs. 1. Jesus’ baptism alerts Mark’s audience to the significance of his role in the story: the central agent of God who was able to defeat Satan and Satan’s minions repeatedly. Jesus becomes possessed by “the” Spirit at his baptism, a force that empowers him to counter and conquer Satan and the demonic during his public ministry. Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit gives him the authority and power to baptize others by the power of the Holy Spirit as well as to commission the twelve, in turn granting them authority and power over Satan and the demonic. Jesus’ baptism identifies him as the stronger one to whom John referred in vs. 7, engaging in battle with the demonic and liberating demon-possessed people so that they, too, can fight the power of Satan and his forces. Mark’s ongoing cosmic battle between Jesus and the forces of Satan begins in vss. 12–13. Before the truth about Jesus can begin to be seen, however, the enemy who blocks its perception must first be confronted, and this confrontation will pervade the subsequent narrative and will ultimately lead to Jesus’ death on the cross. The first engagement in that battle is the subject of the next passage.45

This section of Mark’s prologue is where the topic of demonic possession and exorcism first begins to emerge. Jesus’ implied victory over Satan influences Mark’s narration of Jesus’ public ministry in the rest of the gospel. Verse 12 begins in the very same way that vs. 10 began, with the words “and immediately,” linking the episodes together by repetition, in addition to the sense of urgency, the image of the wilderness, and the agency of the Spirit. Just two vss. earlier, the Spirit possessed Jesus during his baptism; now the very same Spirit casts him into the wilderness where his testing takes place. 12 13

And immediately the Spirit drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted by Satan, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on him. (NRSV)

Mark uses e)kba/llw46 [to drive out] in 1:12; Mark uses the same verb in 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22, 23; 6:13; 7:26; 9:18; 28, and 38 to describe Jesus’ exorcistic practice. “The Spirit now challenges Satan by hurling Jesus out into the wilderness, where the two will inevitably clash; for the wilderness, in addition to being the site of God’s past and future redemption, is also the abode of evil spir-

52

Cheryl Stewart Pero

its….”47 Here we witness the first Markan occasion of God’s power confronting Satan’s power, and Mark’s audience might assume, rightly, that “Satan’s power has previously overcome all.”48 Yet the very same Spirit who prepared and empowered Jesus in his baptism to overcome Satan and then cast him into the wilderness will be with Jesus as he is tested by Satan. The sheer power of the Spirit is stressed here by Markan understatement; the power with which Jesus has been invested will soon begin to be reflected in his exorcisms. The wilderness provides a significant theme and image in Mark’s prologue. I have noted above that the wilderness posed an important symbolic historical image of redemption, a place of not only revelation but also testing. Here, the wilderness serves as an additional signifier for Mark, associating Jesus with Moses (Exod 34:38) and Elijah (1 Kgs 19:4–8), just as Mark had done with John in vss. 2–3. Unlike John’s venue by the River Jordon that is populated by the people from Judea and Jerusalem, however, the wilderness into which the Spirit cast Jesus was populated only by Satan, wild beasts, Jesus, and the angels. I translate the periphrastic construction h}n peirazo/menoj [he was tempted] in vs. 13 as “he was tested,” emphasizing a contest of strength and stamina and capabilities, rather than “tempted,” implying seduction through enticement or inducement to do something attractive but improper. Mark gives the audience no literary presentation of what constituted Jesus’ forty-day testing in the wilderness, but Mark does give his audience a literary snapshot of Satan. This snapshot reflects the biblical characterization of Satan as an accuser or an adversary of God, particularly in light of the prophetic references that Mark has made thus far in his prologue, an “angelic prosecuting attorney to whom God has delegated the task of accusing human beings.”49 In the early Christian period, Satan became synonymous with the devil, “the transcendent accuser and adversary of God’s people.”50 Over a period of forty days Jesus fought Satan’s accusations and allegations, blasts and blows, charges and challenges, a conflict from which Mark’s audience concludes that Jesus emerged the victor, because Mark’s John had already declared Jesus to be the stronger one in vs. 7. The only information the Markan audience is given about Jesus’ forty-day test period is that God’s angels protected and sustained Jesus in the wilderness.51 Mark’s Jesus is “the victor over Satanic power. The conflict has taken place in the wilderness, observed only by God and the angels–and the reader….”52 The wilderness in this instance is understood to be the habitat of Satan, the home of demonic spirits, and a place fraught with danger. Satan engaged Jesus in the wilderness, where Jesus was with wild animals and where the Spirit and angels ministered to his needs. The presence of wild beasts might be equated with the serenity and harmony of the pre-fall Garden of Eden, a symbol here of peaceful coexistence within Jesus’ new creation.53 An alternate un-

Liberation From Empire

53

derstanding of wild beasts would equate them with evil powers and danger.54 I tend to think of the wild beasts as not posing a threat to Jesus, because they, like other non-humans, knew who Jesus was in relationship to God, the creator: Son of God and God’s agent for the reformation of creation. The nature of the conflict between Jesus and Satan has been characterized as a cosmic one waged between the forces of good, symbolized by Jesus, and evil, symbolized by Satan.55 However Mark does not present Satan as evil, but rather as the one who tests Jesus, just as Satan tested Job. “Mark here reflects the tension that runs through the biblical presentation of Satan as at the same time both implacably hostile to God and yet operating, despite himself, within God’s sovereignty.”56 If Satan is thus related to God, Satan is not evil, but, rather, in testing people, exposes their inner evil intentions (7:14–23) and explains their resultant evil acts. Furthermore, Mark describes Satan’s followers and agents as demons/unclean spirits, not as evil spirits. Mark’s narration describes Jesus and Satan as foes engaged in a cosmic battle about authority and about power and about control, but not about evil. Mark’s emphasis is on the vicious ongoing hostility between Jesus and Satan. The image of conflict that Mark presents is one in which the forces supporting Jesus and Satan are lined up, respectively, on opposite sides of a barren battlefield. Mark’s emphasis is on the wilderness as a scene that introduces the dramatis personae of the coming conflict, not in terms of Jesus’ human supporters and opponents, but in the superhuman dimension. The tableau neatly arranges them into two camps: on the one side, supporting Jesus, are the Spirit and the angels; on the other Satan….The reader…will be able to see Jesus’ conflicts and triumphs in their true light, for behind the earthly scenes in Galilee and Jerusalem lies a supernatural conflict. From time to time its supernatural dimension will again come to the surface, when Jesus confronts demonic power….But this opening scene reminds us that even in the human encounters of Jesus’ ministry, there is another dimension, sharply brought to our attention in 8:33 when Peter’s very human misunderstanding provokes Jesus to address him as Satana=.57

Jesus controls demons because he first controlled Satan during his testing in the wilderness. “Jesus is the victor and so from that moment onwards he can deal with those who are demonically possessed.”58 Jesus’ conflict with Satan’s followers is just beginning. The contest with Satan, then, correlates Jesus’ being the stronger one, so identified by John in vs. 7, with Jesus’ empowerment in baptism. Jesus’ struggle with Satan is exemplary of the audiences’ struggle with Satan. Baptism by and in the Holy Spirit equips followers of Jesus to fight the demonic. “Whatever demonic powers they might confront, they would know that they, like Jesus before them, had been impelled into the fray by the Spirit and were armed with its power, so they need not be afraid.”59 Jesus next declares the proximity of God’s kingdom. These final two verses are Mark’s narra-

54

Cheryl Stewart Pero

tive transition from John’s ministry to Jesus’ ministry. They serve as both a conclusion to and a summary of the prologue, preparing the audience for Mark’s story of Jesus Messiah about to be narrated. This summary “places everything that Jesus says and does in the context of the proclamation of God’s kingdom….”60 14

15

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news. (Mark 1:14–15, NRSV)

A number of insights emerge from vs. 14. Mark informs his audience that John’s role as Jesus’ forerunner and precursor is now complete. Once John’s mission had been fulfilled, Jesus’ public ministry begins; John’s arrest even serves to foreshadow Jesus’ destiny (9:31, 10:33, 14:41). Jesus started his journey in Galilee; from there he traveled to John in the wilderness of Judea. Now Mark’s Jesus reverses his itinerary and returns from the wilderness to Galilee, perhaps foreshadowing Jesus’ command to the women in 16:7 that they should tell Peter and the disciples to meet him in Galilee. This Markan scene of Jesus’ proclamation becomes “the reference point for all subsequent mentions of the proclamation initiated by Jesus and entrusted by him to his followers.”61 “The good news of God” here duplicates the usage of “good news of Jesus Messiah” in 1:1, forming the inclusio I noted earlier. This serves as another example of a plenary genitive, used as a unique expression to describe the presence of God’s kingdom in the world: Jesus is both the message and the proclaimer of the message in Galilee. Verse 15 is epexegetical, describing the content of God’s good news: God’s time is now fulfilled and God’s kingdom is very near and already in existence.62 The proximity of the kingdom of God was Jesus’ proclamation: a reassertion of God’s claim on the world because Satan’s claim was no longer valid. Mark understood God’s time to be the “kingdom of God,” not so much a geographical entity as much as it was a realignment of power, away from Satan and invested in Jesus. “Good news” describes Jesus’ inauguration of the kingdom of God in words and deeds.63 In Mark’s understanding, something had already occurred in Jesus that brought God’s kingdom to God’s people. Finally, Jesus invites (with imperatives!) the residents of Galilee to repent and to turn with faith toward God’s gospel. As we will witness, however, Mark’s Jesus cannot force the people to respond to his proclamation of the gospel; he can only proclaim the good news and invite people to have faith in him as God’s Son and agent.

Liberation From Empire

55

The Markan Context: Roman Empire Roman emperors could be described as acting Satan-like and the Roman Empire might be compared with the kingdom of Satan. By the time of his assassination on the Ides of March in 44 BCE, Julius Caesar, having no children of his own, stipulated in his will that his grand nephew, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, was to be his heir; in so doing, he established the powerful JulioClaudian dynasty of the Roman Empire. After Caesar’s death, Octavian forced the Roman senate to name him consul, the highest political office. The Senate approved Octavian’s choice of an imperial name, [Imperator Caesar Divi Filius] Augustus (“the exalted one”), and he became the first emperor of the Roman Empire, an empire he ruled from its inception in 27 BCE through his death in 14 BCE. During his life, Caesar Augustus established a harmonious climate in Rome64 that historians call the Pax Romana; he also extended the borders of the empire and built an excellent road system. Immediately following Augustus’ death, the Roman senate named him a god to be worshipped by all Romans. Tiberius Caesar Augustus succeeded his stepfather and father-in-law, Augustus, ruling the Roman Empire from 14 BCE to 37 CE, the period during which Jesus lived. Antipater II, a native of Idumea (Edom) and a supporter of Sadducee Hyrcanus II, had become the very powerful general of Judea under the hereditary Hasmonean Jewish leaders. General Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, better known as Pompey, was responsible for the subduing of Judea when he sacked Jerusalem in 63 BCE. Antipater II became Pompey’s client. After Julius Caesar defeated Pompey in 48 BCE, he appointed Antipater II the first Roman procurator of Judea. Antipater’s self-insertion into the Hasmonean court promoted the rise of his son, Herod the Great. In 40 BCE, Antigonus, nephew of John Hyrcanus and a member of the Jewish Pharisee sect, successfully retook the throne of Judea with the help of the Parthians who had invaded the eastern provinces of Rome and expelled the Romans. Following the Parthian victory, Herod the Great, exploiting his father’s position, fled to Rome where he pleaded with Augustus to be reinstated. When the Romans fully secured Judea in 37 BCE, Herod was elected “King of the Jews” by the Roman Senate.65 Herod ruled the Roman province of Judea for 34 years until his death in 4 BCE. He was succeeded by his son, Herod Antipas, who ruled until 39 CE. Agrippa I ruled from 39–44 CE and Agrippa II from 44–92 CE. Governance differences based in Roman imperial politics in Palestine were obvious: Judea and Samaria were under the direct jurisdiction of the Roman prefect in Jerusalem and the colluding Jerusalem temple authorities. Galilee was administered by Roman client kings: Herod and his descendants.

56

Cheryl Stewart Pero Galilee, throughout the time of Jesus, was ruled by one of Herod’s sons. So it was ruled much as his father’s kingdom had been, as a kind of small client kingdom. This means that local politics in Jesus’ home region were a little different than those in Judea under the Roman Governors. ...In a client kingdom, the King, himself, is the absolute overlord. He’s given a lot of freedom by Romans, insofar as all he has to do, basically, is raise his own taxes. And then he’s in charge of everything else. So the control of the north was, in some ways, more independent, and indeed the trade and commerce that we see in this northern region shows us the degree to which the intersection of the different cultures of the north were really starting to become very important in the developing life of that region.66

The actions of the Roman military machine might be described as demonic, for in expanding Roman geopolitical interests and in professing the universality of the Pax Romana, Augustus systematically tyrannized and terrorized peasant populations on the periphery of the empire, including the area of SyroPalestine. “In the decades before Jesus was born, Roman armies marched through the area, burning villages, enslaving the able-bodied, and killing the infirm.”67 Furthermore: The initial Roman conquest of new peoples often entailed devastation of the countryside, burning of villages, pillaging of towns, and slaughtering and enslavement of the populace. The Romans then reacted with brutal reconquest and often outright genocide even to minor breaches of treaty and other threats to the international order they had imposed, all the while insisting that their concern was really for their own security.68

In Judea and Samaria, many of the appointed Roman governors gave additional offense to the Jewish population by repeatedly desecrating the Jerusalem temple through intentional violation of Jewish purity laws. Judeans understood this religious transgression to be a power struggle between Rome and the Jerusalem authorities, a power struggle in which the powerless peasant population was, for the most part, crushed. These abuses of the temple combined with the violent conquest of the sovereign peoples in Palestine were directly responsible for the emergence of resistance movements. The ancient Mediterranean social system was comprised of two classes: the wealthy (the urban elite and the landowners) and the rest of the population: the retainers, the urban nonelites, the degraded, unclean and expendable, rural peasants, and other villagers.69 This patronage system caused peasants to be dependent on the wealthy. The wealthy lived in Roman metropolises and peasants lived in subjugated peripheral villages, where they were required, often under threat of death, to “donate” the bulk of their agricultural and material resources to supply Rome with food and goods. Peasants supplied the urban wealthy and provided for Rome’s urban masses. The food and material chain flowed in only one direction, however: from the periphery to the Roman metropolis, from the

Liberation From Empire

57

outlying conquered areas of the empire to the center. Local Roman authorities kept peasant populations in line by means of a variety of deterrents, but especially with the threat of crucifixion, the ultimate humiliation in the Mediterranean honor/shame culture. Thus, the Pax Romana was illusory for the vast majority of Palestine’s peasant population, a population for whom the ancient times were anything but peaceful. “The Roman killing or enslavement of tens of thousands of Galileans and Judeans around the time Jesus was born must have left mass trauma among the people in its wake.”70 In spite of its inevitability, Roman expansion into Palestinian villages and towns met strong resistance, from non-cooperation and insubordination to revolts and even insurrection. Popular protests and resistance movements in Syro-Palestine posed serious threats to the Roman imperial order for fear that frequent, varied and potentially massive anti-Roman clashes would spread throughout the empire. “…the Judeans and Galileans were perhaps the most adamant in asserting their independence and defending their traditional way of life, persisting in their resistance for nearly two centuries before the Roman armies finally ‘pacified’ Palestine more permanently.”71 For example, around 6 CE the Pharisee leader Zadok and Judas of Galilee (or Gamala) led a revolt in the province of Judea as a response to the census ordered by Augustus and imposed, at his demand, by the Syrian Governor, Quirinius. The revolt was put down by the Romans post haste. A variety of popular movements captured the resistant spirit and focused the energy of many peasants, encouraging them to resist Roman, Herodian, and Jerusalem subjugation. The revolts that erupted in Galilee, Perea, and Judea at the death of Herod all took a readily discernable social form that could be called “messianic movements….” Josephus writes in each case that the rebels acclaimed one of their number as “king.” This popular tradition of kingship was also revolutionary insofar as the people were “anointing” a king to lead them in their struggle for independence from oppressive domestic and foreign rulers such as the Philistines. Their elected “kings” or “messiahs” were all men of humble origin. Significantly the messianic movement in Galilee was centered in villages around Nazareth just at the time Jesus was born. Popular movements led by “kings” in the role of a new David thus attest a familiar pattern deeply rooted in Israelite tradition.72

Unfortunately for the Palestinian peasant population, messianic movements succeeded only in bringing additional Roman retribution to their villages and countryside. Peasant movements that had hoped to replace corrupt and avaricious Herodian rulers with leaders faithful to Israelite tradition and YHWH met with frustration and disappointment. The power and strength of Rome seemed to increase along with the Palestinian peasants’ desperation. Perhaps these setbacks lend credence to Jesus’ prediction in Mark 13:21–22:

58

Cheryl Stewart Pero And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Messiah!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.” (NRSV).

The desperation of the Jewish Palestinian population resulted from the abuses embedded in Roman imperialism and Jerusalem pietism. Loss of ancestral Jewish lands to absentee Roman landlords, Roman military retirees, and their retainers led to loss of the paterfamilias’ ability to provide for his household, a first century loss of honor. Jesus was born in Galilee into this unsettling time of Roman expansion and subjugation. Mark’s narrative describes the time of increased popular unrest leading up to the Jewish-Roman War of 66–70 CE; it contains two stories and two timelines, the second based in the first. The first story and timeline is the story of Jesus, a narration that begins, not with Jesus’ birth, but with his baptism, and ends with the angel’s announcement of his resurrection to the women. During Jesus’ lifespan, Tiberias, son of Augustus, was the Roman emperor; Herod Antipas and Agrippa I ruled Galilee, successively, as Roman client kings. Mark’s narrative locates Jesus’ passion and death during Pontius Pilate’s term as the Roman prefect in Judea, 26–36 CE. The second story and timeline is Mark’s narration that connects Jesus’ story with socio-religio-political events leading up the Jewish-Roman war, almost forty years after Jesus’ death. By the time Mark’s gospel was narrated, local resistance movements and rebellions in response to Roman governance had increased, emerging in the Galilean countryside among peasants in deteriorating economic and social conditions. The wide-ranging Galilean topography, from mountains to desert to rich valleys to seashore, contributed to a sense of remoteness and an atmosphere of sedition. Because of their village orientation, Galilean society was more centered on life in semi-isolated communities. Galilean Jews developed “their own popular version of Israelite tradition that, far more than the version accepted in Jerusalem, emphasized stories of liberation from oppressive rulers….”73 Even nature seemed to be in collusion with Roman oppression: natural disasters, famines and earthquakes, added to the sense of impending annihilation. People lived in hope of liberation from human and non-human entities, liberation by the messiah of prophecy, liberation which offered relief from the catastrophic circumstances in which they found themselves.

Mark’s Apocalyptic Eschatology and Cosmology In Mark’s prologue, 1:1–15, the author introduces many of his convictions about the past, the present and the future, convictions on which he later elaborates. The subjugation of the Palestinian population to Roman expansion in

Liberation From Empire

59

Mark’s immediate historic and cultural past informed what Mark believed would happen in God’s future. “Mark may be seen as an eschatological and apocalyptic counterpoint to the biblical foundational histories.”74 Mark presents his themes in an apocalyptic framework, one that anticipates God’s direct intervention in human affairs in a final judgment of the world. Mark’s apocalyptic orientation is based in his worldview, one that contains eschatological and cosmological elements. Mark’s apocalyptic imagery in vss. 1:10 and 13 contains both eschatological and cosmological elements: Jesus’ baptismal vision includes earth, heaven and a heavenly voice; and Jesus’ wilderness experience is a penultimate struggle with Satan.75 Because Mark’s beliefs about the future affected how he understood his present, Mark’s eschatology and cosmology must be discerned within the historical and sociocultural context of Palestinian Galilee and southern Syria. Demonic possession and exorcism can be discerned in Mark’s eschatological and cosmological constructs, where demonic possession is analogous to humanity’s need for divine intervention and exorcism is analogous to God’s direct intervention. Mark’s eschatology defines his understanding of how Jesus would liberate those enslaved to oppressive forces at the end time.76 Evidence of Mark’s understanding of the end times is in the prologue, where eschatology is both realized and imminent: Good news! Jesus has arrived and the kingdom of God has come near right now! In vs. 1, Mark’s very beginning announces “good news” and gives the audience a clear indication that God was sending “good news” to the Palestinian population who were so desperately in need of “good news.” In vss. 2–3, Mark indicates that God’s intervention was imminent because the Hebrew Scripture prophecies were being fulfilled and preparations for Messiah were underway. In vss. 4–8, God’s messenger, John the Baptist, was preparing the way for God’s son and agent, Jesus. People sought John the Baptist in the wilderness, in order to be purified by baptism for repentance and the forgiveness of sins, in preparation for another type of baptism from Jesus Messiah. John the Baptist prophesied that someone stronger than he was coming, someone whose baptizing would cause a greater difference because, whereas he, John, baptized with water, the expected one would baptize with the Holy Spirit (vss. 7–8). Verses 9–11 explain God’s actions: God was so concerned with the conditions of God’s people in the first-century Mediterranean that God deployed a special envoy to intervene. The power relationships imposed by the Roman Empire threatened to compromise all that the Jewish people had experienced from God and learned about God’s expectations of them. Mark’s eschatological point of view becomes clear in vs. 10 at Jesus’ baptism, where his relationship to God, as son, is made explicit and his credentials as God’s representative are

60

Cheryl Stewart Pero

authenticated. Verses 12–13 illustrate just how Jesus’ intervention in behalf of God would be waged in the rest of Mark’s narrative: repeated battles with Satan and Satan’s representatives for the liberation of those possessed by empire. In vss. 14–15, Mark demonstrates that, although John’s faithfulness to God led to his arrest (and ultimate death, perhaps foreshadowing Jesus’ own destiny), God’s fulfillment was now at hand through Jesus’ proclamation of God’s kingdom in word and deed. The prologue presents the Markan audience with Mark’s programmatic summary of Jesus’ activity. This summary is directed towards the audience and, although “centered on the fulfillment of time as a result of the pressing (and pressuring) encroachment of God’s reign, calls for radical attitudinal and behavioral reorientation (‘repentance,’ which is not feeling remorseful) leading to the possibility of a life of faith—and a faithful life.”77 Later, Mark informs his audience that Jesus’ proclamation in vs. 15 announced that because of the nearness of the kingdom of God, their lives could change in a positive way. “The Gospel of Mark constantly concerns itself with the establishment of a new order: the kingdom of God.”78 Mark’s cosmology serves to depict and describe how the cosmos participates in God’s process of salvation.79 Markan cosmology predicates “a Hebrew conception of the cosmos.”80 Hebrew cosmology81 reflects the ancient Mediterranean three-tiered view of the world. The upper tier is the arched heavens (or heavenly dome), the dwelling place of God. The firmament in heaven that God called into being at creation kept the primordial waters at bay and contained the sun, the moon and the stars. Mountains on the edges of the relatively flat middle level were believed to hold the firmament in place, contributing to their symbolism as places where humans interacted with God. The lower tier contains Sheol, the dwelling place of the dead, and the remaining primordial waters (perhaps understood in 5:1–20 as the sea). The flat middle level was the earth, the dwelling place of human and non-humans, the location of their activities; it was dominated by Satan. Jesus’ ministry of exorcism consisted of the removal of Satan’s domination, maintained by unclean spirits and demons, from this level. Exorcisms became Mark’s indicator of hope for both the Jewish and Gentile populations, for assurance that the way things were would change in God’s future. Mark’s prologue contains his cosmological description of God’s spatiotemporal intervention in human affairs on the earthly tier. Mark exposes his temporal cosmological orientation with his record of John’s ministry in 1:8. Mark’s John informs his newly baptized community from southern Palestine that the one coming after him will baptize with the Holy Spirit, not water. Mark’s reference to the Holy Spirit indicates his assumption that his audience is acquainted

Liberation From Empire

61

with a worldview where spirits are active on the earthly tier. With Mark’s description of Jesus’ baptism in 1:9–11, his spatial cosmology becomes clear: As Jesus emerges from the Jordan River, the heavens open and a dove descends simultaneous to God’s resounding voice claiming Jesus as God’s son. God sent Jesus the son to the earthly tier as God’s agent of liberation. Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the wilderness in 1:12–13, an encounter with cosmic implications, affords the audience yet another glimpse of Mark’s spatiotemporal cosmology. In Mark’s spatial scheme Satan, ruler of the earth, is Jesus’ adversary. Jesus’ resistance to Satan’s challenges is fortified by angels, nonhuman entities. In the wilderness Satan and Jesus engage in a forty-day contest, Mark’s temporal cosmology, that has at stake power and authority over the world and humanity. Mark’s spatial and temporal cosmology is again revealed in 1:14–15. Jesus’ returns from the wilderness to Galilee and proclaims that the time has arrived for God’s intervention to become visible, for the kingdom of God to be revealed. Mark’s sense of cosmic urgency is indicated in the prologue by the number of themes he covers, his use of parataxis, and his conclusion in 14–15. “In this cosmology of the kingdom, the inclusive geographical space and the compressed time combine to create great urgency. The disciples are to reach the limits of space before the limit of time is up.”82 Jesus’ followers are to expand the spread of the good news of the kingdom, like the expansion of the Roman Empire, to the whole world (14:9) before Jesus’ implied Parousia. God’s entire created order is involved in Mark’s narration of the story of God’s son, Jesus. In Mark’s narration, the kingdom of God is already present in Jesus’ public ministry of word and deed, drawing the kingdom closer. However, “The human condition is one of bondage to a ‘strong man,’ a demonic power that humans are incapable of countering until Jesus, the ‘Stronger One,’ arrives on the scene….”83 Jesus’ encounter with Satan in the desert is not the end, though, because Jesus has not yet destroyed Satan, although Satan certainly knows that there has been a major battle during which he has become bound. Demonic possession could be overcome because Jesus bound Satan in the wilderness. Once Jesus, the stronger one, has bound Satan, the strong one, Jesus plunders Satan’s household and frees humanity from Satan and Satan’s minions’ domination. Exorcism served as the method by which Jesus was plundering Satan’s household. But Jesus needs others to assist him in spreading God’s kingdom because Satan’s agents must be stopped. Jesus begins his call of the twelve in the next section of the narrative with his first direct words in Mark’s narrative: “Follow me!”

62

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Chapter Summary The Markan landscape is the basic map on which I am building my exploration of demonic possession and possession. From my examination of the literary landscape, I located the Gospel of Mark in a village community in Galilee or southern Syria towards the end of the Jewish-Roman War, before the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed by the Romans, between 66 and 70 CE. The anonymous male author of the Gospel was familiar with both Jewish and Gentile peasants and their customs. Mark’s audience was comprised of Jewish and Gentile converts to “the Way,” an audience whose world was subject to natural disaster, oppressive Roman expansionist policies (military, political and economic), and sanctions from Jerusalem temple elites in regards to traditional pietistic practices. Mark’s story of Jesus reminded his audience of the Israelite mythological tradition, particularly the legends about their enslavement by other humans and liberation by God.84 Mark’s composition was based on orally circulated traditional stories about and sayings of Jesus. The oral nature of the traditions surrounding Jesus is demonstrated by the literary characteristics evident in Mark’s composition. The structure of Mark’s Gospel is based on the varied geographical foci of Jesus’ public ministry. Mark’s story of Jesus brought hope of liberation to those despairing on account of their oppressed state, for Mark’s Jesus proclaimed, lived, and modeled a new way: one based in obedience to God and service to one another. Mark’s story about Jesus focused on Jesus’ liberating words and actions, particularly as Mark related tales of demonic possession and exorcism. Mark’s story began by countering the good news of the Roman Empire with good news about the kingdom of God and God’s agent, Jesus Messiah. For Mark, Jesus’ exorcisms epitomized his ongoing conflict with the kingdom of Satan. Mark saw Jesus’ exorcisms as eschatological indicators, pointing to the apocalyptic fulfillment of God’s promise to deliver God’s people. Mark’s Gospel is a Christological narrative, combining eschatological and cosmological features in an apocalyptic format. Mark’s eschatological purpose was twofold: 1. to offer an alternative worldview to Palestinian and southern Syrian peasants, one describing the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation as a counter to the reign of Satan, and the oppressive rule of Jewish and Roman leaders; and 2. to invite the audience to participate in ushering in the kingdom of God, in order to build a new kinship network based in service to one another, and to reform the religious practices of the people thereby transforming their relationship to God.

Liberation From Empire

63

Mark’s cosmological understanding clarified for his audience that the battle for governance of the world encompassed all in existence, including the spirit world. Mark used the images of demonic possession to describe the condition of the world under the rulership of Satan. “In Mark Satan is clearly identified with the prince of demons (3:22, 26) who opposes the word (4:15) and leads disciples astray (8:33).”85 Exorcism describes what happens when Satan is bound: reformation of the community in relationship to God. Satan’s house was being ransacked as demons were ejected from those whom they possessed. From the very beginning of his Gospel, Mark holds an anti-imperial point of view, countering Roman imperial expectations from its conquered peoples without ever addressing Rome directly. The Gospel of Mark is a narrative that describes the birth of a movement86 among people in Palestine, a movement revolving around Jesus and depicted through particular events that occurred in his life. The narrative is christological in its focus and apocalyptic in its outlook, taking into consideration the eschatological and cosmological dimensions of the first-century Mediterranean worldview. The pinnacle of Mark’s eschatological fulfillment is demonstrated by the presence of Gentiles in the early Jesus movement.87 Mark’s cosmology is encapsulated in the ongoing dialectic between the focus of the twelve, Jesus’ additional followers, and the crowds on the things of humans and Jesus’ focus on the things of God. Jesus’ baptism is the key component, the pivotal moment of empowerment and authentication, for his ministry: “The Spirit descends into Jesus…. He is a spirit-possessed person, but both his opponents and his family would question what had gotten into Jesus, what kind of spirit had control of him (cf. 3:20–35).”88 Jesus’ public ministry was essential to salvation, for salvation was impossible for human beings to achieve on their own. For Mark…salvation is above all a liberation of humanity from the cosmic powers that oppress it; Jesus’ main mission is to clear the earth of demons…. It is not accidental, therefore, that the Markan Jesus’ first action after his baptism is a life-or-death struggle with Satan (1:12–13), that the first extended passage in the Gospel is a description of a dramatic exorcism (1:21–28), that subsequent exorcisms are also dramatically highlighted (see 5:1–20 and 9:14–29 and the summaries in 1:32–34, 39; 3:11–13), and that even some healings take on exorcistic features (1:31, 41–43; 7:33–35).89

NOTES 1

R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 35.

64

Cheryl Stewart Pero

2

Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark, 15–16. Robinson understood Mark’s narration of Jesus’ story, one that narrates the miraculous deeds of Jesus, to be Mark’s way of describing the cosmic conflict between God and Satan.

3

Tolbert, 65. Tolbert sees Mark’s Jesus as replicating the role of the ancient hero.

4

For example, Philostratus’ Apollonius of Tyana.

5

M. Eugene Boring, Mark: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 17.

6

Boring, 9–10, 12–13.

7

John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002), 1.

8

Donahue and Harrington, 16.

9

Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 1.

10

Boring, 9.

11

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 150.

12

Johnson, 150.

13

Johnson, 151.

14

Johnson, 151.

15

Johnson, 151.

16

Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2002), 21. See also Boring, 16, who explains Mark’s lack of familiarity with Galilean geography as attributable to Mark’s attempt “to fit localized pre-Markan traditions into his own geographical framework….”

17

Joel Williams, “Does Mark’s Gospel Have an Outline?” JETS 49 (2006): 505–25, citing 505.

18

Williams, 509–510.

19

In my outline of Mark’s structure, I have italicized those episodes I will examine. For some episodes I indicate how I categorize them in my later treatment.

20

Boring, 51.

21

Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas: Word, 1989), 12.

22

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 49–50. I realize that I am using twenty-first century words to describe Mark’s first-century technique.

23

Boring, 40; France, 50; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 141.

24

Donahue and Harrington, 59–60.

25

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 143, 145.

26

Donahue and Harrington, 60.

Liberation From Empire

65

27

Guelich, 8–9.

28

Boring, 30; Donahue and Harrington, 14; France, 52; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 146; Myers, 426. The Priene Inscription (9 BCE) demonstrates the significance of eu)aggeli/on to the emperor cult, within which Emperor Caesar Augustus was described as the savior of the world; his birthday was declared to be the “beginning of the good news” that his accession to power brought.

29

Donahue and Harrington, 67.

30

Wallace, 119–121.

31

France, 53; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 66; Best, 39.

32

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 141. He points out that this proper noun is anarthrous because of the genitive.

33

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 141. Psalm 2:7 is often associated with the “son,” the anointed one from the lineage of David.

34

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, London Bible Society, 1994), 62. In the NA27 Greek text, ui30u= qeou= [Son of God] is enclosed in bold square brackets, indicating that there is strong support for its inclusion in the combination of B, D, W, and a few other manuscripts although ui30u= qeou= is missing in ℵ*, Θ, 28c, and a few others, possibly “due to an oversight in copying, occasioned by the similarity of the endings of the nomina sacra,” possibly due to the scribal error of homoioteleuton.

35

France, 50.

36

Donahue and Harrington, 60.

37

This is the first example of Mark’s conflation of citations from Hebrew scripture. Mark is concerned less about accuracy than that the texts are authoritative and appeal to tradition.

38

Some exegetes understand “forgiveness of sins” to be a change in the direction of ones’ relationship with God, a change that would result in the cancellation of spiritual debts.

39

Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 118.

40

Later, in 6:1–6, Mark tells the audience that, ironically, Nazareth is the only place in Galilee where Jesus cannot perform many deeds of power because of his own townspeople’s lack of faith!

41

Herman C. Waetjen, A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark’s Gospel: A Reordering of Power (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 68–69.

42

Guelich, 31.

43

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 166.

44

Marcus points out, Mark 1–8, 151, and France corroborates, 77, that this is an example of the absolute use of “the Spirit,” a usage that occurs only in non-Jewish texts.

45

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 167.

66

Cheryl Stewart Pero

46

I translate Mark’s verb e)kba/llei in verse 12 as “cast out” instead of the NRSV’s “drove out.”

47

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 168. Simon Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus, 120, identifies Satan as “the spirit of the wilderness” in Mark’s prologue.

48

Boring, 48.

49

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 167.

50

Boring, 47.

51

France, 86; Guelich, 38; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 168.

52

Boring, 48.

53

Boring, 48; Guelich, 38; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 168.

54

Donahue and Harrington, 66; France, 86.

55

Boring states, 47: “Jesus is tested in the context of a cosmic conflict between the power of God represented by the Spirit that he has received and by Satan, the ruler of evil spirits (3:22).” According to Donahue and Harrington, this narrative “alerts the reader to Mark’s conception of Jesus’ ministry as a struggle against the cosmic forces of evil,” 37. 55 They continue in the same vein: The audience further learns “what will unfold in Jesus’ public ministry and in his passion is a part of a cosmic struggle between good and evil that is waged by Jesus as God’s righteous one,” 66.

56

France, 85–86; see also, Susan Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

57

France, 83.

58

Best, 57.

59

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 170.

60

Donahue and Harrington, 23.

61

France, 90.

62

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 175.

63

Guelich, xli.

64

See Klaus Wengst, Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), esp. part 1, 7–55.

65

Josephus, J.W. 14.4.

66

L. Michael White, WGBH’s Frontline: From Jesus to Christ, “A Portrait of Jesus’ World: Galilee” (PBS; Boston: WGBH, April 1998), http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline /shows/religion/portrait/galilee.html.

67

Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 15.

68

Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 27.

Liberation From Empire

67

69

Rohrbaugh, “The Social Location of the Markan Audience,” 383–390.

70

Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 30.

71

Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 35.

72

Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 49–50.

73

Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 39.

74

Collins, 43.

75

Myers, 130. See also James Robinson, 81, on Jesus’ baptismal vision.

76

The texts in Mark that refer to Jesus’ second coming later in Mark’s narrative are 8:38, 13.26, and 14:62.

77

David J. Neville, “Moral Vision and Eschatology in Mark,” JBL 127, (2008), 359–84, quoting 365.

78

Hisoko Kinukawa, “Mark,” in The Global Bible Commentary (ed. Daniel Patte; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 386.

79

Mark’s cosmology is further delineated in 13:5–37. Achtemeier, 545, notes that the cosmic signs that will accompany Jesus’ return are recorded in 13:24–25.

80

Rhoads, Reading Mark, 147.

81

Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 148. See also: “The Ancient Hebrew Conception of the Universe,” in G. L. Robinson’s Leaders of Israel (New York: Association Press, 1913), fig. 2; cited by National Council for Science Education, “Ancient Hebrew Cosmology,” http://www.ncseweb.org/image/ancient-hebrew-cosmology.

82

Rhoads, Reading Mark, 136.

83

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 72.

84

Blount, 5, describes this as Mark’s use of mythological language.

85

Donahue and Harrington, 66.

86

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 66.

87

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 462.

88

Boring, 45. I will examine this episode in the next chapter.

89

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 72–73.

C

H A P T E R

4

The Beelzebul Controversy

G

raham H. Twelftree notes that the Beelzebul controversy “establishes not only the credentials for the exorcisms of Jesus and his followers, but also describes what Mark thought happened in an exorcism.”1 As such, it provides the Markan audience with an introduction to exorcism that explains what happened earlier in Mark’s story (1:21–28), and prepares the audience for what is to follow as Mark’s story of Jesus evolves. The narrator establishes Jesus’ credentials by addressing the source of Jesus’ authority and power: the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has given power and authority to Jesus to plunder the minions of the bound strong one, Satan. Exorcism is the expulsion of a demonic entity that has possessed a human being; the purpose of exorcism is to restore the demoniac to a right relationship with God and the community. The Beelzebul controversy is a springboard for the topic of demonic possession and exorcism in the Gospel of Mark because it not only frames the meaning of exorcism, but also fits into Mark’s pattern of the language of exorcism. Multiple attestations2 confirm the significance of this passage. Most Markan scholars see the Beelzebul controversy as a parable,3 identified as such in 3:23 by the Markan narrator, or as an allegory. Some, like Stephen Moore, see this episode as the hermeneutical key to the entire gospel. Others, like James Robinson, see it as symbolic of the cosmic conflict within which Jesus is immersed because of his proclamation of the basilei/a [kingdom, dominion, realm, reign, sovereignty, empire] of God. Still others, like Ched Myers, see political implications in the episode: speaking truth to power. After examining the linguistic dimensions of the text, I do three methodological analyses. The narrative analysis will focus on Mark’s characterization of the actors in the passage; we will see that all the characters in the episode contribute to the narrator’s picture of demonic possession and exorcism. The social science analysis will explore the episode utilizing the primary model of deviance labeling; we will see that, although many social science models overlap in 3:22– 30, they relate to and contribute to the explanation of deviance labeling. The postcolonial analysis will examine the resistance strategy of mimicry, which exposes the conflict that erupts between the Jerusalem scribal authorities and Jesus regarding their respective sources of authority and power. The summary at

70

Cheryl Stewart Pero

the end of the chapter will synthesize what the methodical analyses have revealed: Mark’s eschatological, cosmic and imperial construction of Jesus’ ministry of exorcism restores the possessed (outsiders) to right relationships (insiders).

Linguistic Analysis The Episode in Its Larger Context Immediately preceding this episode, in 3:14–19, Jesus appointed the Twelve: “…to be with him and to be sent out to proclaim the message, and to have authority to cast out demons.” The appointing and commissioning of the disciples designate them as agents and brokers of Jesus, just as Jesus’ baptism designated and commissioned him as an agent and broker of God. After the disciples’ commissioning, Jesus returns home to Capernaum with the Twelve. MARK 3: 20–21, 31–35 20 21

31 32

33 34 35

And he went into a house; and [the] crowd came together again, so that they were not even able to eat a meal. And after the ones with him {his family} heard, they went out to restrain him; for people were saying (that) he is beside himself. And his mother and his brothers came and after standing outside, they sent to him calling him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him “Behold, your mother and your brothers [and your sisters] are outside asking for you.” And answering them he says, “Who are my mother and [my] brothers?” And after looking at those sitting in a circle around him, he says, “Behold my mother and my brothers. [For] whoever does the will of God, that one is my brother and sister and mother.”

Jesus’ family (vss. 20–21). I suggest that the home to which Jesus and the Twelve return is where Jesus stayed4 in Capernaum. The people in the crowd are so intent on getting near to Jesus (just as we saw in 2:2–3) that he and the disciples are unable, mhde\ [even], to eat, a method by which the narrator is able to emphasize Jesus’ popular success.5 In vs. 21, the narrator introduces Jesus’ biological family with the words: oi9 par0 au0tou= [the ones with him {=Jesus’ family}].6 At the beginning of this episode (vs. 21), we are informed that Jesus’

Liberation from Empire

71

family was attempting to restrain him because people were saying that Jesus was ece/sth [confused, beside himself, out of his mind]. This concern on the part of Jesus’ family anticipates the scribes’ negative accusation about Jesus’ possession by Beelzebul in vs. 22. Note the parallelism between vss. 21 and 31: both verses mention members of Jesus’ biological family approaching him in order to get his attention. Jesus new family (vss. 31–35). By standing outside the perimeter his followers create and from where they call to him, Jesus’ biological family demonstrates both figuratively and literally his dissolution of the traditional family unit. In vss. 31 and 32, the Markan narrator repeats the preposition e11cw [outside], both for emphasis and as a contrast to those sitting around Jesus: e0ka&qhto peri\ au)to_n o!xloj [a crowd was sitting around him] in vs. 32 and tou_j peri\ au)to_n ku&klw| kaqhme/nouj [those sitting in a circle around him] in vs. 34. An interesting feature used by the Markan narrator in vss. 31–35 is repetition in reference to identifying Jesus’ biological family: “mother” and “brothers” is repeated five times; “sister” is used twice: once parenthetically (in vs. 32) and once directly (in vs. 35). These references to Jesus’ immediate family occur in every verse! A second pair of Markan parallelisms occurs here: 1. Verses 32 and 34, beginning with mention of the crowd sitting around Jesus and proceeding with the announcement of the presence of, first, his biological and, second, his new family members, respectively, both introduced with forms of the same word: i0dou_ and i1de [behold]. 2. The question Jesus asks in vs. 33, who constitutes his family, he answers in vs. 35: whoever does the will of God.

The Main Episode This episode functions “to establish a fundamental relationship between two elements, represented by the two consecutive charges. … The Capernaum campaign ends with this double counterattack upon Jesus: to his extended family he is deluded, to his political opponents he is demonic.”7 The Beelzebul controversy, proper, is located between Mark’s above-mentioned references to familial relationships, and provides the filling for this Markan narrative sandwich.8 This sandwich frame focuses the audience’s attention on the Beelzebul controversy, the major emphasis that Mark uses to explain Jesus’ encounters with demonic/unclean spirits throughout this Gospel.

72

Cheryl Stewart Pero MARK 3: 22–30 22

And the scribes the ones after coming down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebul” and “By the ruler of the demons he casts out demons.”

23

And after calling them to himself, he said to them in parables, How is Satan able to cast out Satan? And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is not able to stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan rose up against himself and was divided, he is not able to stand, but he is finished.

24 25 26

27

But no one is able to enter into the house of the strong one to plunder his property unless/except one first tied up/bound the strong one and then will plunder the house.

28

Truly I tell you that all will be forgiven the sons of men, the sins and the blasphemies whatever they blasphemed; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin,

29

30

because/since they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Throughout this episode, we see the Markan narrator moving the story along quickly with his practice of beginning sentences with the conjunction kai\ (20–26, 31–34) [and] as well as his repeated use of forms of e1rxomai (20, 21, 27, 31) [to come, to go]. For rhetorical emphasis, the narrator utilizes two-step progressions built on the repetition and contrast of keywords in the same or adjacent verses. Note the following in the indicated verses: 1. Various verb forms: du/namai (20, 23–27) [to be able…], e0kba/llw (22– 23) [to cast out], meri/zw [to divide] and i3/sthmi (both used in 24, 25, 26) [to stand], diarpa/zw (2x in 27) [to plunder], and blasfhme/w (28; also the noun cognate blasfhmi/a, 29) [to blaspheme], e!xw (22, 26, 29, 30) [to have], and le/gw (21, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, 33) [to say, speak]; 2. Prepositions prefixed to the verb i3/sthmi: e0c in vs. 21 and a)na/ in vs. 26; contrasting with the forms of i3/sthmi used in 24–26; 3. Various noun forms: Satana=j (23, 26) [Satan], basilei/a (24) [kingdom, reign, dominion, rule, sovereignty], oi]koj (20, 25, 27) [house],

Liberation from Empire

4.

73

daimo/nion (22) [demon], a(ma/rthma (28, 29) [sin, sinful deed], and pneu=m a (29, 30) [spirit]; Adjectives: isxuro/j, -a/, -o/n (27) [strong], a(5gioj, -a, -on (29) [holy], and a)ka/q artoj, -on (30) [unclean].

The scribes and the Beelzebul accusation (vss. 22–23). Although there is no narrative change in venue from the introduction of the episode to vs. 22, the human actors shift: Jesus’ biological family  his new dyadic family  and now, third, ostensibly, to what should have been Jesus’ religious family (the Jerusalem scribes).9 On the one hand, Jesus’ biological family attempted to protect him against those who accused him of being out of his mind and his new dyadic family surrounded him. On the other hand, the Jerusalem scribes were there to accuse Jesus, reinforcing the allegation that Jesus was out of his mind, this time based on their assessment of his source for exorcistic action: Beelzebul/Satan. The scribal authorities saw Jesus’ activities as outside his human authority, therefore not based in God’s authority. The provocation for their charge of possession most likely emerged following Jesus’ first miracle, the exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28). The Markan audience has been privy to the narrator’s summaries of Jesus’ exorcisms to this point (1:32–34, 39; 3:11– 12) and the growth of his reputation, as well as his commission to the twelve disciples to teach and to exorcize (3:15) just prior to this episode. The narrator states that the scribes had come from Jerusalem. The Markan narrator gives Jerusalem an unfavorable connotation because, although yet unknown to the original Markan audience, later audiences know that Jerusalem is the location where Jesus ultimately will die.10 The scribes, by association with Jerusalem, are painted with the same narrative brush and given an unfavorable characterization.11 They challenge Jesus by alleging that he is guilty of two things: being possessed by Beelzebul and performing exorcisms by collaborating with Beelzebul.12 “Beelzebul” is an unusual name that remains unattested in the literature before its appearance in our passage, Beelzebul probably designates a provincial (perhaps Syrian) manifestation of Yahweh’s traditional chief rival, namely, “Prince Baal, Ruler of the Earth” (zbl. b’l. ‘ars.), whose name here has been shortened to the simpler form of “Prince Baal” (B’l. zbl. = Beelzebou/1) .… Naturally, “Prince Baal,” a chief among foreign deities and traditional rival of Yahweh, is designated “ruler of demons” (though we cannot say exactly when or where such an appellation was applied).13

The narrator identifies Beelzebul in a two-step progressive refining or clarifying process: first as the ruler of demons (22), then as Satan (23). The Markan audience already recognizes the demonic’s submission to Jesus’ authority14 from the

74

Cheryl Stewart Pero

exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28) and the summaries of Jesus’ ministry, and realizes what those in the Markan story world do not already know: Jesus has already defeated the demonic. In vs. 23 Jesus calls the scribes to himself (perhaps in anticipation of his family calling him to them in vs. 31), and the scribes evidently respond to Jesus’ call (perhaps a reminder of the disciples’ response to Jesus’ call in 1:16–20 and 2:14). The narrator places a rhetorical question and conditional sentences in Jesus’ arsenal of rhetoric in the next few verses in order to set up the parabolic tone and nature of his response to the scribes’ charges. Jesus first rebuts the accusation of the Jerusalem scribes with a rhetorical question introduced by Pw=j, an “interrogative reference to manner or way, in what way? how?”15 When Jesus identifies Beelzebul as the ruler/prince of demons (22), and Satan (23), 16 he, simultaneously, exposes the absurdity of the Jerusalem scribes’ charge: Pw=j du/natai Satana=j Satana=n e0kba/llein [How is Satan able to cast out Satan?]. The logic of the Jerusalem scribes is absurd.17 This is the first time that the Markan narrator has used the verb du/namai [to be able] in a passage related to demonic possession. This verb will be repeated four times in the next four verses with the addition of the negative particle ou) as Jesus emphatically makes the point that Satan “is not able” to maintain his hold on the world.

The Parable of the House Divided (vss. 24–26) Jesus’ second response takes the form of two class three conditional sentences in vss. 24 and 25:18 e0a_n basilei/a e0f0 e9auth_n merisqh| [if a kingdom is divided against itself], then ou0 du/natai/ duna/setai staqh=nai [it will not be able to stand]. Jesus follows these two conditional sentences with a class two conditional clause in vs. 26, indicated by ei0 + two augmented (aorist) indicatives: a)ne/sth [rose up] and e)meri/sqh [was divided]. By using a definite article with the proper noun, 09Satana=j, Satan is identified as a well-known figure,19 allowing the personification of Beelzebul and the demonic to continue to the next verse. These verses present the audience with a Markan three step progression: What begins as a kingdom divided and being unable to stand (vs. 24) becomes a house divided and unable to stand (vs. 25) and, finally, Satan being divided and therefore the one unable to stand (vs. 26). Because Satan’s household is divided against itself, it turns in on itself and comes to an end.

The Parable of the Strong Man (vs. 27) This verse serves as “the center of the chiasm that structures the entire passage.”20 A chiasm, or a chiasmus, is “the crosswise arrangement of contrasted pairs to give alternate stress.”21 Although this verse stands in tension with the

Liberation from Empire

75

rest of the passage, it is critical for understanding the meaning of the Beelzebul controversy in its entirety. Here the narrator indicates that, while Satan is the strong householder and has a stranglehold on the world (presumably Satan’s house), Jesus is the stronger one, as John the Baptist announced in 1:7. Jesus alone can do what no other earthly force can:22 bind the strong one. Another emphatic feature is apparent in that, while vss. 23–26 have been connected by the coordinating conjunction kai/ [and], this verse begins with a strong adversative conjunction a)ll )[but]23 and a double negative ou) du/natai ou)dei\j [not able no one]. This is the last time that ou) du/natai is used in this episode. Mark’s Jesus again uses a class three (hypothetical future/eventual) conditional sentence: e)a\n mh\ + dh/sh|…diarpa/sei [if not ( = unless/except) + ties up/binds…(then) one will plunder]. The negative particle mh is used in the protasis, in this instance, in contrast to the ou used in the apodosis in the previous three conditional sentences, drawing the attention of the audience and emphasizing Jesus’ binding of the strong one. Diarpazw is used twice in this verse, first as a perfective complementary infinitive with ou) du/natai referring to tou= i)sxurou= [the strong one], and second as a future indicative active in reference to th\n oi)ki/an [the house]. When this verb is used in relation to persons, it means to snatch away, to abduct or to take someone captive; in relation to things/objects, it means to plunder thoroughly or to rob something, even to steal someone’s livelihood.24 We have examples of both usages in this verse: First, Jesus snatches away/abducts/takes the strong one captive and, second, he robs/steals the strong one’s livelihood, demonic possession.

The Unpardonable/Unforgivable Sin (vss. 28–29) The Markan narrator introduces these concluding verses with Amh\n le/gw u9m i=n [Truly I tell you]. Not only is this the first usage that the Markan narrator makes of this phrase in the gospel, but this solemn formula indicates to the audience that what follows is a sober statement,25 used only by Jesus in the gospels26 as a claim to his higher authority in comparison to that of the scribes. The Markan narrator has Jesus address the topic of forgiveness by using a divine passive future, a0feqh/setai [may/will be forgiven], indicating that God will forgive people until the final judgment.27 The substantival use of the adjective pa/nta [all things] indicates the unconditional nature of God’s forgiveness. The narrator then defines “all things” by combining the notions of blasphemy, dishonoring/profaning the name of God by means of speech, with that of sin, breaching one’s relationship with God or acting towards God in a manner that was out of order/deviant. Jesus’ pronouncement of God’s forgiveness meant that satisfaction would not be demanded from those who had shamed God. Instead, recon-

76

Cheryl Stewart Pero

ciliation with God and one’s community was available immediately because the work of the Holy Spirit reflects God’s activity. Verse 30 forms an inclusio with vs. 22, linking Beelzebou\1 e1xei [he has Beelzebul], the prince/ruler of demons, with Pneu=m a a0ka/q arton e1xei [he has an unclean spirit].28 Jesus declared the unpardonable sin to be mistaking the work of the Holy Spirit for that of Satan. For the scribes this means “…to be captive to the way things are, to resist criticism and change, to brutally suppress efforts at humanization…to be bypassed by the grace of God.”29 Jesus’ scribal opponents were contesting whether or not Jesus could make such a claim, “thus in effect cutting themselves off from that forgiveness and reconciliation.”30 In the narrative’s final verses (29–30), we note another narrative explanation: the Holy Spirit [to\ pneu=ma to\ a(&gion] in vs. 29 is defined by contrast to an unclean spirit [pneu=ma a0ka/q arton] in vs. 30.

Narrative Analysis God’s rule initiates conflict because Jesus is restoring creation’s original order— God ruling over people, illness, demons, and nature, but not people ruling over people. By means of Jesus’ actions, God’s rule challenges every other claim to power.31 This episode clearly depicts how conflict between Jesus’ authority and scribal authority evolves. Mark 3:22–30 provides the key to understanding the cosmic conflict between Satan and Jesus by alluding to the relationship between the introduction of the gospel, including the narrative of Jesus’ baptism and temptation (1:9–15), and Jesus’ subsequent public ministry. The temptation signifies Jesus’ entering the house of the strong one and binding him; exorcism is the means by which Jesus plunders the strong one’s house.32 Jesus’ exorcisms acquire their meaning from this text as physical demonstrations of the cosmic struggle between Jesus and Satan, a narrative strategy that Mark uses in order to reiterate for his audience that God has won the cosmic victory. The escalating conflict between the “…representatives of Israel’s cultic, purity, and social leadership…from Jerusalem,”33 and Jesus, “expands [Mark’s] narrative thesis that practical activity represents mythological reality.”34 Mythological reality explains the manner in which the Markan narrator is able to access Israel’s psychosocial history that informs the first century CE Jewish community’s longing for the promised kingdom of God. Jesus’ response to the accusations of the Jerusalem scribes reveals that exorcism represents the means by which God binds Satan’s forces and frees those whom Satan has held hostage, the means by which God will deliver God’s people. In vss. 20–22 and 31–32 the narrator arranges for Jesus to be misunderstood by his family,35 an eventuality that comes to pass in vss. 34–35 because Jesus’ family expects him to respond in traditional ways based on traditional

Liberation from Empire

77

relationships.36 And Jesus is anything but traditional! Verses 20–21 and 31–35 also serve as the bread for Mark’s narrative sandwich. The Markan narrator often uses the technique of intercalation as a delaying tactic, a method for “allowing time for the action to take place.”37 In this way, between the time when he is summoned by his traditional family and he defines his new family, the Markan narrator is able to focus on the Beelzebul controversy as a critical teaching moment for Jesus, clarifying why Jesus was judged as acting confused. The Jerusalem scribes challenge Jesus’ integrity and authority by alleging that he is guilty of two things: being possessed by Beelzebul and performing exorcisms by means of collaboration with Beelzebul, a charismatic phenomenon that was perceived as magic38 and not sanctioned by Torah.39 The Jerusalem elites will build on these two charges as the basis by which they will later seek to indict Jesus; and they will succeed. The Jerusalem authorities’ charge that Jesus’ supernatural authority stems from Satan because they believe that Jesus is possessed by Satan.40 The narrator’s characterization of the demonic is concentrated in 3:22–30 and it is introduced by the final word in vs. 21, e0xe/sth [he is beside himself/confused]. The Jerusalem scribes attribute Jesus’ confused state to demon possession. The narrator is suggesting to the audience that one symptom of demonic possession was confusion. Another characteristic of the demonic is that it can possess people by means of deception, e.g., the scribes are not able to see themselves in thrall to anyone but the spiritually correct Jerusalem temple elites. Because of Jesus’ exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28) and his subsequent commissioning of the Twelve to the ministry of exorcism (3:15), the Markan narrator explains that in the scribes’ analytical process, the only means by which Jesus would have been able to perform exorcism was through demonic possession. Narratively, the scribes characterize Beelzebul as empowering Jesus to exorcize demons. The scribes’ charge is actually directed to the crowds in and/or around the house where Jesus was in residence, in an attempt to turn the crowds against him. However, Jesus must have overheard the scribes’ accusation because he summons them. The narrator portrays the scribes as cliquish, dense, irrational, gossipy; yet still obedient to Jesus’ summons. Jesus responds to the scribes’ charges indirectly by using parables. Jesus first poses a riddle in the form of a rhetorical question that exposes both the shallow nature of the scribes’ charge as well as their collusion with the demonic. Jesus’ rebuttal implicates the scribes and those in Jerusalem who sent them; it implicates the kingdoms and houses controlled by Satan, and ultimately, Satan himself. The narrator now characterizes Satan as one who, in addition to being confused, is at war with himself; thus, in Mark, evil does sow its own seeds of destruction.

78

Cheryl Stewart Pero

In Jesus’ parables, Mark utilizes conditional sentences: First there are two class three hypothetical futures (vss. 24–25), then a class two contrary-to-fact, unreal condition (vs. 26), and finally Mark returns to a class three hypothetical future (vs. 27). Satan’s rising up and standing against himself leads to selfdestruction in Jesus’ construction. Interesting to observe in vs. 23 is the narrator’s ironic, rhetorical contrast on one entity as both the agent and means of exorcism: How is the demonic able to exorcize itself? Jesus’ mention of Satan by name indicates that the narrator assumes the Jerusalem scribes’ familiarity with the Satan of Hebrew Scripture (e.g., Job 1:1–4). Satan is portrayed as an accuser or adversary in the Hebrew Bible. In the New Testament, Satan retains an adversarial role,41 although he is portrayed also as the ruler/prince of demons. In the rebuttal in vss. 24–26, Jesus “makes use of macro-(‘kingdom’) and micro-(‘household’) political and social units”42 in the society, subtly implying that the world was the realm of Satan. Building on the image in vs. 26, where Satan is divided and ended, the narrator now portrays Satan as paralyzed and, in contrast to being paralyzed internally by his very own minions as in vs. 26, Satan is now paralyzed externally by the one who has bound him, Jesus. In the Markan narrator’s normal use of irony, the Judean authorities are threatened by Jesus’ proclamation and action because Jesus just does not fit their expectations; they can only understand the source of Jesus’ power as demonic. Mark has characterized Jesus as the hero with whom the audience should both sympathize and empathize. Jesus is presented as innocent yet martyred by the Jerusalem elites; he is misunderstood by his family, yet admired and sought out by the crowd. The Markan narrator’s use of irony comes into full play in vs. 30 where Mark defines the one exception to God’s unconditional forgiveness. Mark introduces the definition of blasphemy, causing the audience to recall the scribes’ initial charge in 2:7. The audience also knows that this charge, ultimately, will be the one leveled against Jesus by the Sanhedrin in 14:61b-64. The Markan narrator, in vs. 30, explains Jesus’ words of judgment in vss. 28–29 concerning the unpardonable/unforgivable sin. “It is possible…that the Markan Jesus is arraigning the scribes on a charge of unforgivable blasphemy similar to the charge of blasphemy that contemporary scribes are directing at Jesus and his followers. …”43 Another irony presents itself: “…in Mark’s view, the true source of Jesus’ exorcistic…power is not an unclean sprit but the Holy Spirit, the power of God’s new age.”44 The scribes have committed a serious spiritual miscalculation with their contrived accusations because they have misinterpreted goodness as malevolence. They have chosen “to interpret the presence of divine action as

79

Liberation from Empire

evil.”45 They have morphed the evidence of Jesus’ life-giving power into evidence of demon possession to their own condemnation. “To misconstrue the liberative divine action as a deed of the Devil is to demonstrate such a complete identification of the self with the forces of destruction, such a total opposition to the forces of life, that no future possibility of rescue remains.”46 Mark 3:19b30 serves both as an example of the opposition of the Judean authorities to Jesus and as a narrative in which the charge of “blasphemy” is introduced.47 The house divided parable is a foreshadowing of the disciples’ desertion.48

Social Science Analysis Jesus stands at and serves as the center of this episode: Other actors come to and go from him. The scribes responded to Jesus’ summons but, in contrast to the scribes’ response, Jesus himself does not respond to his biological family’s summons. He maintains his position at the center of his new kinship group. My social science analysis begins with brief references to Mark’s cosmological hierarchy of powers and challenge/riposte. These overlap with the dyadic or collectivistic character of Mediterranean society and deviance labeling, which follow. Roman Palestine responded to Jesus’ exorcistic activities in a variety of ways: some regarded Jesus as spirit filled (the people were amazed in 1:22, 27; 2:12); others thought he was demon possessed (the Jerusalem scribes in 3:22, 30); and his family publicly treated him as if he were out of his mind/confused (3:21). Whatever personal opinion local peasants, family members, or Roman/Judean elites held about Jesus himself, his exorcisms, and those of his followers, fit into the cosmology of first-century Jews. Their worldview included the existence of both benign and malevolent entities that caused good and bad things to happen to humans. Things beyond human control, such as weather, earthquakes, disease, and fertility, were believed to be controlled by nonhuman persons [sic] who operated in a cosmic social hierarchy. … Demons…were thus personified forces that had the power to control human behavior. Accusations of demon possession were based on the belief that forces beyond human control were causing the effects humans observed. Since evil always attacks good, people expected to be assaulted.49

Mark’s cosmology reflected a hierarchal, active, spirit world. Immediately following Jesus’ baptism, he was driven by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness where he was tested, confronted by Satan. The wilderness was thought to be barren, uncultivated land inhabited only by wild animals and other antisocial creatures, including demons, nomadic shepherds, bandits and fugitives. “Jesus’ power over demons is essentially a function of his place in the hierarchy of powers (and is used as evidence of that by the gospel writers). He is an agent of

80

Cheryl Stewart Pero

God, imbued with God’s holy/clean spirit, who overcomes the power of evil.”50 The scribes’ accusations challenged Jesus’ family honor and God’s credibility. Because they were made publicly, either Jesus had to refute them publicly or the scribes had to make them stick publicly. Jesus used the familiar tactic of riposte in the form of a riddle51 or a political parable52 as a means of responding to the Jerusalem scribes’ charges. Challenge/riposte is a game related to shame/honor that is played in public, male spaces. In this situation, Jesus’ two parables,53 The Parable of the House Divided and The Parable of the Strong Man, serve not only to reject the deviance label cast on him by the Jerusalem scribes, but also to turn the accusation back on his accusers, allowing Jesus to maintain his honor. Jesus first responds to the second charge of exorcizing by the power of Satan. He then uses the illustrations of division within one’s community and of the strong man as a response to the first charge of being possessed by Beelzebul. “Jesus demonstrates considerable skill at challenge and riposte and thereby reveals himself to be an honorable man, capable of defending God’s honor, his group’s honor, and his own honor.”54 Individuals within one’s kinship group were identified in a stereotypical manner related to the uniqueness of the general social categories of that particular group “…in terms of place of origin, residence, family, gender, age, and any other groups to which they might belong.”55 The family included all those who lived in a compound or community: …not only did [the family] endow members with status (ascribed honor) in the community, but it also embedded its members in an extensive economic, religious, educational, and social network. Any form of removal from the family meant a loss of connection to these life-giving networks and loss of connection to ancestral land. …To voluntarily remove oneself from one’s family is equivalent to social suicide.56

Jesus goes about building the kingdom of God by establishing a new faction among the disciples and other followers called to become part of Jesus’ new surrogate family that “transcends all the familiar Mediterranean categories of birth, status, race, gender, education, wealth, and power.”57 A faction was understood to be “a type of coalition formed around a central figure that recruits and maintains the loyalty of a core group. Factions share a common goal, though membership beyond the core group is often indistinct and fluid.”58 This new faction, Jesus’ new surrogate family, became the embodiment of a new household that functioned much like a dyadic kinship group. By the end of this episode, Jesus institutes the kingdom of God into which participants are welcomed based on a particular spiritual orientation, “obedience…to God alone.”59 Jesus redefines his understanding of his new kinship model by extending the boundary to whoever does the will of God. “The space inside this boundary is

Liberation from Empire

81

filled with those who have ‘acquired’ a special kinfolk relationship to Jesus rather than those who have an ‘ascribed’ kinfolk relationship to him.”60 Those people who were misplaced and marginalized in the society, but were accepted by Jesus based on their relationship with God, comprise Jesus’ new dyadic kinship group. This metamorphosis is the method by which Jesus establishes the kingdom of God. In this episode, Jesus’ biological family tries to protect him from the crowds in vs. 21. Their view of Jesus as “out of his mind” or “confused” identified him as “out of place.” His ministry of exorcism carried serious social implications and threat for his family and community: his “out of place–ness” could spread and contaminate them! Pollution was understood to be whatever inheres in someone who is out of place. Identifying someone as out of place located him as a violator of purity codes, someone who was out of order because he did not live by the rules of the society. The accused ran the risk of collective evasion and stigmatization, social ostracism and isolation. A purification process eliminated the threat of contamination after which the person was returned to her/his proper place in the community. When one did not act in accord with the stereotypical parameters of one’s kinship group, one could be accused of exhibiting deviant behavior. “Stereotypes could, of course, be either positive (titles such as ‘lord’) or negative (accusations such as demon possession). Negative labeling, what anthropologists call ‘deviance accusations’ could, if made to stick, seriously undermine a person’s place and role in the community.”61 The charge of being demon possessed was extremely serious: a witchcraft accusation that labeled Jesus a deviant. Witchcraft accusations and deviant labeling are two social science models that allow the contemporary reader “to interpret emic data from cultures long ago and far away.”62 The purpose of the witchcraft accusation, a technical anthropological term, is to identify and eliminate the witch.63 Accusing a person of being possessed by a demon was a deviance label. Incidents of deviance labeling provided the community with an opportunity to scrutinize the deviant and the deviant behavior as well as to explain its causality. “Most serious of all were accusations of sorcery, that is, being possessed by and having the power of ‘the prince of demons,’ Beelzebul (Mark 3:22). Such labels not only marked one as deviant (outside accepted norms or states) but, once acquired, could be nearly impossible to shake.”64 Deviance labeling functioned as a social sanction, its purpose being to identify and control negative behavior. The deviance labeling process had four major aspects: the agents of censure, retrospective interpretation, a statusdegradation ritual, and a reinterpreting of the labeling. The agents of censure in the Beelzebul controversy were the scribes from Jerusalem. Their retrospective interpretation was that Jesus has been performing exorcisms by the power of

82

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Beelzebul: Satan. Their status degradation ritual was an accusation that tried to redefine Jesus as a deviant. Jesus was accused of being a rule breaker by the Jerusalem scribes who attempted to give Jesus a deviant ontological status, which tends to make a person an outsider and to exile that person from the group. By accusing Jesus, his accusers try to assign him a new identity, a new self of a negative kind. They do this in order to neutralize his activity. Jesus’ activity is perceived as negative, either dangerous for society as a whole or for the group that initiated the deviance process.65

The goal of the scribes was to deconstruct Jesus as an agent/broker of God and reconstruct him as an agent/broker of Satan who posed a threat not only to the Jerusalem scribes, but also to the stability of the social order.66 They then attempted to reinterpret Jesus’ status as a deviant. Reactions to this degradation process were understood as transformative, paralleling and countering the four major deviant aspects: neutralization, retrospective interpretation, status-transformation rituals, and a reinterpretation of the labeling process. “It would be in this earliest phase that the hypothetical sources and/or documents used by the Synoptics belong. …”67 In other words, the gospel witnesses rehabilitated the deviant stigma with which Jesus was being labeled. The neutralizer was Jesus himself, publicly repudiating the deviance charges. The status-transformation ritual disclosed Jesus refuting his personal responsibility for exorcism by invoking the agency and authority of the Holy Spirit. He then reinterpreted the labeling process by condemning his condemners. “By accusing his accusers, Jerusalemites, of ‘blaspheming against the Holy Spirit’…Jesus accused them of denying the power of God present in Jesus’ activities.”68 The two models I have summarized briefly complement each other and help to explain the conflictual, agonistic, nature of the society. …witchcraft models offer a window into the systemic aspects of the charge of demonpossession, as it describes the cosmology of the social system that employs such accusations with predicted frequency. The deviance model, on the other hand, invites us to investigate more carefully the role of the labellers, their position in society, their motivation and the procedure they follow in labelling a deviant. The deviance model also outlines the strategies available to those negatively labeled. … Together they offer a precise, detailed and culturally specific way of examining the dynamics of conflict in biblical times. 69

Blasphemy was generally understood as a means by which the name of God was dishonored, abused or insulted, instead of being invoked. In this episode, blasphemy is comprehended as attributing Jesus’ power to the demonic instead of to the Holy Spirit.70 This was the one unforgivable sin.

83

Liberation from Empire

Postcolonial Analysis An oft-repeated adage asserts that history is usually written by the victors or, in this case, the imperialists. It seems to me that Mark wrote this Gospel in order to counter the story of imperialism perpetrated by historians of Roman imperialism.71 What we see in the Gospel of Mark regarding empire is the story of a peoples’ resistance to the hegemonic imperialism of the Roman Empire. According to postcolonial theory, one method of resistance to imperialism was mimicry. Mimicry repeats the pattern of behavior of the colonizers but distorts it at the expense of and to the detriment of the colonizer. As such, mimicry is extremely disruptive to the imperialist agenda, easily becoming mockery. The Beelzebul controversy demonstrates how Mark’s Jesus uses mimicry, that is, how he uses authority and power that emanates from God and the Holy Spirit, in his ministry of exorcism, as a way of countering and mocking imperial/demonic authority and power. Beginning with Jesus’ testing in the wilderness immediately following his baptism, Jesus repeatedly plunders Satan’s household by exorcizing demons, “an aggressive assault on Satan.” 72 Mark’s understanding of authority contrasts Jesus with the Judean temple authorities. Jesus’ controversy with them in this episode is really about the source of his authority.73 The question of the source of power or authority is a political one. “Because healing deals with power, it is political in its structure and application.”74 The political question that confronts the Judean authorities is the source of Jesus’ power: God or Satan. “The end result of viewing Jesus’ healing deeds as unauthorized political activity is that he must be stopped.”75 Mark’s narrative stance against imperial authority might be understood as colonial mimicry. Mark’s Jesus does mimic the colonizers in three categories: his wielding of absolute authority, his replication of an insider/outsider binarism, and his exercise of power.76 Mark’s Gospel does contain “traces of ‘colonial mimicry’ that reinscribe colonial domination.”77 These traces are seen in the following ways: Jesus maintains absolute authority over what is acceptable to God and what is not; in Mark, one’s response to Jesus will determine whether one is an insider or an outsider; and Jesus’ power to include or to eliminate will be wielded finally at the Parousia. Both Benny Liew and Stephen Moore dare to ask if Jesus’ goal in the Gospel of Mark is to establish an empire, a kingdom of God, as oppressive as the kingdom of Rome/Satan against which he has been fighting. They both acknowledge that Jesus’ plundering of the strong one is the point at which he is victorious over the forces of the demonic. The threat to the Judean authorities posed by Jesus’ symbolic exorcistic action emerges fully in the Beelzebul controversy. It also serves as an example of Jesus’ disruptive agenda that affects Jesus’ family, the Galilean leaders, the Jeru-

84

Cheryl Stewart Pero

salem scribes, and even Satan’s household. In this episode, Mark presents Jesus as a disruptive, internalized threat to the Roman colonizers, the Judean elites, and the Jerusalem scribes. “The charges and counter-charges (the leaders accusing Jesus of blasphemy and Jesus covertly suggesting their accusations as blasphemous 3.22–30) show the extent of disruption caused by Jesus’ activities.” 78 Both Romans and Judeans are subject to manipulation by Satan.79 In this episode, Jesus mimics the scribal authority by turning their accusation back on them. They are not able to stand up to Jesus’ scrutiny and they actually disappear from Mark’s narrative until 7:1. By defining Beelzebul as the ruler/prince of demons in vs. 22, the narrator accomplishes two things: first, Mark intensifies the negative identification of Beelzebul80 and, second, the narrator establishes an assumed demonic hierarchy,81 “the negative counterpart to the kingdom of God”82 of which Beelzebul, or Satan, is the ruler/prince. In verses 24–25,83 Jesus’ “first two responses utilize the imagery of Satan‘s kingdom and Satan’s household. Each image conceives of the demonic realm as a unified entity that is more than the aggregate of individual demons. …[T]he opposition comprises not merely individual evil forces but united ‘systemic evil.’ …Satan’s kingdom or household is selfdestructing from within. …”84 In vs. 25, “the antidote” to being bound by a demon is “to tie the demon up oneself; to bind a demon, therefore, is to immobilize it and render it incapable of inflicting further damage (see e. g., 1 En. 10:4; Jub. 5:6; 10:7–11) or even to destroy it (see PGM, 4.1245–48).”85 Jesus’ plundering is the end of Satan’s empire as well as the end of Rome’s empire, “the latter being implicitly construed as but an instrumental extension of the former.”86 The impact of vs. 27 is that: “Exorcisms…constitute an invasion of alien territory–the dispossessing of Satan and his host. The parallel drawn between kingdom and house may suggest that the Greek basileia is not to be understood simply as denoting an activity (the rule of God). … The world is portrayed as a household in which Satan is master. Jesus is wresting control from him.”87

Chapter Summary In this passage, the Markan narrator takes the time to describe how Jesus came by his exorcism credentials and explains that Jesus’ exorcisms caused the house of the strong one to be plundered. One of the Markan narrator’s parable strategies is narrating “stories within the story.”88 A story is a parable, a riddle,89 an allegory, a comparison using metaphorical language.90 The narrator uses the riddle as a method by which the real Markan audience can look retrospectively at Mark’s story and recall that, in Jesus’ temptation, the strong one has already been engaged and bound.91 The “riddle about the strong one suggests that Jesus

Liberation from Empire

85

has already bound Satan in the desert.”92 During Jesus’ testing in the desert he succeeded in binding Satan, characterized as the strong one. The Markan narrator is clear that Jesus is the one who wields “decisive supernatural power in the eschatological war against the Devil.”93 Although the narrator never discloses how the demonic knows Jesus’ identity, the Beelzebul controversy (3:22–30) serves to explain demons/unclean spirits’ history and familiarity with Jesus. It is obvious that the Jerusalem temple leaders perceived Jesus’ exorcisms and the honor that flowed to him following them as a political threat to their power over the people. The crowds had already differentiated Jesus’ authority from that of the scribes in 1:21–28. In response to the stories spreading about Jesus’ ministry of exorcism, scribes from Jerusalem came to Galilee to discredit him, perhaps making the connection between exorcism and political power. Jesus compared the empire of Satan to human empires and households (perhaps even alluding to the empire/household of Caesar) by describing an analogical relationship between satanic and human empires. Jesus declared all-out force against Satan’s house/empire to “destroy” it. Later, however, Jesus will refuse to use force to oppose the Roman Empire although he uses the Roman Empire as an illustration for the disciples on how not to use human power to “lord over people” or “exert authority over them.” In 3:27, we learned that in the desert the “stronger one” (Jesus) had “bound” (defeated) the “strong one” (Satan) and was, therefore, able “to plunder” (exorcize) Satan’s “goods” (demons). The demons belonged to Satan’s house. That is why the demons knew that Jesus was the Holy One of God and why they had reason to fear that Jesus wanted to destroy them. Satan and the demons were part of a household/empire. Jesus refuted the accusation that he was casting out demons by the authority of the ruler of demons (3:22) with a riposte when he referred to Satan and his minions as a “house” (as a ruling house or the whole realm of Satan as a household, 3:24–25) divided against itself and as an “empire” divided against itself. When we analyze Mark, then, we are dealing with the empire of Satan, the empire of Rome, and the empire of God. The point is this: we cannot comprehend exorcisms in Mark without seeing demons as part of the larger cosmic dimensions of the conflict between Jesus (as agent of God) and the demons (as agents of Satan). The narrative overlay exposes Mark’s eschatological understanding of Jesus’ exorcisms. Of utmost importance is vs. 27, where the narrator offers the audience a glimpse into Mark’s construction of apocalyptic eschatology. This verse “makes clear the ultimate or eschatological character of Jesus’ ministry of exorcism that has accomplished his preaching and teaching (1.21–27, 34; 3.11–12) as being a consequence of Satan’s being ‘bound’ or having ‘met his end.’”94 Only

86

Cheryl Stewart Pero

after Satan has been bound can the kingdom of God spread into the world and eliminate Satan’s property. “One of the hopes for the coming of the new age in apocalyptic texts in that Satan himself will be bound and immobilized. …” 95 Another perspective states: “In Mark, with the coming of Jesus the power of evil has been broken, but the complete victory over evil is still in the future. …”96 Jesus’ binding of Satan is an eschatological proclamation. The defeat of Satan is “the mopping-up exercise in the territory of a defeated enemy. The power of evil has not disappeared—Jesus still casts out demons and Mark’s church [sic] is still confronted by demonic situations—but the decisive event has already taken place.”97 This is a very important insight. The social science overlay of Jesus’ exorcisms connects the Beelzebul controversy with Jesus’ baptism and temptation. The narrator uses symbolic and apocalyptic images: in Jesus’ baptism the audience witnesses the relationship between the heavens and the earth; in Jesus’ temptation the audience is privy to the beginning of the cosmic struggle that will be waged between Satan and Jesus for the rest of Mark’s gospel narrative. The Markan narrator develops the cosmic combat myth “in Jesus’ battle with demons, the Human One’s contest for authority with the scribes and Pharisees, and the climactic clash with the ‘strong man,’ in which Satan and the Spirit are again at odds (3:23–30).”98 Satan will not have the last word. The importance of vs. 29 lies in the demonstration of Jesus’ authority: as an agent of God, Jesus offers forgiveness of all sins and blasphemies to all people, a promise that no one else can make and keep. This forgiveness puts people back into a right relationship with God and with their community. In what ways is Mark’s Jesus willing or not willing to use the “tools of the master” to dismantle the master’s house? How does a study of the exorcisms help to illuminate these postcolonial dynamics? In the postcolonial overlay, the Markan narrator presents Jesus’ authority as power. Mark’s Jesus addresses the issue of power in vs. 23 of this episode, with the first occurrence of the verb du/namai [to be able]. This verb is repeated four times in the next four verses with the addition of the negative particle ou) when Jesus emphatically makes the point that Satan “is not able” to maintain a hold on the world. Satan does not have either the power or the authority to maintain a hold on the cosmos! Jesus’ exorcisms were a continual, progressive plundering of Satan’s household, demonstrating that Satan’s kingdom was doomed to annihilation through Jesus’ exercise of his divine authority to confront and eliminate Satan’s hold on the world. “By his entry into a reordering of power he has overpowered the strong one and is now engaged in the liberation of the possessed and the dispossessed.”99

Liberation from Empire

87

The picture of demonic possession and exorcism that is emerging from Mark’s Beelzebul controversy is one of cosmic conflict that ultimately will be resolved, once and for all, at Jesus’ Parousia: there is an end time at which the followers of Jesus will be justified. In Mark’s construction, although Jesus’ had already defeated the strong one during his testing in the wilderness, he must still wage war against demons/unclean spirits, the minions of Satan, in order to plunder the possessions of the strong one. Jesus invites others to participate with him in the cosmic battle through the formation of a new kinship group. His biological family appears to be ambivalent about his mission; the crowds and the disciples seem to be interested and will cooperate with Jesus, but remain unconvinced; the Jerusalem scribes have chosen to affiliate with the forces of Satan. By means of the authority and power he gained from the Holy Spirit at his baptism, Jesus mimics and mocks the scribes’ behavior in regards to accusations of blasphemy and, finally, warns them about the danger inherent in misjudging the works of the Holy Spirit as the works of Satan.

NOTES 1

Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 112.

2

In addition to the parallel narratives recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 9:34, 12:22–32; Mark 3:22–27; Luke 11:14–15, 17–22), there are comparable accounts in Q 11:14–15, 17–22; 12:10; and Gos. Thom. 35, 44; see James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffman and John S. Kloppenborg, eds., The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 105, 107, 119. Q references follow the accepted convention of using the Lukan chapter and verse order, 9. Those sentences in italics reflect the material present in the four canonical gospels and the Gospel of Thomas. Parallel gospel citations are in curly braces. Material in guillemots reflects uncertainty in Q’s exact wording due to MatthewLuke differences. Text in double brackets reflects uncertainty as to whether or not the text belongs to Q. The parallel Johannine references contain demon possession accusations against Jesus and his subsequent denials. The Q material states: 11:14 And he cast out a demon «which made a person mute. And once the demon was cast out, the mute person spoke. And the crowds were amazed. 15 But some said: By Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, he casts out demons! {Cf. Matt 9:34, 12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15; John 7:20, 8:48; 10:20} 17 But, knowing their thoughts, he said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is left barren, and every household divided against itself will not stand. 18 And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? {Cf. Matt 12:25–26, Mark 3:25–26, Luke 11:17b-18} 19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, your sons, by whom do they cast «them» out? This is why we will be your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then there has come upon you God’s reign. [[21]] [[«A strong person’s house cannot be looted,»]] [[22]]

88

Cheryl Stewart Pero [[«but if someone stronger overpowers him, he does get looted.»]]. {Cf. Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21–22; Gos. Thom. 35: 1–2} 12:10 And whoever says a word against the son of humanity, it will be forgiven him; but whoever [[speaks]] against the holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. {Cf. Matt 12:32; Luke 12:10; Mark 3: 28–29} Boring, 194: The Johannine references (John 7:20; 8:48–52; 10:20–21; 13:2) point to the fact that, although John contains no record of exorcisms proper, John was familiar with “the phenomena of demons and demon possession. John interprets the Christ-event itself as a grand exorcism, using the same word in John 12:31 that the Synoptic stories use for Jesus’ exorcisms.” Robinson, Hoffmann, and Kloppenborg, 107, 121: Gos. Thom. 35 (NHC II.2): “(1) Jesus says: It is not possible for someone to enter the house of a strong (person) (and) take it by force unless he binds his hands. (2) Then he will plunder his house;” Gos. Thom. 44 (NHC II.2): “(1) Jesus says: Whoever blasphemes against the Father, it will be forgiven him. (2) And whoever blasphemes against the Son, it will be forgiven him. (3) But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither on earth nor in heaven.”

3

Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 129–131. See also John J. Pilch, “Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time” in The Cultural World of Jesus, Sunday by Sunday, Cycle B (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 97. Pilch notes that Jesus’ use of the parable (commonly assumed to be a simile explicitly comparing one thing to another; usually Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven) here is a method for maintaining separation between the insiders, those who understand what Jesus is saying, and outsiders, those to whom Jesus’ words function as a method for maintaining the secrets of the insiders.

4

Collins, 226.

5

Guelich, 172. Jesus’ and the Twelve’s lack of time to even eat is also cited in Mark 6:31. According to John J. Pilch, “Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time” in The Cultural World of Jesus, Sunday by Sunday, Cycle B (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996), 113, meals were leisurely events that allowed the bonds of the diners to become strengthened/renewed.

6

In light of the family members mentioned directly in the latter part of the sandwich (vss. 31– 35), many interpreters understand this reference to be to Jesus’ family; see Boring, 104; Donahue and Harrington, 129; Guelich, 172; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 270; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 109.

7

Myers, 164.

8

Two main examples of Mark’s sandwich technique include 5:22–43 and 11:12–25. I will be pointing out minor intercalations within the texts that I examine.

9

Donahue and Harrington, 130.

10

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 271, 280.

11

Boring, 106–107; Donahue and Harrington, 129; Guelich, 174.

12

Collins, 228.

13

Michael L. Humphries, “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy,” Foundations and Facets Forum 9 (1993): 129. The name “Beelzebul” is only used in Matt 10:25, 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22, and Luke 11:15, 18, 19. For additional theories regarding the etymol-

Liberation from Empire

89

ogy of Beelzebul, see also Boring, 105; Collins, 229–231; Guelich, 174–175; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 272. 14

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 281.

15

BDAG, 900, emphasis in original.

16

Douglas E. Oakman, “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves, and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope,” Foundations and Facets Forum , 4 (1988): 113.

17

Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 139.

18

The second clause (apodosis) will always result from the first clause (protasis) in a hypothetical future/eventual construction. Guelich, 176, insightfully notes that the conditional sentence in vs. 26 changes Jesus’ response from a hypothetical future/eventual to an unreal/ contrary-to-fact clause. Verse 27 will return the audience to Jesus’ use of a class three (hypothetical future/eventual construction) conditional sentence: e)a\n mh\ + dh/sh…diarpa/sei [if not ( = unless/except) + ties up/binds…(then) one will plunder].

19

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 274.

20

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 282.

21

Collins, 89. See my outline of vs. 27 (in bold print) above as an example.

22

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 282.

23

Boring, 108.

24

BDAG, 235.

25

Donahue and Harrington, 131; Guelich, 177.

26

Guelich, 177.

27

Donahue and Harrington, 131; Guelich, 178.

28

Donahue and Harrington, 132, Guelich 180.

29

Myers, 167.

30

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 159.

31

Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story, 78.

32

William Robinson, 79.

33

Blount, 103.

34

Blount, 104.

35

Tolbert, 285.

36

Tolbert, 147.

37

Boring, 109; Guelich, 184.

38

Donahue and Harrington, 130.

39

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 281.

40

Blount, 104

90

Cheryl Stewart Pero

41

Donahue and Harrington, 130.

42

Guelich, 176.

43

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 285.

44

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 284.

45

Donahue and Harrington, 137.

46

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 284. See also Waetjen, 99.

47

Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 147.

48

Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 147.

49

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. See also “Demons/Demon Possession” in chapter 2.

50

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 351.

51

Myers, 165.

52

Myers, 166.

53

Boring, 107, Donahue and Harrington, 130, and Marcus, Mark 1–8, 281, note that this is the first occurrence in Mark of the word “parable.”

54

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 188.

55

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200.

56

Pilch, Cultural Tools, 46.

57

Pilch, Cultural Tools, 48.

58

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 198.

59

Myers, 168.

60

Vernon K. Robbins, “Beelzebul Controversy in Mark and Luke. Rhetorical and Social Analysis,” Foundations and Facets Forum, 7 (1991), 268.

61

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200.

62

Bruce J. Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988), 137.

63

Malina and Neyrey, 27–28.

64

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 200.

65

Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 164.

66

Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 166; Malina and Neyrey, 51.

67

Malina and Neyrey, 54.

68

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 201.

69

Malina and Neyrey, 66.

70

Donahue and Harrington, 131–132.

71

Horsley, “Submerged Biblical Histories and Imperial Biblical Studies,” 157, 161.

Liberation from Empire

91

72

Liew, Politics of Parousia, 47.

73

Liew, Politics of Parousia, 67, 73.

74

Pilch, Cultural Tools, 65.

75

Pilch, Cultural Tools, 67.

76

Tat-Siong Benny Liew, “Tyranny, Boundary, and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark’s Gospel,” in The Postcolonial Bible (ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 206–223, at 209.

77

Liew, “Tyranny,” 215.

78

Samuel, 127.

79

Liew, Politics of Parousia, 74–75.

80

Donahue and Harrington, 129.

81

Guelich, 175.

82

Boring, 107.

83

Donahue and Harrington, 130. They suggest that these verses might contain a veiled reference to the historical destruction of the kingdom and house of Herod the Great following his death in 4 CE. Alternately they suggest that this could refer to the destruction of the kingdom and house of Herod Antipas, 131.

84

Boring, 107–108.

85

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 274.

86

Moore, 194.

87

Donald H. Juel, Mark (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990), 63.

88

Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story, 56. See also Powell, 27.

89

See also Guelich, 175.

90

Collins, 231.

91

Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story, 56.

92

Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie, Mark as Story, 49.

93

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 283.

94

Guelich, 176.

95

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 274–275. Marcus directs the reader to see, for example, T. Levi 18.10–12 and Rev 20:2–3.

96

Donahue and Harrington, 131.

97

Boring, 108.

98

Myers, 130.

99

Waetjen, 99.

C

H A P T E R

5

Summaries, Commissionings, and Incidents

T

he Gospel of Mark is “the most exorcistic of gospels,”1 demonstrated by Mark’s thirteen references to exorcism. In addition to the Beelzebul controversy and the four exorcism episodes, there are eight brief passages that either directly mention Jesus’ exorcistic activities or allude to demonic possession and exorcism: 1:32–34; 1:39; 3:11–12; 3:14–15; 6:7; 6:13; 8:32b–33; 9:38–39. Based on their content and Mark’s exorcism language, I have selected these passages and categorized these references as summaries (1:32–24, 1:39, and 3:11–12), commissionings (3:14–15, 6:7, and 6:13), and incidents (8:32b–33 and 9:38–39). The Markan summaries of Jesus’ ministry all use the three nouns and three verbs that I have discussed above: Jesus both “casts out demons” and “rebukes unclean spirits.” In the passages where the Twelve are commissioned and sent out, they are “given authority to cast out demons.” The episode with Peter demonstrates how Satan can influence humans: Jesus’ rebukes Peter for acting Satan-like. The unknown exorcist is “casting out demons in Jesus’ name.” I first analyze the summary statements in order to determine how the Markan narrator prepares the audience to receive Jesus’ ministry of exorcism. Second, I examine the commissioning episodes in order to appraise how Jesus conferred authority, particularly on the Twelve. Third, I scrutinize two incidents that help to explain the Markan narrator’s perception of how Jesus and Satan were understood to function in the daily lives of people. I treat the three summaries and the three commissionings each as narrative units, respectively, and the two incidents as independent units. My narrative analysis examines the Markan characterization of the actors, particularly Jesus and the demonic, in order to expose Mark’s eschatology. In the social science analysis, I use the honor/ shame model for the summaries, the patronage model for the commissionings, and the insider/outsider model for the incidents. These models further uncover Mark’s cosmology. The postcolonial analysis explores Mark’s imperial/antiimperial language by examining the resistance strategies of hybridity in the summaries and mimicry in the commissionings and the specific incidents. The

Cheryl Stewart Pero

94

goal is to become more alert to the political significance of demonic possession and exorcism in the depiction of Mark’s Jesus.

Summaries Mark 1:32–34 summarizes Jesus’ first day of ministry and mentions only healings and exorcisms. Verse 1:39 serves to summarize Jesus’ ministry in the larger geographical context of Galilee (narrated in 1:35–38); this time mentioning preaching and exorcisms. 3:7–10 forms a transition in which Jesus is besieged by all those in Galilee who desire to be healed and exorcized and who, subsequently, gather at the seaside in order to touch him. “In response to reports of…his miraculous healings and exorcisms rather than his teachings, people come from long distances and form an international gathering.”2 3:11–12 serves as the climatic summary3 of the first section of Mark’s Gospel, 1:1–3:12, where Jesus is introduced to Mark’s audience as the Son of God. It also summarizes the response of the unclean spirits to all the exorcisms that Jesus has performed since 1:21 (in contrast to the human reactions recorded in 3:7–10),4 and introduces the next narrative section,5 3:13–35. 1:32–34 Jesus’ Healings at Sunset and Campaign in Galilee 32

33 34

But after evening came, after the sun set, they were bringing to him all the ones having illnesses and (all) the ones being demon possessed. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many having illness with various diseases and he cast out many demons and did not permit the demons to speak because they knew him.

1:39 Summary 39

And he went preaching in their synagogues in the whole of Galilee and casting out the demons.

3:11–12 Jesus by the Seaside 11

12

And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw him, were falling down before him and crying out saying: “You are the Son of God.” And strongly he rebuked them so that they might not make him known.

Linguistic Analysis 1:32–33. The Markan narrator concluded the description of Jesus’ first day in vss. 32–34. The summary report in vs. 32 begins with the Markan use of a twostep progression, )Oyi/aj de\ genome9nhj, 03/te e1du 09 h41ioj [But after evening

Liberation from Empire

95

came, after the sun set], where the second phrase elaborates on the first phrase. The first phrase of the sentence is a genitive absolute emphasizing to the audience that it was evening and the Sabbath had ended. 1Eferon [they were bringing] is an imperfect verb, indicating iterative action, that is, the action is repeated or continued: the people kept bringing “all” the ill and demon possessed in the village to Jesus. pa/ntaj [all], a substantial adjective that serves as the subject for both tou\j clauses that follow, is an example of Markan hyperbole;6 o(/lh [whole] in vs. 33 functions in much the same way. h}n…e0pisunhgme/nh [was gathered together], is a periphrastic construction in which the participle serves to link the crowd gathered in front of Peter’s door with those from the synagogue, sunagwgh/, in 1:21. 1:34. Pollou\j [many] is a Semitism equivalent to “all.”7 There is a parallelism (italicized below) between vss. 32b and 34a: 32b pa/ntaj tou\j kakw=j e1xontaj kai\ tou\j daimonizome/nouj [all the ones having illnesses and the ones being demon possessed] 34a pollou\j kakw=j e1xontaj poiki/laij no/soij kai\ daimo/nia polla\ [many having illness with various diseases and…many demons].

poiki/l aij no/soij [various diseases] is used as a summarizing phrase that causes Mark’s audience to remember God’s past saving activities, connecting their salvation history with Jesus’ present activities.8 Verses 34a and b describe the authority and power that Jesus is able to access; in 34c, Jesus commands the demons to silence because they had known him. h1|deisan [had known], although a pluperfect, is translated as an imperfect9 with simple past force10 that describes the narrated action as it unfolds. 1:39. h}l qen khru/sswn [he came preaching] is a periphrastic construction that “indicates the habitual activity into which Jesus now launched, as the next phase of his mission.”11 This verse is a conclusion that extends the setting of Jesus’ ministry begun in Capernaum to all of Galilee.12 It forms an inclusio with 1:21–22, 2713 by joining the crowd in the sunagwgh\n [synagogue] in vs. 21, with the crowd e0pisunhgme/nh [gathering together] at Simon’s home in vs. 33, and Jesus’ preaching to the crowds in Galilean sunagwga\j [synagogues] in vs. 39. 3:11. The demons continue to recognize Jesus, echoing 1:34. The conditional phrase 03/tan au0to\n e0qew/roun, prose/pipton au0tw|= kai\ e1krazon [whenever they saw him, they were falling down before him and crying out], employing 03/tan and three imperfect verbs, one in the protasis and two (in parallel) in the apodosis, indicates a past general presupposition or an indefi-

96

Cheryl Stewart Pero

nite/conditional clause. “A repeated series of encounters between Jesus and the demons, then, is presupposed.”14 In support of this explanation, 03/tan + e0qew/roun is an indicative of past time that lends iterative force.15 The words of the demons here, Su\ ei] 09 ui9\0j tou= qeou [you are the Son of God], are similar to those used by the demon in the Capernaum synagogue in 1:24, o( a(/g ioj tou= qeou [the Holy One of God]. “The demons by virtue of their supernatural knowledge recognize who Jesus is as seen by their prostration and their statements. Thus Mark uses the opportunity in such a summary setting to identify again for the reader who Jesus is, namely the Son of God.”16 3:12. In an echo of 1:25 and 1:34, Jesus’ rebuke is a command for the unclean spirits to be silent. Polla\ [strongly] is used here as an adverbial accusative that intensifies the verb e0peti/ma [rebuked]. i3/na [so that] introduces a very important epexegetical clause that explains and emphasizes why Jesus rebuked the unclean spirits: i3/na mh\ au0to\n fanero\n poih/swsin [so that they might not make him known]. In this usage, the Markan narrator changes the literary connotation of “rebuke” from the exorcizing of unclean spirits to the silencing of unclean spirits.

Narrative Analysis 1:32–34. Mark ends this episode with this summary.17 The omniscient narrator has shifted the venue in Capernaum from the synagogue to Simon’s house (1:29) where Jesus’ heals Simon’s mother-in-law in 1:30–31. Verse 32a informs Mark’s audience that the Sabbath had come to an end; vs. 32b explains the narrative significance of vs. 32a: The people were again allowed to carry loads once the Sabbath had ended. In the case of this particular reference, the people were able to bring all those who were sick/ill or demon possessed to Jesus. The end of the Sabbath was also the time at which the Havdalah service, associated with the celebration of God’s creation of the world and combating the demonic, was celebrated.18 With the Markan narrator’s specificity about the time of day, the day itself, and the venue, Jesus’ ministry of healing is thus grounded in Simon’s house in Capernaum.19 News of the Capernaum synagogue healing had already spread and “so generated faith in him”20 that the crowd had gathered at Simon’s door in order to be healed. This portrayal of Jesus, as one in whom the crowd had faith, indicates that in the opinion of the crowd, he was a successful healer and exorcist.21 Verse 33 informs the audience that Jesus fulfills “the universal human longing for wholeness”22 because he heals “all” in the “whole” city. Mark’s use of “all” and “whole” enhances the narrative portrayal of Jesus as a healer and exorcist for all. The Markan author’s emphasis on all the people coming to

Liberation from Empire

97

Jesus is another example of Markan hyperbole. Jesus intentionally enters into local assemblies, not necessarily limited to buildings, where Jesus then carries out his ministry: preaching, healings, and exorcisms.23 In 34c, the narrator informs the audience that Jesus did not permit the demons to speak. This is the second time Mark describes Jesus’ command to silence (the first is in 1:25) to the demonic.24 Jesus’ commands to silence “function as foils for Mark to highlight the impossibility of hiding Jesus’ miracles ministry.”25 Demons are prevented from revealing Jesus’ divine sonship to humans because it is not the right eschatological time: “…part of the reason for its suppression may be that its open proclamation by demons would expose Jesus to charges of Satanic collusion and blasphemy,”26 neither an unrealistic expectation nor an uninformed speculation. “Yet one finds no hint that anyone…apart from the demons (1:25, 34b) actually recognized him for who he was.”27 Silence on the part of the demons also prevents the authorities from seeing who Jesus really is at this point in Mark’s narrative. 1:39. The narrative introduction to and summaries of Jesus’ ministry earlier in 1:21, 33, and here in 1:39 emphasize the literary and geographical progression of these verses: Jesus’ teaching/preaching and exorcizing in the Capernaum synagogue first, in the villages surrounding Capernaum second, and finally, “in their synagogues in the whole of Galilee.” It is very likely that the author’s repeated use of the word “synagogue” (and its compound forms) is an example of the Markan narrator’s rhetorical technique of repetition, drawing attention to Jesus’ time in Capernaum. This summary verse also serves to extend the ministry activity of Jesus to all of Galilee as well as to draw together Jesus’ preaching and healing.28 The narrator draws the attention of the audience to Jesus’ twin ministry emphases by naming both sickness/illness and demon possession as disorders that Jesus addresses. By identifying both, Mark simultaneously separates and links them “as symbolizing all the threats to a full life.”29 The Markan vocabulary in vs. 39, “preach/proclaim, whole, Galilee, cast out, demon,”30 recapitulates these two aspects of Jesus’ ministry: preaching and exorcizing. This “summary creates the impression that these stories reflect a kind of ministry already much more extensive than the two miracles would indicate.”31 Mark describes the content of Jesus’ ministry as a combination of word and deed: he preached and he exorcized. “Jesus preaching…remains unspecified, except by the accompanying exorcisms. …”32 Nevertheless in vss. 35–39, “Jesus’ prompt departure to other villages sustains the rapid action of this first part of the gospel.”33 They also correlate the terseness of the narrative with the urgency of Jesus’ proclamation.34

98

Cheryl Stewart Pero

3:11–12. In this final summary, the setting of Mark’s narrative world is enlarged from the village of Capernaum to the larger region of Galilee and southern Syria. The spread of the news about Jesus’ ministry among the population in Capernaum, the surrounding villages, in larger Galilee, and even to the region around Tyre and Sidon, emphasizes the spread of the gospel among both the Jewish and Gentile populations. This summary reminds the reader of Jesus’ activity in 1:21–28, the Capernaum exorcism, and intensifies the summary in 1:32–34.35 Rather than describing the exorcisms that Jesus performs, the Markan narrator now describes the behavior of unclean spirits when confronted with the presence of Jesus. Jesus’ title “Son of God,” used for the first time since Mark’s prologue (1:1 and 1:11), trips from their mouths, perhaps in an effort to control Jesus and avoid destruction; they then fall before him in obeisance. Unlike the humans portrayed in Mark’s narrative world, the possessing entities and the Markan audience knows from the very beginning of Mark’s story that Jesus is related to God.36 “Jesus uses stern language…in sharply ‘rebuking’ the demons (1:25; 3:15; 9:25).”37 Jesus’ command to silence is a “call not to publicize Jesus as the Son of God when he is, as yet, incompletely portrayed and understood as such.”38 Because Jesus’ eschatological victory has not yet been fully accomplished, his premature exposure might give people the wrong idea about to whom he is related and from whom he gets his power and authority. Although Jesus proclaims the proximity of the Kingdom of God with each exorcism, his command to unclean spirits to be silent is part of the narrator’s eschatological plot that will come to fruition only at Jesus’ Parousia. “Mark’s choice to use the ‘summary’ at this juncture in his outline clearly encapsulates Jesus’ ministry as depicted in 1:21–3:16.”39

Social Science Analysis 1:32–34, 39. Prior to this summary, the Markan narrator informs the audience that Jesus is attentive to the map of holy times: he observes the Sabbath by going to the synagogue. The exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue (in preparation for this summary) is best explained as an appropriate response to the attack of the demonic. Later in the day, but still on the Sabbath, in the private sphere (female space) of Simon and Andrew’s home, Jesus heals Simon’s mother-inlaw, restoring her to her position in her family and the community. Because this is private space, Jesus is not challenged about healing on the Sabbath. The only witnesses to this healing beyond Peter’s immediate family are James and John. Jesus’ first two miracles, an exorcism and a healing on the Sabbath, set the narrative tone for the healing and exorcism summary in these verses.

Liberation from Empire

99

With Jesus’ first miracle in the synagogue, the residents of Capernaum begin to validate Jesus’ healings,40 a public acclamation that raises his honor status. Mark’s implies that gossip has already gone out regarding Jesus’ act of power. When the Sabbath was over, the people of Capernaum, again allowed to do physical labor, bring all those who are sick and demon possessed to Jesus for liberation, that is healing and deliverance. Mark uses hyperbole in describing the crowds’ response to Jesus in vs. 33, “the whole city was gathered,” increasing Jesus’ honor status. The secrecy motif is intricately connected with the model of honor/shame. Because Jesus was born into a lower social status, a tradesman who worked with his hands, his baptismally acquired claim to be related to God would have been viewed as grasping. Knowing this, Jesus maintains an honor status by keeping such talk out of the synagogue, the public, male sphere. Jesus muzzles the demons perhaps in order to avoid “unwanted publicity,”41 and to keep any excessive honor claim from those on the outside.42 Jesus silences the demons because “…it is not for the demons…to proclaim the message of Jesus’ divine Sonship and what it means for the cosmos. …That place of honor is reserved for human beings. …”43 3.11–12. In these verses Mark establishes “the place and importance of miracles in the ministry of Jesus before turning to some of his teaching.”44 Jesus’ miracles are public: crowds of people observe and spread the stories of Jesus’ healings and exorcisms and, simultaneously, spread his fame. In this manner, Mark not only noted Jesus’ popular appeal as a healer but also his increased honor status. Those who were brought to Jesus’ attention included the sick and those who were demon possessed. Jesus’ presence alone provoked the demonic into revealing itself with loud, obnoxious behavior. Demons were privy to a secret that humans did not share, and they could they keep the secret to themselves: they knew who Jesus was.45 Their knowledge was superior to human knowledge because they ranked higher in the cosmological hierarchy than humans.46 In these verses, the unclean spirits went so far as to prostrate themselves before Jesus (perhaps in awe, like the crowds) and publicly acknowledged Jesus’ rank in the cosmic hierarchy as the Son of God.47 Their behavior was, perhaps, a futile last minute attempt to control Jesus as they pled for leniency and publicly increased Jesus’ honor status. Both sickness/illness and demonic possession in the first century Mediterranean world were often attributed to the activity of malevolent spirits and had social implications: the dislocation of social networks and devalued personal meaning.48 The symptoms of sickness/illness and demonic possession were socioculturally rooted and constructed, affecting the state of being of the person in relationship to the entire community: “abnormal sociocultural human condi-

100

Cheryl Stewart Pero

tions.”49 Because of the similar social symptoms between sickness and demonic possession: “All Jesus’ acts can be summarized as the expulsion of demonic powers from people’s lives.”50 Jesus’ healings and exorcisms are directly tied to his kingdom preaching: they are the physical manifestations of his teachings. “[I]t is interesting to note how often the healing/exorcising activity is associated with preaching/teaching (see 1:39; 6:5; 6:7, 13; 9:38).”51 The Markan narrator establishes continuity between the words and the deeds of Jesus by linking them: “Mark may wish to give the impression that healing and exorcism are neither separate nor distinct from teaching, but are the basis of the proclaiming and therefore more important than Jesus’ speaking. That Jesus is portrayed in public as first a healer lends support to this theory.”52 Yet, as we shall see, Mark separates sickness/illness and demonic possession in these narrative summaries by describing Jesus’ ministry as both healing and exorcism.

Postcolonial Analysis 1:32–34, 39. Jesus’ first two miracles, an exorcism and a healing on the Sabbath, set the tone for the summary of the miracles recorded in these verses, understood by the Markan narrator to be du/namij [deeds of power].53 The narrative description of the exercise of power invites postcolonial discussion around the topics of imperialism, of what is at stake, and of who has what to lose/gain. The kingdom of Satan, already dominating the world, seeks to spread its selfserving control and destructive manipulation, analogous to the spread of the Roman Empire. The Markan narrator indicates that the liberation and deliverance of oppressed and possessed persons, that is the spread of the kingdom of God and the salvation of the created order, is what is at stake here. The agents of Satan have the most to lose in these summaries, for as Jesus exorcizes, as Jesus plunders Satan’s house and silences the demonic/unclean spirits, the ability of the demonic to manipulate and control humans is severely curtailed. The spread of the kingdom of God trumps the spread of Satan’s kingdom and, by analogy, the Roman Empire. The power of Jesus to model resistance to human and non-human oppressors and to deliver/liberate possessed persons in words and deeds spreads as the power of colonial expansion and oppression is circumscribed, as the possessing activity of the demonic is reduced. Jesus’ preaching is “the announcement of the dawning of God’s kingdom.”54 The demons recognize Jesus “as a Spirit-empowered figure;”55 that they also obey him confirms Jesus’ authority and power.56 Mark’s subaltern (non-elite) crowd gathers at Simon’s house for healing and exorcism, demonstrating that “God’s rule is being extended to include the diseased [sic] and the demon possessed of Capernaum.”57

Liberation from Empire

101

3:11–12. God’s power that was demonstrated in Capernaum now spreads into Galilee. In preparation for this summary, the Markan narrator gathers an international group of “displaced persons” from the “dispossessed lower classes”58 around Palestine, a group seeking Jesus for healing/deliverance. The unclean spirits possessing the people gather with them. Jesus’ victory is conveyed in the unclean spirits’ kneeling before him.59 The unclean spirits’ acknowledgement of Jesus sonship indicates that Jesus “participates in God’s sovereignty over evil supernatural forces.…”60 Jesus’ hybridity, son of God (3:11) and son of humanity, creates havoc in the rule of Satan, for Satan’s rule is repeatedly challenged by Jesus’ power and authority as he announces and establishes the kingdom of God. His hybridity allows him to bind Satan’s minions and create a climate in which the kingdom of God slowly overtakes the kingdom of Satan.

Section Summary “[T]he healing activity of Jesus is clearly summarized, introducing new information in a general and non-specific fashion.”61 The narrative overlay of the summaries exposes demons/unclean spirits that openly possessed persons in the village of Capernaum, in towns neighboring Capernaum, and in the larger region of Palestinian Galilee. In Mark 1, the narrator referred to the minions of Satan as “demons.” In Mark 3, they are referred to as “unclean spirits.”62 Mark characterized the possessing entities as fully knowledgeable that Jesus was “of God.” Jesus is the one coming from and related to God, the one whose presence alone caused possessing entities to become fearful, crying out their knowledge of Jesus’ uniqueness in an effort, perhaps, to control him before he expelled them from their human hosts. After exorcizing them, Jesus commanded the possessing entities to silence as part of Mark’s eschatological story: The audience could only understand the true meaning of Jesus’ sonship in light of Jesus’ resurrection. “…Jesus’ true identity is improperly comprehended apart from his passion and death: the healer and the exorcist without the suffering Jesus is a misunderstood Messiah.”63 The apocalyptic message of the victory of the kingdom of God over the forces of Satan was not a new one. In an effort to link Jesus’ mighty works with the “final apocalyptic struggle between the demonic forces and God,”64 Mark recorded Jesus’ sources of authority early in his narration: in 1:13 (baptism), 14– 15 (temptation/testing), 1:21–28 (first miracle/exorcism), and in 1:32–34 and 39 (two summary accounts of Jesus’ massive exorcisms). The social science overlay of the summaries portrays demons/unclean spirits on a cosmic collision course with Jesus. Although demons/unclean spirits were able to communicate directly with human beings, their exposure of Jesus’

Cheryl Stewart Pero

102

origins, at this point in Mark’s narrative, was premature. Any public declaration of Jesus’ cosmological identity on the part of the unclean spirits at this point was unnecessary and dangerous.65 Mark introduces the secrecy motif and dilemma in these verses by describing Jesus’ interaction with unclean spirits: he silences them.66 Yet, in spite of his commands to silence, Jesus cannot be hidden from the agents of Satan to whose declarations humans simply paid little attention. In establishing the kingdom of God, Jesus could not avoid the crowds, his critics, or the unclean spirits. The postcolonial overlay reveals that Jesus problemitized the spread of Roman imperialism by positing the kingdom of God as a viable alternative for newly liberated oppressed and possessed inhabitants of Roman Palestine. Mark’s Jesus was a hybrid: both human and divine, one whose powerful words and deeds were enacted in the in-between space of colonial Palestine where he functioned as God’s agent to spread the kingdom of God. Jesus was aware that demonic spirits were able to manipulate both Roman and elite Judean authorities.67 The possessing entities knew that Jesus had the authority and power to exorcize them from the cosmic landscape within which Jesus did God’s bidding. Jesus exercised God’s authority and power to liberate those who had become possessed and oppression. “He boldly travels in the demon- and illnessinfested but familiar landscape of Galilee liberating the subdued and disturbing the agents of power as a sultan of God.”68 Jesus’ command to silence to the unclean spirits was articulated in the interstitial cruciform axis between Rome (horizontal) and God (vertical). The unclean spirits’ obedience to Jesus’ command to silence enhanced Jesus’ power.69 Mark not only highlighted the importance of Jesus’ exorcisms by recording an exorcism as the first miracle that Jesus performed in 1:21–28, but also heightened the importance of exorcism by using summary statements in 1:32– 34, 39, and 3:7–12.70 “Mark’s narrator…makes clear that such exorcisms are one of…the key activities in which Jesus is engaged in his renewal of Israel, emphasizing how many he performs and his appointment of the Twelve to expand this struggle against the demons (1:34, 39, 3:15).”71

Commissionings In 1:16–20, Jesus invited Peter, Andrew, James, and John to follow him and become fishers of people. In 3:7–12, after Jesus and the Twelve gathered at the seaside where Jesus cured the sick and exorcized the possessed, the Markan narrator, by summarizing the major themes presented thus far (1:1–3:6) prepares for the next section (3:13–8:26),72 providing a transition to the Beelzebul controversy.73 In 3:13–19, Mark records Jesus’ appointment of the Twelve. “Jesus calls the disciples at the very beginning and soon appoints the Twelve and

Liberation from Empire

103

sends them out to broaden his ministry; but they begin to misunderstand and at the end betray, deny, and abandon Jesus (1:16–20; 3:13–19; 6:7–13; 4:55–10:45; 14:1–16:8).”74 Mark 3:13, which intervenes between the third, and final, summary and the first commissioning, informs the Markan audience that the setting has changed. The Markan narrator shifts the audiences’ attention from the many by the seashore to the Twelve on a mountain with Jesus. Mountains had long been settings symbolic of theophany, an interstitial place where humans historically encountered God, as the Twelve now encounter Jesus, God’s agent. “This pericope…begin[s] a new section by depicting this integral character of the disciples (1:16–20; 3:13–19) to Jesus’ ministry (1:21–3:12; 3:20–6:6).”75 Between the time Jesus appointed the Twelve in 3:14–15 and vss. 6:7 and 13, the Twelve have done exactly what Jesus required: they stayed with him. They have been Jesus’ companions and primary audience. Their interactions, comments, and questions are “the focus for some of Jesus’ teaching and action (3:16–37; 3:32; 4:10, 5:31).”76 Mark narrated the incidents through which the Twelve stayed with Jesus in these chapters: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Mark identified each of the Twelve by name (3:16–19), Jesus redefined “family” (3:20–21, 31–35), Jesus is embroiled in the Beelzebul Controversy (3:22–30), Jesus told a number of parables about seeds and growth (4:1–34), Jesus stilled the storm (4:35–41), Jesus exorcized the Gerasene Demoniac (5:1–20), Jesus healed two females (5:21–43), and Jesus is rejected at Nazareth (6:1–6).

Those Jesus chose in 1:16–20 and appointed in 3:14–15 have their role spelled out in 6:7.77 In 6:5–6, the people’s unbelief correlates with the limitations of Jesus’ powers, which diminishes his ability to perform miracles in Nazareth; this insight just might lead the audience to deduce that a stronger Gentile faith response was the reason lying behind Jesus’ success among the Gentiles.78 6:7 and 6:13 form a narrative framework around three intermediary sayings79 that once again demonstrates Mark’s intercalation/sandwiching technique. 6:8–12 contain Jesus’ mission preparation directions in which appointing “the Twelve prepares for the time when these roles will be shared (6:7–13).”80 3:14–15 Twelve Given Authority over Demons 14

And he appointed twelve81 so that they might be with him and so that he might send them to proclaim

Cheryl Stewart Pero

104 15

and to have authority to cast out demons.

6:7, 13 The Twelve Given Authority over Unclean Spirits 7

And he was summoning the Twelve and he began to send them out two by two and he was giving them authority over the unclean spirits.

Successful Exorcisms and Healings 13

And they were casting out many demons, and they were anointing many sick with oil and they were healing them.

Linguistic Analysis 3:14–15. The first thing that the audience learns is that Jesus e0poi/hsen dw/deka [appoints twelve]. e0poi/hsen [appointed]: Normally meaning “made,” the translation meaning “appointed” or “consecrated” is a Semitic usage found in the LXX (1 Kgdms 12:6; 3 Kgdms 12:31, 13:33).82 dw/deka: Without the use of a definite article, the narrator is simply saying “twelve” rather than “the Twelve.” The number “twelve” might either be the Markan narrator’s description of a community model83 or a basic symbolic number that reminded Mark’s audience of the twelve tribes of Israel: When in Mark’s story Jesus appoints twelve to share his work of preaching and exorcism it obviously has something to do with the people of Israel being comprised of twelve tribes. The twelve are…representative of the twelve tribes of Israel that are undergoing renewal as a people in the proclamation of the kingdom of God and the healing and exorcism.84

The Markan narrator then gives two reasons for the appointment of Twelve, using two epexegetical i3/na clauses: i3/na w]sin met )au0tou= kai\ i3/na a0poste/llh| au0tou\j [so that they might be with him and so that he might send them].85 “Twelve” serves as the subject of the first clause; “Jesus” is the subject of the second clause.86 The Markan narrator’s explanation then employs two complementary infinitive clauses that offer more detail about the reasons for which the disciples were commissioned: khru/ssein kai\ e1xein e0cousi/an e0kba/llein ta\ daimo/nia [to proclaim and to have authority to cast out the demons]. The Markan narrator was very clear about exactly what characteristic the Twelve needed in order to succeed at their mission: To fulfill them requires e0cousi/a,…a term which has hitherto been used exclusively of Jesus (1:22, 27; 2:10), but which will recur with a wider reference when the Twelve begin their mission (6:7). The summary in 6:13 indicates that the exorcistic ministry of the Twelve was broadly successful. …” 87

Liberation from Empire

105

6:7, 13. dw/deka [twelve]: This word repeats the number “twelve” from 3:14a, recalling for the audience the commissioning of this select group of men. This time Mark uses a definite article + the number, making this usage a definite noun. In 6:7, the time had arrived for the Twelve to begin to do the tasks for which Jesus had commissioned them. a0poste/llein [to send] repeats the verb from 3:15, a0poste/llh| [he might send]. “It carries the notion of a special commission and the delegation of authority to accomplish that commission. In this case, Jesus gives the Twelve the same ‘authority’ (e0cousi/a)) that he demonstrated in the synagogue in Capernaum when he taught and exorcised an unclean spirit (1:22, 27).”88 The Greek words dw/deka [twelve], a0poste/llh [he might send] and a0poste/llein [to send], e0cousi/an e0kba/llein ta\ daimo/nia [authority to cast out the demons] and e0cousi/an tw=n pneuma/twn tw=n a0kaqa/rtwn [authority over the unclean spirits] serves to link vss. 3:14 and 6:7 through repetition. daimo/nia polla\ e0ce/ballon [they were casting out many demons] in 6:13 is a repetition of 3:14. du/o du/o [two by two]: This is the distributive use of a number (generally regarded as translating a Semitic idiom)89, recalling that Jesus called the first disciples in pairs.90 Traveling in pairs (6:7) would not only have been a method by which safety was assured, but also would provide mutual support and companionship.91 References in Deut 17:6 and 19:15 refer to the veracity of the truth being established by the witness of two persons.92 An explanation that coheres with the passage’s larger context refers to the disciples’ ‘witness’ in 6:11. 93 e\0di/dou [he was giving]: “may suggest a granting of authority to each individual or pair.”94 The word a0rrw&stouj [anointing] in 6:13 refers to anointing with olive oil and was “widely practiced in antiquity for medicinal purposes.”95 Anointing was a symbolic action by which the Markan narrator expresses the joy/honor/blessing of God on the healing ministries of the Twelve, as distinct from proclamation and exorcism. It is possible that this is “a symbol of God’s care for and restoration of the patient. …”96 This reference is a new element in Mark’s narrative.97

Narrative Analysis [1:16–20]98 3:14–15. Jesus’ twelve followers are called and appointed but perhaps possess symbolic ties to Israel’s twelve tribes. “On the one hand, they represent the eschatological discontinuity of the new people of God from historic Israel.…”99 On the other hand, when Mark’s Jesus commissions the Twelve, an historical association with the twelve-tribe covenant people of Israel results. Some believe that this group forms the nucleus of the eschatologically reformed people of God 100 and are “incorporated into an act of God that reconstitutes Israel and gives human history…a fresh start.”101 The Twelve are

106

Cheryl Stewart Pero

symbols of the ultimate fulfillment of Israel’s destiny: “The Twelve are instituted to proclaim the good news and to cast out demons, …activities… linked with the arrival of the new age in the Markan narrative. …”102 Although the Twelve’s appointment might indicate Mark’s expectation of the restoration of the twelve tribes at the eschaton, in this passage the Twelve had a designated role: to proclaim and to exorcize, the same as Jesus.103 While the narrative interpretations of Mark’s eschatology in 3:14 vary, Jesus’ commissioning of the Twelve clearly was an eschatological construct, for it is through exorcism that the Twelve will assist Jesus in ushering in the kingdom of God. Here the Markan narrator saw exorcism as the defining activity of Jesus’ kingdom proclamation; Mark equates proclaiming the kingdom of God with exorcism!104 At this point in the narrative, Mark anchors his description of the Twelve’s commissioning to God’s call to these followers who were to be with Jesus and to prepare to participate in his ministry. Mark portrays Jesus as continually surrounded by the Twelve during the next portions of his narrative because Jesus’ call to the Twelve was to accompany him at all times.105 Only when the Twelve are finally sent out will the Markan narrator demonstrate what their ministry of proclamation and exorcism effected. The Twelve were expected to function as a unit, an extension of Jesus and his ministry; however, they are not expected to pronounce forgiveness of sins, as Jesus does. Their ministry responsibility is limited to accompanying Jesus, preaching repentance, and performing exorcisms at this time. The Markan narrator drew attention to the seriousness of the ministry of exorcism by this role given to the Twelve.106 The two constant elements of discipleship consisted of: 1) being with Jesus, and 2) being sent by Jesus to preach and to exorcize.107 6:7, 13. The sending of the Twelve in 6:7 alludes to their appointment in 3:14–15; it sets Jesus’ intention in 3:14–15 into action.108 In 6:7 the Twelve were given authority over unclean spirits. The Twelve’s ministry will begins with confronting evil spirits, just as Jesus’ ministry did. Jesus’ ministry was characterized by power, e0cousi/an, (1:22, 27, 2:10). Jesus gives this authority to the Twelve (3:15) that is then “confirmed and exercised for the first time (6:12–13).”109 The Twelve share in Jesus’ struggle against Satan and, consequently, the spreading of the kingdom of God.110 They will eventually participate with Jesus in the conflict with the Judean temple authorities. In 6:13, the Markan narrator recalled the two goals Jesus set for the Twelve: to proclaim the proximity of the kingdom of God and to exercise the authority to exorcize.111 Proclaiming the kingdom explained exorcism. The audience learned that during their missionary journey, the Twelve also had anointed the sick with oil, a folk medicine practice.112 Here the ministry of healing, separated

Liberation from Empire

107

from proclamation and exorcism, is implied as part of the responsibility invested in the Twelve. They successfully emulated Jesus’ threefold ministry: preaching, healing and exorcizing. In contrast with the disciples’ successful campaign, Jesus could not perform many miracles in Nazareth.113 Jesus cannot heal those who do not come to him with some measure of faith. Emerging from this section is the question: Are the Twelve more successful around Nazareth than is Jesus? The audience must answer this for themselves in light of Mark’s eschatology, for the Markan narrator does not enlighten the audience. The interests and ideologies of the kingdom of God and human social norms pose fundamental conflict of interests. “An ambassador of the kingdom of God is called not only to a mission of restoration and deliverance, but also to a conflict.”114 John’s beheading is an extreme example. The audience sees in 6:1–13 the Markan narrator’s construction of developing conflict where Mark first narrates a casualty in building the kingdom of God in the story of John the Baptist, a foretaste of the consequences of successful ministry, not only for Jesus but also for the Twelve.

Social Science Analysis In first-century CE Mediterranean cosmology, humans ranked fourth (of five) in the hierarchy of powers. God (first), agents of God (second), and semi-divine entities (third) ranked higher; those higher in rank had the potential to manipulate those beneath them in rank. Jesus’ exorcism ministry placed humans above non-human entities. Furthermore, even within the fourth rank, humans were not all equal: Some humans were understood to be patrons and others brokers; but the vast majority were potential clients. Because Jesus gives the Twelve power over illnesses and demons, they move up in the hierarchy of cosmological powers, despite originally ranking lower than divine and semi-divine powers.115 A glimpse into how the system of human patrons, brokers, and clients functioned is accessed in the model of ancient Mediterranean patronage.116 God is portrayed as patron and Jesus as God’s broker by Mark. “Brokers mediated between patrons above and clients below. … Holy men or prophets could also act as brokers on occasion. In the Gospels, Jesus acts as a broker for God, the one through whom clients obtain access to God’s favor.”117 Clients entered into contracts with patrons through a broker. The patron/client relationship was a dyadic contract based in the principle of reciprocity:118 a contractual honor/shame-related personal obligation. Dyadic contracts were initiated through a positive challenge, like an invitation or a complement. They bound two persons of different social statuses together in order to attain shortor long-term goals.119 In a short-term contract: “Once God grants the request and the client complies by fulfilling the vow, a balance is struck and the rela-

108

Cheryl Stewart Pero

tionship for this purpose is terminated.”120 However, in Mark’s Gospel, Jesus broke the patronage system boundaries, by dismissing those whom he assisted, instead charging them to silence and sending them home: There is no vow to be fulfilled! Through the lens of the dyadic contract, Jesus initiated reciprocal relations with others by calling others to follow him in the Gospels. The teacher-disciple relationship was equally dyadic.121 This insight about the dyadic contract explains why the Twelve imitate Jesus: He is their model for ministry, including the ministry of exorcism.122 Mark’s lack of specificity about the method/ritual for exorcism leads the audience to understand that Mark expected his readers to use Jesus’ (their patron’s) methods.123 The Twelve were depicted preaching repentance and exorcizing demons, just as Jesus had done (1:14–15).124 The Markan narrator used the cultural matrix of the ancient Mediterranean patronage system to portray the Twelve “as brokers to whom others can come for access to the favor of God.”125 In the New Testament, the language of grace or favor is the language of patronage. God is the ultimate patron, whose resources are graciously given, often mediated through Jesus as broker. …Jesus…sets himself up as a broker or mediator of God’s patronage and proceeds to broker the favor of God by healing and driving away unclean spirits. …He also sends out a core group of his faction, the Twelve, to function as brokers of divine grace (6:7, 12–13).126

The Twelve’s deployment established the continuity between Jesus’ task and their own127 where they functioned as Jesus’ authorized representatives or agents,128 and extended Jesus’ ministry.129 The formation of this core group around Jesus (a network or faction) became the Jesus movement,130 in which the core group was on the move131 and whose purpose was to continue its founder’s activities: proclamation, healing, and exorcism. Jesus principal activities characterize the disciples’ mission.132 Sent to preach and to exorcize in 6:13, they actively participate in Jesus’ ministry for the first time.133 It was at this time that the Twelve became authorized representatives, commissioned agents, of Jesus; they belonged to Jesus’ new dyadic community.134 “When he sends out his disciples, Jesus commissions them as brokers with the same task he has.”135

Postcolonial Analysis The postcolonial trope that engages and lends an interpretive lens to the ministry of the Twelve is authority. By Satan’s authority, demonic activity in the world was established. By Caesar’s authority, the Roman Empire was extended. By God’s authority, Jesus exorcized and liberated. Authority is an issue that looms large in Mark’s Gospel: God gave Jesus authority, the Jerusalem elites challenged Jesus’ authority, the crowds acknowledged Jesus’ authority, the de-

Liberation from Empire

109

monic deferred to Jesus’ authority, and the Twelve were endowed with Jesus’ authority. Jesus’ authority was the authority to establish the kingdom of God. This authority was what Jesus passed on to the Twelve in 3:15 and 6:7, where the Markan narrator tells the audience that Jesus “delegates his disciples to exercise authority over unclean spirits.”136 By endowing them with the same authority he bears…to preach the good news and to exorcise demons, Jesus establishes the egalitarian character of this new people of God.…[T]hey are not to order themselves above the other disciples. They serve only as representatives of the community at large in which there are to be no vertical structures or hierarchical rankings. Related to Jesus, to the twelve, and to one another horizontally, all are to participate equally in the power, sovereignty, and freedom of the New Human Being.137

Authority to commission is often connected with Jesus’ authority to exorcism in Mark (1:22, 27; 3:15; 6:7),138 for when Jesus exorcized, the kingdom of God emerged. The call of the four in 1:16–20 “shows that there is a connection between responding to and following Jesus and coming under the domain of God.”139 In 6:13, Mark recorded that, on their mission trip, the Twelve “set free and restore many people.”140 The preaching, teaching and healing mission of the Twelve followed Jesus’ mission141 and was patterned after Jesus’ ministry.142 “That [the disciples] receive authority only to cast out demons rather than to heal the sick generally…is probably to draw attention to Jesus’ healing ministry as…a battle with the demonic.”143 Although Mark’s Jesus responds to the Roman Empire with ambivalence for the most part, in some respects, Jesus parodied the Roman Empire with the kingdom of God: Mark’s kingdom of God both mimicked and countered the Roman Empire. This mimicking undermined the colonial powers while posing an alternative vision of God as the ultimate colonial power. As we recall from the discussion of the Beelzebul controversy, in mimicry the colonized duplicate the behavior of the colonizer, distorting it at the expense and detriment of the colonizer. Mimicry easily becomes a parody or mockery of the colonizer, undermining the colonizer’s authority. The commission narrative in 6:13 served as the Markan narrator’s transition to the story of John the Baptist, a story in which the audience was confronted with the destructive power of Roman colonizers and their surrogates, incarnated in the person of Herod Antipas, who himself was mocked in Mark’s narrative.

Section Summary The Markan narrator assists the audience to discern the presence of possessing entities everywhere in the story world; our three commissioning episodes lend credibility to the presence of demonic/unclean spirits. Once their presence had

110

Cheryl Stewart Pero

been established, Jesus’ need for a special task force to assist him in eliminating unclean spirits became obvious. In 1:16–20, Jesus called his first four disciples (Peter, Andrew, James and John), who would become his inner circle; later, in 3:16–19, the audience learned that Jesus added eight more to his inner circle (1:16–19). After appointing them to be with him and to perform exorcisms, he sent them out on a mission journey (6:7) from which they returned excited and successful (6:13), having cast out unclean spirits from the possessed as well as anointing and healing the ill/sick. The narrative overlay contains three aspects. It began with the calling of the inner circle in 1:16–20 and their appointment in 3:14–15. In 3:16–19, Jesus’ core group of twelve males was introduced by name. Given the fact that so many persons are unnamed in Mark’s story of Jesus, naming the Twelve points to their narrative significance, later borne out by their commissioning. Mark characterized the Twelve as members of Jesus’ new dyadic family (established in 3:34–35) who function as extensions of Jesus. The Twelve’s commissioning, as well as a report of their successful campaign, was narrated in 6:7 and 13. The Twelve stand in a special relationship to Jesus because they were called and commissioned to undertake the very same ministry with which Jesus was commissioned: to preach the proximity of the kingdom of God, to heal the sick (only in 6:13!), and to exorcize the possessed. The inclusio formed by 3:15 and 6:13, indicated by the repetition of the phrase e0kba/llein ta\ daimo/nia [to cast out the demons], supports this observation. In the social science overlay, the Twelve were commissioned to exercise the same authority over the demonic with which Jesus has been invested. When Jesus exorcized, the kingdom of God emerged. Jesus had power over possessing spirits/demons because Jesus had the authority, unlike the Jerusalem scribes, to establish the kingdom of God. Jesus passed his vertical authority on to the Twelve for them to demonstrate horizontally. All the crowds in the villages, the common people in the narrative, saw and understood this.144 The Twelve functioned as Jesus’ brokers with the people. When the people welcomed the Twelve, they welcomed the one who sent them. Mark’s hierarchy of powers explained how the cosmic rank of the Twelve changed after they become Jesus’ authorized representatives. “Exorcisms and confrontation with the power of demons follow their proclamation as they did that of Jesus in 1:21– 28.”145 The postcolonial overlay noted the responsibility given to the Twelve in their appointment to preach and to exorcize; in their commissioning in 3:15 and 6:7, linked by the author’s repetition of the word e0cousi/an, they were given the authority to engage in these activities. Later the audience was informed that the Twelve also had the authority to heal, and because Jesus’ authority is Jesus’ power, so it is with the Twelve. But Mark is also emphatic about the fact that

111

Liberation from Empire

Jesus did not have God’s permission to exercise authority over human beings. And neither did the Twelve! A second layer of postcolonial analysis lies in observing how the resistance strategy of mimicry functions in these verses. Mimicry occurs in hybrid space (an in-between cultural location) where the colonized imitated the colonizers, but with resistance as the goal. They thereby engage the system of colonization in a strategic manner.146 In these verses, the disciples mimicked the one who mimicked imperial authority (see the Beelzebul controversy)! The strategic difference was that Jesus’ imperial edict countered that of the Roman Empire in announcing the presence of the kingdom of God.147 While human resistance to colonization was necessary, it had the potential for leading to similar forms and methods of oppression being practiced by the colonized.148 The commissioning of the Twelve to perform exorcisms sets the stage for the Beelzebul controversy.149

Specific Incidents Incident I Mark begins chapter 8 with the feeding of the four thousand (1–10), followed by Jesus’ additional teachings about the Pharisees (11–21), and the curing of a blind man at Bethsaida (22–26). Immediately preceding this passage Peter confessed for the Twelve that Jesus was Messiah (27–30). Jesus made his first passion prediction (31–32a); our passage is Peter’s response. 8:32b–33 Jesus Rebukes Peter 32b And Peter after taking him aside began to rebuke him. 33 But after turning and looking at his disciples he rebuked Peter and said, Get behind me, satan, because you are not thinking things of God but things of humans.

Linguistic Analysis. 32b. proslabo/menoj [after taking him aside], an aorist middle participle indicates time antecedent to the action of the main (aorist middle) verb h!rcato [began]. This usage might imply a confidential approach.150 e0pitima~n [to rebuke] and e0peti//mhsen [he rebuked]: These verbs are part of Mark’s exorcism terminology, used in reference to unclean spirits as well as to the storm in 4:39.151 Peter’s rebuke of Jesus seems to be rather “harsh and borders on disrespect,”152 or perhaps Peter thought that he was qualified to in-

112

Cheryl Stewart Pero

struct Jesus.153 33. o) de\ e0pistrafei\j kai\ i0dw_n tou\j maqhta_j au0tou= [but after turning and looking at his disciples]: de\ [but] is a strong adversative conjunction, indicating that what follows is serious indeed. The entire phrase indicates that the confrontation is not only between Peter and Jesus, but also between the Twelve and Jesus. Though Jesus’ reply is addressed specifically to Peter, Jesus implicitly and deliberately involves the whole group in his reply.154 This is the first usage of the term tou\j maqhta_j au0tou= [his disciples] in the exorcism materials. tou\j maqhta&j [the disciples] also means “learner(s);” they have witnessed Jesus’ powerful actions, including healings and exorcisms and heard his teaching.155 !Upage 0pi/sw mou [get behind me]: Jesus speaks to Peter here in the imperative, dismissing and severely counter-rebuking him.156 0pi/sw (as in 1:17 and 8:34) can be translated as “behind” both literally and metaphorically.157 “Get behind me” in this specific context is the equivalent of Jesus telling Peter to fall back into line, to rejoin the other disciples, to stand down, to be a disciple.158 satana~ [satan]: The use of this noun, meaning adversary or opponent,159 suggests that Peter is acting satan-like.160 Mark’s use of “satan” links this passage with both Jesus’ testing in the desert (1:12–13) and the Beelzebul controversy (esp. 3:23). It is used in a descriptive or metaphorical sense (as opposed to a vocative sense), and is understood in light of the explanation that follows161 in 33c: Peter is not thinking in God’s terms. fronei=j [you are thinking] asserts that thinking things of God calls for a different mind-set than thinking things of humans. It is “to give careful consideration to someth[ing], set one’s mind on, be intent on, foll[owed] by the acc[usative],” 162 or additionally “to take someone’s side, espouse someone’s cause,”163 in this case, God’s cause. ta\ tou= qeou= a)lla\ ta\ tw~n a)nqrw/pwn [things of God but things of humans]: Here the Markan narrator describes Peter’s thoughts as “oriented toward conquest and assertion of power” rather than “having to do with the necessity of Jesus’ suffering and death.”164 ta\ [things]: The use of this pronoun as an accusative of general reference reflects not only what one is thinking, but within which frame of reference one is thinking.165 The use of ta\ twice in a sequence of adversative clauses very likely points to a radical contrast in the frames of reference between things of God and things of humans: the values of each stand in opposition to each other.166 Narrative Analysis. This episode’s narrative framework focuses the attention of the audience on the saying and not the narrative itself.167 The narrator’s characterizations includes Jesus and Peter, and, by implication, the Twelve and Satan. The setting places Jesus and the Twelve “on the way” to Jerusalem, by way of the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Jesus inquired of the Twelve who people thought he was; they told Jesus that people thought that he might have been

Liberation from Empire

113

John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets. Jesus then asked the Twelve who they thought he was; Peter confessed, perhaps on behalf of the others, that they believed him to be the Messiah (27–30), based on all that the Twelve had already experienced and witnessed while following Jesus. Jesus charges them to silence about his identity and then, in Markan ironic contrast, makes his first passion prediction (31–32a). Jesus’ passion prediction causes fear and confusion among the Twelve (9:10, 32, 10:32) and provokes resistance even from his most loyal disciples.168 Our episode begins when Peter pulled Jesus away from the others, perhaps implying that their subsequent conversation is not to be heard by the other disciples.169 The narrator’s characterization of Peter is established by his behavior: He is in denial about Jesus’ passion and death. I suggest that, because Jesus wanted the Twelve to know that they would have to continue building the kingdom of God without him, Peter felt the need to chastise Jesus privately for amending their conceptual understanding of being part of the messianic movement from positive, being with Jesus, to negative, being without him. It is clear to the reader that Jesus’ passion prediction does not inspire confidence in Peter. Peter’s impulsiveness led him to articulate his apprehension at the idea of being without Jesus and the risk implicit in the loss of their leader. He may be articulating the perplexed thoughts and feelings of the Twelve when he rebuked Jesus: they simply were not prepared for Jesus’ passion and death. Nothing in Mark’s narrative has prepared the audience for Peter’s rebuke of Jesus or Jesus’ harsh rebuke of Peter in response: “Get behind me, Satan!” Peter’s attempt to deflect Jesus from public rejection and death earns him Jesus’ “sternest rebuke.”170 Up until this point in Mark’s story, the plotline of conflict related to demonic possession and exorcism has focused on non-human entities that possess humans. Here, for the first time, we see a human not possessed by but acting like Satan, of a disciple not acting like a disciple.171 Mark’s use of the name “Satan” is unparalleled, particularly when applied to a human, implying that “Peter’s protest…is so much at odds with the thoughts of God as to be attributed to a more supernatural source. By opposing the will of God (dei=)…Peter and those who agree with him are acting as spokesmen [sic] of God’s ultimate enemy. …”172 Peter gets very close to performing as Satan’s agent173 by putting Jesus to the test as in 1:13,174 reminding the audience, once again, of the ongoing cosmic clash between the kingdoms of God and Satan, about thinking things of God in contrast to thinking things of humans. Jesus’ rebuke directs Peter to return to following Jesus instead of being an obstacle (standing in the way),175 because Peter’s conduct is blocking Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Jesus’ statement that Peter sets his mind on human affairs suggests that Peter’s reason for rejecting the prophecy of the passion is that he is committed to the expectation of a

114

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Davidic messiah who would defeat the Romans and their Jewish collaborators and reestablish an autonomous kingdom of Israel.176

Jesus’ omniscience allows the narrator to portray Satan as one who can cause humans, even one who has an intimate relationship with Jesus, to judge others’ words and behavior from a human mind-set, as opposed to a God oriented mind-set. Later in Mark’s narrative (in 8:34 and 10:41–49), the audience will see this incident “as a foil enabling Jesus to find a lesson in his suffering and apply it to his disciples and all those who in the future wish to follow him.”177 But nevertheless at this point in the narrative “…it is enough that the disciples begin to grasp this broad new perspective on death and life.”178 The episode allows opposing values to surface in Jesus’ new kinship group: trust in oneself versus trust in God, self-serving versus serving others.179 Mark’s eschatological script tells the audience that in the ongoing cosmic battle, the things of God stand in opposition to the things of humans. The Markan audience is struck by the dichotomy between Mark’s describing two different worldviews in this episode. Within which worldview is Peter thinking and functioning: the human one or God’s?180 Social Science Analysis. The models of honor and kinship are intertwined in this passage. The Twelve were commissioned and sent out into the Galilean countryside to proclaim the kingdom of God by means of their exorcisms and healings. In Mark’s construction, the Twelve became the intimate inner core of followers that comprised Jesus’ much larger new kinship group, his faction. Factions were loosely knit groups organized around a particular leader who recruited followers and maintained the loyalty of a core group.181 This type of community might be described as a network, where the relationship between the leader and the followers can be likened to that between “the branches and twigs on a tree.”182 Peter and the Twelve’s close association with Jesus, a popular healer and exorcist, increased their honor status. Jesus’ prophecy concerning the dishonorable death that was his destiny would lead to the disciples’ loss of honor. In 8:31–32a, Jesus openly disclosed his destiny to the Twelve for the first time: suffering, rejection, death, and resurrection. This announcement about Jesus’ future meant that the Twelve would be left without a leader, facing suffering, rejection, and death themselves. Other significant models that prove helpful in examining this episode are insider/outsider status and secrecy. Although described by the Markan narrator as insiders, the Twelve’s participation in Jesus’ inner circle is based on their loyalty to Jesus. In addition to fighting the demonic alongside the Twelve in the population at large, here Jesus has to contend with demonic-like thinking within his inner circle. Mark’s cosmology depicts Satan as an entity that influences

Liberation from Empire

115

even the thoughts of humans, either individually or corporately. Peter may be symbolic of the entire inner circle here, feeling despair at Jesus’ revealed future; by their very silence, the other disciples concurred with Peter’s private rebuke. Now Jesus’ rebuke of Peter became a rebuke of the whole insider group. On the road to Caesarea Philippi in 8:29, upon being questioned, Peter confessed that Jesus was the Messiah; Jesus then commanded the Twelve to silence. Secrecy protected one’s honor status by not giving one’s opponents any information that had the potential of diminishing one’s honor status. Secrecy is a formal, conscious, deliberate, and calculated concealment of information, activities, or relationship that outsiders can gain only by espionage….From another perspective, it is a selective transmission of information. Secrecy divides people into “insiders” and “outsiders.” Insiders know the secret; outsiders are kept in the dark. The reason for this division is that secrecy rests on the premise of distrust. It judges that others can’t be trusted with certain information mainly from fear of how others might react to the information or what they might do with it.183

Jesus preferred to keep his opponents in ignorance by allowing confusion about his identity to continue; thus his injunction to silence.184 In the Garden of Gethsemane Judas will violate insider trust by leaking the secret and identifying Jesus to those who seek to eliminate him (14:43–46). Imitating Jesus’ usual habit of conversing with the Twelve privately, according to Mark, Peter’s rebuke is “aside.” Perhaps Peter is concerned with maintaining Jesus’ honor status. Jesus, however, turned to the rest of the Twelve and, making sure he had their attention, he publicly rebuked Peter, implicating all. Perhaps because the proclamation of the gospel was a public act, Mark portrayed Jesus as comfortable with bold, public testimony about the gospel of God.185 Jesus’ rebuke is public “with the disciples as his audience, thus making it a teaching opportunity.”186 The Markan narrator portrays Peter’s action as a test of Jesus’ loyalty to God; hence, Peter is a “satan,” “a tester of loyalties.”187 Jesus’ battle against Satan was waged even among his trusted inner circle. “Peter’s thinking is anything but inspired of God, his wisdom reflects conventional human wisdom.”188 In this passage, the Twelve acted as outsiders who focus on the human mindset; Jesus was the insider focusing on God’s point of view. Jesus had to drag the Twelve back inside by causing them to focus on God’s mindset. Postcolonial Analysis. Peter had just acknowledged that Jesus was the Messiah in response to Jesus’ question: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter assumed the place of spokesperson for the Twelve. In the light of their experiences of successful exorcisms and healings, Peter and the other eleven, shocked and in denial, could not make the connection between suffering and Jesus.189 After Jesus made his first passion prediction publicly, Peter immediately tried to get

116

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Jesus off to the side and rebuke him privately. Peter attempts to do something that Jesus will not do: manipulate humans. Where Jesus refused to manipulate humans and chose the way of suffering, Peter’s rejection of God’s way places him on the side of the ultimate colonizer: Satan. Peter almost succumbed to mimicking the strategy of intimidation used by colonizers to impose their will. His rebuke was a clear indication that Peter misunderstood!190 “The problem lies not at the level of competing loyalties…but at that of incompatible ideologies, of a human perspective which cannot grasp the divine purpose.”191 In Mark’s anti-imperial construction, Peter’s misunderstanding became mockery, for Jesus rebuked Peter who articulated the human thinking of the Twelve, speaking on behalf of all of them.192 Incident Summary. The narrative and social science contours reveal that Peter’s inability to connect Jesus Messiah’s suffering with the cosmic struggle between God and Satan, a struggle that will continue until the eschaton, gives cosmiceschatological significance to this episode.193 Mark contrasted Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah in 8:29 with his rebuke in 8:32b. Markan irony is evident in the rhetorical contrast between Peter’s denials and the demons knowledge because “…for all his following, Peter truly does not ‘know’ who Jesus is (which even the demons knew, 1:24, 34).”194 Peter, perhaps naively, thought that Jesus’ acquired public status as healer and exorcist, clearly above his ascribed birth status, “can be made to stick in public without trouble.”195 Peter’s own humanity prevented him from seeing the connection between Jesus’ suffering and cosmic victory. Peter’s humanity worked against him for he did not realize that it is human “authorities and powers that makes suffering inevitable.”196 The postcolonial contour discloses that Peter was so overtaken by thinking things of humans that he mimicked the language and behavior of the colonizer. When Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, Peter’s mimicking of the colonizer evolved into mockery to the Markan audience, exposing Mark’s antiimperial orientation. Peter stands as an excellent example of internalized colonialism. Mark’s construction of this incident exposes how demonic forces sought to prevent Jesus, even by means of using his strongest followers against him, from completing the task for which he had been commissioned. In the next section Jesus will further explain that “…the proclamation of the kingdom of God is not eschatological speculation, but brings a new way of life—giving one’s life for others replaces self-centeredness, and the ‘discipleship of equals’ replaces lording it over others or manipulating them for one’s own advantage.”197

Liberation from Empire

117

Incident II In this section of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus’ itinerary is limited to Galilean territory, where he and the Twelve travel from the villages of Caesarea Philippi to Capernaum. During this brief journey, Jesus taught the crowd and the Twelve about humility (8:34–9:1). He was transfigured in the presence of Peter, Andrew, James and John (9:2–8) and then he explained to the four about the prophecy concerning Elijah’s return (9:9–13). He exorcized a possessed boy (9:14–29), issued his second passion prediction (9:30–32), taught the Twelve about servanthood (9:33– 35) and welcoming the most vulnerable, children, into the new kinship group (9:36–37). This incident provides a contrast to the disciples’ inability to exorcize the possessed boy and illustrates what Jesus meant about welcoming people in his name. 9:38–39 ANOTHER EXORCIST 38

39

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone in your name casting out demons and we were trying to prevent him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not prevent him. For no one who is doing a deed of power in my name will be able soon to speak evil of me.”

Linguistic Analysis. Mark’s use of Didaska&le [teacher] in John’s address is “in connection with the mighty deeds of Jesus,”198 deeds interpreted by Jesus’ teachings that, in turn, legitimated his teachings. These verses demonstrate the Markan narrator’s use of repetition as a rhetorical tool. The verb kulu/w [to prevent] is repeated: e0kwlu/omen [we were trying to prevent] in vs. 38 and mh\ kwlu/e te [Do not prevent] in vs. 39. In vs. 38 the imperfect tense is understood in a conative sense: “We were trying to. …”199 The imperfect “probably indicates an unsuccessful attempt rather than the repeated prohibition of a persistent ‘offender’.”200 The Twelve just might have been unsuccessful in dissuading the unknown man from exorcizing. In vs. 39 kulu/w [to prevent] is used as a present imperative; with the negative particle mh/, it has the impact of a command to stop an action in progress or to forbid the continuance of an act.201 Jesus’ command, “Do not prevent him,” in the imperative, had the potential to expand the ministry of the Twelve by including other exorcists because others who exorcized in Jesus’ name ought not to be stopped.202 Another example of Markan repetition is found in the phrases e0n tw~ 0no/mati sou [in your name] in vs. 38 and e)pi\ tw?~ o)no/mati mou [in my name] in

118

Cheryl Stewart Pero

vs. 39. The Markan narrator sandwiches tw? 0no/mati [the name] between parallel yet slightly different words. At the beginning of each phrase the narrator uses a preposition: e0n and e0pi/ [both meaning ‘in’ in the dative], respectively; and at the end of each phrase, the narrator uses the possessive pronouns sou [of you] and mou [of me], respectively. A third example of Markan repetition (and perhaps a Greek pun) in vs. 39 is du/namin [deed of power] and dunh/setai [will be able] where the authority and power of Jesus’ name alone had the power to exorcize. This person’s exorcisms were in the same class as Jesus’ and the Twelve’s because they were performed in Jesus’ name.203 Finally, vs. 39 contains the first of three ga&r [for] clauses (the other two follow in vss. 40 and 41; they are not included in my analysis of the episode) that Mark uses to explain Jesus’ commitment to boundary breaking. Mark’s Jesus pointedly instructs the Twelve about the ways of God beginning with a negative and moving to a positive: ou)dei\j e0stin o$j poih&sei du/namin e0pi\ tw|~ o)no&mati/ mou kai\ dunh&setai taxu_ kakologh~sai/ me [no one who is doing a deed of power in my name will be able soon to speak evil of me]. Narrative Analysis. The temporal setting comes late in Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, although Jesus and the Twelve were still somewhere in Galilee. Following Jesus’ second Passion Prediction the Twelve got into an argument about who was the greatest. Mark used the argument as a teaching moment where Jesus stressed serving one another and welcoming outsiders into the new kinship network. As in my examination of Incident I, the plot here is built around the misunderstanding of the Twelve, their behavior, and the narrator’s elaboration on the theme of discipleship. The characters in this episode are Jesus, John, the other disciples, and the unknown exorcist. For the first time since he was called to follow Jesus (along with James in 1:19), Mark portrays John speaking204 and narrates the exchange.205 This is the only time that John acted on his own initiative in Mark’s narrative, highlighting the significance of the incident. John, one from Jesus’ inner circle, reports the activity of an unknown exorcist that the Twelve have encountered to Jesus. Just as Peter was portrayed in the first incident as the spokesperson for the Twelve, here John functions in much the same way. In an ironic twist, Mark narrated this brief conflict with an unknown exorcist building on the inability of the disciples to heal the boy earlier in this chapter (9:14–29). Part of Mark’s irony rests in the contrast between the success of an unknown exorcist to exorcize in the name of Jesus and the failure of the Twelve with the possessed boy: “…in 9:14–29 Jesus’ own disciples were unable to perform an exorcism and here in 9:38 they try to prevent a man who can.”206 Rejecting an unknown exorcist from outside their inner circle potentially prevented the spread of the kingdom of God, thereby denying deliverance and lib-

Liberation from Empire

119

eration to the possessed. As in the previous incident, Mark’s readers see another demonstration of Satan-like thinking influencing the Twelve, particularly among Jesus’ innermost and most trusted core. The Markan narrator draws attention to the existence of other practicing exorcists. In this passage207 and in vs. 38, he provides information regarding exorcism itself:208 Other exorcists used the names of successful and powerful healers in their exorcism rituals. “…[B]y implication in the story of the strange exorcist, healing in the name of Jesus is assumed to be the method of healing.”209 By using the name of Jesus to exorcize, the unknown exorcist was successful.210 The exorcist narratively represented “other followers of Jesus or people about to become his followers.”211 Here the audience learns that using the name of Jesus has become an efficacious technique in exorcism.212 “It is not too probable that the early Christian community would invent a story about an exorcist (presumably a successful one) who was not part of Jesus’ following.”213 The Markan narrator’s intent is to make a point about the sense of exclusiveness among the Twelve. The “plain meaning” of 9:38–41 is to censure the Twelve who so restricted discipleship to their own company.214 In this episode, Jesus encouraged boundary-breaking action by the insiders in order to extend the kingdom of God to the outsiders. This passage also critiqued the exclusiveness of the early Jesus movement and reinforced using Jesus’ name in the exorcism ritual.215 The force released by the outsiders who exorcize in Jesus’ name is more powerful than the force that works to exclude people from the kingdom of God.216 In this episode, Mark offers two reasons for Jesus’ inclusion of others: 1. The outsider exorcist was not an enemy because he exorcized in Jesus’ name. Because he had associated himself with Jesus, he could not become an enemy.217 2. The elitism of insiders, reflecting a worldly/human versus a godly value,218 “must be challenged in the name of the kingdom of God.”219 Again, as with the previous episode, the Twelve were thinking in human terms and not in God’s terms. Jesus’ teachings redirected the Twelve as to how they ought “to behave toward one another,”220 how to go about building the kingdom of God, turning a negative behavior into a positive teaching example. Social Science Analysis. Group allegiance is at issue in this episode.221 It highlights the ancient Mediterranean’s dualistic worldview comprised of insiders/ingroups (those for us: our household, family, friends) and outsiders/outgroups (those against us: strangers, the impure, gentiles).222 Be-

120

Cheryl Stewart Pero

cause the members of an ancient Mediterranean ingroup were bound together by personal, fluid family and geographical boundaries, there was great honor and value223 associated with being part of the ingroup. Following their failure to exorcize in 9:14–29, the Twelve’s status is also at issue here. It was doubly distressing to them to see an outside exorcist succeed where they, Jesus chosen agents failed.”224 The man does not follow us! He was not a member of Jesus’ inner circle.225 John, speaking for the disciples, has taken a position against this exorcist because this person, unlike the Twelve in 6:7–13, has not been commissioned by Jesus. The disciples assumed, therefore, that this exorcist had no authority to invoke Jesus’ name. … John’s concern seems legitimate, for in commissioning the disciples Jesus had in effect appointed them to act as his official ambassadors.226

The Twelve’s goal in this episode was to prevent/forbid the other exorcist from performing exorcisms in Jesus’ name because he was an outsider.227 In addition to the exorcist’s outgroup status, John’s complaint in vs. 38 was also about the exorcist’s “use of Jesus’ name outside the group of disciples.”228 An aspect of the exorcism ritual newly documented here was using the name of Jesus. “…an exorcism ‘in the name of Jesus’ would have been an exorcism performed by a follower of Jesus as if it had been done by Jesus himself (cf. 13.6) who, in turn, was identified and authorized by God.”229 This exorcist, an outsider to the Twelve, performed exorcisms in the name of Jesus, invoking Jesus’ authority and agency. “Jesus’ name is so powerful that someone outside of his circle can invoke it to good effect.”230 Jesus’ new kinship (in)group was loyal to him and Jesus commanded the Twelve to accept the other exorcist. “When the name of Jesus (i.e., a relationship with him) is concerned, natural human considerations of who is in and who is out will be subverted.”231 Jesus’ response set an inclusive tone, demonstrating that the Twelve’s authority and power ought not to be used to exclude others from Jesus’ new dyadic kinship group. Their insider/outside orientation led the Twelve to believe they monopolized divine authority and power.232 While there was little opportunity for persons outside the group to become insiders, persons might become “friends” of the ingroup through hospitality, a social ritual, when extended by an ingroup member. Because of the culture’s ingroup cohesion, the family, the primary ingroup, was the primary obstacle to a person’s joining the Jesus faction.233 But Jesus had redefined the family in 3:31– 35, creating a new kinship ingroup that included all those who do the will of God. This separation between ingroups and outgroups reflects Mark’s cosmological construction where there is unequal status among humans, who rank fourth (out of five!) in the hierarchy of powers. Jesus’ repeated boundary breaking, though, provided a community model that eliminated ritual boundaries. His

Liberation from Empire

121

exorcisms even changed human cosmological rank, placing them above unclean spirits. “For Mark…Christian exorcism seems to be a make-or-break issue, and one’s attitude toward it comes close to defining whether one is inside or outside the dominion of God.”234 Postcolonial Analysis. “Through the voice of John the disciple, Mark describes exorcism as being in (e0n) or by the means of using the name of Jesus as a source of power-authority.”235 The power of Jesus’ name is the power of God. Unknown to the Twelve until this incident, the other exorcist successfully mimicked the exorcistic activity of Jesus and those he commissioned, utilizing authority invested in the name of Jesus. Exorcism was “a special feature of the authority given to the Twelve. To find the practice carried out in the name of Jesus by someone unknown to them is therefore a severe blow to the disciples’ sense of identity, and undermines their special status.”236 The unknown exorcist, in doing exactly what Jesus commissioned the Twelve to do, liberating the possessed and restoring them to community, mimicked Jesus’ mimicry and mockery of the colonizers. The Twelve “show the depth of their misunderstanding…by trying to restrict the power of Jesus to their own narrow circle (9:38).”237 The Twelve’s objections are related to the exorcist’s use of Jesus’ authority and power, not his successful exorcisms, and Mark was making an anti-imperial statement about the use of authority and power. The unknown exorcist of Mark 9:38 is not antiJesus, but in fact is doing Jesus’ work.”238 John exercised his authority as one of the inner circle and, perhaps, even tried to impress Jesus with the actions of the Twelve to protect him. “Even if such a possessive doctrine is not explicit, it fits John’s restrictive action and explains the terms of Jesus’ response.”239 John and the others must have been surprised with Jesus’ imperative to stand down, as was Peter in the previous incident. “John’s narrow perspective prevents him from legitimating anyone engaged in liberation activity who is not directly linked to their fellowship, even if that activity is being conducted in the name of the founder of the New Humanity.”240 As with Peter in the previous incident, John also stands as an example of one who is internally colonized. Incident Summary. This episode’s narrative contours disclose the influence of the demonic even within Jesus’ core group for a second time. The audience is reminded that the demonic is everywhere in Mark’s Gospel, explaining the need for God’s intervention through Jesus and his new kinship group in proclamation, healing, and exorcism. Because the Twelve were still “under construction” in Mark’s narrative, they were inclined to focus on human points of view and did not recognize outsiders who had become part of Jesus’ new kinship group based on their behavior: doing the will of God. They also had trouble acknowl-

Cheryl Stewart Pero

122

edging deeds of power performed by those new kinship group members “in the name of Jesus.” Jesus once again demonstrated for the Twelve what proclaiming the kingdom of God was about: liberation from thinking in human ways. The social science overlay exposes Mark’s cosmology. An insider position held a culturally significant value that gave the Twelve an inappropriate sense of entitlement not allowed to other exorcists. Jesus’ activities continued to inspire others to become part of the new kinship ingroup, making the boundaries between insiders and outsiders fluid. “The man concerned is not a recognized member of the group of disciples, but he does profess to operate in the name of Jesus, and the results of his activity are beneficent. It is the criterion rather than a narrower group identity which the pericope accepts.”241 What the postcolonial overlay reveals in the Markan narrator’s description of the actions of an exorcist who was not a member of the core group, but who successfully mimicked Jesus’ exorcistic activity, was that exorcism was a deed of power, one that manifested God’s saving activity and stood in diametric opposition to outsiders’ ability to curse Jesus.242 Jesus’ liberating activities was an assimilation of the colonizers’ behavior, mimicking them to the point of mockery, strategically resisting their hegemony, and inspiring others to become involved in proclaiming the kingdom of God in word and deed.

Chapter Summary I examined three sets of Markan references reflecting the presence of demonic possession and exorcism: three summaries of Jesus’ ministry; the call, appointment and commissioning of the Twelve; and two separate incidents documenting Mark’s understanding of where Satan, demonic possession, and exorcism was reflected in the larger Syro-Palestinian context, even among the Twelve. In Section I, Jesus’ ministry was summarized as proclamation, understood by Mark to be Jesus’ healing and exorcistic deeds of power. The narrative overlay highlighted Jesus’ ongoing conflict with the forces of Satan as separate and distinct from his ministry of healing the sick. The social science overlay disclosed the cosmic challenges that were presented to him. His exorcisms in the story world, only four of which Mark depicts in detail, were his on-going plundering of the household of the strong one: binding Satan and his minions and freeing/liberating those who were possessed, robbing Satan’s goods. The postcolonial analysis led to an understanding of Jesus as hybrid: both human and divine. His hybridity allowed Jesus to interact on the cosmic level, conquering Satan and repeatedly evicting Satan’s unclean spirits. His hybridity also allowed Jesus to function on the human level: resisting his opponents, modeling resistance behavior to the Twelve and his crowd of followers, liberating the ill and the demon-possessed.

Liberation from Empire

123

In Section II we saw that after calling his initial inner core of four, Jesus added eight more men to his cadre. He invested them with the same authority and power with which he had been invested at his baptism. The Markan narrative overlay informs the audience that Jesus called the Twelve to be with him, to proclaim, and to exorcize. Jesus commissions them and sends them out on a missionary journey. When they return, the audience learns that their missionary journey was successful. The social science overlay placed the ministry of the Twelve within the context of the ancient brokerage system: Jesus was the broker between God and the people; the Twelve became brokers between Jesus and the people. The social science analysis also explained the threat posed to the traditional community by Jesus’ new kinship network. The postcolonial overlay lifted up the resistance strategy of mimicry in which the disciples were encouraged to imitate Jesus in his resistance to the domination of Satan and, analogously, to colonization by the Roman Empire. Section III examined two incidents: Jesus’ rebuke of Peter and the confrontation with the unknown exorcist. Mark does not use them to describe episodes of possession and exorcism; instead, Jesus’ teachings show how followers were to act and not to act. Both incidents address the behavior of those who decide to follow Jesus and point to how insidious internalized colonization truly is. In Mark’s story world, Jesus’ deeds of power decreased and his teaching moments increased as he neared Jerusalem. His teachings were intended to assist his followers in acting more God-like. But the audience is struck once again by the irony posed by Jesus’ ability to evict demonic/unclean spirits, in contrast to his inability to compel humans to think and act in God-like ways. Jesus shared three passion predictions with the Twelve; and after each prediction the Twelve became embroiled in arguments revolving around issues of superiority. They misunderstood Jesus’ teaching about his impending death because they thought in human ways. After Jesus’ first passion prediction (8:31), the narrator tells the audience about the incident with Peter. After Jesus’ second passion prediction (9:31), the audience learns of the situation with John and the unknown exorcist. After Jesus’ third passion prediction (10:33–34), the audience is informed that those who follow God behave differently: they do not dominate; they serve other human beings (10:43–45). In the two episodes I have examined, a member of the inner circle, those who have seen more of Jesus’ deeds of power than all others, initiated the teaching moment. Peter and John, respectively, represented the Twelve in each incident. The Markan narrator used each disciple as an example, demonstrating how easy it was for humans, even those from Jesus’ inner circle, to get caught up in human ways of seeing and thinking. Mark narrates the difficulty, to think and act in terms of God’s ways, that being part of Jesus’ new network posed especially during his journey to Jerusalem. When the disciples think in human

124

Cheryl Stewart Pero

terms, they also act in human ways, reflecting the kingdom of the world that is often Satan-like. In the case of Peter, he was unprepared to accept that Jesus must suffer in order for the kingdom of God to be realized. He was in denial about the necessity of the cross. John was unprepared to accept any other exorcist outside their circle. He was focused on making the authority Jesus invested in the Twelve exclusive and wanted to control liberation by limiting those who were able to perform a deed of power in the Jesus’ name. In both incidents, the social science overlay exposes human thinking related to insider/outsider issues. The audience sees the problematic nature of following Jesus. In both incidents, the postcolonial overlay reveals issues related to the disciples exercise of authority and power, and the internalized colonization (or oppression) spread by Satan an d his minions. When Peter rebuked Jesus, he is acting Satan-like and Jesus must harshly criticize him for that behavior. When John complained that another successful exorcist does deeds of power in Jesus’ name without being approved by the Twelve, Jesus must correct his human thinking and redirect the Twelve to think in divine terms. Mark’s Jesus, who builds God’s kingdom without coercion or force, is contrasted in the minds of the hearers with those who represented the kingdom of Satan, the Roman Empire, or the Jerusalem elite, who were able to achieve their self-serving ends only through coercion and force.

NOTES 1

Moore, 194.

2

Boring, 97.

3

Guelich, 142. By “international” Guelich refers to the variety of places from which people come to experience healing/deliverance from Jesus as recorded in Mark 3:8: “…Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon.” (NRSV)

4

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 259.

5

Guelich, 142.

6

Guelich, 65. See also Juel, Mark, 42–43.

7

Guelich, 66. See also Boring, 67: “The semitizing use of ‘many’ is here not exclusive (manynot-all) but inclusive (many-not-few). …” See also Zerwick and Grosvenor, 103: “…to the Sem[itic] mind the fact of there being a great number was more important than the relative number ‘all’ or ‘some’. …”

8

Donahue and Harrington, 85–86.

9

Zerwick and Grosvenor, 103.

Liberation from Empire

125

10 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 586. However, this is an excellent example of Wallace’s description (549) of the “pluperfective” imperfect usage that describes time antecedent to the main verb, “a time prior to the action occurring in the narrative.” The significance of this translation might lie in the underlying narrative assumption that, even before this incident, the demons knew that Jesus was the Son of God, likely resulting from Jesus’ binding of the strong one in the wilderness. 11 France, 113. 12 Guelich, 68. See also Marcus, Mark 1–8, 203. 13 21 Kai\ ei0s poreu/ontai ei0j Kafarnaou/m: kai\ eu)qu\j toi=j sa&bbasin ei0selqw_n ei0j th\n sunagwgh\n e0di/dasken. 22 kai\ e0ceplh/ssonto e0pi\ th|= didaxh|= au)tou=: h]n ga_r dida&skwn au)tou\j w(j e0cousi/an e1xwn kai\ ou)x w)j oi9 grammatei=j. 27 kai\ e0qambh/q hsan a#pantej w#ste suzhtei=n pro\j e9autou\j le/g ontaj: ti/ e0stin tou=to; didach\ kainh\ kat 0 e0c ousi/an: kai\ toi=j pneu/masi toi=j a)kaqa&rtoij e0pita&ssei, kai\ u(pakou/ousin au)tw|~. 21 [They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath after entering into the synagogue he taught. 22 And they were astounded at his teaching for he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 27 And everyone was amazed with the result that they discussed/debated among themselves saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.”]. 14 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 258. 15 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 108. 16 Guelich, 149. 17 Donahue and Harrington, 82. 18 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 200. “…the Havdalah period is associated with the fight against demonic powers and other magical procedures…. These associations of the Havdalah period perhaps provide parts of the background for Mark’s picture of the divine act of eschatological recreation whereby Jesus heals and casts out demons in Peter’s house at the conclusion of the Sabbath. The eschatological dimension of Jesus’ actions is underscored by the repeated emphasis on completeness: all the sick and demon-possessed are brought to the house where Jesus is, and the whole city gathers at its door….” 19 Guelich, 63. 20 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 60. 21 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 60. 22 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 201. 23 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 40. 24 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!” (NRSV) 25 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 97. 26 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 201. 27 Guelich, 70. 28 Collins, 177.

126 29

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Boring, 67. Boring goes on to assert that Mark’s identification of both illness and demonic possession indicates that “he does not superstitiously regard all sicknesses as caused by demons.”

30 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 203. 31 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 60. 32 Guelich, 70. 33 Donahue and Harrington, 90. 34 Donahue and Harrington, 88. 35 Collins, 213. 36 Donahue and Harrington, 120. 37 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 92. 38 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 66. 39 Guelich, 142. 40 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. 41 Waetjen, 84. 42 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 197. 43 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 262. 44 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 66. 45 Boring, 98. 46 Donahue and Harrington, 120. 47 Boring, 98. Donahue and Harrington, 120, explain that prostration usually happens before divine images or high-ranking people. Guelich, 146, states that to fall prostrate is a gesture of humble recognition. 48 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 210. 49 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 211. 50 Boring, 69, my emphasis. Again, Boring asserts that Mark’s identification of both illness and demonic possession indicates that “he does not superstitiously regard all sicknesses as caused by demons.” 51 Pilch, Healing in the New Testament, 70. 52 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 60. 53 Donahue and Harrington, 85. Cf. 9:39. 54 Boring, 69. 55 Donahue and Harrington, 82. 56 Donahue and Harrington, 86. 57 Waetjen, 83.

Liberation from Empire

127

58 Waetjen, 95. 59 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 115. 60 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 261. 61 Twelftree, Jesus The Exorcist, 128. 62 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 182. Malina and Rohrbaugh note that the Greeks used “demons” where Semites used “unclean spirits when they referred to non-human forces that interfered with human existence. 63 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 96. 64 Calvin J. Roetzel, The World that Shaped the New Testament (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 104. 65 Waetjen, 84. 66 Guelich, 150. 67 Liew, The Politics of Parousia, 108. 68 Samuel, 122. 69 Donahue and Harrington, 86. 70 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 118. 71 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 146. 72 Donahue and Harrington, 121. 73 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 259. 74 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 15. 75 Guelich, 165. 76 France, 245. 77 Donahue and Harrington, 190. 78 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 100–101. 79 Guelich, 319. 80 France, 160. 81 At this point in the text NA27 includes: [ou4j kai\ a0posto/louj w0no/masen], “the ones whom he also named apostles.” The bracketing of this phrase indicates that it might be an addition to the Greek text. The Markan narrator does not refer to the twelve as disciples in these sections. I therefore refer to them simply as “twelve” or “the twelve” throughout this dissertation. Metzger, 69, states: “Although the words ou$j…w0no/masen may be regarded as an interpolation from Luke (6:13), the Committee was of the opinion that the external evidence is too strong in their favor to warrant their ejection from the text. In order to reflect the balance of probabilities, the words were retained but enclosed within square brackets.” France, 157, explains that this phrase is included by a number of important witnesses: ℵ, Β, Θ, f13, syh, mg, and Coptic. “Mark uses a0posto/loj elsewhere only at 6:30 where its meaning is determined by the ‘mission’ content rather than as a known title of the Twelve.” According to

128

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Boring, 99, “Mark’s readers see themselves as disciples, but not as apostles called to ‘be with’ Jesus during his earthly life.” 82 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 202; France, 160. 83 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 202. 84 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 87. 85 These could be examples of either parallelism [14 a & b: he/they, 14c: he/them] or chiasm [14b: they/him, 14c: he/them]. 86 Boring, 100. 87 France, 160. 88 Collins, 297–298. 89 Guelich, 319. See BDF, 130, ¶ 248 (1); also BDAG, 264. 90 Collins, 298. 91 Guelich, 321; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 383; Donahue and Harrington, 190; France, 247. 92 Guelich, 321; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 383; Donahue and Harrington, 190. 93 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 383. 94 Guelich, 319. 95 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 384. See, e.g., Isa 1:6; Luke 10:34; Josephus, J.W. 1.657. 96 France, 231. 97 Collins, 302. 98

I place the verses narrating the call of the inner circle in brackets because it is the first refer ence in Mark’s threefold discussion of those males whom Jesus invites to enter into an inti mate relationship with him (a relationship in which intimacy confers responsibility) but in which Mark makes no mention of demonic possession or exorcism. Nevertheless, they set the tone for the Twelve’s appointment in 3:14–15.

99 Guelich, 165. See also France, 250. 100 Boring, 101. 101 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 266. 102 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 267 103 Collins, 216. 104 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 116. 105 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 267. 106 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 112. 107 Donahue and Harrington, 123. 108 Collins, 296. 109 Donahue and Harrington, 190.

Liberation from Empire

129

110 Collins, 297. 111 Guelich, 159, 321. 112 Collins, 302. 113 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 385. 114 France, 246. 115 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 215. 116 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 235, explain the patronage system model by stating: “Patron-client systems are socially fixed relations of generalized reciprocity between social unequals in which a lower-status person in need (called a client) has his needs met by having recourse for favors to a higher-status, well-situated person (called a patron). By being granted the favor, the client implicitly promises to pay back the patron whenever and however the patron determines. By granting the favor, the patron in turn implicitly promises to be open for further requests at unspecified later times.” 117 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 236. See also Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, rev. ed. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 102. See also Pilch, Cultural Tools, 20, who defines a broker as “the one who puts needy clients in contact with the patron, the one who can do for people what equals cannot.” 118 Pilch, Cultural Tools, 57. 119 Malina, 100. 120 Malina, 102. 121 Malina, 103. 122 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 116. 123 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 118. 124 Boring, 176. 125 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 198. 126 Malina and Rorhbaugh, 237. 127 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 215. 128 Boring, 174; Guelich, 320. 129 Guelich, 319. 130 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 97. 131 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 100. 132 Donahue and Harrington, 192. 133 Guelich, 323. 134 Boring, 174. 135 Malina, 102. 136 Samuel, 123.

130

Cheryl Stewart Pero

137 Waetjen, 97. 138 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 112. 139 Samuel, 121. 140 Waetjen, 124–125. 141 Boring, 176. 142 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 98. 143 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 66. 144 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 146. 145 Donahue and Harrington, 192. 146 Samuel, 109–110. 147 Samuel, 126. 148 Liew, The Politics of Parousia, 158. 149 Guelich, 156. See chapter 5. 150 France, 338. 151 Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 18. 152 Evans, 18. 153 Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27A; New York: Doubleday, 2009), 606. 154 France, 338. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 607. 155 Evans, 13. 156 France, 338. !Upage is the same word that Jesus used with the Syrophoenician woman in 7:29 when he told her to depart because the demon/unclean spirit was gone from her daughter. 157 Boring, 234. 158 Collins, 407; Evans, 19; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 607. 159 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 608. 160 Collins, 407. 161 Evans, 19. 162 Slightly adapted from BDAG, 1065, their emphasis. 163 BDAG, 1066, their emphasis. 164 Evans, 19. 165 Boring, 242. 166 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 609, 613, 614. 167 Boring, 234.

Liberation from Empire

131

168 Evans, 18. 169 Collins, 406. 170 France, 332. 171 Collins 407. 172 France, 338. 173 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 614. 174 Boring, 242. 175 Boring, 242. 176 Collins, 407. 177 Evans, 12. 178 France, 333. 179 Boring, 242. 180 Boring 242. 181 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 198. 182 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 98–99. 183 Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 131. 184 Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 133. 185 Boring, 241. 186 Donahue and Harrington, 262. 187 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 232. 188 Evans, 19. 189 Donahue and Harrington, 262. 190 Donahue and Harrington, 262. 191 France, 339. 192 Waetjen, 144. 193 Donahue and Harrington, 262. 194 Myers, 377. 195 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 232. 196 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 202. 197 Boring, 243, taking the phrase “discipleship of equals” from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 140–154. 198 Collins, 448. 199 Boring, 279; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 138.

132

Cheryl Stewart Pero

200 France, 176. 201 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 138. 202 Boring, 282. 203 France, 377. 204 France, 376. 205 Evans, 64. 206 Evans, 65. 207 France, 376. 208 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 125. 209 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 98. 210 Donahue and Harrington, 285. 211 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 126. 212 Collins, 446. 213 Evans, 64. 214 Evans, 66, quoting “plain meaning” from Ralph P. Martin, Mark: Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter, England: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 115. 215 Donahue and Harrington, 290. 216 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 686. 217 France, 377. 218 France, 378. 219 France, 378. 220 Collins, 444. 221 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 126. 222 Boring, 282; Malina and Rorhbaugh, 192–194. 223 The value connected to being an insider is also related to honor/shame and purity values. Any challenge to the honor of the group called for a response; there was the expectation that loyalty to the group would be a priority. The presence of an outsider had the potential of polluting the entire group so that boundary rules were similar to those of the Holiness Code in Leviticus. 224 France, 376. 225 France, 377. 226 Evans, 65. 227 Donahue and Harrington, 286. 228 France, 377. 229 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 126.

Liberation from Empire

133

230 Evans, 66. 231 France, 375. 232 Boring, 282. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 126, explains that the episode reflects the desire of Mark’s readers “to exclude any Christian who was not a member of their particular community.” 233 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 193. 234 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 687. 235 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 126. 236 France, 376. 237 Donahue and Harrington, 289. 238 Evans, 65. 239 France, 377. 240 Waetjen, 160. 241 France, 376. 242 Boring, 282.

C

H A P T E R

6

The Markan Exorcisms

O

f particular interest for this chapter is the development of a type-scene for exorcism. In addition to focusing the audience’s attention on the exorcism proper, the type-scene serves two other purposes. First, it allows the audience to know what to expect from Jesus’ exorcisms. Second, it provides the audience with an example of behavior indicating demonic possession, thereby enabling them to recognize demonic possession when they encounter it later in Mark’s narrative, or possibly even in their own lives. Indications of the presence of the demonic that Mark documents include: drawing attention to oneself; addressing Jesus directly; crying out in a loud voice; nakedness; isolation; and self-destructive physical behavior including falling on the ground in convulsions, oral foaming, cutting oneself with rocks, and throwing oneself into fire and/or water. In his book My Name is Legion, Michael Willett Newheart proposes a typescene for exorcism that is divided into four parts: the setting, the encounter, the exorcism, and the reaction.1 In the “setting,” he includes all the information the narrator shares in describing how Jesus arrived at that particular location. The “encounter” informs the audience about the manner and circumstances in which the demonic approaches Jesus. His category of “exorcism” is selfexplanatory; Newheart includes here the element of the demon’s relocation. The “reaction” refers to the response of the onlookers, the crowd. Because there are additional important elements that need to be included in the type-scene, I have built and expanded on Newheart’s model. Although the particular features of exorcism vary in Mark’s Gospel, Mark does have a basic concentric ABA´2 typescene whose central focus is always on the exorcism proper, as follows:3 A. Jesus (and the disciples) arrives. [Setting] B. Observers are amazed. C. The unclean spirit responds to Jesus’ presence. [Encounter] D. Jesus performs the exorcism. [Exorcism] C’. The unclean spirit departs.

136

Cheryl Stewart Pero B’. Observers are amazed. [Reaction] A’. Jesus (and the disciples) departs.

In each episode in this chapter, I present my English translation in a manner that reflects Mark’s ABA´ type scene for exorcism. After performing a linguistic analysis, my narrative analysis will examine the setting as it exposes Mark’s plot and subplots. I then explore how the characters in the episode participate with the narrator in enhancing Mark’s eschatological perspective. I explore Mark’s cosmology using the primary model of clean/unclean in the social science analysis; other models will overlap. I examine the connections between purity boundaries and notions of hybridity and ambiguity, where ambiguity is dangerous because it has the potential for polluting the community.4 My postcolonial analysis will examine how Jesus’ hybridity allows the narrator to promote a model of resistance to imperialism that invites the exorcized to become participants in the kingdom of God.

Mark 1:21–28 The Man In the Capernaum Synagogue This episode exposes Mark’s subplot of conflict with non-human forces, begun in 1:12–13. Immediately following the prologue (1:1–15) and the calling of the first four disciples (1:16–20), Mark moves into this passage. This episode serves to document the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, his first work of power. Following this episode, Jesus heals Peter’s mother-in-law in Peter’s house. Jesus’ first day concludes with “all” the people of Capernaum, those who had been part of the synagogue crowd and others who had heard about Jesus from the synagogue crowd, bringing those who were in need of healing and exorcism to him. 21 They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath after entering into the synagogue he began to teach. 22 And they were astounded at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes. 23 And immediately there was in their synagogue a man in an unclean spirit and it cried out 24 saying: What (is there belonging in common) to us and to you, Jesus Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the holy (one) of God. 25 And Jesus rebuked it, saying: be muzzled and come out from him. 26 And the unclean spirit convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice came out of him.

Liberation from Empire

137

27 And everyone was amazed with the result that they discussed/debated among themselves saying: What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him. 28 And his fame immediately went out everywhere into all the surrounding countryside of Galilee.

Linguistic Analysis 21. Kai\ ei0sporeu/ontai ei0j Kafarnaou/m : [They went into Capernaum;] The four disciples who have left their fishing and their families to follow Jesus accompany him into Capernaum, the village of Nahum. Jesus is no stranger to this village for it now serves as his home base in Galilee. toi=j sa&bbasin ei0selqw_n ei0j th\n sunagwgh\n [on the Sabbath after entering into the synagogue] Mark pinpoints the synagogue and announces that it is the Sabbath. Combining the Sabbath with the synagogue displays Jesus’ authority to the Markan audience.5 ei0selqw&n in this verse contrasts with e0ch=lqen in vs. 28, a narrative feature that forms an inclusio and demonstrates Mark’s intercalation technique. kai\ eu)q u\j e0di/dasken. [And immediately he began to teach.] Jesus immediately begins to teach, an inceptive use of the imperfect verb that underscores Jesus is no stranger to those gathered in the synagogue.6 22. kai\ e0ceplh/ssonto e0p i\ th|= didach|= au0tou=: [And they were astounded at his teaching,] e0p i\ with the dative indicates that Jesus’ teaching itself is the basis (or grounds) for an emotional reaction7 on the part of the synagogue crowd. Mark’s audience learns why the synagogue crowd reacts to Jesus in amazement in the next phrase: h]n ga_r dida&skwn au0tou\j w(j e0cousi/an e1xwn kai\ ou)x w(j oi9 grammatei=j. [for he was teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes.] Introduced by an imperfect periphrastic, a common Semitic Greek construction,8 Mark emphasizes the explanation for Jesus’ reception: He was teaching with the authority that he received from God at his baptism. This continues the theme of Jesus’ power as the stronger one that Mark began in 1:7 and sets the stage for the crowds’ recognition of Jesus’ divine authority as eschatological power.9 Perhaps even the content of Jesus’ teaching might have been different from the scribes: where Jesus proclaimed the spirit of the law, the scribes’ teaching focused on the letter of the law, the tradition of the elders10 illustrated by the discussion in 7:1–23.11 Mark next demonstrates how the authority of Jesus’ teaching is embodied outside of scribal teaching even within the boundaries of the synagogue. 23–24. Kai\\ eu)qu\j [And immediately] tells Mark’s audience that an event of significance is about to be narrated. e0n th|= sunagwgh|= au)tw~n a!nqrwpoj [in their

138

Cheryl Stewart Pero

synagogue a man]. This is an example of the associative use of the dative, designating accompanying circumstances and manner.12 e0n pneu/mati is a Semitism that renders the Hebrew participle b (with).13 In Mark possession is described with the preposition e0n and exorcism with the preposition e0k.14 Pneu/m ati a)kaqa&rtw, [an unclean spirit] “Unclean spirit,” is understood by Jews as the equivalent of the Greek “demon.” Jesus’ presence provokes the unclean spirit and incites it into crying out through the demoniac in an attempt to gain control over Jesus. h(m i=n [to us] and soi [to you] are datives of possession that indicate belonging.15 What Mark has described initially as one unclean spirit now poses questions to Jesus in which it refers to itself in the plural, speaking generically for all unclean spirits who are threatened by Jesus’ very being.16 The phrase Ti/ h(mi=n kai\ soi [What (is there belonging in common) to us and to you] might be understood as “…a ‘defensive’ formula denying commonality with the person to whom it is addressed.”17 The question itself emerges from a position of inferiority and places the onus of responsibility for what follows on Jesus.18 The question itself is a Hebrew Bible idiom.19 Nazarhne/ is the vocative form of the proper noun identifying Jesus dyadically by his hometown,20 often used in a situation of emphatic or emotional address.21 )Ihsou= Nazarhne/ [Jesus Nazarene] is a Markan example of an apotropaic22 defense device related to the ritual of exorcism. If the unclean spirit can control Jesus, a supernatural force opposing it, by naming him, perhaps it believes it will not be destroyed. h]lqej a)pole/sai h9m a~j; [Have you come to destroy us?] With this question, the unclean spirit exposes not only its supernatural knowledge but also defines Jesus’ ministry of exorcism23 and its destiny. a)pole/sai is an aorist infinitive that indicates the purpose of a particular movement.24 oi]da& se ti/j ei], o( a#gioj tou= qeou=. [I know who you are, the holy (one) of God.] This one statement serves to separate the profane from the sacred, the unclean spirit from the Holy Spirit, reminding the audience of Jesus’ baptism in 1:8. o( a#gioj This usage of the adjective with the article is substantival,25 a Semitic usage with a “par excellence” or vocative application.26 o( a#gioj tou= qeou=. This is the only time that Mark uses this phrase in the Gospel. In an attempt to ward off its own demise, the unclean spirit reveals Jesus’ true identity, an identity that is being disclosed to the Galilean crowd for the first time. 25. kai\ e0peti/mhsen au)tw~| o( )Ihsou=j le/gwn: fimw&qhti kai\ e1celqe e0c au)tou=. [And Jesus rebuked it, saying: be muzzled and come out from him.] Mark’s exorcistic language is reflected in his use of e0p eti/mhsen.27 “To rebuke” is connected with the Hebrew word rag that implies a subjugating word against ones enemies.28 Note that Mark’s Jesus does not use any exorcistic formula or ritual; Jesus simple “rebukes” the unclean spirit. This command prevents the unclean

Liberation from Empire

139

spirit from getting the upper hand and establishes Jesus’ authority over supernatural forces. au)tw~| can be translated as either masculine or neuter; I translate the pronoun as the neuter “it.” With the words fimw&qhti kai\ e1celqe, both verbs in the imperative, Jesus commands the unclean spirit to be muzzled and to depart. These commands of Jesus perhaps established a standard in exorcistic formulae,29 and here Mark records and confirms Jesus’ authority and status as an exorcist for the very first time. fimw&qhti is more a command to silence than an injunction to silence or a binding of the unclean spirit in silence.30 The command conveys to the audience that the unclean spirit has lost this skirmish to Jesus, a superior supernatural force, a reminder that Jesus had conquered Satan in the desert in Mark’s prologue. Although Jesus does not use an exorcism technique or ritual, he still employs the verb e1celqe that Mark associates with exorcism. 26. kai\ spara&can au)to_n to_ pneu=ma to_ a)ka&qarton kai\ fwnh=san fwnh|= mega&lh| e0ch=lqen e0c au)tou=. [And the unclean spirit convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice came out of him.] The unclean spirit is not through with the possessed man yet and expresses its ire at being bested by violently convulsing and shouting as it exits its host, perhaps even exiting through the man’s mouth during its shouting. This behavior will be repeated in two additional exorcisms, making it a common feature and response of the demonic to exorcism. The unclean spirit’s violent response to Jesus’ rebuke “testifies to the shock wave that has rocked the cosmos in the word of Jesus. …” The use of fwnh|= mega&lh| [a loud voice] serves to emphasize the action of the unclean spirit by means of a cognate dative, both in form (with the preceding verb fwnh=san)) and in meaning.31 27. kai\ e0qambh/qhsan a#p antej w#ste suzhtei=n pro_j e9autou\j le/gontaj, ti/ e0stin tou=to; didaxh\ kainh\ kat ) e0cousi/an: kai\ toi=j pneu/masi toi=j a)kaqa&rtoij e0pita&ssei, kai\ u(p akou/o usin au)tw~|. [And everyone was amazed with the result that they discussed/debated among themselves saying, What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.] The word e0q ambh/qhsan [was amazed] is synonymous with e0ceplh/ssonto [was astounded] from vs. 22 while didaxh\ [teaching] and e0cousi/an [authority] repeat the narrator’s observation in vs. 22, another Markan inclusio. Here w#ste [with the result that] introduces a result clause. ti/ e0stin tou=to; [What is this?] is a Markan rhetorical question “to highlight matters of importance.”32 The interrogative pronoun ti/ [what] is often used to introduce categorical questions. 33 Jesus’ didaxh\ kainh [new teaching] is tied to his e0cousi/an [authority] to perform the exorcism. This leads into an epexegetical sentence that not only summarizes

140

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Jesus’ action but also explains why Jesus’ teaching is new. kai\ toi=j pneu/m asi toi=j a)kaqa&rtoij e0p ita&ssei, kai\ u(pakou/o usin au)tw~|. [He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.] The first kai/ here is emphatic, indicating that Jesus’ new teaching gives him the power to exorcize “even” unclean spirits. Jesus’ power is amazing and astounding because supernatural entities obey his command! Mark’s audience knows that Jesus received his authority and power at his baptism in the desert but the synagogue crowd can only discuss and debate what they have just witnessed. 28. kai\ e0ch=lqen h( a)koh\ au)tou= eu)q u\j pantaxou= ei0j 031h n th\n peri/xwron th=j Galilai/aj. [And his fame immediately went out everywhere into all the surrounding countryside of Galilee.] Jesus’ fame immediately spreads. pantaxou [everywhere] is an adverb of place.34 th=j Galilai/aj [of Galilee] is an epexegetical genitive modifying th\n peri/xwron [the surrounding countryside].35 Here is another example of a Markan two-step progression: “everywhere,” followed by “the surrounding countryside of Galilee.” The geographical reference also forms an inclusio with vs. 21, expanding Jesus’ initial entry in the village of Capernaum, Kai\ ei0sporeu/ontai ei0j Kafarnaou/m, into the larger Galilean territory. This provides grist for the gossip mill that will have implications for Jesus’ entry into Gentile territory in Mark’s fifth chapter.

Narrative Analysis Framed by locations in Capernaum and the Galilean countryside (1:14, 16, 28), the narrator’s tone is one of barely concealed excitement in relating this episode. In a double two-step progression (Capernaum/synagogue, synagogue/Sabbath), vs. 21 forms an inclusio with vs. 28, where Jesus’ fame spreads into the Galilean countryside. Mark indicates that Jesus’ first act of public ministry took place in the Capernaum synagogue on the Sabbath. This first miracle is Mark’s method of demonstrating who Jesus is in word and deed and, simultaneously, making the case for the audience to follow Jesus in “the Way.” In 1:22, Mark establishes “a new teaching with authority” for the audience, an authority with which Jesus was invested at his baptism as God’s agent for exorcizing demons. This verse forms an inclusio with vs. 27 where the crowd discusses Jesus’ new teaching with authority among themselves. As Jesus exercises his authority, the scribes themselves resonate with the astonishment of the crowds, another example of the narrator’s use of dramatic irony. Markan irony is evident also by having the unclean spirit present in the same place as the “holy one of God,” attempting to turn the tables on Jesus. Mark’s rhetorical technique in this exorcism account is easy to follow, yet includes facets that not only cause the audience to pay close attention to the

Liberation from Empire

141

narrative but also begins to build the storyline of the gospel. Examples include the following: 1. Repetition: use of compound forms, as well as variations on tenses, voices and moods, of the verb e1rxomai (“I come” or “I go”); 2. Parataxis: kai/ (“and”) is used to introduce all the verses except vs. 24 (the fourth in the episode); 3. Quotation/direct speech: Verse 24 directly quotes the words of the unclean spirit; 4. Rapid action: eu)qu\j (“immediately”) is used in the first, second, and last verses; 5. New information: Mark establishes a type-scene for exorcism; and 6. Irony: The unclean spirit knows who Jesus is but cannot control Jesus in spite of that knowledge. The omniscient narrator uses this episode to anticipate the conflict between the Jerusalem authorities and Jesus as well as to continue the battle between Satan (through unclean spirits) and Jesus begun in the wilderness (1:12–13). The characters involved in this episode include those gathered in the synagogue (i.e., the crowd, the four disciples, the Capernaum synagogue scribes), Jesus, the demoniac, and the unclean spirit. The characteristics of those gathered in the synagogue, stock characters, are consistent throughout the episode: they are astounded at Jesus’ authoritative teaching and action (vss. 22 and 27), perhaps even indicating their “openness to God’s transforming power.”36 The synagogue crowd is amazed at Jesus’ exorcistic activity and honors him by spreading the story of the synagogue exorcism throughout the Galilean countryside, beginning Jesus’ recruitment for participation in God’s new kingdom. The anonymous demoniac is also a stock character. According to Mark, the possessed man is himself silent; the unclean spirit speaks through him. Although he is present in the synagogue, his possession allows him no capacity to request deliverance from Jesus. The scribes, on the other hand, are flat characters,37 having one basic and predictable trait, particularly throughout this episode. Their response to Jesus must be inferred: By Jesus’ teaching with more authority than theirs, Mark’s audience observes the genesis of the later conflict with the Jerusalem temple authorities. All Mark’s audience really knows about the scribes at this point is what Mark shares in 1:22 and 28: The teaching of the scribes pales in comparison to Jesus’ teaching because even the unclean spirit obeys Jesus! And just as the crowd from the synagogue spreads the news of Jesus’ teaching throughout the countryside, the scribes in this initial episode might have spread the same

142

Cheryl Stewart Pero

news to authorities in other villages. Although Mark makes no reference to the ensuing activity of the scribes, their role in subsequent episodes indicates their opposition to Jesus. The unclean spirit is a round character, displaying various characteristics. It functions as a narrative foil to Jesus and is characterized as such: It is commissioned and empowered to spread the kingdom of Satan and to subvert the spread of the kingdom of God. It confronts Jesus in the synagogue, a place where it should not be. The unclean spirit uses the unnamed man in an effort to demonstrate that Satan is the ruler of the world. The unclean spirit possesses the silent demoniac, crying out and acknowledging Jesus through him, ironically revealing Jesus’ identity as “the Holy One of God.” After Jesus rebukes it, ordering it to be quiet and to depart from the man, the unclean spirit causes the demoniac to convulse and cry out in a loud voice. Although it knows that it has been defeated, it refuses to leave quietly. The unclean spirit increases in number in the narrator’s portrayal during the course of the episode from one (vs. 23) to many (vs. 27), representing all unclean spirits who are confronted with Jesus’ authority and power. And as intimately as the unclean spirit appears to know Jesus, Jesus knows it even more intimately and has the power to exorcize it. Jesus too functions as a round character having “a rich complex of traits, the full extent of which only gradually unfolds in the course of the narrative.”38 He performed this exorcism in order that his authority over Satan, conferred/ acquired at his baptism, might be demonstrated in his public ministry. Jesus is characterized by the narrator as an agent from God39 who has been commissioned by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit to proclaim, in words and deeds, the proximity of the kingdom of God. Jesus used the demoniac to demonstrate the fate awaiting unclean spirits in the kingdom of God: They are destroyed. Jesus was confronted by the unclean spirit in the synagogue, and, acknowledging the situation of the voiceless demoniac, he exorcized the unclean spirit from him. The crowds reacted to Jesus with amazement and awe; the unclean spirit reacted to Jesus with recognition. In an ironic twist, the narrator had Jesus charge the unclean spirit with silence while those gathered in the synagogue immediately rushed out in order to spread the news about Jesus throughout the countryside. Jesus’ power and authority over other cosmological supernatural beings and God’s eschatological plan are manifested in this episode.

Social Science Analysis Mark’s concern about purity issues causes him to present Jesus Messiah as one who is reforming Jewish purity laws based on a different set of principles than those used by the Judean authorities.40 Jesus’ rules were based in the spirit of

Liberation from Empire

143

God’s law in contrast to the tradition of the elders, on the human intentions that issue from the inside of a person (internal) and not those that describe what happens on the outside (external), which Mark addresses in 7:1–23.41 The difference between Jesus and the Jerusalem authorities/Satan principles relating to purity laws emerges both in human and non-human conflicts. The human conflict emerges in this episode when Jesus’ authority challenged that of the temple scribes. The non-human conflict emerges when the unclean spirit recognized that a more powerful force had come into its sphere. The setting for this passage is the Capernaum synagogue, a holy place; a map of time locates this incident on a Sabbath: The setting is a holy time and a holy place.42 This incident’s setting in the local synagogue suggests that this was a normal Sabbath gathering place for the community.43 In this public venue of male honor, the Capernaum synagogue, Jesus’ performed his first miracle, an exorcism. In so doing Jesus violated the holy map of space and time in the eyes of the scribal authorities. In performing the exorcism, Mark also directs the attention of the audience to Jesus’ honor/shame status. In a society where there was an understanding of limited goods, including honor, Jesus’ honor increased as the honor of the antagonists, the scribes in this incident, decreased. Jesus was apparently known to the local people because no one in the synagogue crowd, including the scribes, challenged Jesus’ right to teach in this holy space. The possessed man either was not known to be possessed or his possession, to this point, had not been obvious, else he would not have been present in the synagogue at all. The appearance of an unclean spirit possessing someone in the synagogue presented the crowd with the possibility of contamination, of ritual impurity, creating a contagious state of fear of pollution among the synagogue crowd—and fear can be contagious. A possessed adult in a dyadic culture44 would be isolated. Mark reinforces the community’s fear of contamination by the designation of the demonic in the Capernaum synagogue as an “unclean spirit.”45 Unclean spirits rendered persons unclean, causing the community to isolate and marginalize the possessed. In the society presupposed by Mark’s narration, people withdrew from the insidious threat of impurity because of their fear of the spread of uncleanness/defilement/impurity. But from the very beginning of Mark’s Gospel, Jesus is presented as the one from God who is pure. In this episode, the unclean spirit, established as Jesus’ enemy from Mark’s prologue, acknowledged Jesus’ presence and confronted him in the Capernaum synagogue.46 When it cried out “I know who you are, the Holy One of God!” it attested to Jesus’ purity. “Functionally the exorcism and the title of Jesus serve several purposes: 1) they associate Jesus with the holy God, not Satan; 2) they underscore Jesus’ authorization by God (1:22,

144

Cheryl Stewart Pero

27); 3) they emphasize that Jesus was himself uniquely holy and pure, and 4) they indicate that Jesus engages in mortal conflict with ‘unclean spirits.’”47 Furthermore, this dynamic of impurity has cosmic dimensions. Here uncleanness is the opposite of holiness. The “unclean spirit” possessing the demoniac in this episode is explicitly contrasted with the “holy spirit” that possesses Jesus. The unclean spirit identified Jesus in vs. 24 as “the holy one of God.” Perhaps the unclean spirit also recognized in Jesus a supernatural being who had the power and authority to destroy it. The act of exorcism represented an incredible reversal in the purity/defilement dynamic. Because Jesus was endowed with the Holy Spirit, Jesus spread holiness and impurity receded. This dynamic is no more clearly shown than in this episode, in which a spirit that was thoroughly impure—the strongest kind of impurity—cowered before the power of the holiness of Jesus and fled at his command. This was holiness indeed. And this was power indeed. The key to this dynamic was that the arrival of the kingdom of God had not only a temporal dimension but also a spatial dimension— God’s empire invaded territories of impurity and rid them of unclean spirits. Implicated in this episode is the essential element of Jesus’ honor. Honor is the personal claim to worth plus the public recognition of it.48 Mark’s audience knows that honor was conferred on Jesus initially by God in the course of his baptism (vss. 9–11). Jesus acquired more honor in his wilderness testing experience (vss. 12–13). However, without public recognition, there is no honor. The people in the synagogue represent the public recognition of Jesus. As Jesus entered the synagogue and began teaching, he challenged the honor of the scribes by the authority with which he taught. Scribal honor decreased as Jesus’ honor increased. The people present were amazed (vs. 22), “for he teaches them as one having authority and not like the scribes.” Mark narrated this in such a way as to suggest that both the amazement and the reason for it were publicly expressed for all (including the scribes) to see/hear. But in vs. 24 the unclean spirit attempted to undermine Jesus’ honor by implying that first, Jesus was nothing more than an artisan from the town of Nazareth, and second, Jesus was in a relationship with God. Instead of losing honor to the unclean spirit, Jesus rebuked it and commanded it to abandon its host. The unclean spirit loudly and violently obeyed Jesus’ command, losing honor in the process, and showing those in the synagogue that Jesus had been invested with the authority and power to control even supernatural beings. The people who were gathered in the synagogue were astounded, both at the beginning and at the end of the episode, at the authority by which Jesus taught. The act of exorcism not only liberated the demoniac from the control of the unclean spirit, it also rendered those in the synagogue pure by the expulsion of the unclean spirit. In vs. 28 they go into the countryside and tell everyone what they

Liberation from Empire

145

have experienced, thereby contributing to the spread of the honor of Jesus. At the end of the very next Markan episode the disciples tracked Jesus down because “everyone is looking for you” (1:35–36), one example of what happened as Jesus’ honor increased.

Postcolonial Analysis The Markan audience knows that the majority peasant Mediterranean population bore the brunt of the violence implicit in Roman imperial expansion and colonization. Postcolonial analysis recognizes and acknowledges the unequal power relationships that exist between the colonizer and those being colonized. While there is no direct reference to Roman imperialism in this exorcism, this episode is about the authority and power of the unclean spirit and the authority and power by which Jesus exorcizes, establishing a strategy of resistance. Resistance strategies are those methods of opposition that disrupt the colonizers’ unjust domination over the colonized. Jesus’ hybridity exposes Mark’s antiimperial agenda within this episode. Jesus “is the huios-human hybrid who can do the work of God.”49 From the first verse of his Gospel, Mark has presented Jesus as having a hybrid identity: both son of [wo]man and Son of God. Jesus’ baptism documented the process by which he became hybrid. For the Judeans, Jesus serves as “a variegated figure camouflaged at times as a human and at other times as a ‘crossover’ figure exercising divine power and authority to defeat and destroy the colonial powers in heavenly realms.”50 The Markan summaries of Jesus’ ministry acts (1:32–34, 39, and 3:11) draws attention to the connection between his exorcistic ability and his hybrid identity. This episode not only serves to concretize what we glimpsed in the summaries but also allows us to further perceive that Jesus’ hybrid identity explains even the space in which his ministry takes place. For Jesus’ profound words and powerful deeds are enacted in hybrid space, space located in-between colonial Palestine and the eschatological kingdom of God, the axis where the kingdoms of Rome/Satan and God intersect. Because Satan and his agents had the ability to possess both Romans and Judeans equally, this hybrid space was the place where the hybrid Jesus functioned most effectively as God’s agent of resistance. Jesus’ new teaching with authority disrupted the time and space of traditional Jewish piety with transcultural hybridity. Jesus resisted manipulation and control both by Roman and elite Judean authorities, modeling resistance strategies for the Twelve, other followers and the crowds. His words and deeds addressed how one resists the seductive invitations of Rome and Jerusalem as well as the insidious temptations of Satan. In this analysis, the kingdom of Rome is analogous to the kingdom of Satan, for

146

Cheryl Stewart Pero

the agents of the colonizing Roman Empire act much like the possessing agents of Satan. The possessing entity in this passage knew that Jesus posed a threat to its existence. But after binding the “strong one” in the desert during his fortyday test period, Jesus was more than able to exorcize the unclean spirit from the cosmic landscape of the Capernaum synagogue. In the process, Jesus modeled for the four disciples and the synagogue crowd (including the scribes!) how those who are commissioned with the authority of God and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit were able not just to resist but also to conquer unclean spirits, extending the boundaries of the kingdom of God. Exorcism might also be understood as symbolic action: Jesus does not only violate what the scribes understood as symbolic space and time in this first exorcism, but Mark’s audience also knows that this “exorcism has everything to do with the struggle between the authority of Jesus and that of the scribes.”51 Jesus’ actions were perceived as challenges to a misdirected and misguided “scribal aristocracy whose space (social role and power) Jesus is threatening.”52

Mark 5:1–20 The Gerasene Demoniac In Mark 4:35–41, the passage immediately preceding this episode, Mark demonstrated to his audience that Jesus had authority and power even over the sea. Our episode begins with Jesus crossing the sea, a symbol of primordial chaos, and entering the territory of the Gentiles. This trip is complemented by Jesus’ re-crossing the sea back into Palestinian territory at the beginning of the following episode (5:21). Upon his return to Palestine, Jesus performed two significant healings, restoring life to both a twelve-year old girl and a woman who had been bleeding for twelve years (5:21–43). Jesus then returned to Nazareth, his town of origin, where he is rejected by the local residents and, consequently, unable to perform very many deeds of power (6:1–6a). This episode ultimately prepares the Markan audience for Jesus’ extended foray among the Gentiles in 7:24–8:21. The narrator uses similar words at the beginning and end of this episode, forming an inclusio. At the beginning, as Jesus disembarks from the boat at Gerasa, the man who approaches him is identified as having his dwelling (katoi/khsin) in the tombs (5:3). At the end, as Jesus is preparing to embark in the boat to depart from Gerasa (5.19), he tells the man from whom he has expelled Legion to return to his house/home (to_n oi0ko/n sou). 1 And they came to the other side of the sea to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And after he came out of the boat immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him, 3 who had a dwelling in the tombs, and no one was able to bind him any longer not even with a chain 4 for he often had been bound with

Liberation from Empire

147

shackles and chains but the chains had been torn apart by him and the shackles had been smashed and no one was strong to subdue him. 5 And constantly night and day among the tombs and in the mountains he was crying out and beating himself with stones. 6 But after seeing Jesus from afar he ran and bowed down to him; 7 and crying out with a loud voice it says: What (is there) to you and to me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me. 8 For he had said to it: Come out of the man unclean spirit! 9 And he (Jesus) was questioning him: What name (is) to you? It says to him: Legion (is) my name, for we are many. 10 And it was imploring him greatly so that he not send them out of the country. 11 Now there was there near the mountain a great herd of pigs feeding; 12 and they implored him saying, Send us into the pigs so that we may enter into them. 13 And he permitted them. And after coming out the unclean spirits entered into the pigs, and rushed the herd, about two thousand, down the slope into the sea, and they were drowned in the sea. 14 And the ones feeding them ran off and told it in the city and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had happened 15 and they come to Jesus and they see the demoniac sitting clothed and sound minded, the one who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 And the ones after seeing how it happened with respect to the demoniac and about the pigs described it to them. 17 Then they began to beg him to leave from their neighborhood. 18 And while he is embarking into the boat the demoniac begged him so that he might be with him. 19 And he did not permit him, but says to him: Go to your house to the ones who are yours and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, namely that he has shown mercy to you. 20 And he went and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.

Linguistic Analysis 1. ei0j to_ pe/ran th=j qala&sshj ei0j th\n xw&ran tw~n Gerashnw~n. [to the other side of the sea in the country of the Gerasenes.] The words ei0j to_ pe/ran link this episode to 4:35, the episode immediately preceding this one, where Jesus and the disciples set out on the sea of Galilee;53 at the end of the prior episode, in 4:41, the narrator uses the words h( qa/lassa, linking the entire previous episode to what the narrator is getting ready to unfold here. Textual variations for Gerashnw~n [of the Gerasenes] include Gadarhnw=j [Gadara] and Gergeshnw=n [Gergesa].54 2. kai\ e0celqo/ntoj au)tou= [and after he came out] The author uses the genitive absolute here instead of a participle that would agree with au)tw~.| 55 u(ph/nthsen au)tw~| [met him] Here the verbal cognate u(ph/nthsen is followed by au)tw~|, a dative of association or a dative direct object.56 e0n pneu/mati a)kaqa&rtw| [with an unclean spirit] With the preposition e0n, this could indicate the instru-

148

Cheryl Stewart Pero

mental use of the dative, 57 a dative of concomitant circumstances, or the sociative use of the dative influenced by the Hebrew b58 At this point in the narrative, the unclean spirit is singular, as in 1:23. The encounter begun in vs. 2 is clearly expanded in vss. 3–5, parenthetical verses that prepare the way for the demoniac’s possession by multiple spirits.59 3. th\n katoi/khsin [the dwelling] forms an inclusio with to_n oi]ko/n [the house] in vs. 19, indicating a narrative whole. 4. dia_ to_ au0to_n…dede/sqai kai\ diespa&sqai…ta\j a)lu/seij kai\ ta\j pe/daj suntetri=fqai [for he…had been bound and had been torn apart…the chains and the shackles had been smashed] In contrast to divine passives, these three passive infinitives perhaps illustrate “demonic passives” because the unclean spirit not only directs but also manipulates the man’s behavior,60 emphasizing the severity of the possession. ou)ke/ti ou)dei\j [no one any longer] The double negative is used for emphasis, indicating that the man was totally under the control of the unclean spirit.61 5. nukto_j kai\ h(me/raj [day and night] is an example of the genitive of time within which.62 hn] [he was] could serve either as an independent imperfect verb here,63 or a double imperfect periphrastic with the present participles kra&zwn [crying out] and katako/ptwn [beating].64 6. This verse recapitulates the topic of vs. 2 in order to keep the flow of the narrative moving.65 a)po& + makro/qen [from afar] is an example of a pleonasm, the narrator’s use of more words than is necessary.66 The verb proseku/nhsen [to prostrate oneself before] reminds the audience of the demons prose/p ipton [falling before] Jesus in 3:11. 7. kra&caj [crying out] This is an aorist participle referring to action concomitant with the main verb; it links this verse to vs. 5. Ti/ e0moi\ kai\ soi/, [What (is there) to you and to me,]. As with 1:24, this serves as an example of datives of possession, but this time in the singular.67 ui9e\ [son] is a vocative used in apposition to )Ihsou= [Jesus]. tou= qeou= tou= u(yi/stou; [of the Most High God?] Compared with the unclean spirit’s confession in 1:24, “the Holy One of God,” the unclean spirit addresses Jesus here as “Son of the Most High God” where God is described in superlative terms.68 Nero is the only Roman emperor who described himself as “the son of the greatest of the gods,”69 perhaps another illustration of Mark’s appropriation of anti-imperial language. o(rki/zw se [I adjure you] The unclean spirit attempts to exorcize Jesus, the exorcist, by utilizing the language of exorcism. This is the closest that the Markan narrator gets to the word e0corki/zw [to exorcize]. to_n qeo/n [by God] This use of the accusative denotes that by which one swears—a classical idiom.70 mh/ me basani/sh|j. [do not

Liberation from Empire

149

torment me.] As if the unclean spirit had the authority and the power, it uses mh/ + the aorist subjunctive basani/sh|j to forbid specific future action,71 in this case any future torture or torment in a disclosure of its pre-knowledge of Jesus’ authority and power. 8. e1legen ga&r [For he had said] This epexegetical72 sentence is introduced by the postpositive inferential conjunction ga&r [for]. Not only is this usage typically Markan in style but also its usage originates with Jesus in the first place.73 The verb e1legen is an imperfect, used here as a pluperfect74 in a durative sense, that is, something either calling for completion75 or having a lasting result.76 Alternatively, e1legen might be understood as the pluperfective use of the imperfect77 indicating action beginning in time prior to the action of the narrative. e1celqe [Come out] Jesus’ command is in the imperative. The usage here of to_ pneu=m a to_ a)ka&q arton [unclean spirit], the nominative with the article, is a vocative formula.78 9. kai\ e0phrw&ta au)to/n: ti/ o1noma& soi; [and he (Jesus) was questioning him: what name (is) to you (sing.)?] Jesus directed his question to the demoniac, indicated by the masculine gender, but the unclean spirit responded to Jesus’ question. Kai\ le/g ei au)tw~|, legiw_n o1noma& moi, 03ti polloi/ e0smen. [and it says to him: Legion (is) my (sing.) name, for we are many.] Jesus’ use of an exorcism formula here (asking the unclean spirit its name) continues the motif of ongoing conflict between Jesus and Satan.79 Although the unclean spirit’s name “legion” was a clever and accurate response to Jesus’ question,80 “legion” was not the unclean spirit’s real name at all, but it shrewdly made up something appropriate to tell Jesus.81 When the unclean spirit responded to Jesus’ question, its number had increased from singular to plural, just as we noted in 1:24. It then explained its name to Jesus beginning with 03ti, a causal (adverbial) use of the conjunction that introduces a dependent epexegetical clause82 with the English word “for.” legiw_n o1noma& moi, [Legion (is) my name,] There are two complementary points of view that emerged in the unclean spirit’s self-identification. First, as I noted earlier, “legion” is one of the Latin loan words that Mark uses, indicating his familiarity with Roman military authority83 and political discourse. This episode is one of the places where Mark’s anti-imperial bias is very apparent. Second, this is where the Markan audience begins to realize the immensity of the cosmic conflict in which Jesus is engaged.84 10. pareka&lei [it implored] “The ‘imperfect’ nature of an act of asking or ordering is the more marked, where the response is lacking. …”85 This usage of the verb implies incomplete action.86 polla& [greatly], an adverbial accusative

150

Cheryl Stewart Pero

intensifying the verb,87 also provides a link with its cognate adjective polloi/ in vs. 9. i3na [so that=to] introduces an objective infinitive clause (see also vs. 18). 88 i3na mh\ au0ta_ a)postei/lh| [not to send them] A neuter plural nominative, au)ta&, takes a singular verb, a)postei/lh|. The unclean spirits wanted to stay in the local territory, although they now knew that they had to leave their current host. 13. kai\ e0pe/treyen au)toi=j. [and he permitted them.] Jesus expelled the unclean spirits by giving them permission to dispossess their host and to possess the herd of pigs feeding nearby. e0celqo/nta ta_ pneu/mata ta_ a)ka&qarta ei0sh=lqon [And the unclean spirits came out] In ironic contrast to vs. 10 (above), here we see the neuter plural subject with a plural verb emphasizing the individuality of the subject.89 15. to_n daimonizo/menon [the one who was demon possessed] This present active participle from the deponent verb daimonizo/mai [to be demon possessed] expresses only aspect, not time here.90 Note that while Mark refers to the possessing entity as unclean spirit(s), the narrator says that the townspeople refer to the man as to_n daimonizo/menon (cf. vs. 16 tw~| daimonizome/nw and vs. 18 o( daimonisqei\j), an appropriate label coming from the Gentiles. to_n e0sxhko/ta [the one who had had] The perfect is used for the aorist here.91 16. pw~j [how] Mark uses an indirect interrogative adverb in order to describe how the eyewitnesses retell the story to others.92 h1rcanto parakalei=n [they began to beg]: The imperfect is used with certain verbs of incomplete action where the fulfillment of the request necessarily follows.93 Mark also uses parakalei=n here as an infinitive indicating indirect discourse.94 18. Kai\ e0mbai/nontoj au)tou= [And while he is embarking]: While I translate this phrase as a genitive absolute,95 there is difference of opinion about this convention. Zerwick and Grosvenor see the genitive absolute being used in place of the concordant participle;96 while BDF do not consider a genitive absolute usage possible when the participial phrase is followed by an accusative that is dependent on a preposition, in this case ei0j to_ ploi=o n [into the boat].97 i3na met 0 au0tou= h|.] [to be with him.] These are almost the identical words that the narrator used to describe Jesus’ purpose in calling the disciples in 3:14; the only difference lies in the number of the verbs employed: h|] (singular) here and w}sin (plural) there. 19. pepoi/h ken [has done] is a perfect verb indicating an action whose effects are lasting98 and h01e/hsen [shown mercy] is an aorist denoting a single act of compassion.99 o#sa o( ku/rio/j soi pepoi/h ken kai\ hle/hse/n se. [how much the Lord

Liberation from Empire

151

has done for you, namely he has shown you mercy.] is an example of hendiadys, the continuation of one idea rather than two parallel ideas.100 This might also be another example of the Markan two-step progression.

Narrative Analysis In this episode Mark’s plot expands to include those on the other side of the sea, members from and representatives of the Gentiles, the nations. This episode’s setting points towards conflict in the plot, not because the Romans possessed Judean and Galilean lands,101 but because the Gentile land was possessed by unclean spirits including the Romans. This episode illustrates how Jesus includes persons who live outside Palestine in his reformed kingdom of God. The subplot of conflict with non-human forces, begun in 1:12–13 and building momentum in 1:21–28, escalates in this episode. In stark contrast to the site of Jesus’ first act of public ministry, a synagogue in Capernaum, Jesus’ first act of public ministry in the territory of the Gentiles, those considered unclean by the Jews, takes place in an unclean place: a cemetery in Gerasa. Where the episode in 1:21–28 was terse and direct, this narrative is extremely vivid and detailed, exhibiting hyperbolic features and emphasizing the degree of possession. Jesus breaks traditional boundaries in both locations by expelling unclean spirits, for the problem and the solution are the same in both episodes: demonic possession and exorcism. Exorcism was God’s eschatological rescue of the possessed. In this episode the stock characters, those who display one or two consistent traits, are the Twelve who cross the sea with Jesus, the swineherds, and the townspeople. The narrative purpose of the Twelve was to be with Jesus as witnesses to his authority and power. The swineherds, like the synagogue crowd of the first episode, ran and told everyone “in the city and the country” about Jesus’ work of power with the formerly possessed man, spreading the news about Jesus’ authority and power. The townspeople returned with the swineherds to the cemetery out of curiosity, only to discover the formerly possessed man sitting with Jesus, dressed and in his right mind (contrast with 5:2–5), and the unclean spirit(s) drowned in the sea in a herd of pigs. Their communal response to Jesus’ actions and the man’s condition, initially one of awe (compare with 1:22), morphed into fear. Because Jesus changed their social construction of reality, they begged him to leave (5:17). There is an ironic twist in the townspeople’s request, particularly in light of the former demoniac’s subsequent request (5:18) to be with Jesus as one of his followers. There is irony, too, in Jesus’ response to the man: Where he agreed to the requests of the unclean spirit(s) and the townspeople in the pericope, he denied the man’s request. At the end of this passage (5:20), the crowd was amazed (compare with 1:27).

152

Cheryl Stewart Pero

The demoniac functions as a flat character in the episode, displaying just a few traits. He was triply unclean by Jewish standards of purity: possessed by an unclean spirit (who will rush into unclean animals!), living in an unclean place— a cemetery—and residing in Gentile territory. The unclean spirit had so overtaken the man that, at times in the narrative, it is difficult to determine whether the demoniac or the unclean spirit is the actor (vss. 7, 9, 10, and 12). He was isolated and alienated from his family and community of origin, and ostracized because of his penchant for unrestrained and unpredictable violence. But he could not be kept in bondage by shackles or chains for he easily broke these! He beat himself with stones and cried out—perhaps shouting at the top of his voice—in the cemetery. At all hours of the day and night he roamed the cemetery, considered ritually unclean by the presence of the dead, where the unclean spirit had truly overwhelmed him. Tombs were most likely caves cut into the mountainside102 where there was just enough room to enter and stand.103 The antisocial alien entity that possessed him established his behavior: superhuman strength (5:4; also connected to the strong one in 3:27), sleeplessness, and nonfatal self-destructive violence (5:5). Yet, he is not beyond being saved by God through Jesus’ public ministry. He is delivered and liberated from the unclean spirit, restored and enabled to reenter his family and community. Although he asked to be with Jesus, using the same words that describe what the Twelve are doing with Jesus during this episode (in an echo of 3:14), Jesus refused, commissioning him instead to tell his community about “how much the Lord had done for him.” For Mark it seems that being with Jesus meant being on God’s mission, even at home. 104 The man proclaimed (cf. 1:4, 7, 14, 38, 39; 3:14; 6:12) in Decapolis (Roman territory that Jesus is reclaiming for God) what Jesus had done for him, preparing the way for Jesus reentry in the region of Tyre in 7:24. Ironically, what had been understood as Jesus’ command to silence was now overturned in Jesus’ only commission in Mark’s Gospel to go and tell others what God had done. The unclean spirit is one of the round characters in this episode. The narrator twice tells the audience (in 5:1 and again in 5:6) that the unclean spirit led the demoniac to Jesus. In an aside, the narrator both defines the conflict between Jesus and the unclean spirit and suggests to the audience the reason it approaches Jesus: He had already commanded the unclean spirit (5:8) to leave the possessed man. In an attempt to bind Jesus, the unclean spirit responded to Jesus’ command by crying out his identity: Son of the Most High God. Jesus countered by asking the unclean spirit for its name. As in 1:24, the response of the unclean spirit included an increase in its number from one (5:7) to many, named “legion” (5:9).

Liberation from Empire

153

Before Jesus can liberate the possessed man, however, he must first deal with the unclean spirit’s possession of the man. The unclean spirit does not give up easily, ironically pleading with Jesus for three concessions, each of which Jesus grants: 1. Comparable to the question “Have you come to destroy us?” in 1:24, the unclean spirit tries to gain control over Jesus, this time by “adjuring” him not to torment it in vs. 8. 2. The unclean spirits are clearly at home in Gentile territory, as the audience learns in vs. 10 when they plead not to be sent out of the country. 3. In vs. 13, the unclean spirits plead, finally, to be relocated into a local herd of pigs instead of being expelled, exercising their own agency. This is the only occasion in Mark’s Gospel where the narrator reports any negotiation between Jesus and the demonic (5:10–12). The story of the pigs presents the Markan audience with an interesting narrative digression related to the unclean spirit(s). Legion, allowed to stay in the territory of the Gentiles, is relocated into the herd of two-thousand pigs that run off the cliff en masse and drown in the sea. The sea might be equated with the abyss = Sheol = the abode of unclean spirit(s); perhaps they had come full circle and were not dead but went back to their home.105 Mark is signifying here; that is to say, Mark is utilizing anti-imperialistic imagery as a method of resistance without mentioning the Roman Empire, an endeavor in which he was probably successful where his implied audience was concerned. Augustus established the Legio X Fretensis whose standard and seal included the image of a boar. Mark linked the unclean spirit(s) with Augustus’ Roman Legion when the unclean spirit(s) told Jesus its name, Legion; when its request to be allowed to possess the pigs grazing nearby is granted, the narrator provided another link with empire. While affirming the authenticity and historical veracity of Mark’s narration, Graham Twelftree counters Mark’s imagery by pointing out that pigs do not herd, that they can swim,106 and that two-thousand pigs do not constitute a legion by any definition.107 He thus undercuts those who would see explicit Markan anti-Roman sentiment in this episode. Other scholars point out: 1. that the Jewish/Gentile divide posed by hyperbole in this vignette is underscored;108 2. that this was the visible demonstration of the departure of the unclean spirit(s) from the man, comparable to 1:26;109

154

Cheryl Stewart Pero 3. that the magnitude of the man’s possession and exorcism resulted in the destruction of “an army” of pigs;110 and 4. that the unclean spirit(s), recognizing that it had no other alternative than submission to Jesus, perhaps chose self-destruction111 rather than torment (5:7).

Jesus, as the protagonist of Mark’s story and the central figure of the narration, is the other round character in this episode. The narrator has Jesus speaking directly only twice, in vs. 9 and in vs. 19. The narrator informs the audience that Jesus arrived with the Twelve in the cemetery of the country of the Gerasenes. He alighted from the boat where the demoniac approached him immediately. The unclean spirit forced the man to bow down to Jesus and, in an effort to short circuit the impending confrontation, cried out to Jesus in a loud voice. In an aside, the omniscient narrator explained to the audience that the unclean spirit had had a prior confrontation with Jesus in which Jesus had ordered it to come out of the man. The unclean spirit’s outcry was an attempt at control: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” Instead of responding to the unclean spirit, Jesus turned the tables on it. Speaking for the first time in the episode, he asked the unclean spirit what its name was; it responded: “Legion.” As I have indicated above, the unclean spirit then made two additional requests of Jesus. It is clear to the audience that, although Jesus acceded to the multiple requests, once the unclean spirit had left the demoniac, the man is restored back to his pre-possession self, causing the swineherds and townspeople no small amount of discomfort and consternation. No longer in control (they had, after all, lost both their herd and their codependent caretaking of the demoniac!), they asked Jesus to leave their area. As Jesus prepared to leave, the formerly possessed man narratively reversed the crowd’s request by asking Jesus if he could accompany him. Jesus spoke for the second time in the episode, denying the man’s request, but encouraging him to tell the story of his deliverance, his liberation, by God at home. Instead of obeying Jesus, the man broadcast the story of Jesus’ actions in Decapolis. The narrative picture of Jesus that emerges from this episode confirms what the audience has already learned thus far in Mark’s Gospel: Jesus is the Son of God. The unclean spirit declared this relationship publicly. Jesus was given God’s authority and the Holy Spirit’s power in his baptism. The unclean spirit recognized Jesus’ superiority and knew that Jesus had the authority and power to exorcize it. Jesus served as God’s legitimate agent in his ministry of announcing and building God’s kingdom on earth. This excursion into Gentile territory announced that the kingdom of God was open to all people. And al-

Liberation from Empire

155

though he will not dominate humans, Jesus was engaged in an ongoing power struggle with non-human forces. The unclean spirit realized that this was another skirmish in Jesus’ battle against the minions of Satan. Jesus, the stronger one, had bound the strong one in the wilderness; his exorcisms were eschatological indicators of his plundering of the household of the strong one. Jesus’ plunder of the strong one’s household meant that “legion” would be bound and the demoniac would be liberated. Because of their fear, the crowd from the town pled with Jesus to leave them alone. Similar to the crowd from Nazareth, Jesus could do nothing with or for them. “As often in Mark, the human opposition to Jesus reflects the demonic one, which is implied by its source. …”112

Social Science Analysis In this episode, Mark slows down the action and urgency of Jesus’ ministry by having him travel with the Twelve to another location specifically to demonstrate that Jesus had the authority and power to break down physical, social, and religious boundaries even in Gentile territory. By crossing the sea, the narrator established the location of this episode outside Galilean territory where Jesus had been active thus far. The episode ends with Jesus re-embarking into the boat (5:18) and re-crossing the sea, returning to Galilean territory (5:21). Mark demonstrates that Jesus wields authority and power over the agents of Satan even in places and among people outside of the Judean and Galilean maps of holy people, times, and places. In this episode “…Mark is intent on showing that Jesus’ mission was an inclusive one to preach to all peoples, Gentiles included, and to offer full membership in God’s kingdom to all peoples, Gentiles included.”113 For in all of his interactions with unclean people, places, and things, Jesus did not become defiled, but, on the contrary, spread purity, bringing wholeness to others. Markan irony is much in evidence in this episode: The first journey that Mark’s Jesus undertakes outside Palestine was into Gentile territory where he was confronted by an army of unclean spirits that end up in unclean animals after possessing an unclean person who was living in an unclean place. Clearly, this episode is related to the Jewish understanding of holiness. Concern for purity in Mark’s community meant taking steps to protect one’s community from all that was unclean and had the potential to pollute. Only in this manner could the sense of a cosmos that was in accord with God’s created order be sustained. “Holiness, an attribute of God, resides in God’s power to bless and to curse.”114 If one became polluted, one risked the withdrawal of God’s blessing, and the withdrawal of God’s blessing resulted in chaos, confusion and disorder, as before creation.

156

Cheryl Stewart Pero

The Holiness Code in Lev 17–26 provided the framework for how God’s people were to interact with God, with one another, and with outsiders in order to maintain their purity. Purity was equivalent to wholeness, and anything or anyone who was not whole was perceived as impure, having the potential to pollute the entire community. Purity also predicated an obsession with protecting the boundaries of both the community and the body. Anything or anyone one who did not fit into the definitions of purity was considered marginal and unclean. The notion of the protection of boundaries leads to an understanding of the maps of holy times and places and persons. In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus continually expanded traditional Israelite boundaries, in the process redefining the maps of holy times and places and persons. As Jesus disembarked from the boat with the Twelve, he was approached by the unnamed Gerasene demoniac. According to Mark, this possessed man had been living in the cemetery among the unclean bones of the dead unable to be bound by either chains or shackles. The Markan narrator informs the audience that an unclean spirit possessed the man: He exhibited superhuman strength; he shouted and practiced self-destructive behavior; he lived an insomniac’s isolation in the cemetery because of the threat his behavior posed to his family and his community of origin in Gerasa. The narrator describes for the audience the actions of the demoniac, but the audience is also led to understand that the unclean spirit had taken over the man’s actions totally—his entire being was taken over by the unclean spirit.115 As a result, a certain narrative ambiguity remains about who was responsible for the man’s behavior and conversation: the man himself or the unclean spirit(s). Nevertheless, the narrator informs the audience twice, in 5:2 and 6, that the demoniac approached Jesus. The first time, in vs. 2, the man appeared in front of Jesus immediately, in typical Markan fashion. The second time, in vs. 6, the narrator emphasizes the man’s encounter with Jesus by having the man bow down before Jesus when he reached him. Verses 7–10 provide an example of Jesus’ challenge/riposte skill. Just as Mark’s audience witnessed in the Capernaum synagogue (1:24), the unclean spirit, lower in the cosmic hierarchy than Jesus, responded to Jesus’ presence by taking the offensive in an attempt to wrest control from him. In its own insecurity, the unclean spirit cried out, acknowledging Jesus’ superiority and identity: “What (is there) to you and to me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?” The unclean spirit then continued its attempt to gain control over Jesus by using part of an exorcism formula with its demand: “I adjure you by God do not torment me.” Jesus countered the unclean spirit by redirecting the interaction, asking for its name. The response of the unclean spirit contained another incidence of an increase (as in 1:24), from a singularity of one in 5:2 to a plurality named “legion” in 5:9. The negotiation that ensued between Jesus and the unclean spirit(s)

Liberation from Empire

157

was not about whether or not the unclean spirit had to go, but where it would go. Almost as an aside in vs. 8, the narrator describes the issue at hand, informing the audience that the demonic approached Jesus because Jesus had already ordered it to leave its host. In this exchange, when the unclean spirit acknowledged Jesus’ relationship to God, Jesus’ unparalleled authority is displayed.116 The audience learns that Jesus had been in control the entire time, having made the first move117 when he bound the strong one in the wilderness (1:13), confirming Jesus’ authority and power over the strong one and his minions. The pleading of the unclean spirit with Jesus is another indication of its inferiority in the cosmic hierarchy.118 The unclean spirit did not want to leave the territory, and requested relocation into a herd of pigs feeding nearby. Jesus allowed the relocation, but the two-thousand pigs, newly possessed by the unclean spirits, plunged down a cliff and drowned in the sea. Pigs were considered unclean because of the prohibition in Lev 11:7: “The pig, for even though it has divided hoofs and is cleft-footed, it does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.”119 The patron/client is another model that can be observed in the bowing of the man at the beginning of the episode (5:6). On the one hand, if the man was responsible for bowing by his own agency, it would have been the action of a client towards a patron; if, on the other hand, the act of bowing was initiated by the unclean spirit, this would have been the appropriate action of one lower in the cosmic hierarchy towards a superior.120 Bowing before Jesus was an acknowledgement of Jesus’ superiority reminiscent of the action of the unclean spirits in 1:39, regardless of whether the possessed man or the unclean spirit was responsible for the action. At the end of the episode, the man, now exorcized, begs Jesus to allow him to become a follower; perhaps he has noted the presence of the Twelve. This is the second instance where the patron/client model proves to be a useful heuristic tool. The man wants to repay his honor debt to Jesus by staying with him as a client, but Jesus refuses in vs. 19, instead sending him back into his original social context, “directing the man’s attention to the proper place where honor is due: to God, the mercy giving Patron/Benefactor. The man does not follow the instructions, however, giving honor to Jesus rather than to God.”121 And, unbeknownst to the man, Mark’s Jesus is separate from yet directly related to God, for it is through Jesus that God blesses the Gentiles.122 “Transformance,” provides a new model for analyzing this episode.123 The demoniac’s raging and self-flagellation in 5:5 is odd behavior indeed, the behavior of one possessed, part of the performance in which the demoniac acts out the possession idiom. Jesus “invades the field of possession performance with exorcism,”124 transforming the performance of the possessed, thus transfor-

158

Cheryl Stewart Pero

mance. By the end of the episode, the behavior of the demoniac has been transformed, indicating both that the unclean spirit has departed and that the possession idiom has been broken. Transformance, then, is the method by which the possessed journeys to a new self as the consequence of a cosmic encounter with the divine. Transformance is a tangible cosmic illustration of the presence of the kingdom of God. Honor/shame is also apparent in this episode. The first demonstration of Jesus’ authority and power over the unclean spirits occurs when Jesus acquiesced to their request for relocation; they immediately transferred their possession to the pigs. The second proof of Jesus’ authority and power lies in the eyewitness of the people from the district125 who rushed to the cemetery to corroborate the incredible story of the swineherds: the pigs were gone and the man was sitting with Jesus, fully dressed and in his right mind. As the episode reached its conclusion, the townspersons’ initial response to Jesus’ work is fearfulness that morphs into amazement (cf. 1:27). The former demoniac’s proclamation in the Decapolis insured that Jesus’ honor spread in reverse proportion to the shame of the unclean spirits and Satan. Jesus’ honor status preceded him in Gentile territory, preparing the audience for the story of Jesus’ trip into the region of Tyre when he exorcized the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter.

Postcolonial Analysis Much has been written about this episode’s relation to politics and empire because Mark identifies the name of the unclean spirit as “Legion.” In light of the multiplicity of treatments, any faithful interpretation of this episode needs to take seriously the literal understanding of imperialism. This episode is not merely about mission (reaching out to Gentiles), or Western etic rationalization, or even “Jesus’ ability to domesticate and control supernatural powers. These interpretations do not…[consider] the [text’s] colonial background.”126 On the contrary, this exorcism is literally not only a personal liberation, it is also a political/prophetic act against Roman colonialism because it frees someone from the effects of a colonization that causes people to replicate outward political domination within their bodies. In order to grapple seriously with the literal dynamics of colonialism and imperialism, I examine the text for Markan features that are indicative of the narrator’s anti-imperialistic point of view. I then consider how Jesus’ hybridity allows the narrator to promote a model of resistance to imperialism that invites the exorcized to become participants in the kingdom of God. Those who exist on society’s margins because they do not fit seamlessly into predefined categories of clean/unclean are considered hybrid. Jesus’ ministry activities categorized him as someone functioning on the margins of Jewish

Liberation from Empire

159

society, thus hybrid. Jesus’ human-divine hybridity allowed him to span earthly and celestial spatial boundaries, Palestinian Judean/Galilean and Roman geopolitical boundaries, and Jewish and Gentile socio-religious boundaries. In his ministry of exorcism, Jesus functioned both as insider and outsider, delivering, that is liberating, the demon possessed from enslavement in the kingdom of Satan, a kingdom administered by human “strong men” like Caesar,127 and, in the process, trespassing on and trampling spatial, geopolitical, and religio-social boundaries. Although this episode takes place in Gentile territory, in the social context of Mark’s story there is a narrative presupposition that Jewish customs and values were normative for everyone in the ancient Levant. Mark’s unclean spirits were Satan’s minions who, unlike Jesus, manipulated the human beings whom they possessed. In this episode the subaltern, a possessed man from the town of Gerasa, was so overcome by unclean spirits that he was unable to exert any self-control nor could the townspeople control him. The narrator describes the man’s behavior (vss. 1–5) as being so uncontrollable that the only place in which he could reside was the cemetery, the location of and for the dead, where the demoniac posed a far lesser threat to the town and its people: the man was as if dead. There he became “a public spectacle of torment”128 where the unclean spirits wreaked havoc on him through their manipulation and where he was unable to express any agency of his own: 1. He appeared as soon as Jesus got out of the boat in vs. 2, and had supernatural strength, often breaking free from chains and shackles in vs. 4. 2. Being overtaken by unclean spirits meant that, although the demoniac was unable to speak for himself, still he cried out day and night, according to vs. 5.129 3. The unclean spirits caused him to beat himself with stones, very likely destroying his clothes and injuring himself in the process (vs. 5).130 When 5:4 is read in light of 3:27,131 it becomes clear that human incapacity is related to Satan’s bondage and the unclean spirits’ malevolent distinctiveness: alienation, sleeplessness, living among the tombs.132 The unclean spirits are the minions of Satan who destroy their very own interests—themselves.133 There is a direct correlation with Roman colonizing forces that had a similar impact on the colonized, rendering the subjugated out of control, isolated, self-destructive, and voiceless. The unclean spirits used the demoniac as a means for communicating their domination while the demoniac protected them from eviction. The demoniac also served as the potential instrument through which the possessing spirits

160

Cheryl Stewart Pero

could be tormented.134 In 1:24 Mark indicates that the unclean spirit in the Capernaum synagogue asked Jesus if he had come to destroy it; here, in vs. 7, after it acknowledged Jesus’ presence, as “Jesus, son of the most high God,” it begged him not to torture it. It seems that the unclean spirits’ vulnerable point was their very real fear of the one who could not be controlled by them but, on the contrary, exerted control over them. Jesus was the one who had the authority and power to destroy or torment/torture them, God’s ultimate judgment.135 The Markan unclean spirits fear exactly what they have been causing the possessed man to experience: potential destruction and torment/torture. This subaltern Gerasene man seems to epitomize those who are being colonized by Rome: “Torment can come from many sources. The Gerasene demoniac bears in his body the torment and suffering of a subjugated people.”136 This insight seems to be a Markan allusion to Jesus’ passion: the most unclean character, the demoniac, perhaps in the entire Gospel of Mark, functions as a precursor for Jesus! For Jesus will bear in his body the torment and suffering of a subjugated people. Jesus does not answer the unclean spirit’s question about his purpose, creating an aura of suspense for the audience. Instead, the narrator informs the audience that Jesus’ spatial hybridity enabled him to be in control of the unclean spirit from a previous private encounter in which he had exorcized it. Jesus publicly gained total control over the unclean spirit by demanding and knowing its name, a name that reveals its immeasurable capacity. Sugirtharajah’s literal interpretation of the name “Legion”137 leads him to identify that the unclean spirits are actual Roman legionnaires who have overtaken the people and the land, as if it were theirs just for the taking. Legion begged Jesus not to destroy them but, instead, to allow them to relocate into a herd of pigs grazing nearby, perhaps hoping that relocation into a non-human host would allow them to avoid destruction. One reason for their request for relocation might have been the fear of being impressed into imperial military service, a standard Roman recruitment tactic, which explains their appeal to “Jesus not to be sent out of the country.”138 Jesus allows their relocation and the unclean spirits rush the possessed pigs off the cliff, drowning both themselves and the legion of pigs in the sea. And the drowning of the pigs symbolizes the destruction of colonial powers.139 The Markan narrator mocks the Empire, in so far as the destruction and torment/torture that the unclean spirits attempted to divert from themselves, and for which they were responsible in relation to the demoniac, was not averted at all. Verses 7–9 serve as a turning point in Mark’s Gospel for, after this interaction, unclean spirits, upon encountering Jesus, no longer cry out and name him.140 In these verses, the Markan audience begins to comprehend Mark’s in-

Liberation from Empire

161

sinuations regarding Empire. Imagery and symbolism of the military and enslavement abound. Mark’s “text is dense with colonial and military allusions and associations.”141 The military language and the enslaving imagery used throughout this episode remind Mark’s audience of the Roman occupation of Palestine, even though the episode takes place in “the country of the Gerasenes.” Unlike the unclean spirit in 1:21–28 who represented scribal aristocracy, the unclean spirit here represents Roman military authority.142 “…[T]he alien demonic forces that are wreaking such violence among the people are clearly identified as the instruments and effects of Roman imperial rule.”143 Mark’s use of “Legion” is literal symbolism , a division of Roman soldiers. 144 Mark uses the symbolic name of the unclean spirit and the symbolism inherent in demonic possession as a narrative method to signify the oppressive influence of imperialism on individuals and communities.145 The name “Legion” signifies power and control and is an allusion to Hellenistic culture’s intrusion in the region and Rome’s demonic incursion.146 Even the pigs’ drowning is symbolic, conjuring up the collective memory of the exodus from Egypt across the Red Sea as the Egyptian army drowned chasing the children of Israel within the consciousness of Mark’s Jewish audience.147 In Mark’s narration, the unclean spirits’ demise indicated that the Roman Empire itself, and empire universally, would succumb to Jesus.148 Jesus delivered the Gerasene demoniac from his unwilling participation in the kingdom of the world controlled by Satan. I identify this state of being as the internalized colonization and oppression of the possessed. The demoniac’s internalized colonization and oppression “…is perhaps implied by Mark’s report that the man inflicts violence on himself.”149 What the Markan narrator does tell the audience directly is that when the crowds from the town came to see Jesus in order to assess the swineherds’ report, they found the former demoniac sitting with Jesus, clothed and sound in mind. “The healing of the demoniac was bringing back sanity to a person who had been mentally unsettled by the colonial presence. …”150 As Jesus prepared to return across the sea, the former demoniac begged to be with him. Jesus denied his request but commissioned the man instead to proclaim to his people what God had done for him. Mark tells his audience that the former demoniac, instead of following Jesus’ command, broadcast throughout Decapolis what Jesus had done for him. In the process of delivering the demoniac from possession, those local merchants, e.g., the cattle owners, business people, and landowners who benefited from colonial rule, saw Jesus as a threat to their profit and well-being.151 The townspeople asked Jesus to leave. The reaction of the townspeople revealed Jesus’ ministry acts to be dangerous to average people because Jesus’ exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac disrupted the normal social order.152 Jesus annoyed the townspeo-

162

Cheryl Stewart Pero

ple—liberation is not an easy mantle to wear! They, too, suffered from internalized colonization and oppression. There are two ways of understanding the narrative. In the first, exorcism is viewed “as an act of defiance against the ill-effects produced among a subject people as a result of the Roman occupation.”153 In this scenario, Jesus acts hostilely in response to the colonial presence in order to provide the people a defense by which they can face and withstand the stranglehold of colonialism.154 Jesus’ actions, though affecting Roman hegemony, are directed towards tearing down the kingdom of the world over which Satan rules. Jesus cannot control other people but he can control the unclean spirits. Jesus implicates Rome for acting demonic and his exorcisms model behavior that negates the kingdom of Satan. We have two insights here: 1) the possessed in Mark are similar to annexed territory, and 2) the narrator links exorcism with Empire when Jesus expels dehumanizing forces from the possessed people155 and the land. Furthermore, the clash between the unclean and the holy is merismatic, where the unclean is associated with the occupying Roman Gentiles.156 A second theory posits possession as a socially acceptable “coping mechanism,” allowing the colonized to face the pressures of colonialism. Jesus’ action disrupted the context for possession by removing “Legion,” the agent of possession.157 Even though Jesus’ battle is with Satan and his legions, not with the Romans, Jesus posed a disruptive threat to the established Roman order in the region. Jesus mimics the empire when he “manifests his power in subduing ‘Legion’ in Decapolis (5:1–20) as though he is the new Caesar who can cross the stormy sea and conquer the enemy.”158 Although the strong one and the unclean spirits are bound by the stronger one, they are not destroyed; the eschaton has been initiated but not consummated.159 By binding Satan and plundering his minions, Jesus hamstrings the Romans and the local people who benefit from Satan’s hold on the world. Although Jesus cannot overturn Roman imperialism, he can and does overturn the kingdom of Satan. “Jesus displays his holy powers in a conflict with the demonic Roman presence and wins.”160 His spatial, geopolitical, and socioreligious hybridity authorized and empowered him to liberate the demoniac from the presence of the unclean spirit, a cipher for Rome. The model for liberation from the destructive forces of Empire that the Markan narrator leaves with his audience includes repudiating the unclean spirit as well as commissioning the former demoniac to tell his community what God had done for him. As a corollary, the task of the Twelve (and later followers) becomes, then, not to destroy Rome, because Jesus directs his followers not to dominate others, but to take Rome out of people’s hearts, to liberate the people from the possessing entity as well as to liberate the possessing entity itself.161

Liberation from Empire

163

Mark 7:24–26, [27–28] 29–30 The Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter Following the successful campaign of the Twelve among the people in the villages of Galilee, Mark narrates the story of John the Baptist’s death at the hands of Herod Antipas (6:14–29), Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand (6:30–44), Jesus’ walking on water (6:45–52), and Jesus’ healing the sick in Gennesaret (6:53–56). In 7:1–23,162 Mark’s Jesus responds to the charges of impurity among Jesus’ followers made by the retainers of the Jerusalem elites according to the tradition of the elders by declaring all foods clean. The Markan narrator once again extends the ministry of Jesus from Galilee to locations on the Gentile side of the Sea of Galilee where the Markan Jesus can now favorably answer a Gentile woman’s plea for healing her demon-possessed daughter.163 When Jesus leaves the Tyre location, he travels by way of Sidon through the region of Decapolis where he heals a deaf man (7:31–37). Jesus next feeds a crowd of four thousand in Gentile territory (8:1–10) then travels back into Galilean territory where he encounters the scribes (8:11–13), teaches about his opponents (8:14–21), and heals a blind man (8:22–26). It is not my intention to analyze the bracketed dialogue between Jesus and the unnamed Syrophoenician woman (vss. 2–28) in this treatment. I have omitted analyzing the discourse because, although significant for understanding the larger episode as a whole and increasing the suspense of the encounter,164 these verses add little to the interpretation of the exorcism proper. They do serve to narrate the challenge/riposte dialogue through which the woman’s faith is expressed and they continue Mark’s plotline: Jesus’ establishing the kingdom of God. They do provide the narrative reason for Jesus’ subsequent response to the woman by explaining the contextual meaning of Jesus first five words in vs. 28: Dia\ tou=ton to_n lo/gon u(/p age [on account of this saying/word go]. I include 7:27–28 in brackets in my translation (below) in order to present the complete text of the episode. While the verbal repartee between the woman and Jesus is significant for the interpretation of the larger narrative, this examination focuses on the anonymous Syrophoenician woman and the exorcism of her demonpossessed daughter. 24 Now after arising he went from there to the region of Tyre. And after entering into a house he did not desire anyone to know, but he was not able to escape notice. 25 But a woman immediately after hearing about him, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, after coming she fell down before his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nationality/ethnicity. And she requested him to cast out the demon from her little daughter.

164

Cheryl Stewart Pero [27 And he said to her, Allow first the children to be satisfied, for it is not good to carry the bread of the children and to cast (it) to the little dogs. 28 And she answered and said to him, Lord: even the little dogs under the table eat from the crumbs of the little children.] 29 And he said to her: On account of this saying/word go, the demon has gone out from your little daughter. 30 And after she came into her house she found the child cast on the bed and the demon had gone out.

Linguistic Analysis 24. a)nasta&j [after arising] This is an example of the graphic usage of the participle (second aorist) understood to be a Semitic idiom that suggests implicit action concomitant to or preceding the verb to which the participle relates.165 ei0j ta_ 03ria Tu/rou [to a region of Tyre] The hostile166 Gentile territory of Tyre provides Jesus with the possibility of seclusion/retreat/solitude.167 ou)de/na hq1 elen gnw~nai [he did not desire anyone to know] Here the negative ou)- is attached to the translation of the verb.168 25. h[j…au)th=j [who…of her] This is a demonstration of the resumptive169 or pleonastic use of the pronoun. “The pleonastic personal pronoun incorporated into the relative clause is a phenomenon suggested by Semitic usage…but it is a slip not unknown in classical and later Greek: Mk 7:25. …”170 pneu=ma a)ka&qarton [an unclean spirit] “Unclean spirit” reinforces the Gentile setting and provides a semantic link with the defilement discussion and teachings in 7:1–23.171 prose/pesen pro_j tou\j po/daj au)tou= [she fell down before his feet] This reference recalls for the audience other suppliants who came to Jesus for healing172 also falling down before him.173 It also serves to remind the audience that unclean spirits fell down before Jesus’ feet in 3:11 and in 5:22. 26. h( de\ gunh\\ h}n (Ellhni/j, Surofoini/kissa tw|= ge/nei [Now the woman was Greek, a Syrophoenician by nationality/ethnicity] h( de\ gunh\\: with the adversative conjunction de\ this might be a Markan way of highlighting the woman’s higher social status.174 (Ellhni/j is a generic term175 that indicates that the woman was non-Jewish.176 This description might be Mark’s archetype of the hellenized population.177 A Surofoini/kissa was a citizen of Syrian Phoenicia in contrast to the Libyphoenicians of North Africa.178 tw|= ge/nei [by nationality/ethnicity] This dative of reference refers to her place of origin, not her moral character.179 i(/na + e0kba/lh| [to cast out] i(/na + the subjunctive forms an objective infinitive serving as the direct object of the verb.180 to_ daimo/nion [the demon] The narrator’s change from pneu=m a a)ka&q arton in vs. 25 to to_ daimo/nion here (and in 29 and 30) is linked to the narrator’s use of e0kba/llw, the Markan

Liberation from Empire

165

narrator’s language of exorcism181 that tends to “rebuke” unclean spirits and “cast out” demons. 29–30. dia_ tou=ton to_n lo/gon u(/page [On account of this saying/word go] This phrase summarizes the result of the verbal repartee between Jesus and the woman in vss. 27–28. Jesus’ healing of the woman’s possessed daughter is based on her lo&goj, her saying.182 u(/p age [go] indicates that Jesus has exorcized her daughter from a distance.183 “His declaration is enough for her. She has acknowledged his lordship, and she believes it.”184 beblhme/non e0p i\ th\n kli/nhn [cast on the bed] beblhme/non [cast] is the perfect passive participle from ba/llw indicating action completed in the past; a compound form is e0kba/llw (see vs. 26), the language used by Mark in exorcism.185 th\n kli/nhn [the bed] indicates the wealthy status of the woman,186 because the poor only had pallets or mats on which to sleep.187 The Markan narrator repeats sounds, words, and synonyms, especially in vss. 29 and 30:188 for example, e0celh/luqen, a)pelqou=sa and e0celhluqo/j [has gone out, came into, had gone out], all repeat similar sounds and are compound forms of e/rxomai. The perfect forms e0celh/luqen and e0celhluqo/j, repeated in these verses, indicate action completed in the past; their usage “heightens the effective power of the word of Jesus.”189

Narrative Analysis The Markan narrator changes the geographical setting from Galilee, Palestinian territory, where Jesus was engaged in public teaching about defilement and purity, to a house in the region of Tyre, Gentile territory,190 where Jesus desires to remain anonymous. Jesus’ journey is a reversal of 3:8 where people from Tyre and Sidon come to him.191 Perhaps Jesus desires to be hidden while in Gentile territory because in 5:17 the Gentiles asked him to leave (following his exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac) and he does not want them to know that he has returned. According to the narrator, Jesus’ travel into the region of Tyre is a search for privacy but his attempt to hide, yet another demonstration of Markan irony, does not work because Jesus and his authority and power simply cannot be hidden.192 The Markan narrator uses house locations to frame the entire episode: Jesus seeks privacy at the beginning of the episode in a house (7:24) and the unnamed Syrophoenician woman returns to her house at the end (7:30) where she finds her exorcized little daughter on the bed. The Markan narrator forms an inclusio, his method for highlighting the sense of suspense and the serious nature of the conversation between Jesus and the woman. Mark’s overall plot is Jesus’ establishment of the kingdom of God; this exorcism fits into the Markan understanding that exorcisms demonstrate the breaking in of the kingdom of God.193 The narrator demonstrates that Jesus

166

Cheryl Stewart Pero

does not even need to have direct contact with either the demon or the demoniac in order to exorcize; he has the authority and power to exorcize the woman’s daughter from a distance.194 The narrator’s use of to_ daimo/nion indicates: “the woman had heard not only of Jesus’ presence in the area but also that she believed he had the power to exorcize demons. This implied that Jesus’ fame had clearly spread to the populace of Tyre (3:8). By seeking him out and asking for his help, she entrusted herself to him and acknowledged without question his power to accomplish the task.”195 The primary characters in the episode are Jesus and the woman. Jesus is a round character, one who is narratively portrayed as having “many complex and/or conflicting traits;” one whose movements “are often unpredictable.”196 For example, the omitted verses (27–28) demonstrate Mark’s Jesus’ unpredictability when the woman’s clever repartee (in which she mimics Jesus’ own words!) persuades Jesus to change his mind about exorcizing the woman’s demon possessed daughter. Jesus also demonstrates unpredictability when he declares that the woman’s daughter has been exorcized. The Markan narrator uses this episode to enhance the characterization of Jesus not only by showing that Jesus could change his mind, but also by building on Jesus’ power to exorcize demons, this time from a distance. The woman serves as a stock character for Mark, demonstrating one basic trait: “the suppliant with faith” where “faith is embodied in action.”197 The Markan narrator begins his construction of this unusual woman with his typical two-step progression where the second step repeats and enhances the information provided in the first step: Although she was anonymous, she was culturally Greek and Syrophoenician by nationality and ethnicity. The description of the woman as “Greek” in 7:25 is the functional equivalent of Gentile.198 The designation “Syrophoenician” differentiates the woman from a North African Libyophoenician. “It is also possible that ‘Syrophoenician’ connotes a native of the Phoenician section of Syria as opposed to the Coele-Syrian section, or that it designates a descendant of the Phoenicians who had intermarried with Syrians. …”199 She serves another purpose in Mark’s narrative construction: “…the Syrophoenician woman is a representative figure…of non-Israelites who want to participate in the renewing power of the kingdom of God manifested in Jesus and in the renewal of Israel as well.”200 The narrator causes the audience to sympathize with the woman because of her vulnerability and her insistence, particularly when she prostrated herself at Jesus’ feet and begged him to exorcize the demon from her daughter. In spite of her prostration, an expression of her humility and desperation, the woman still “…must insist that Jesus reach out to her daughter.”201 The narrator portrays the woman as overly bold,202 perhaps to compensate for her vulnerability, and

Liberation from Empire

167

determined to approach “Jesus in need and recognizing him to be the one who could exorcise the demon from her daughter (7:26).”203 In 7:29 the woman “laid claim to God’s benefit that came through the Jews. … In short, she yielded to one in whom the God of Israel was at work.”204 Jesus finally sends the woman home, as with others whom he has healed.205 She complies without further comment and finds her daughter delivered from demonic possession when she arrives home. The girl lying on the bed without the demon is the narrative confirmation that the exorcism has taken place.206 Although the narrator makes no mention of her faith: “The focus of faith in Mark is ‘trust that a request will be granted.’ Such trust is embodied in action, so that the coming, the kneeling, the asking…are the faith.”207 Some characterizations in these verses are notable for their total absence. For example, the audience has become accustomed to the Markan narrator using houses as sites for many of Jesus’ healings and teachings, most notably when he is about to explain something of significance to the Twelve privately. Instead of Jesus being with the Twelve in this house, the narrator constructs an anonymous, Gentile, Syrophoenician woman who engages a solitary Jesus in very serious dialogue: Here she serves as a foil for the disciples, who do not understand Jesus.208 In spite of Jesus’ commissioning of the Twelve in 3:14 “to be with him,” they are notably absent from this narrative. Mark does not mention them and they reappear when Jesus summons them in the 8:1–10 feeding narrative. The exorcism is not narrated, and there is no word of command; the demon’s removal “is simply spoken of as already a past event (e0celh/luqen).”209 In the exorcism itself, the narrator gives the audience no details and describes no contact at all among Jesus, the demon, and the demoniac. The unclean spirit/demon serves as the object of the exorcism; there are no “casting outs” or “rebukes” that Jesus directs toward the demon. In fact, any information concerning the demon, who provides the immediate plot of conflict for this episode, is also notably absent. The Markan audience is called on to bring their narrative experiences and memories of demon possession, as the Markan narrator has earlier described the behavior of the demonic, to this encounter. The narrator gives the audience no information about the owners of the house, the crowds, or, for that matter, the woman’s daughter. “When there is no crowd, as [here], the story already has the motif of the news of Jesus reaching more widely than Jesus’ immediate surroundings.”210 Although Mark gives the audience no description of the demon-possessed daughter’s behavior, 7:30 confirms the exorcism.211 This narrative overlay discloses first that there is significance in Jesus’ geographical move from Jewish to Gentile territory, perhaps anticipating the

168

Cheryl Stewart Pero

change in his focus, extending the kingdom of God from Jewish to Gentile territory. Because Gentiles would be able to identify with Mark’s inclusive message, Mark’s authorial assumption is that the audience is comprised of a significant number of Gentiles.212 In this manner, the Markan narrator maintains his commitment to portraying a Jesus who is determined to demonstrate that the kingdom of God is open to all. “Jesus carries the same message and program of exorcisms and healing into Syrian villages that he had taken into Galilean villages earlier.”213 Second, the plot’s conflict continues the focus on Jesus establishing the inclusive kingdom of God. In this episode, the woman’s daughter perhaps represents all those who are oppressed and possessed by alien entities. Jesus initially attempts to act exclusively on behalf of the Jews, but this unusual woman causes him to rethink his priorities, leading to his change of mind. The exorcism of the woman’s little daughter seems to augur the opportunity of exorcism, liberation, for possessed Gentiles, the very real possibility of deliverance from possessing entities and participation in the benefits of the kingdom of God. Third, the Markan narrator presents some unique features in this incident located near the end of his Gospel’s first half.214 This is one of the few episodes where Mark’s Jesus is alone with a suppliant: There are no demons/unclean spirits, no demoniacs, no disciples, and no crowds. This is the only episode where both the suppliant and the demoniac are female Gentiles. This is the only episode where the narrator does not describe the demon’s behavior and the demon’s effect on the demoniac. This is the only episode where Jesus exorcizes from a distance with only a narrative acknowledgement of the exorcism. The narrator’s presentation of these unique features exposes his eschatological perspective. Before Jesus begins his journey to Jerusalem, he establishes that God’s kingdom will be evident wherever and whenever Jesus meets those who need his intervention, even among the Gentiles. Jesus does not completely abandon the larger eschatological framework. He still considers in general that Jews should be satisfied. Yet Jesus has changed his mind and even now allows Gentiles to share the benefits of the kingdom. These episodes clearly foreshadow a later Gentile mission projected into the future of the story-world.215

The Gospel must first be preached to all the Gentile nations (Mark 13:10).

Social Science Analysis The Markan narrator’s emphasis here is on Jesus’ boundary breaking activities. This episode follows Mark’s exposition on defilement and purity in 7:1–23 revolving around issues related to eating and to food.216 This episode is also linked to the narrative that follows about the healing of a deaf mute in Gentile territory

Liberation from Empire

169

(7:31–37). Jesus’ first appearance in Gentile territory since 5:20,217 this is “the northernmost geographical penetration of Mark’s narrative…and, socially speaking, quite beyond the horizons of the Palestinian Jew.”218 Jesus now enters the Gentile territory…north of Galilee and has contact with a specifically Gentile woman whose daughter has an “unclean spirit.” Jesus’ behavior illustrates his removal in 7:1–13 of the social boundaries of traditional Judaism based on ritual defilement. … One can hardly miss the ramifications of this for a community consisting of at least in part Gentiles (cf., “all the Jews,” 7:3) and engaged in mission to Gentiles. At the same time, the story’s content addresses the particular issue of Jesus’ mission with reference to both Jews and Gentiles.219

In our five brief verses, Mark’s Jesus crosses not only the geopolitical boundary between Palestine and Syria, he also crosses religious boundaries—between Gentiles and Jews, social boundaries—between an itinerant preacher and a potentially landed property owner, and cultural boundaries—between male dominance and female submissiveness.220 In these boundary crossings, he reverses the definitions of the exclusive social categories of “outsider” and “insider,” as we already observed in the Beelzebul controversy. Jesus’ reputation had spread north from Galilee into the region of Tyre, most likely by means of the gossip network.221 “When a Gentile woman comes to Jesus…with a request for help we are perhaps to imagine that [word of] the work of the solitary evangelist has reached her.”222 In the dyadic world of the first century Mediterranean, “Greek” and “Syrophoenician” encoded all of the woman’s status information,223 identifying both the woman’s culture and ethnic background.224 She offended scribal and Pharisaic boundaries (ethnic, religious, cultural), and although Jewish reasons for ascribing an “outsider” status to the woman and her daughter are fundamentally cultic, reflecting on her gender and Hellenistic orientation, that her daughter was demon-possessed contributed even more to the ritual impurity threat she posed.225 By virtue of her hybrid and marginalized status, based in the patriarchal family system and on her demon-possessed daughter,226 she might even have been considered a double outsider. This woman has knowledge about Jesus and, although the narrator tells us little about her social status, by going to Jesus, she is risking what status the audience deduces she has on Jesus’ power to exorcize, hoping for the liberation, the deliverance, of her little possessed daughter.227 As an outsider who was a single female Gentile, even the woman’s presence in the house where Jesus was staying was highly irregular, and her approach is an affront to Jesus’ honor status.228 She shames herself, for not only is she able to discover where Jesus is staying, she also disrupts his privacy and, after falling at Jesus’ feet, pleads for the deliverance of her demon-possessed daughter.

170

Cheryl Stewart Pero

“That such a woman chose to approach a Jewish healer, and even fell at his feet, indicates either desperation or a remarkable insight into the wider significance of Jesus’ ministry. …”229 As noted earlier, the only characters in Mark’s story who consistently fall prostrate before Jesus are the demoniacs possessed by unclean spirits, the ones who know who Jesus really is. “Falling at the feet of another is the gesture of a client seeking a favor from a patron or a broker.”230 Perhaps the unclean spirits that possess her daughter are pleading through her that Jesus, God’s broker, does not destroy them through her success with Jesus’ intervention. However, in this episode, the woman has “unusual trust in Jesus as God’s broker, and the child is healed in response.”231 The social science overlay exposes Mark’s cosmology by depicting an unnamed Gentile woman, perhaps wealthy, coming to Jesus to beg for the deliverance of her demon-possessed daughter. While she observes the social conventions by approaching Jesus in an appropriate woman’s space, a house, her very presence is highly irregular because she is unaccompanied by a male relative. The Markan audience recognizes that this episode forms a direct boundary-breaking narrative link with 7:1–23: Jesus now demonstrates how to bridge the insider-outsider gap. The first century Mediterranean audience is well aware of the depth and width of this gap; now they are afforded a glimpse of Jesus’ radical proclamation about and enactment of the kingdom of God. The outsider, anonymous woman, identified only in pejorative negative attributes, i.e., alone, bold, non-Jewish, Syrophoenician, mother of a demon possessed daughter, provides an exemplary contrast between how insiders/outsiders were even described. Even her behavior is understood as negative: She intentionally and indiscreetly interrupts Jesus’ private time and violates his honor to her shame. This non-Jewish woman alone with a man, in this culture a double outsider, “paradoxically teaches Jesus the implications of his earlier teaching and of his journey into Gentile territory.”232 Based on the actions her faith in Jesus compelled her to take, she causes the audience to reconsider Jesus’ mission and their own categorical judgments about insiders/outsiders. Jesus’ ministry in the region of Tyre and Sidon challenges all people, including women and Gentiles, to question and realign their thinking about the cosmic hierarchy. Shifts in rank are common in Jesus’ construction of the kingdom of God because no one is to dominate others; one chooses to become lesser in order to serve others and to lift up those who are most vulnerable. “That Jesus ultimately responded to a request from such a suppliant…is typical of his unconcern for convention when it stood in the way of his mission.”233 His mission included sending her back to her home to be with her daughter. “The people Jesus heals…are supported and integrated back into their communities of origin. …”234

Liberation from Empire

171

Postcolonial Analysis Jesus is an intruder in Gentile territory, but “…unless he makes incursions into foreign territory, there is no hope for rescue.”235 Jesus’ journey to the region of Tyre is one in which “colonial geography” holds great significance: the farthest away Jesus could possibly get from the metropolitan center of Jerusalem in the Markan landscape, a “hybrid domain” in which the Phoenician, Jewish, and Hellenistic come together.236 It comes as no surprise, then, that Mark describes the unnamed woman in hybrid terms, cultural/religious and national/political. (Ellhni/j could indicate two things: either religious status or social rank.237 Because Jesus acknowledges the significance of her word, “Greek” most likely refers to her language and speech, thus indicating that social status, rather than religion, is of significance to Mark. The woman is also described by the Markan narrator as “not only geographically, but sexually, racially, and religiously, ‘on the outside.’ She stands largely exterior to his concern or experience.”238 As hybrid and outsider, she represents the marginalized. In fact, in 7:25, the woman goes so far as to throw herself at Jesus’ feet in an “attitude of selfabasement and supplication.”239 She appears with Jesus as “the other”: woman, Gentile, pagan—a subaltern who speaks in behalf of her possessed daughter,240 “a patriarchal figuring of women whose voice is last and who remain subaltern.”241 The woman is a resistant subject in this episode, speaking out for others who, like her daughter, are trapped by circumstances beyond their control. In spite of this portrayal: “Mark’s story does give voice to subject people.”242 “…salvation is, in part, a liberation of oppressed voices, a freeing of subjects to speak in their own creative words.”243 In acting on behalf of her daughter, the woman reveals her loyalty and compassion. Her self-humiliation before Jesus expresses “her willingness to serve as one of the least on behalf of another.” 244 And by valorizing Jesus “politics of the least,” she creates space for the girl “in the privileged position he accords the most vulnerable.”245 The Markan narrator provides such scant information about the woman’s demon possessed daughter that analyzing or interpreting her role in the narrative is extremely difficult. She seems to represent the nameless, powerless and voiceless subaltern in Mark’s story of Jesus, those who are trapped by possessing entities through no fault of their own. She also fits the paradigm of the possessed: those without the ability to make choices. Jesus provided the girl the same deliverance he offered to Israel. Mark typifies this deliverance in Jesus’ power to exorcize the demonic (1:21–28). That is, “the kingdom of God at work in Jesus’ ministry extends to the Gentiles.”246 An alternate point of view in regards to this episode posits that Jesus did not have any special mission among the Gentiles in mind when he traveled north from Galilee to the region of Tyre. The woman sought him out, perhaps

172

Cheryl Stewart Pero

due to her own personal frustrations in having her daughter delivered. She was attracted by Jesus’ fame for performing miracles and healings. Mark is silent about any desire on her part to change her religious status and Jesus does not ask her to follow him.247 Although Mark’s story emphasizes Jesus’ reputation as a healer, and not his mission to the Gentiles, the woman demands from Jesus a place and a future for Gentiles in the kingdom of God. “Suddenly it is she who seeks to defend the ‘rights’ of her people to the liberating power of Jesus’ exorcism ministry.”248 The encounter results with the Markan narrator assuring the audience that liberation from evil is now available to non-Jews.249 Jesus functions in the role of divine Lord. … He is not forced against his will to deliver a girl from enslaving demonic power; he remains sovereign throughout. … The encounter is ultimately not male/female or Jew/Gentile, but divine/human, in which deity ultimately—though not immediately—responds to human need.250

The postcolonial overlay examines the Markan narrator’s anti-imperial agenda. The key to this incident lies in the woman’s lo/goj, her speech.251 Her actions, prostration and begging, lend weight to her words: Deliver my daughter from her suffering! In insisting on her daughter’s exorcism, she mimics Jesus’ insistence on bringing salvation to the Jews first. “…[C]olonized subjects mimic by repeating their colonial masters’ cultural habits, assumptions, institutions, voice, etc. The result is never a simple re-presentation or reproduction of those traits but rather a ‘blurred copy’, a ‘camouflage’ which can be quite disruptive.”252 Just as Jesus mimicked the words of his accusers in the Beelzebul controversy, so the woman mimics Jesus’ words in vss. 27–28.253 Jesus’ mimicry of the Jerusalem elites in 3:22–30 mocked them, disrupting their colonial agenda. The woman does the same here with Jesus, disrupting his Jewish agenda by causing him to change his mind. The Markan narrator changes her quasisubaltern status, using her voice to disrupt the colonial agenda. Possession appears in a wide variety of places and spaces in the Gospel of Mark. In this episode, we observed the second incidence of demon possession in Gentile territory. Instead of asking Jesus to leave, this time in the following narrative he moves about Gentile territory freely, healing a deaf/mute man (7:31–37), and feeding a crowd of four thousand (8:1–10). Like their Jewish counterparts, Gentiles desire to be delivered from all sorts of possession and this particular exorcism “suggests that the kingdom has dawned among the Gentiles. …”254

Liberation from Empire

173

Mark 9:14–29 The Uncontrollable Boy This section of Mark’s Gospel narrates the story of Jesus’ journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. The larger storyline of Jesus and the Twelve on the way to Jerusalem begins in 8:22, where Jesus heals a blind man in Bethsaida and then asks the Twelve whom others and they themselves think that he is. Peter confesses that Jesus is Messiah on behalf of the Twelve and at that time Jesus shares his first passion prediction with them. In denial, Peter rebukes Jesus, and Jesus rebukes Peter in turn. Right before this passage, Jesus teaches the Twelve and the crowd, and then takes Peter, James and John to the mountain where he is transfigured before them. As they descend the mountain, they meet the others. After this episode, Jesus makes his second passion prediction in Capernaum followed by a discussion among the Twelve concerning who was the greatest. They then run into an exorcist unknown to them and John brings it to Jesus’ attention. This provides an opportunity for Jesus to teach about opportunities for sin, divorce, the place of children, and the difficulty of a rich person inheriting eternal life. Jesus then makes his third passion prediction in response to which James and John jockey for eschatological prominence. This section concludes with Jesus’ healing of blind Bartimaeus. This section is framed by two “sight-giving” miracles between which the exorcism is centrally located. Instead of Mark’s usual method of bracketing the episode by means of geographical or architectural identifications, the narrator’s bracket uses the presence of Jesus and the Twelve in private situations. In the verses immediately preceding this episode, the narrator informs the audience that Peter, James, and John have descended the mountain after witnessing Jesus’ Transfiguration; on the way back to join the other nine they engage in a private conversation where Jesus teaches them about Elijah (9.2–13). At the end of this episode, the narrator shows the Twelve gathered in a private house where Jesus answers their question about their inability to perform the exorcism because this exorcism needed prayer (9.28). 14 And after coming to the disciples they (Jesus, Peter, James, and John) saw a great crowd around them and scribes arguing with them. 15 And immediately after the whole crowd had seen him they were utterly amazed and after running up they were greeting him. 16 And he questioned them: What are you arguing about with them? 17 And (some)one from the crowd answered him: Teacher, I brought my son to you, having a mute spirit; 18 and whenever it seizes him it throws him down, and he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to

Cheryl Stewart Pero

174

cast it out, but they were not able/strong. 19 And answering them he says: O faithless generation, how long will I be among you? How long will I put up with you? Bring him to me. 20 And they brought him to him. Then after seeing him the spirit immediately convulsed him, and after falling on the ground he began rolling around foaming at the mouth. 21 And he questioned the father of him: How long in time since this has been happening to him? And he said: From a little child. 22 And often it has even cast him into the fire and into the water so that it might destroy him; but if you are able help us after having compassion on us. 23 But Jesus said to him: If you are able, all things are able for the one believing. 24 Immediately crying out the father of the little child said: I believe; help my unbelief. 25 But Jesus after seeing that a crowd running together, rebuked the unclean spirit saying to it, Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never again may you enter into him. 26 After crying out and convulsing (him) violently, it came out of him, and he became as if lifeless with the result that many said: He is dead. 27 But Jesus after taking his hand lifted him, and he stood up. 28 And after coming into a house, his disciples questioned him privately: Why were we not able to cast it out? 29 He said to them: This kind is able to come out in no way except in prayer.

Linguistic Analysis 14. Kai\ e01qo/ntej pro_j tou\j maqhta_j ei]don 01xlon polu\n peri\ au)tou\j kai\ grammatei=j suzhtou=ntaj pro_j au)tou/j. [And after coming to the disciples they saw a great crowd around them and scribes arguing with them.] grammatei=j [scribes] The scribes are introduced here in preparation for vs. 19; the disciples arguing with the scribes is “perhaps…a typical phenomenon.255 suzhtou=ntaj pro_j [arguing with] This construction sometimes carries a hostile sense, reminding the audience of the previous hostility between Jesus and the scribes.256 15. kai\ eu)qu\j pa~j o( o01xloj i0do/ntej au)to_n e0ceqambh/qhsan kai\ prostre/xontej h0spa&zonto au)to/n. [And immediately the whole crowd after seeing him they were utterly amazed and after running up they greeted him.] The utter amazement of the crowds highlights the divine source of Jesus’ authority and power over the unclean spirits.257 The excitement of the crowd might also be due only to Jesus’ appearance,258 but Mark does not explain it. For whatever reason, the crowd, overcome with awe, ran to Jesus.259 The welcome of the crowd stands in stark contrast to the argument with the scribes. i0do/ntej [after

Liberation from Empire

175

seeing] This is the usual adverbial use of the temporal participle,260 plural here, according to usage.261 h0spa&zonto [they were greeting] This is an imperfect use of the verb describing a succession of people, one after another.262 16–17. kai\ ephrw&thsen au)tou/j, ti/ suzhtei=te pro_j au)tou/j; kai\ a)pekri/qh au)tw~| ei[j e0k tou= 01xlou, Dida&skale, h1negka to_n ui90/n mou pro_j se/, e1xonta pneu=m a a!lalon: [And he questioned them: What are you arguing about with them? And (some)one from the crowd answered him: Teacher, I brought my son to you, having a mute spirit;] The first au)tou/j is ambiguous, the context tells the audience that the referent can only be understood as the disciples, echoing vs. 14.263 The author uses another au)tou/j in the second half of vs. 16, this time it more clearly refers to the scribes. Although Jesus is addressing the Twelve and the crowds, only one person responds to Jesus’ question. ei[j [one] The author uses the numeral instead of the indefinite pronoun264 tij [someone], where it becomes an indefinite article.265 e0k is used here to establish a partitive genitive.266 The man addresses Jesus as Dida&skale [Teacher], a vocative, and reminds the audience of Jesus’ first exorcism in the Capernaum where he was teaching with authority (1:22, 27). The father then explains that he brought his son to Jesus to be exorcized from possession by pneu=m a a!lalon [a mute spirit]. The mute spirit does not speak through its host,267 but physically acts out possession as described in vs. 18. 18. kai\ 03pou e0a_n au)to_n katala&bh| r(h/ssei au)to/n, kai\ a)fri/zei kai\ tri/zei tou\j o)do/ntaj kai\ chrai/netai: kai\ ei]pa toi=j maqhtai=j sou i3na au)to_ e0kba&lwsin, kai\ ou)k i1sxusan. [and whenever it seizes him it throws him down,

and he foams at the mouth and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they were not strong.] The use of 03pou e0a_n + katala&bh| (subj.) is translated as “whenever.”268 Mark uses only the word katala&bh| [it seizes] to describe how the host is taken over by the possessing entity; Mark then describes the symptoms of spirit possession.269 r(h/ssei au)to/n [it throws him down] The literal meaning of this verb refers to “an evil spirit’s treatment of its victim, who is cast to the ground in convulsions.”270 Mark uses i3na + e0kba&lwsin [to cast out] in the subjunctive here instead of the infinitive271 as a purpose clause. kai\ ou)k i1sxusan [and they were not strong.] The verb reminds the audience of the narrative images of the strong one in 1:7, 3:27, and 5:4; this allows Jesus to be represented as the stronger one. 19. o( de\ a)pokriqei\j au)toi=j le/g ei, }W genea_ a!p istoj, e3w j po/te pro_j u9ma~j e1somai; e3w j po/te a)ne/comai u(mw~n; [And answering them he says: O faithless generation, how long will I be among you? How long will I put up with

176

Cheryl Stewart Pero

you?] The pronoun au)toi=j is ambiguous as was au)tou/j in vs. 16. }W genea_ a!pistoj [O faithless generation] The nominative is used with an article for the vocative.272 This phrase continues the narrator’s use of ambiguity; to whom is Jesus referring: the scribes, the disciples, the crowd, the father, or humanity in general?273 Jesus was addressing the entire crowd, including the scribes, the disciples, and the father.274 This verse also serves as an example of rhetorical questions “intended as a rebuke. These instances are to be interpreted against the background of Semitic exclamatory interjections which introduce forceful or impassioned statements, often in the form of questions. …”275 The lack-of-faith generation “is meant to remind readers of the original summons to ‘repent’ and ‘believe’ in the gospel (Mark 1:15).”276 This emphatic usage expresses deep emotion on the part of the speaker.277 e3wj po/te [How long…?] Mark repeats the rhetorical question for emphasis. To whomever this rhetorical question is directed, it demonstrates Jesus’ exasperation with the people’s faithlessness,278 a posture that hinders Jesus’ ability to perform acts of power. fe/rete au)to_n pro/j me. [Bring him to me.] Mark expresses Jesus’ authority with his use of the imperative. 20. kai\ h1negkan au)to_n pro_j au)to/n. kai\ i0dw_n au)to_n to_ pneu=ma eu)qu\j sunespa&racen au)to/n, kai\ pesw_n e0pi\ th=j gh=j e0kuli/eto a)fri/zwn. [And they brought him (the boy) to him (Jesus). Then after seeing him (Jesus) the spirit immediately convulsed him (the boy) and after falling on the ground he began rolling around foaming at the mouth.] Mark is deliberately ambiguous in his use of the pronoun au0to/n (four times). i0dw_n au)to_n to_ pneu=ma [after seeing him the spirit] “A masculine participle referring to a neuter noun which designates a personal being…”279 is a widespread Greek construction, the “so-called constructio ad sensum.” This entire phrase is “a construction belonging to the popular idiom” 280 of anacoluthon, where i0dw_n au)to_n to_ pneu=ma…sunespa&racen au)to/n [after seeing him {Jesus} the spirit…convulsed him {the boy}] does not seem to make syntactical sense, causing the audience to have to refer back to the previous sentence for clarity. The spirit now acts out the symptoms described by the boy’s father in vs. 18: upon seeing Jesus, it e0kuli/eto [began rolling around], an ingressive use of the imperfect verb.281 As in 1:21–28 and 5:1–20, we are reminded that Jesus’ very presence provokes the demonic to give itself away through actions or words. 21. kai\ e0phrw&thsen to_n pate/ra au)tou=, Po/soj xro/noj e0sti0n w(j tou=to ge/gonen au)tw~|; o( de ei]pen, 0Ek paidio/qen: [And he questioned the father of him: How long in time since this has been happening to him? And he said: From a little child.] Po/soj xro/noj [How long in time…?] Jesus repeats the rhetorical

Liberation from Empire

177

question posed in vs. 19: e3wj po/te; [How long…?] This quantitative usage asks about the longevity of the possession. w(j [since] is used as a temporal conjunction and a variant of e(w / j.282 0Ek [from] is an example of a pleonasm, or an unnecessary word being used to express a thought, particularly in light of the knowledge that the suffix -qen in paidio/qen [from a little child] denotes “from.”283 The entire phrase E 0 k paidio/qen serves as an adverbial genitive indicating time within which and emphasizes when the symptoms began.284 22. kai\ polla&kij kai\ ei0j pu=r au)to_n e1balen kai\ ei0j u3data i3na a)pole/sh| au)to/n: a)ll e) i1 ti du/nh|, boh/qhson h(mi=n splagxnisqei\j e0f ) h(ma=j. [And often it has even cast him into the fire and into the water so that it might destroy him; but if you are able help us after having compassion on us.] e1balen + i3na a)pole/sh| [it cast + so that it might destroy] is an explanatory clause, implying that injury or death was the intent of the unclean spirit.285 This is the constative or global use of the aorist as shown by the prior use of polla&kij [often].286 “…the aorist will be used as long as the writer wishes simply to record the fact of the act or acts, and not to represent the action as in progress or habitual, i.e. so long as the whole activity expressed by the verb is regarded ‘globally’.”287 u3data [water] is a plural, indicating that the event happened on repeated occasions.288 a)ll’ [but] is used, as is often the case, before commands or requests.289 ei1 ti du/nh| [if you are able] Perhaps because of the failure of the disciples, the father is a little cautious in expecting a successful exorcism from Jesus.290 boh/qhson h(mi=n [help us] The imperative is often used to indicate a question when addressing a superior, as we see here.291 These two phrases form a class one conditional sentence: ei1 + the present indicative in the protasis followed by the imperative in the apodosis indicates that the conditions are assumed to be true. splagxnisqei\j e0f ) h(ma=j [after having compassion on us] is different from the usual usage that denotes action occurring prior to that of the main verb;292 here the aorist participle is used to request action that the suppliant believes has not yet occurred.293 23–24. o( de\ )Ihsou=j ei]pen au)tw~|, To_ Ei0 du/nh|, pa&nta dunata_ tw~| pisteu/onti. eu)qu\j kra&caj o( path\r tou= paidi/ou e11legen, Pisteu/w: boh/qei mou th|= a)pisti/a|. [But Jesus said to him: If you are able, all things are able for the one believing. Immediately crying out the father of the little child said, I believe; help my unbelief.] The neuter singular article to_ is used at the beginning of Jesus’ words anaphorically; used as a substantive, it introduces the phrase Ei0 du/nh| [If you are able] as a direct quotation,294 sharing with the audience the content of o( )Ihsou=j ei]pen,295 [Jesus said]. It is often used “before quoted words, sentences, and sentence fragments.”296 The phrase itself points back to Jesus’

178

Cheryl Stewart Pero

accusation: “O faithless generation!” Jesus’ use of pa&nta dunata_ tw~| pisteu/onti [all things are able for the one believing] counters the father’s skepticism.297 I have used a literal translation not only in order to emphasize Jesus’ power and authority, but also to continue Mark’s repetition of the verb “able” in my translation. The converse of this statement brings Jesus’ point full circle: “little is possible for him [sic] who has no faith.”298 A finite verb of speaking, here the aorist participle kra&caj [crying out], is often used to introduce speech, in this case direct discourse following the imperfect verb e1legen [said].299 It also indicates that the action is coincident with that of the main verb.300 The present imperative boh/qei [Help] is used in an ingressive-progressive manner,301 having a permanent impact, as though help would have to be constant.302 25. i0dw_n de\ o( )Ihsou=j 03ti e0p isuntre/xei o!xloj, e0peti/mhsen tw~| pneu/mati tw~| a)kaqa&rtw| le/gwn au)tw~|, To_ a!lalon kai\ kwfo_n pneu=m a, e0gw_ e0pita&ssw soi, e1celqe e0c au)tou= kai\ mhke/ti ei0se/lqh|j ei0j au)to/n. [But Jesus after seeing that a crowd is running together, rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it: Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and no more may you enter into him.] This is the center of the exorcism narrative. The unclean spirit cannot ignore Jesus’ rebuke as it had the disciples’ exorcism attempt(s). The length and content of Jesus’ command seems “to be a technique designed to prevent a relapse.”303 The narrator here employs the usual language of exorcism, e0peti/mhsen tw~| pneu/m ati tw~| a)kaqa&rtw| [he rebuked the unclean spirit], identifying the spirit as “unclean.” to_ a!lalon kai\ kwfo_n pneu=ma [Mute and deaf spirit] to_ with the nominative is used in the New Testament for the vocative,304 indicative of a Semitic influence.305 Mark then combines Jesus’ exorcism formula with his personal authority, e0gw_ e0pita&ssw soi [I command you] leading to a double command, e1celqe e0c au)tou= kai\ mhke/ti ei0se/lqh|j ei0j au)to/n [come out of him and never again may you enter into him].306 Note the inversion of the Greek words!307 The aorist imperative e1celqe [come out] is used to indicate a single ingressive act: “The stress is on the urgency of the situation.”308 mhke/ti [never again] used with an aorist subjunctive forbids any future action.309 26. kai\ kra&caj kai\ polla_ spara&caj e0ch=lqen: kai\ e0g e/neto w(sei\ nekro/j, w#ste tou\j pollou\j le/g ein 03t i a)pe/q anen. [And after crying out and convulsing (him) violently it came out of him; and he became as if lifeless, with the result that many said: He is dead.] polla_ spara&caj [convulsing (him) violently]: “Two accusatives, both of which are external objects, are used with a number of verbs which can take an object of the person and of the thing (with a different relation to the verb); in this the NT conforms for the most part to classical usage.”310 The masculine accusative participles, kra&caj and spara&caj, are used

Liberation from Empire

179

for the neuter311 and refer back to the to_ a!lalon kai\ kwfo_n pneu=ma of vs. 25. This is another instance of constructio ad sensum (see vs. 20). polla_ is an adverbial accusative312 and spara&caj is the accusative participle. w#ste…le/g ein [with the result that…said] This is a result clause in which the emphasis is on the effect or “the outcome produced by the controlling verb.”313 28–29. Kai\ ei0selqo/ntoj au)tou= ei0j oi]kon oi9 maqhtai\ au)tou= kat ) i0di/an e0phrw&twn au)to/n, 03ti h(mei=j ou)k h)dunh/qhmen e0kbalei=n au)to/; 29 kai\ ei]pen au)toi=j: tou=to to_ ge/noj e0n ou)deni\ du/natai e0celqei=n ei0 mh\ e0n proseuxh=|. [28 And after he came into a house his disciples questioned him privately, Why were we not able to cast it out? 29 And he said to them: This kind is able to come out in no way except in prayer.] ei0selqo/ntoj au)tou= [after he came] This genitive absolute is used in a temporal construction. However, “If the participle construction precedes an accusative dependent upon a preposition, the circumstantial (conj.) participle construction is not possible at all.”314 That the genitive absolute is used in this construction instead of the concordant participle315 makes better sense; this usage of the genitive absolute is not subordinate because the entire sentence is a whole.316 e0phrw&twn [they asked] The progressive (descriptive) imperfect is used to describe an action in progress in the past from the viewpoint of the speaker.317 03ti introduces a direct question.318 The final e0n [by] in vs. 29 introduces an instrumental dative.319

Narrative Analysis This is the only exorcism Jesus performs in Part II of Mark’s narration (see my outline of the gospel) where, having concluded his ministry in Galilean and Gentile territory, Jesus is now on “the way” to Jerusalem. He encounters increased lack of faith among people during this part of the journey, and, consequently, it becomes more difficult for him to perform acts of power. The larger structure of this episode is sandwiched by two parallel narrative features: the “sight-giving” stories in 8:22–26 and 10:46–52, and Jesus’ architectonic passion predictions in 8:31, 9:31, and 10:33–34. Situated at the end of the first passion prediction,320 the immediate frame of this episode is provided by the interaction of the Twelve with Jesus in 9:2–14 and 9:27–29.321 In addition to the framing components already noted, there is also an interesting parallelism in Mark’s larger narrative structure: Just as Jesus began his public ministry with an exorcism in 1:21–28322 immediately following his baptism in 1:9–11, so his journey to Jerusalem begins with an exorcism in 9:14–29 immediately following his transfiguration in 9:2–8.323 Both episodes are situated in Judean territory. This episode also correlates with the episode of the Syrophoenician woman’s possessed daughter in that Mark’s Jesus begins each in

180

Cheryl Stewart Pero

conflict with the scribes.324 Mark’s narrative structure in both episodes seems to point the audience to exorcisms as the culmination of Jesus’ cosmic encounter with God. In the present episode, Mark focuses on the themes of discipleship, faith, and, to a lesser degree, prayer. Mark’s plotline of conflict intensifies in this episode. The subplot of conflict with the Judean authorities is highlighted by the argument between the scribes and the disciples, who are waiting for Jesus and the inner circle to return from the Mountain of the Transfiguration. The conflict of which the Markan audience got a glimpse in 1:21–28 now spills over to include the Twelve, those who were commissioned by Jesus to be with him and to exorcize. The subplot of conflict with Satan also escalates: Here Jesus’ disciples are unable to exorcize at all! The difficulty the disciples experience in performing the exorcism, which they were commissioned to perform in 3:15 and 6:7, demonstrates the depth of the conflict between Jesus and Satan, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan. The Markan narrator’s vivid descriptions in this episode adds to the sense of suspense and drama as well as to the escalation of the conflict. At the beginning of the episode, the narrator uses the audience’s lack of knowledge about what is getting ready to happen to build a sense of tension and curiosity. Mark introduces all the characters in this episode in vs. 14: Jesus, the Twelve, the scribes, and the crowd (including the father, his possessed son, and the possessing spirit). The possessed boy and the scribes are stock characters in this episode; the crowd and the unclean spirit are flat characters; and the father of the possessed boy and Jesus are round characters, exhibiting many traits that emerge in the episode. The possessed boy is the narrative vehicle by which Jesus is able to confront the possessing entity in this crowd. He embodies the single trait of being possessed. Because the spirit causes muteness, the boy is unable even to speak or describe his own behavior. He is so overtaken by the unclean spirit that his out-of-control behavior itself demonstrates a variety of indicators of possession. In spite of the mute spirit, though, Mark describes the symptoms of the boy’s possession in detail (as he did in 5:1–20), utilizing the boy’s father description and Jesus’ command to the possessing entity: 1. muteness, oral foaming, bruxism, and rigidity (father: vs. 17); 2. convulsions, falling on the ground and foaming at the mouth, again (father: vs. 20); 3. being thrown into both fire and water for self harm (father: vs. 22); 4. muteness, again, and deafness (Jesus: vs. 25); and 5. finally, crying out and convulsing (narrator: vs. 26).

Liberation from Empire

181

The exorcism results in the boy appearing dead; for a few moments it seems that the unclean spirit has won this round. But in vs. 27 Jesus took the boy’s hand and, helping him to stand, restored him to life, a reminder to the audience of Jairus’ daughter’s restoration to life in 5:39–41 and perhaps a non-parallel foreshadowing of Jesus’ own death and resurrection. The scribes exhibit one trait in this episode: arguing to maintain and even extend Jesus’ conflict with humans. As Jesus approaches the crowd following his transfiguration, the scribes, arguing with Jesus’ disciples, exemplify the escalating opposition325 that Jesus faces among the Judean elites. Mark introduces the scribes early in the narrative (vs. 14) in order to prepare the audience for Jesus’ comment in vs. 19. This argumentation might have been a normal experience, “perhaps…a typical phenomenon.”326 This scene causes the audience to remember the beginning of the conflict with the Judean authorities from Jesus’ first exorcism in 1:21–28, where Jesus’ teaching amazed the crowd because his authority was greater than scribal authority. The scribes’ argumentativeness also reminds the Markan audience of their accusation in 3:22: that Jesus is possessed and performs exorcisms by Beelzebul’s power and authority! The scribes will make more hostile appearances as Jesus draws closer to Jerusalem,327 but their function in this episode is brief and to the point: They are engaged in arguing with Jesus’ new kinship group in his absence, perhaps extending and intensifying their conflict with Jesus. The Markan narrator uses the crowd to give public witness to the escalating animosity between Jesus and the scribes, the ongoing conflict between Jesus and the demonic, and the success of the exorcism. As flat characters, the crowd demonstrates just a few traits that emerge as the episode progresses. At the beginning of the episode, in vs. 14, they are described as amazed and excited observers, anxious to see Jesus demonstrate an act of power that the disciples have proved unable to accomplish. Their “running up” to Jesus in vs. 15 points to his authority and power, emanating from a divine source.328 Their welcome might even be occasioned by Jesus’ appearance alone: “Their leaving the disciples and running up to greet Jesus emphasizes the distinction between the Master and his followers.”329 In vs. 25, the crowd provides the immediate narrative momentum for Jesus to perform the exorcism as they gather around him (reminiscent of 3:20 and 3:32). In vs. 26, after witnessing the boy’s stillness following the exorcism, they say among themselves that the boy is dead. Jesus proves their assessment wrong, but, unlike other exorcism episodes, the crowd here does not verbally confirm Jesus’ exorcism. Rather, they disappear from the episode entirely and Mark returns to the Twelve, who confirm the exorcism. This is the first Markan exorcism in which the Twelve play a distinct, though unsuccessful role.330 They are flat characters that fill two functions for

182

Cheryl Stewart Pero

the Markan narrator: 1) as models of those who have good intentions and strive to do the right thing but simply are not able (vss. 14–16); and 2) as agents of failure through whom Jesus’ teaching on prayer is made possible, almost as an awkward Markan afterthought (vss. 28–29). In this episode, the Twelve, although split into two groups, were doing what Jesus had commissioned them to do (3:15 and 6:7)—to be with him, to heal, and to exorcize. Jesus had been on the Mountain of the Transfiguration when the distraught father brought his possessed son to be exorcized; three of the Twelve, Peter, James, and John, had been witnesses to Jesus’ divine encounter while the other nine had attempted, unsuccessfully, to exorcize the young boy. The Markan author implies that the nine’s failure to exorcize the possessed boy is the reason for this argument between the scribes and the disciples, very likely about the Twelve’s authority to perform exorcisms.331 Jesus questions everyone, including the nine and the crowd, about the reason for the argument, but only the possessed boy’s father, a man in the crowd, responds, giving the Markan audience the answer to the question Jesus asked back in vs. 16: “What are you arguing about with them?” The Markan narrator informs the audience that the nine “were not strong.” The audience is reminded of Mark’s previous uses of the word “strong” in 1:7, 3:27, and 5:4, conjuring up the images of Satan as the strong one and Jesus as the stronger one. The word “strong” implies an ability which the disciples did not have here and, as a result, they could not perform the exorcism. Jesus, by contrast, was given this strength at his baptism (1:9–11) by the Holy Spirit,332 thus able to exorcize the boy. Although the role of the Twelve diminishes between vss. 19 and 27, the Markan narrator is not finished with the disciples yet. He comes back to them in vss. 28 and 29. They asked Jesus privately why their exorcism failed; and, in addition to faith, the topic of prayer, a dissonant333 and unusual subject for Mark,334 emerges: “Prayer in the gospel of Mark is consistently outside the disciples’ range of understanding or participation.”335 And this ending to the episode is a strategy Mark uses for emphasis: “Having the disciples ask Jesus to explain something he has said is an excellent narrative strategy to allow the Markan author to repeat and expand upon particularly important information. Presenting much the same information twice in brief compass assures that the audience will hear it clearly.”336 The unclean spirit, having just a few traits, serves as another flat character in this episode. Although the boy’s father referred to it as mute and Jesus addressed it as mute and deaf, the narrator identifies it by using the adjective “unclean” in vs. 25, consistent with Mark’s narrative labels for possessing entities in 1:23 and 5:2.337 The Markan narrator introduces the spirit to the audience in this

Liberation from Empire

183

episode through the description of the boy’s symptoms in vss. 17–18, 20, 22, and 26a. In this way, the spirit is identified, labeled, and defined by its indicators. Because the possessing spirit was mute, the boy was unable to speak (unlike the previous incidents of possession where the demonic speaks through its host) and the father responded to Jesus’ question of vs. 16 in vss. 17–18. Because it could not identify Jesus in relation to God orally, as it did in 1:24 and 2:7, the possessing spirit acted out its possession. The father informed the Markan audience that this spirit had possessed the boy throughout his childhood. When the boy was finally brought to Jesus in vs. 20, the spirit convulsed him, making him roll on the ground and foam at the mouth, perhaps just as “an expression of the spirit’s power and a kind of resistance to Jesus.”338 In vs. 20 Mark addressed the agency of the unclean spirit: there was no dialogue with Jesus, as in previous exorcisms, and the boy’s behavior was the only documentation of the spirit’s total possession of its host.339 With echoes of 1:24 in the minds of the Markan audience, the unclean spirit frequently had attempted to destroy the boy by burning or drowning him (vs. 22a). Jesus told the unclean spirit to get out of its host and never return, perhaps using the command as “a technique to prevent a relapse.”340 The unclean spirit had met the stronger one, and its response to Jesus in vs. 26 was similar to the response in 1:25: it convulsed its host and cried out as it departed. The crowd thought the boy was dead when the unclean spirit departed, as it repeatedly had attempted to kill (vs. 22) the boy. After vs. 26 the unclean spirit disappears from Mark’s narrative. The father is a round character in this episode, exhibiting various traits as the narrative evolves. He mainly functions as a suppliant caught between having faith/believing and lacking faith/unbelieving, one who struggled to believe in Jesus Messiah and the kingdom of God but was confronted by the presence of the demonic on a daily basis because of his son’s possession. As the crowd became agitated, the narrator uses the father to interact with Jesus: Not only does the father respond to Jesus’ question directed to the crowd (vs. 17), he addressed Jesus as “Teacher” and also described his son’s behavior when manipulated by the unclean spirit (vss. 18). Seeking deliverance for his son, the father brought him to Jesus for exorcism, but, in Jesus’ absence, the boy’s father turned to Jesus’ disciples, trusting they could perform the exorcism; the audience is reminded of the disciples’ commission in 3:15. The disciples proved unable to perform the exorcism, perhaps due in part to Jesus’ absence. In vss. 21–23, Jesus’ second conversation with the father takes place. The direct discourse between Jesus and the father heightens the drama for the Markan audience, emphasizing the importance of this story.341 The father answered Jesus’ question about the duration of his son’s possession (vs. 21), ex-

184

Cheryl Stewart Pero

plaining that the child had been demon possessed throughout his short life and also informed Jesus that there had been times when the family thought the boy would not survive the possession because of the possessing spirit’s predilection for destructive behavior (vs. 22). It is here that the narrator’s discussion about the role of the faith of the father as it relates to the exorcism emerged as a major factor in his son’s deliverance. The significance of faith in Jesus’ authority and power, which can only be expressed by those who come to Jesus after hearing Jesus’ message, is important. Faith leads to healing for the sick/ill as a response to Jesus’ message, not as a prerequisite for healing.342 Jesus’ healings were in direct response to the supplicant’s initiative and faith,343 those whose faith in Jesus’ ability to heal facilitated their healing. Within Mark, demoniacs cannot have faith, thus “the demon itself confronts Jesus in fear and hostility, and Jesus drives it out.”344 After the disciples fail to exorcize his son, the father was unsure of Jesus and expressed his doubt about Jesus’ ability (vs. 22b). Perhaps the father’s lack of faith was a factor that contributed to the disciples’ inability to perform the exorcism.345 Mark may be implying that the father came to the disciples with faith but, when the disciples were unable to perform the exorcism, his faith diminished. In vs. 23, Jesus emphasized to the father that his belief was pivotal for his son’s exorcism. Perhaps the father’s belief in Jesus’ power and ability to perform the exorcism was not at issue; but instead it was his belief in Jesus’ willingness to perform the exorcism.346 Mark is unclear. Nevertheless, the father pleaded for his son’s deliverance (vs. 24), this time, however, verbally confessing his ambivalence,347 and acknowledging that he needed Jesus’ help even to have faith. In order for the exorcism to be successful, then, the father must place faith in Jesus because: “God’s unlimited power is available to and through him.”348 The father honestly confessed his dilemma of ambivalence, asking for Jesus’ assistance; his belief in Jesus’ ability demonstrated his faith in God and that was what he needed to express in order to receive the gift of faith. After Jesus delivered and restored the man’s son, they, too, disappear from the narrative. In this exorcism, Jesus again functions as a round character, exhibiting a variety of character traits. As the central figure, Jesus supplies information to the audience by asking questions and making critical imperatival statements. Jesus’ objective to reunite with the Twelve at the beginning of the episode (vs. 14) is soured by scribal contentiousness. Mark contrasts this argumentativeness with the welcome Jesus received from the crowd in vs. 15. The crowd seems a bit fickle by deserting the scribes and unsuccessful disciples and running to Jesus, a means of stressing “distinction between the Master and his followers.”349 Jesus asks what the argument was about. After addressing Jesus as “Teacher,” the

Liberation from Empire

185

suppliant, “one from the crowd,” explains, to both Jesus and the Markan audience, that Jesus’ disciples failed to successfully exorcize his possessed son during Jesus’ absence. The theme of faith is negatively introduced by the narrator from a point of view that exposes the faithlessness of those who surround Jesus. In vs. 19 Jesus asked rhetorical questions of the disciples and the crowd: “O faithless generation, how long will I be among you? How long will I put up with you?” With these words of censure, Jesus expressed his frustration,350 referring to the faithlessness he has observed among the people. The lack of faith in Nazareth led to Jesus’ and the disciples’ inability to perform acts of power (cf. 6:1–6). Perhaps the disciples’ inability to exorcize the little boy was due, in part, to their own lack of faith. Jesus’ response hyperbolically goes beyond normal human frustration and addresses the present situation as an exemplar of the faithlessness with which his ministry contends.351 Jesus’ comment creates a narrative distance between himself and everyone else in the episode. With the exception of the possessed boy, all the faithless humans are implicated: the crowd (including the possessed boy’s father), the scribes and the disciples.352 At the end of vs. 19, Jesus directed the crowd to bring the boy to him. Mark’s audience learns in vs. 20 that once in Jesus’ presence, the possessing spirit convulsed the boy, rolling him around on the ground and making him foam at the mouth. Because this was a mute spirit, its destructive behavior replaced the recognition and identification of Jesus described in earlier episodes. Once again, though, Mark has confirmed for the audience that Jesus’ very presence provokes a response from possessing entities. Jesus solicited additional information from the boy’s father (vs. 21) about the longevity of the boy’s possession for the reading audience’s sake: such long-term cases are incurable.353 After describing his son’s childhood struggle, the father tentatively requested Jesus’ deliverance of his son (vs. 22b), his very tentativeness protecting his expectations, already dashed by the failure of Jesus’ disciples to perform the exorcism, and leaving the issue of his faith in Jesus’ ability open: “If you are able. …” Mark’s Jesus threw the man’s tentatively spoken words back at him (vs. 23), both emphasizing his power and indicating impatience with the man for the eyewitnesses’ sake. Jesus’ teaching on the role of faith in God followed and the father begged Jesus at the end of vs. 24: “Help my unbelief.” Jesus responded to the father’s confession and plea. The narrator refers to the spirit as “unclean” (vs. 25) for the first time in this episode, referring the audience back to the descriptions of the possessing entities in 1:23 and 5:7. Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, addressing it as “mute,” repeating the father’s recitation, and adding “deaf” to its description. Jesus revealed his own authority and power when he identified himself as the exorcist:

186

Cheryl Stewart Pero

“Mute and deaf spirit, I command you. …” The deaf spirit could hear and understand Jesus! Jesus’ rebuke here was longer than the Markan audience has heard thus far354 in other exorcism episodes (1:25, 5:8), and ended with a double command, “come out of him and no more may you enter into him.” As the unclean spirit left the boy, it cried out and convulsed him. The boy became so still (perhaps in vivid contrast to his spirit-possessed behavior) that the crowd thought he was dead. Jesus took the boy’s hand and stood him up, restoring him to his father and to community. Resurrection is the exorcism of crippling unbelief,355 and removing a minion of Satan “is no less significant or miraculous than bringing someone from death to life.”356 The exorcism is complete when the boy stands up. Unlike previous episodes, Mark gives no report of the crowds’ response to Jesus’ exorcism. The Markan scene now changes rapidly and the Twelve gather privately with Jesus in a house, a narrative tool peculiar to the Markan narrator, where they ask why they were unable to exorcize the boy. The previous conversation with the suppliant about faith becomes clearer as Jesus explained to them what was lacking in their attempted exorcism: prayer. “Prayer in [Mark’s] Gospel is consistently outside the disciples’ range of understanding or participation.” 357 Mark emphasizes here that faith must be combined with prayer in order to access the power of God because faith and prayer are two sides of the same coin. In 11:24 Jesus confirms this when he discusses the withered fig tree and tells the Twelve: “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (NRSV). A lack of faith is only partly at fault for the disciples’ failure: prayer is also required. Prayer was part of exorcists’ technique.358 Prayer expressed the “total trust in, and dependence on, the power and authority used by Jesus and given to the disciples by Jesus.”359 Mark’s purpose for this aside is not so much about an exorcism technique as much as it is to give instruction to the disciples and the post-Easter community: They “must continue to depend on the power of God available through prayer.”360

Social Science Analysis Because this is Jesus’ last exorcism in Mark’s narrative, this episode forms a bracket with 1:21–28, pointing beyond the immediate exorcism to God’s cosmic victory over Satan through Jesus.361 Although the patronage, honor/shame, and kinship models overlap in this episode, Mark begins with a contrast between spatial locations that emphasizes the pure/impure dialectic. Leaving the Mount of the Transfiguration, where Jesus has just been publicly affirmed by God in a theophany witnessed by Peter, James and John, the four arrive at an unnamed location selected by the narrator to be the site of Jesus’ final public encounter

Liberation from Empire

187

with the minions of Satan. Jesus and the three find the other nine disciples arguing with the scribes, surrounded by a large crowd. The crowd’s presence, including a boy demoniac (whom the audience will discover shortly), implies that the venue is public, male, and, perhaps, ritually unclean. In addition to Gentiles, Jesus ministers to marginal and unclean Jewish people in Israel’s villages.362 Jesus’ ministry extends to the father and his possessed son, to the crowd and the disciples in this episode, breaking through the impediments people have built that prevent them from believing in God, and building their trust and faith in God’s promise of a new way of living in a new kingdom. Instead of the unclean spirit spreading uncleanness, though, Jesus’ exorcism spreads holiness in this crowd. As God’s holiness spreads, God reclaims people from the destructiveness of unclean spirits.363 For the Markan narrator this episode is primarily “a case of demonic possession, as the result of an evil spirit taking over the boy, inflicting terrible sufferings on him and trying to kill him.”364 The unclean spirit provides an immediate demonstration of the extent to which it possessed the little boy by convulsing him, causing him to fall to the ground and foam at the mouth (vs. 20). Interestingly enough, this behavior coincided with the unclean spirit’s recognition of Jesus once the boy is brought to him, as in 1:24 and 5:7. Apparently, because it was a deaf and mute spirit, it could neither speak nor hear, in contrast to 1:24 and 5:7; this added to the audience’s understanding of the extent of its uncleanness and explained its outrageous behavior. Nevertheless, this extreme behavior was an indication of its recognition of both Jesus and his superiority in the cosmic hierarchy. Because the unclean spirit’s possession was extremely active, the boy’s family was unable to contain his behavior at home (vss. 18, 20, 22, 26) perhaps in much the same manner in which the townspeople were unable to contain the behavior of the Gerasene demoniac in 5:1–20.365 Responding to Jesus’ question about the longevity of the boy’s symptoms, the father confirmed that the behavior has been occurring since the boy’s childhood. And because the behavior of his possessed son was considered deviant, the community perceived the boy as unclean and potentially polluting. The boy’s possession jeopardized his entire family with impending ostracization by and from the community.366 The clean/unclean model continues to be pertinent to this analysis, for when the unclean spirit finally departed from the boy, after crying out and convulsing him again, the crowd thought that the boy was dead. Touching the dead rendered one ritually unclean (Lev 19:11, 13), yet Jesus not only touched the little boy, but also grasped him by the hand and lifted him until the boy stood up. Instead of being contaminated by potential impurity, Jesus spread holiness, bringing wholeness to the boy, his family, and the community.

188

Cheryl Stewart Pero

The patronage and honor/shame models also are evident in the episode. The crowd eagerly rushed to greet Jesus upon seeing him, much as clients behave toward a patron or the patron’s broker/agent. As Jesus inquired about the source of the argument between the nine and the scribes, the crowd was perplexed about the disciples’ inability to perform the exorcism.367 The crowd’s presence seems to underscore the nine’s inability to exorcize, causing them to publicly lose honor while the scribes gained honor. One person from the crowd, knowing that his request was at the heart of the argument, answered Jesus and claimed that he came with a problem only Jesus could solve: exorcizing his son. The father was seeking deliverance for his son and his family, perhaps even restoration of their community status. The father’s answer implied that the problem was about the disciples’ inability to exorcize the boy. The narrator subtly causes the audience to remember that in 3:14 and 6:7 Jesus gave the Twelve the authority to exorcize demons and had commissioned them to broker divine grace (6:7, 12–13). “When they were unsuccessful, people came directly to Jesus (9:17–18).”368 As brokers and agents of Jesus, the disciples’ inability to exorcize “reflected poorly on Jesus and his movement.”369 After the father explained why he came to Jesus and described the symptoms of his son, Jesus accused the entire crowd in vs. 19, including the disciples, of being “faithless,”370 a challenge to their loyalty and honor; they lose face publicly. At the end of vs. 19 Jesus commanded: “Bring him to me,” not lording it over the crowd so much as reestablishing his authority and power as an agent/broker of his patron, God, and reasserting the honor due him and his brokers, the Twelve. As the crowd gathered around him (vs. 25) perhaps to observe his exorcistic technique, Jesus publicly commanded the unclean spirit to depart from the boy.371 The Markan narrator used the crowd to provide the public witness to Jesus’ growing honor status.372 The agonistic exchanges narrated by Mark indicate that this episode “carries an additional message.”373 One very unusual feature of this episode is that Mark addresses the subject of faith.374 Faith, in social science understanding, is the social mucilage that keeps people joined together, and the language of faith points toward “the social, externally manifested, emotional behavior of loyalty, commitment, and solidarity.”375 Jesus’ admonition of the crowd in vs. 19, “O faithless generation!” indicated that the crowd has not been loyal to God. They separated themselves from, that is to say they were no longer in solidarity with, God. But one from the crowd realized that his only means of liberation, the deliverance of his son, was through Jesus Messiah. Although he sought out Jesus, the father still harbored doubt as to whether or not Jesus would be able to exorcize the unclean spirit that possessed his son. Jesus challenged the father’s lack of confidence in God’s power; the father confessed that he needed help

Liberation from Empire

189

with his unbelief, in the process pleading with Jesus for belief. The father’s plea “both establishes his faith and shows faith to be understood as a gift.”376 According to the Markan narrator, just as is the case with the father, the Twelve also needed to grow in faith: “[F]aith-filled statements are understood to be faith-filled prayers.”377 Furthermore not only was faith needed but also prayer.378 For Mark faith and prayer seem to correlate directly. In order to be successful, expulsion commands to unclean spirits must be made prayerfully with faith and trust in God. Mark presumes that his audience knew that prayer, understood in social science terms as a communication to a superior that expects to get results, is directed to God as “the one ultimately in charge of the total order of existence.”379 The Twelve, Jesus’ new kinship group, gathered in private with Jesus and questioned him about their inability to exorcize because they too are puzzled by their failure. Mark’s Jesus was able to use this opportunity to address the issue of prayer.380 And Jesus’ answer surprised the disciples as well as the audience. By not acknowledging the hierarchy of unclean spirits, each one more powerful than the one beneath it, the disciples had not prayed for the ability to exorcize.381 Perhaps their successes had caused them to become arrogant in their ability: Public humiliation was necessary to reeducate them in the principles of the kingdom of God.382 God used this challenge to their honor to get their attention and for them to receive further instruction from Jesus, following “the pattern of didactic scenes.”383 The Twelve and other followers of Jesus “must continue to depend on the power of God available through faith and prayer.”384 In Jesus’ new network, followers were to perform exorcisms, to have faith, and to pray.385 The two following elements might identify this episode as a transformance:386 1) the demoniac’s actions in 9:14–29 were public and demonstrative, and 2) violent conflicts with the demons erupted in 9:25–26. The transformance of the demoniac is shown in radically changed behavior: Once the demon had departed, the demoniac was separated from the possession idiom387 because the possessed behavior came to a halt. Jesus’ elimination of the demon manifests the cosmic change that Jesus proclaims: Jesus’ transformance of the demoniac became a signpost for the promised kingdom of God, “…a tangible change of reality that can be grasped by others.”388 This had cosmic implications because those who witnessed Jesus’ exorcism of the demonic were also witnesses to the certainty that the kingdom of God had the ability to transform even those who were possessed, an “illustration…and archetype…of the coming kingdom—the transformation of the cosmic order.”389

190

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Postcolonial Analysis As I stated earlier, postcolonial biblical criticism not only sees the Bible as a document that expresses ambivalence about imperialism, but also asks who, in the text under scrutiny, benefits from colonial rule. Interrogating the text about issues of colonization raises the question of who benefits from domination. The unclean spirit has a lot to lose if its status quo is overturned—there would be no further control over and manipulation of human lives. The other actors in the episode who have a great deal to lose are the scribal authorities: Jesus’ exorcisms “reveal subversive connotations”390 to those whose authority and power was based in political oppression and spiritual enslavement of the land and the people. They, therefore, have the most to gain from the imperial system: maintaining their domination. The opposite side of the concern with who benefits the most (or has the most to lose) from colonialism is that of who benefits the least (or has the most to gain), those in our texts who might be described as subaltern: the powerless, nameless and voiceless. The possessed boy seems to benefit the least from imperialism and has the most to gain from exorcism: life, a future, restoration to wholeness, for himself, his family, and his community. On the literal level, the possessed boy’s deliverance is the focus of all activity in the narrative. An atmosphere of suspense is created for the Markan audience: They are curious about the dynamics and details of the crowd’s attention, the disciples’ failure, the scribes’ arguments, the father’s frustration, the boy’s possession, and Jesus’ exorcism. The audience has noted the inability of the disciples to exorcize the boy.391 They have noted the scribes’ contentiousness because of their inability to control Jesus and the members of his faction. They have noted how the crowd, coming together, spurs Jesus’ actions. They have noted the level of resignation and the attitude of inevitability that accompanies the father. The audience has an implicit insight and brings a sincere empathy into how deeply colonization has infected the Markan characters. The Markan narrator points to Satan as the colonizing force, dominating all of the characters in the episode with the exception of Jesus, who is already possessed by the Holy Spirit. The dominated crowd enacts a collective possession, making intuitive tentative moves towards Jesus, the source of liberation, as well as towards other expressions of power that seem to counter Rome. Nevertheless, they are suffering from internalized colonization. Mark presents the disciples as assured and self-confident from past successes because they have been with Jesus. Yet Mark indicates in 9:18 that they too are domesticated, not yet strong enough (see the strong man references in 1:7, 3:27, 5:4) to exorcize the boy. Their faith in God, who commissioned them and empowered their ability through Jesus, appears weak; their prayer life (9:29) seems to have remained underdeveloped.392 The scribes are possessed by their own need for control and

Liberation from Empire

191

domination, to function on behalf of colonial and temple authority. The father is enslaved to his own ambivalence, even as he stands directly in very presence of the stronger one. His lack of faith was based both in the recent inability of the disciples to exorcize the unclean sprit from his son and in his (perhaps repeated) experience of disappointment in seeking deliverance for his child and for the honor status of his family. His faith lay in his hope that Jesus would be able to deliver his son. The boy had become possessed fully by an unclean spirit; he is the subaltern in this episode. He had been so overtaken by the unclean spirit that he could not even speak. “Agency” is the ability of colonial subjects to make choices for themselves (and for the common good). In this episode, the possessed boy is unable to express any agency. His possession was so severe that his father had to explain the situation to the Markan audience as he answered Jesus’ question. The demonic/unclean spirit used the boy to demonstrate its massive control over and manipulation of its host, as well as over the larger community: convulsions, oral foaming, bruxism, rigidity, and throwing the boy into both fire and water at the risk of life itself. This behavior is replicated in other descriptions of demonic possession; perhaps it might also be an appropriate metaphorical description of the behavior of those colonized and dominated by empire. The father begged Jesus to have compassion on them and help them, if Jesus was able. At stake was whether Jesus was able to do what his own disciples had not been strong enough to accomplish. Jesus informed the man that for one who believes in God all things were possible. The father confessed his ambivalence: Though he had faith he still needed Jesus’ intervention with his lack of faith. Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit and personally commanded it to depart from the boy, to return no more. Perhaps in an effort to exert its power and control over its host, as well as to intimidate those observing the exorcism, the unclean spirit convulsed the boy and cried out as it departed, just as it had done in the Capernaum synagogue exorcism (1:26). The boy, who had been extremely physically agitated during the episode, was left as if dead at the unclean spirit’s departure. Jesus took the boy’s hand and helped him stand. Taking the boy’s hand implies a transfer of power and brings Jesus’ resurrection to the audience’s consciousness.393 In the transfer of power, Jesus restored the boy to normal childhood behavior, just as he had done with Jairus’ daughter (cf. 5:41–42) and the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30). The disciples were very disappointed by their failure and as soon as they met Jesus privately, they questioned him regarding their inability to exorcize. Jesus told them that this kind of unclean spirit required the use of extraordinary force,394 prayer, in order to be exorcized.

192

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Mark’s prologue (1:1–15) informs the audience of Jesus’ divine-human hybrid status. According to Mark, his baptism bestowed his authorization from God and empowerment by the Holy Spirit for ministry. Jesus’ baptism concludes with words directed to Jesus and the Markan audience (1:11): “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” This is followed by Jesus’ elemental contest with Satan in the wilderness (1:13) from which Jesus emerged the victor. Jesus then returned to Galilee (1:15) to proclaim good news and to build a kingdom different from that to which the people, both Jewish and Gentile, had become accustomed. From the time of his baptism, Jesus proclaimed and built God’s new kingdom in word and deed. Mark highlights Jesus’ hybridity in this episode by prefacing it with his experience on the Mountain of the Transfiguration in the presence of Peter, James, and John, paralleling his baptism. Jesus’ transfiguration drew to its close with a cloud overshadowing him, Peter, James, and John. Mark concludes this scene with words directed towards all the witnesses, past and present: …and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” (9:7) In both Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, God’s voice identified Jesus as God’s beloved Son, reminding the Markan audience of God’s authority and power invested in Jesus. Following this divine encounter, Jesus descended from the mountain, reunited with the other disciples, and performed his final exorcism. In Mark’s presentation of Jesus, although Jesus’ origins mimic those of Caesar, Jesus proclaims a new empire counter to Caesar’s. Jesus’ death will ultimately mock the Roman imperium, perhaps best summed up in the ironic words of the Roman centurion who stood at the foot of Jesus’ cross in 15:9: “Truly this man was God’s son.” In this episode Satan functions as a colonial force symbolized first by the scribal controversy that greets Jesus upon his descent from the Mountain of the Transfiguration, second by the frustration of the father, and third by the possession of the boy. The Roman Empire and Satan’s empire are analogous because they function in much the same way: possessing people and coercing them to acquiesce to the will of the Empire. Mark addresses the nature of the kingdom of God by the manner in which Jesus treated others: He liberated the possessed by expelling unclean spirits; he did not seek to control and manipulate humans; he formed new kinship networks, inviting other humans to participate. Jesus’ mission is to be God’s agent, establishing God’s kingdom in the world; what this means is that Jesus’ job description is “to confront and bring down the Satanic kingdom.”395 Jesus’ exorcisms are the plundering of the house of the strong one, eroding Satan’s kingdom bit by bit.

Liberation from Empire

193

This exorcism “functions as a symbolic reproduction and resolution of the disciples struggle to believe.”396 It allows Mark to raise the question of the role of faith for the disciples and those in need of healing. It also connects faith with prayer, a subject that will play an important role during Jesus’ passion later in Mark’s narrative (14:32–42). By introducing prayer at this stage of the narrative, is not Mark trying to suggest that he understands it to be the practice of critical reflection upon the ‘demons within’? …[A]nd has not this demon, so embedded in our imperial culture, not kept us impotent, docile subjects of the status quo ‘since childhood’ (9:21)?397

Chapter Summary In the Markan exorcism episodes, Jesus does not have to go out of his way to find unclean spirits who possess humans because his very presence “provokes abrupt outbreaks of possession.”398 Unclean spirits showed themselves to him in the Capernaum synagogue, revealed themselves in a cemetery in Gerasene territory, possessed the daughter of a Syrophoenician woman, and inhabited a boy at the foot of the Mountain of the Transfiguration. All the demoniacs in Mark’s narrative are anonymous and unnamed. They are presented to the audience as possessed by the demonic and exorcized by Jesus. Mark’s audience knows almost nothing about their families, occupations, or economic conditions; and what the Markan audience does know about these characters must be inferred. The only feature of possessed people that the narrator explicitly shares with the audience is their possession by unclean spirits. The narrator’s portrayal of Jesus’ exorcisms demonstrated what the kingdom of God looked like in contrast to the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of Rome. Mark accomplished this by building on different themes from the episodes I have examined in this chapter; and in each, the conflict escalated. From 1:21–28, the narrator established the themes of the crowd’s amazement, the cry of the convulsing unclean spirit, males gathering in a public space,399 and the scribes’ defensiveness. The episode in 5:1–20 describes the behavior of the unclean spirit: supernatural strength, sleeplessness, self-destructive violence, and shrieking. The narrator reminds the audience that the self-destructive behavior of demonic possession necessarily leads to isolating the demoniac because of the danger posed to the demoniac’s family and the entire community. Mark 7:24–30 shows the Markan audience that Jesus can even exorcize from a distance. The final episode, 9:14–29, offers some unique features: 1. The Twelve’s active participation; 2. The narrator’s discussion of the faith/belief of the suppliant (the father) in requesting exorcism;

194

Cheryl Stewart Pero 3. Additional descriptions of the demoniac’s behavior (muteness, convulsions, oral foaming, and bruxism); 4. Jesus’ teaching on faith/belief and unfaith/unbelief (9.19, 23, 24); 5. Jesus’ direct command, e0go_ e0pita/ssw (a new verb in Mark’s exorcism vocabulary), to the demon to leave (9.25); 6. Jesus’ reflections on the exercise of power and authority (9:22, 23, 28, 29); 7. The introduction of the topic of prayer; and 8. Jesus issues a double command, assuring the father that the unclean spirit will not return to the boy.400

I would like to highlight three key insights, each of which corresponds to one of the interpretive overlays.

Narrative Overlay First, the unclean spirit is a reality and force401 in its own right, not simply a cipher for some other reality such as malevolence in general or the Roman Empire in particular. The unclean spirit can be treated as a character with traits and agency. The unclean spirit possesses people; it is so in possession of its hosts that they have no personality of their own. Through the demoniacs it possesses, the unclean spirit confronts Jesus in the synagogue in the first episode, in the cemetery in the second episode, through a desperate mother in the third episode, and in a public sphere in the final episode. The unclean spirit has knowledge: It knows who Jesus is and what Jesus’ purpose is. The unclean spirit has emotions: It is afraid Jesus will destroy it and other unclean spirits. The unclean spirit interacts with other characters but it obeys the command of someone with superior power. It convulses its hosts, screams, and leaves them. Unclean spirits are entities that are committed to spreading the kingdom of Satan both directly though possession and indirectly through the Roman Empire, acting in ways that are counter to Jesus’ spreading of the kingdom of God. Their traits are similar to those of the Roman colonizers, the rulers of Israel who collaborate with the Romans, and even the disciples at times. Jesus’ treatment of unclean spirits may be a precursor for the fate of the Roman Empire. Unclean spirits occupy and possess people and the land in a manner analogous to the Roman Empire’s occupation and possession of people and land. But Jesus cannot and will not use force to exorcize the Roman colonizers and their Judean collaborators as he does the unclean spirits. Unclean spirits are part of a community connected to Satan; they stand in solidarity with other unclean spirits. In Mark, unclean spirits must be taken seri-

Liberation from Empire

195

ously and prepared for as important forces in their own right. From the insight that unclean spirits are a force in their own right, what follows is a profile identifying the traits and behavior of unclean spirits from all their instances and descriptions in Mark’s Gospel. What we have seen is that unclean spirits: 1. occupy and control human beings and animals (1:23, 5:12–13); 2. lead the beings they possess to behave in ways that are self-destructive (1:26); 3. will/can be destroyed when they do not occupy a body (1:25–26); 4. are afraid of one who threatens their position of power (1:24); 5. try to gain control over and destroy anyone who threatens their existence and place of power (1:24); and 6. are no match for the power of God in Jesus (1:26, 27). What is fascinating about this profile is that unclean spirits bear some of the same traits and actions as the Roman agents both in Palestine and on the other side of the sea among the Gentiles, among the rulers of Israel, and even among the disciples. At the same time, there are some traits unique and distinctive to the demonic not replicated in humans. It is important to distinguish between the empire of Satan and the empire of humans. Some argue that the exorcism of unclean sprits represents Jesus’ capacity to drive the Romans and the Judean rulers out of the land by force. In this they equate the way Jesus treats unclean spirits with the way Jesus will treat the Romans. Yet, as we have seen, Jesus uses the authority of force in relation to unclean spirits but not in relation to human beings. Roman forces possess/occupy the land and the people; satanic forces possess/occupy people. Jesus exorcizes unclean spirits from people but he does not exorcize Romans from the land. Jesus’ eschatological engagement with Satan has prepared him for these encounters. And because Jesus bound Satan in the wilderness, the unclean spirits know who Jesus is and that his goal is to rid the people and the land of their influence by eliminating them.

Social Science Overlay Second, an unclean spirit is connected to others and to Satan. It asks in 1:24, “Have you come to destroy us?” In 5:9 it says to Jesus, “My name is Legion for we are many.” The use of the plural suggests that the unclean spirit is in solidarity with other unclean spirits. It is declaring that Jesus came to destroy them in general and that exorcism is a representative instance of what will be the general activity of Jesus. Indeed, this is the case, as Jesus goes to other places driving out other unclean spirits. The unclean spirits are related to Satan, “the ruler of

196

Cheryl Stewart Pero

demons” (3:22). In fact, it is because of their relationship to Satan that we can infer how it is that the unclean spirits know Jesus and fear him—after all, Jesus had earlier confronted Satan in the wilderness (1:12–13) and emerged to proclaim that the kingdom of God had arrived (1:15). The implication is clear: Jesus won a decisive victory over Satan in his testing in the wilderness—otherwise the declaration of the arrival of God’s kingdom would be empty. Every exorcism Jesus performs is a battle with the demonic, “an expression of the realization of the kingdom of God in the face of the defeat of Satan.”402 In Mark’s Gospel that defeat of Satan is expressed in these exorcism encounters with Satan’s minions for Jesus has authority over unclean spirits. Mark’s cosmological point of view declares that Jesus is plundering the strong one’s household every time he exorcizes unclean spirits. But yet, “Jesus’ exorcisms are not the definitive manifestation of the kingdom of God. Rather they constitute a struggle with Satan that prefigures and anticipates the final full manifestation of the kingdom of God that will take place with the coming of the Son of Man.”403 And these reflections come from only the exorcisms that Mark has recorded! “…[W]e may have only a few of the exorcism stories that were related to Jesus.”404 Jesus disregarded all the traditional Israelite maps of purity and inaugurated a different purity system. Jesus’ measure of purity has to do with the interior, the heart, of a person in contrast to the Pharisees’ focus on the external or surface standards of judgement. Jesus is reforming traditional purity maps constantly based on new rules, “offering his interpretation of what God wants and what makes one whole, clean, and holy.”405 In all of his contacts with unclean spirits, the demoniac in the Capernaum temple, the Gerasene demoniac, the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, and the possessed boy, Jesus spreads holiness instead of being polluted by impurity. Unclean spirits serve to sharpen “the distinction between Jesus…and Satan. …”406 There is no place for unclean spirits in Jesus’ kingdom building because unclean spirits do not belong to God. They belong to the strong one, Satan, and instead of building community, they segregate people from community; instead of liberation, they bring enslavement and coercion; instead of spreading holiness, they multiply impurity. “Mark…portrays Jesus as the legitimate, reforming prophet who disputes the classifications, definitions and evaluations of a system in dire need of correction.”407 His successive exorcisms are a successful repeated plundering of Satan’s house. The social science overlay clarifies the concern of the first-century Mediterranean person for purity. All the social science models I have employed subsume issues of purity. For example, honor/shame status, the core societal value, exposes impurity within the community by attending to things and people

Liberation from Empire

197

out of place and demonstrating inappropriate behavior. Because of its public nature, challenge/riposte exchanges restore honor and cause shame. Deviance labeling, as in demon-possession, occurs when someone’s behavior is out of the ordinary, marginalizing the afflicted until such time as his or her purity status has been restored. Sickness/illness, too, causes persons to become ostracized for fear that their illness will spread and contaminate the community. Jesus breaks through the fear of spreading impurity by changing the rules: He heals the ill and exorcizes the possessed; he declares all foods clean and spreads holiness even in Gentile contexts; he affirms women, children, and all those who have faith in God. He successfully binds the strong one and plunders Satan’s house in every exorcism, liberating people from possessing entities and empires.

Postcolonial Overlay Third, in these episodes we see the authority Jesus has over unclean spirits clearly. The unclean spirits recognize Jesus’ authority and try to gain power over Jesus by naming him. In 1:24 it says: “What do you have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.” In 5:7 it says: “What (is there) to you and to me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!” The unclean spirits, however, cannot withstand against the power and authority of Jesus. Jesus tells it in 1:25 to “Be silent and come out of him!” And immediately, in 1:26, Mark narrates, “the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.” In 5:8, Mark tells us: “For he had said to it, come out of the man unclean spirit.” In 5:13 we learn: “After coming out the unclean spirits entered into the pigs, and rushed the herd, about two thousand, down the slope into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.” In 7:29, the unclean spirit leaves the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter even from a distance. In 9:20, the mute spirit convulses the boy, causing him to fall on the ground and foam at the mouth when it recognizes Jesus. When Jesus commands it to leave the boy and never return, it obeys Jesus’ command, convulsing and crying out. The unclean spirits never seem to leave their hosts peacefully, but exhibit potent displays of their own power that document their possession and departure, with the exception of 7:24–30, because Mark does not tell us of its behavior. Exorcism is a symbolic act of expulsion, a political repudiation408 and, Jesus’ exorcism is a “public symbolic action” for breaking free of possession.409 The crowds attest to Jesus’ authority when they say in 1:27, “What is this? A new teaching with authority? He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him!” That little word “even” speaks volumes—namely, that if Jesus has authority even over unclean spirits, surely he can have authority over many other things and people. “In Mark’s narrative strategy, the synagogue and the Gerasene exorcisms represent Jesus’ inaugural challenges to the powers.…The narrative

198

Cheryl Stewart Pero

space has been cleared for the kingdom ministry to commence in full, both to Jew and to Gentile.”410 The Gerasene demoniac, 5:1–20, is a story of the liberation of a man trapped by spirits of oppression and impurity rather than a Markan indictment of imperial evil, a story in which the stronger one must intervene for real liberation, peace, and sanity to occur and for restoration to be possible.411 The townspeople in this episode are fearful of Jesus (5:16) and beg him to leave their territory (5:17), but later they are filled with amazement(5:20). Their initial fear of Jesus was created by his deliverance of a possessed man from total marginalization. His authority over unclean spirits then led Jesus to allow a herd of pigs possessed by the unclean spirits to run off a cliff into the sea. Jesus’ actions caused the townspeople to believe that if Jesus left their region, life would return to normal. But an encounter with the divine changes everything and the restored normalcy of the former demoniac caused them to reflect on the entire incident with amazement. In 7:24–30, the audience soon discovers that Jesus’ identity has been revealed by this particular Syrophoenician woman who intruded on his privacy. Jesus cannot stay hidden, even in Gentile territory. Mimicking Jesus’ words, the woman disrupted his Jewish agenda by using her voice in behalf of her subaltern daughter and perhaps all Gentiles. She won the verbal contest and Jesus exorcized her daughter, a Gentile girl, from a distance. The postcolonial analysis further indicated that Jesus’ ministry of liberation extended even to the woman’s daughter, the subaltern, whose voice Mark’s audience never hears. The crowd in the fourth exorcism began the episode being amazed when they saw Jesus. They are included in Jesus’ indictment that accused everyone in the episode of lack of faith, of waiting to see acts of power instead of believing in the power of God. Perhaps as a response to Jesus’ accusation, they ran together after him in order to witness his authority over the unclean spirit, demonstrated in his deliverance of the boy. In order to express its own limited authority in front of the crowd, after crying out and convulsing him, the unclean spirit departed and the boy fell to the ground. The stillness of the child following the unclean spirit’s departure caused the crowd to think that he was dead. The narrator, reminding the audience of Jesus’ raising of Jairus’ daughter, shows that the boy was alive by having Jesus repeat the very same action he used in 5:41, taking the child’s hand. Jesus then demonstrated his authority over even death by raising the boy into a standing position. The post-Easter community is reminded of Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead,412 God’s authority even over Jesus’ death. Although the crowd served as a community witness to Jesus’ authority over the unclean spirit, Jesus had no authority over them. However, Jesus’ victory over non-human forces (including death!), his ability to express

Liberation from Empire

199

“agency” over non-humans, provided a model of liberation of the possessed for all the other human actors. Demonic possession was symbolic of the political and social violence unleashed on first-century CE Mediterranean persons and communities by the Roman imperial order.413 The spiritual struggle between God and Satan was also a political one. For the peoples of ancient Galilee and the surrounding peoples, imperial domination was caught up in a conflict of a higher order, between superhuman spiritual forces, God and Satan, Holy Spirit versus unclean spirits. The effects of Roman military violence and economic exploitation were often attributed to demon possession. Indeed a subject people so possessed…cannot even discern the real, political forces to which they are subject until their demons are exorcized, brought under God’s control.414

Demonic possession might also be described as a state in which the marginalized are allowed to dramatize their personal sense of oppression in a socially accepted manner.415 Markan exorcisms graphically demonstrate the distinctive difference, the binary opposition, between the real peace ushered in with the kingdom of God and the illusory one of the Pax Romana. Mark’s portrayal of Jesus exhibits “his community’s strategic essentialism and transcultural hybridity within the native Jewish religio-political discourse in the north.”416 Jesus uses the resistance strategy of mimicry with a difference (approximation), an inbetween posture that is both accommodating and disrupting. “This is a mimetic, ambivalent and hybrid posturing. [Samuel prefers] to describe this posturing in terms of strategic essentialism and transcultural hybridity, that is, a condition of being in which claims of difference (selfhood) and the desire for transculturality are both contradictorily necessary.”417 The postcolonial overlay assists us in understanding the significant place that Jesus’ authority occupies in Mark’s story of liberation. Both the Judean authorities and the unclean spirits challenge Jesus’ source of authority. Jesus confers his authority on the Twelve (and other followers) in order that they also spread the kingdom of God in word and deed. The crowds and other onlookers are amazed by Jesus’ authority. The Markan narrator informs the audience that, while Jesus does have the authority to direct non-humans, he does not have the same kind of authority over people. This is one of the greatest ironies in the entire plotline of Mark’s Gospel. Jesus orders people to be quiet, or to go home, or to tell no one what they have witnessed, and they do exactly the opposite. What we learn from a careful analysis of Mark is that Jesus does have an authority of force over non-humans—demons, illness (when people have faith), and nature (storms, deserts and fig trees)—but he has no authority over people. He cannot force people to do God’s will. Furthermore, he has no right to force people, since no one is to dominate any other person.

200

Cheryl Stewart Pero

This expectation of not forcing other people to do one’s will applies not just to Jesus but to everyone in the story. Again, this is related to the larger cosmic picture in which God is reforming the created order, replacing human beings in their proper place in creation; that is to say, human beings are to subdue all non-human forces that oppress people but they are not to have authority of force over each other. The implication is that Jesus relates to the human empire of Rome in a different way (resistance) from that in which he relates to Satan. This is integral to the unfolding kingdom of God.

NOTES 1

Michael Willett Newheart, “My Name is Legion.” The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004), 40.

2

Malina and Rohrbaugh, 181.

3

This type-scene is my expansion of Newheart’s. I have indicated his categories in brackets. Adela Yarbro Collins, 165, based on first century Mediterranean extant literature recording exorcisms, recognizes four common features in Mark 1:21–28: The demon recognizes the exorcist, the exorcism proper, the demon loudly exits the host, and the onlookers respond.

4

Jerome Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World; Semeia 35 (1986): 100–101. Imperfect foods, animals, and people exist on the boundaries of the Jewish community. These foods, animals, and people are not whole, so considered defective and dangerous to the purity of the community because of their potential for pollution. Their defectiveness causes them to be perceived as unclean; they are marginal, not within the community’s purity margins and definitions. “And so, what does not fully fit a determined definition is not within its proper lines; it is a hybrid, an ambiguous thing…,” his emphasis.

5

France, 100.

6

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 191.

7

Zerwick and Grosvenor, 102; see also Zerwick ¶126, 92.

8

France, 102.

9

Marcus, Mark 1–8, 191.

10 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 192. 11 Collins, 165. 12 BDF, ¶198 (2), 106. 13 Guelich, 54. 14 France, 103. 15 Wallace, 149–151. See also BDF, ¶189, 102. 16 France, 102; Guelich, 56.

Liberation from Empire

201

17 Donahue and Harrington, 80. 18 Guelich, 56–57; Guelich notes that this question is asked when there is an irreconcilable difference between the two parties. 19 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 187. The comparative Hebrew Bible texts pose two questions: 1) “What is causing this conflict between us?” in Judg 11:12, 2 Chron 35:22; 1 Kgs 17:18. 2) “What do we have in common?” in 2 Kgs 3:13 and Hos 14:8. 20 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 102; Wallace, 67. 21 Wallace, 68. 22 Guelich, 57. 23 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 285. 24 Zerwick, ¶282, 95. 25 Wallace, 24. 26 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 102. 27 See the Introduction for my reference to Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968), 232–46. According to BDAG, 384, e0pitima/w means to “to express strong disapproval of someone, rebuke, reprove, censure also speak seriously, warn in order to prevent an action or bring one to an end,” their emphasis. In reference to Markan exorcism in particular, Mark uses this verb here, in 8:33, and in 9:25. 28 France, 104–105. 29 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 46, 116. 30 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 285. 31 Wallace, 169. 32 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 184. 33 Wallace, 346. 34 BDF, ¶103, 56. 35 France, 106. 36 Rhoads, Michie, and Dewey134. 37 Rhoads, Michie, and Dewey, 11–12. 38 Rhoads, Michie, and Dewey, 11. 39 Rhoads, Michie, and Dewey, 104. 40 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 115–116. 41 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 120. 42 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 223. 43 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 348–349.

202

Cheryl Stewart Pero

44 See Malina and Rohrbaugh, 222. The dyadic nature of the Mediterranean culture is explained, for example, by the unclean spirit’s identification of Jesus’ hometown as Nazareth: A person was known by his/her family/community of origin. A biblical reputation of uncleanness could be spread in a similar manner; if a family/community had a reputation for being unclean, anyone coming from that community would be considered unclean. 4 45 See Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels (WUNT 2/185; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). 46 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 104. 47 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 106. 48 Pilch, The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 36; also Malina and Rohrbaugh, 213–214. 49 Samuel, 125, emphasis his. 50 Samuel, 155. 51 Myers, 141–142. 52 Myers, 142. 53 Collins, 265; Guelich, 275. 54 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. This reference to Gerasa has caused scholars a great amount of consternation. See Boring, 148; Collins, 263–264; Donahue and Harrington, 163; France, 227; Guelich, 275–277. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 341–342, sums up scholarship when he reports that, based on the geography of trans-Jordan and the Markan narrative that follows (esp. vs. 13), this location presents the most difficult text, therefore the most likely location. Gerasa is located over thirty miles from the sea, entirely too far away from the Sea of Galilee for a herd of swine to rush off a cliff and die by drowning. However, in spite of the geographical difficulties, this location has the best external attestation in the early Alexandrian and Western manuscripts. Alternate locations have been suggested: Gadera (over five miles from the Galilean Sea) and Gergesa (modern Kursi or El-Kursi, a plateau with a sharp incline leading directly down to the Sea of Galilee). This geographical discrepancy is one of the examples given in regards to Mark’s inaccuracies. Another suggestion regarding the discrepancy is that Mark was more concerned with establishing a familiar link to the Decapolis with his audience by using the name of a well-known location rather than an accurate one. In addition, Josephus indicates this was the home of Simon bar Giora (J.W. 4.503), one of the wellknown leaders of the Jewish rebellions. 55 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. 56 Wallace, 174. 57 BDF, §219(4), 117–118. 58 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115; Zerwick, §116, 38. 59 France, 227. 60 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 343. This list consists of a triple accusative + infinitive, Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. 61 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115.

Liberation from Empire

203

62 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. 63 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. 64 Wallace, 648. 65 Collins, 267. 66 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 115. 67 Boring, 149; France, 228; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 343. 68 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 343–344. Marcus points out that this reference to God as “Most High” has roots both in the Hebrew Bible, and in Greek religion, where it was commonly used in reference to Zeus. Marcus cites D. E. Nineham’s commentary, Saint Mark (Penguin Gospel Commentaries; Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1963) in particular: “The epithet was thus both Jewish and cosmopolitan, and so was ideally suited to be a name for God in Diaspora Judaism, where it is often found in synagogue inscriptions. For similar reasons, Gentiles typically use it to refer to Israel’s God in biblical and intertestamental literature…so that in our passage it is appropriately employed by a Gentile demoniac (Nineham, 153).” Furthermore, Marcus connects the usage of this title to Jesus’ role as God’s divine warrior and God’s holy war victory as demonstrated in this exorcism. 69

Tan Kim Huat, “Exorcism and Empire in Mark.” TTJ 14 (2006) 34–47, citing 42.

70

Wallace, 207; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116.

71 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116; Zerwick §246, 79. 72 Collins, 268; Donahue and Harrington, 165; Guelich, 280. 73 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 347. 74 Boring, 149; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 344; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116; BDF, §347(2), 177; although not the case here, BDF offer the additional insight in §323(4), 168: “The imperfect is sometimes used analogously = e1mellen with an infinitive. …” 75 Zerwick §290, 98. 76 BDF, 177; France, 229. 77 Wallace, 594. 78 Wallace, 58; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116. 79 Collins, 270. 80 Collins, 269. 81 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 352. 82 Wallace, 460. 83 Myers, 192. 84 On the one hand, Boring, 151, points out that although Mark does not overtly express antiRoman sentiment in the Gospel, the use of “legion” as a name implies authority and power to control, reminding the audience of the Roman occupation of Palestine. The Markan audience would have had full knowledge of the connection between the Roman Legion and

204

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Palestine. Legio X Fretensis (whose standard and seal included the image of a boar!), named by Augustus as a reference to Caesar’s famous Tenth Legion, had been stationed in Syria from approximately 6 CE–66 CE; they were called up to participate in the first Jewish War, and, subsequently, were stationed in Jerusalem. Their early historical occupation perhaps remained indelibly lodged in the people’s memories. However, because this exorcism occurs outside Palestine, in Gentile territory during Jesus’ ministry (pre-33 CE), the case for the harsh treatment of the Jewish population at the hands of the Romans in this pericope falls flat. On the other hand, there are a number of scholars with whom I tend to agree who believe that the name of the unclean spirit speaks, not to Roman domination, but to the enormous scale of Satanic domination, even among the Gentiles on the east side of the Galilean Sea outside Palestine. Two thousand was not the number of soldiers in a legion. Donahue and Harrington, 166, suggest that “legion” is simply a colloquial expression for a large number, having no sociopolitical implication, but, nevertheless, a name by which Jesus gains control over the unclean spirit(s). France, 229, understands “legion” as a cipher providing “a graphic indication of the multiple possession involved in this case,” indicating that Jesus will be confronted by an army of unclean spirits. Guelich, 281, explains the name “legion” to be a symbol of the extent of the man’s domination by unclean spirits. Perhaps a combination of these two points of view might be the most helpful for interpretation: Domination by legion is massive and analogous to the threat posed by the expansion of the Roman Empire. 85 Zerwick §272, 91; §252, 82. 86 See also Mark’s repetition of parakale/w in vss. 12 pareka&lesan, 17 parakalei=n, and 18 pareka&lei. 87 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116. 88 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116. 89 Wallace, 400. 90 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 116; Zerwick §371, 129. 91 BDF, §343(2), 177. 92 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 117. 93 BDF §328, 169–170. 94 Wallace, 605. 95 Wallace, 655. 96 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 117; Zerwick §49,18. 97 BDF §423(2), 218. 98 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 117. 99 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 117. 100 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 117; Zerwick §460, 155. 101 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 109.

Liberation from Empire

205

102 Donahue and Harrington, 163. 103 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 342. 104 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 72. 105 Collins, 271. 106 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 287. 107 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 109. 108 Boring, 152; Donahue and Harrington, 166; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 347. 109 Collins, 271; France, 230. 110 France, 230. 111 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 353. 112 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 353. 113 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 121. 114 Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 93. 115 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 348. 116 France, 226. 117 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 351. 118 Donahue and Harrington, 166. 119 Kamila Blessing, “Call Not Unclean: The Pigs in the Story of the Legion of Demons,” Proceedings: Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Bible Societies 10 (1990): 92–106. Blessing examines whether the pigs in the story really were unclean by questioning the purpose of the death of the pigs. She bases her analysis on the Luke’s version (8:22–39) of the Gerasene Demoniac. In making her argument, she first asserts that the context of the exorcism is cosmic as well as earthly—Jesus is waging a battle against Satan on the cosmic as well as the earthly plane. Jesus’ authoritative command to come out of the man is military or imperial as well as cosmic. Her second point is that this exorcism does not just end, “but goes on to a result which is cataclysmic for both pigs and people.” (94) The only other place in the Gospels that contains an unexpected, paradoxical death is in parables about the Kingdom of God. Thus, she sees the death of the pigs as “laden with meaning about the coming of the kingdom of God.” Blessing explains the pigs are unclean based on food prohibitions in Lev 11; they are not unclean based on how Jesus redefines uncleanness: “Not only does Jesus not indicate any disturbance about the presence of the pigs: he talks with, then heals a Gentile! Yet he is most certainly concerned with uncleanness since the triggering action of the story is to command the a)kaqa/rtw| (unclean) spirit to come out (Luke 8:29, Mark 5:8, a)kaqa/rton). Could it be that he is setting up a deliberate and ironic contrast between the unclean under the law and the unclean in God’s view? We believe this is the appropriate point of departure,” 95. The pigs themselves, while cultically unclean and outcast, are used by the narrator as the vehicle of salvific sacrifice. They ultimately give up their lives in order to destroy the unclean spirits by casting them into the sea. “Virtually every other role in the beginning of the story has now been inverted,” 102. The point of view from which she does her analysis

206

Cheryl Stewart Pero

is: “Uncleanness is often, if not always, necessarily paradoxical.” She sees the narrator addressing not physical but spiritual defilement as defined and applied contextually by local Gentile social convention and intends the audience to struggle with spiritual defilement. “…[S]piritual defilement is defined by relationship—relationship to God, to the community, and to a certain order.”(98) For example, pigs were not understood to be unclean in the Gentile social setting, although they would have been considered so in the Israelite social setting. Blessing sees the pigs, instead of being cultically unclean, as a metaphor (106n19) for cultural outcasts, as were the Gentiles. She points out that Jesus, too, will become a cultural outcast. The pigs’ presence in the narrative as metaphor assists the narrator to focus the attention of the New Testament audience on the work of power that Jesus is authorized to conduct in Gentile territory. For Blessing the pigs present an image that the Markan narrator uses to make his point: “However inconsiderable their station in the culture or in the story, they have in fact in one place in history ‘destroyed the work of the devil’ under the Lordship of Jesus.”(104) In Blessing’s understanding then, Mark’s audience focuses on a picture of both the pigs and Jesus as innocent victims in the cosmic conflict between God and Satan. The Jerusalem scribes defined Jesus as being unclean because of his human and geographical associations and accused him of being possessed by Satan; the pigs were defined by Israelite cultic law as unclean and, in the story world, became possessed by unclean spirits. Both Jesus and the pigs become the vehicles of sacrifice, bearing the sins of the people. This episode perhaps presents the place where and time when Jesus begins to redefine purity maps using new rules. While Blessing’s essay is provocative, I hesitate to accept her analysis unreservedly. Her understanding of the pigs as a metaphor for cultural outcasts fits well into a postcolonial interpretation though, but seems to be misleading by not taking Mark’s narrative at face value. Mark constructs the pigs perhaps to exaggerate the significance of impurity. Blessing’s attempt to rehabilitate them is not being faithful to Mark’s story. 120 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 208. 121 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 209. 122 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 354. 123 Strecker, 121. In his analysis of this episode, Christian Strecker begins by noting that there is a marked difference between disease and possession in the New Testament. I agree with this distinction because Mark makes this abundantly clear in 1:34, 39; 3:10–11, 14–15; and 6:13. 124 Strecker, 124. Strecker identifies Jesus’ exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac as transformance, a transformation of the possessed person within their social milieu. Jesus’ transformance causes “the identity of the possessed person to be constituted anew, their ranks and positions in the social arena revised, and the cosmic order reestablished,” 125. The social transformation of the demoniacs’ status is demonstrated primarily in his reintegration into the community and the restructuring of his life indicated in Mark 5:20, 128. 125 Collins, 272. 126 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 92. 127 Myers, 426. 128 Stephen J. Patterson, Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2004), 27.

Liberation from Empire

207

129 Perhaps the man even bayed at the moon like a “lunatic.” 130 Mark emphasizes towards the end of the episode (vs. 15) that the man was sitting with Jesus, clothed, and in his right mind. 131 “But no one is able to enter into the house of the strong one to plunder his property unless/except one first tied up/bound the strong one and then will plunder the house.” 132 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 350. 133 Huat, 40. 134 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 349. 135 Donahue and Harrington, 105. 136 Patterson, 28. 137 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 92. 138 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 93. 139 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 92. 140 Myers, 191. 141 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 91. 142 Myers, 192. 143 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 141. 144 Myers, 191. 145 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 141. 146 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 208. 147 Horsley, 141. Horsley also mentions that the Romans had come across the Mediterranean Sea in order to conquer Palestine and Syria. Myers, 191, adds: “It is perhaps relevant that Herod Antipas had built a major Hellenistic city that became his capital, Tiberias, on the shores of the sea not far from where Mark places his story. The king had to coerce Jews to populate the city, because it was considered unclean: it had been constructed on the site of a graveyard…” 148 Huat, 40. 149 Myers, 193. Myers understands that internalized oppression occurs when “the community’s anguish over its subjugation is repressed and then turned in on oneself. …” 150 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 93. 151 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 93. 152 Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 166. 153 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 94. 154 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 94. 155 Huat, 41. See also Stephen Moore, 194.

208

Cheryl Stewart Pero

156 Huat, 41. 157 Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation, 94. 158 Samuel, 127. 159 Huat, 44. 160 Patterson, 28. 161 Huat, 46. 162 Purity issues are important in Mark’s narrative, particularly those that relate to food. Jesus addresses an important topic in 7:1–21, the nature of defilement and other food-related torah violations. In his teaching on purity issues, Jesus declares all foods clean. 163 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 466. 164 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 76–77. David Rhoads describes the conversation as an “allegorical riddle”. 165 Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith (Scripta Pontificii instituti biblici 114; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1994), 126. 166 Donahue and Harrington, 232. 167 Waetjen, 134. 168 BDF §429, 222. It could be translated: “he desired not anyone (=no one) to know.” 169 Guelich, 382. 170 BDF §297, 155, emphasis theirs. Zerwick, §201, 65, adds: “The use of a pronoun repeating the relative (e.g. gunh_ h[j ei]xen to_ quga&t rion au)t h=j pneu=m a a)k a&q arton Mk 7.25) is very frequent in Semitic languages, where it is often necessary to the sense; for the Hebrew relative particle asher or the Aramaic one di is indeclinable and hence its determination in gender, number and case requires (save when it belongs to the verb) an added pronoun. In the NT this phenomenon is a rare one, almost limited to Mk and Rev,” his emphasis. See also Donahue and Harrington, 233. 171 Guelich, 325; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 462; France, 297. 172 See the leper in 1:40, Jairus in 5:22, the hemorrhaging woman in 5:33, and the rich young man in 10:17 173 Collins, 365. 174 Donahue and Harrington, 233. 175 Donahue and Harrington, 233. 176 Boring, 208; Guelich, 325. 177 Myers, 203. 178 Boring, 208; Donahue and Harrington, 233; Guelich, 325. 179 Guelich, 325. 180 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 129; Wallace, 475.

Liberation from Empire

209

181 Guelich, 325. 182 Boring, 214. 183 Collins, 368. 184 Waetjen, 135–136. 185 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 465. 186 Donahue and Harrington, 235. 187 Boring, 210. 188 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 51. 189 Donahue and Harrington, 234–235. 190 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 41. 191 Collins, 364. 192 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 467. 193 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 65–66. 194 Guelich, 388. 195 Guelich, 325. 196 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 81. 197 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 81. 198 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 462. Marcus adds that “Greek” might also indicate someone who spoke upper class Greek. 199 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 462. 200 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 212. 201 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 206–207. 202 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 214. 203 Guelich, 388. 204 Guelich, 388. 205 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 119. 206 Collins, 368. 207 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 82, his emphasis. 208 Guelich, 389. 209 France, 299. 210 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 97. 211 Guelich, 388.

210

Cheryl Stewart Pero

212 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 79. See also Guelich, 382: “The only example of ‘distance healing narrative’ in our Gospels involve Jesus healing Gentiles.” 213 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 180. 214 This is the only episode where the suppliant is a woman who verbally bests Jesus, causing him to change his mind. 215 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 85. 216 Issues surrounding food are significant in Mark’s story of Jesus possibly because people lived at a subsistence level in Mark’s world. Some examples of Mark’s concern include: When Jesus dines at Levi’s home he is accused of eating with tax collectors and sinners by the Pharisaic scribes (2:14–16). Jesus fed five thousand hungry men (add women and children) in Judean territory (6:30–44). Mark narrates two accounts concerning defilement and purity (7:1–13 and 14–23), revolving around charges from the scribes related to food defilement because of improperly washed hands. He declared all food clean in 7:19, indicating that defilement comes from the inside of a person and not from utensils or food. Jesus feeds four thousand people in Gentile territory (8:1–9). We have heard both in 3:20 and 6:31 that the crowds were so pressing on Jesus that he and the Twelve had no chance to eat. Jesus uses agrarian images when he describes the kingdom of heaven in 4:1–20, 26–29, 30–32, and 12:1–12. 217 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 467. 218 Myers, 203. 219 Guelich, 383. 220 Donahue and Harrington, 237. 221 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 224. 222 Juel, The Gospel of Mark, 113; referring here to the Gerasene demoniac in 5:1–20. 223 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 225. 224 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 212. 225 France, 297. 226 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 213. 227 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 467. 228 Myers, 203. 229 France, 297. 230 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 225. 231 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 225. 232 Donahue and Harrington, 237. 233 France, 297. 234 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 181. 235 Juel, The Gospel of Mark, 113–114.

Liberation from Empire

211

236 James Perkinson, “A Canaanitic Word in the Logos of Christ; or the Difference the Syrophoenician Woman Makes to Jesus,” Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading, Semeia 75 (1996), 61–86, at 66. 237 Sugirtharajah, “The Syrophoenician Woman,” 14. 238 Perkinson, 69. 239 Marcus, Mark 1–8, 467. 240 Laura E. Donaldson, “Gospel Hauntings: The Postcolonial Demons of New Testament Criticism,” in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections (ed. Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia; Bible and Postcolonialism; London: T&T Clark, 2005, 97–113), 98. Laura Donaldson’s article addresses Mark’s portrayal of the “ethnic singularity” of the unnamed Syrophoenician woman’s possessed daughter. Donaldson notes that many feminist and postcolonial biblical scholars have focused on the Syrophoenician woman, acknowledging her narrative status as a subaltern but very few focus on the woman’s daughter. According to Donaldson, the little girl represents the true voiceless subaltern, for the audience never interacts with her—she is a subject on whom an exorcism is performed from a distance. Donaldson suggests that the audience ought to become haunted by the daughter (98); haunting problematizes colonialism by provoking conflict with the goals and values of the colonizer, creating resistance. The little girl’s spectrality assists the audience to acknowledge the invisible in the visible world (98). “…[H]aunting and spectrality require one to engage with these altered realities on deeper levels than mere intellect,” (98). The little girl’s possession causes others in Mark’s Gospel to speak through and for her: “The daughter can neither testify on her own behalf nor control whether or not Jesus heals her,” (101). No one focuses on her! “To be haunted by (rather than interpret) the spirit-possessed daughter…moves one beyond mastery into a deeply moving relationship.…These biblical ghosts mark the possibility of turning around–or converting–all those in an ethically singular relation with them,” (110). See also Musa W. Dube Shomonah, Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), esp. 127–155. 241 Perkinson, 81. 242 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 51. 243 Perkinson, 80. 244 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 83. 245 Perkinson, 76. 246 Guelich, 389. 247 Sugirtharajah, “The Syrophoenician Woman.” 15. 248 Myers, 204. 249 Donahue and Harrington, 237. 250 Boring, 214. 251 Sugirtharajah, “The Syrophoenician Woman,” 14. 252 Samuel, 27, his emphasis.

212

Cheryl Stewart Pero

253 While I omitted those verses in this treatment, they can be seen in the note at the beginning of this incident. 254 Myers, 204. 255 Collins, 436. 256 France, 363. 257 Collins, 437. 258 Donahue and Harrington, 277. Jesus’ appearance might be a reference to his actual physical presence or, in addition, to the mystical glowing of his garments from his transfiguration. 259 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 120. Twelftree suggests that the verb e0kqaube/w involves a certain amount of distress so is better translated as “perplexed.” He further suggests that the crowd might have been perplexed by the inability of the disciples to exorcize. 260 Wallace, 626. 261 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 262 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 263 France, 364. 264 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 265 Zerwick, 52, §155. 266 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136; Zerwick, 27, §80. 267 Donahue and Harrington, 277. 268 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 269 Boring, 273; France, 364. Although the ancients commonly understood the symptoms of the “sacred disease” to be caused by divine visitation or power, Hippocrates states that there is nothing sacred or divine about the disease (Morb. Sac. 2.127–83, esp. 2.139, 2.183). He describes the symptoms thoroughly in 2.159, symptoms almost identical to what Mark describes in these verses. Lucian, suggests that the seizure is caused by the influence of the moon: “…everyone knows about the Syrian from Palestine…how many he takes in hand who fall down in the light of the moon and roll their eyes and fill their mouths with foam; nevertheless, he restores them to health and sends them away normal in mind. …” (Philops. 16; in Lucian, vol 3.; trans. A. M. Harmon [LCL; London: William Heinemann; and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1913]). Thus, the possessed person might be described as “moonstruck” or as “lunatics.” 270 BDAG, r(h/ssw, 905, 2a. 271 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136; Zerwick, 139, §407. 272 Wallace, 58. 273 Collins, 437; France, 365. 274 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 653. 275 BDF, 81, §146(2).

Liberation from Empire

213

276 Evans, 51. 277 Wallace, 69; Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136; Zerwick, 12, §35. 278 Collins, 437; Donahue and Harrington, 278; France, 366. 279 BDF, 74, §134(3); Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 280 BDF, 243–244, §466. They define anacoluthon as: “The resumption of a suspended case by a pronoun in another case...,” their emphasis. An anacoluthon is an inconsistency or change in the construction of a sentence where the first part and the second part do not connect syntactically. 281 Wallace, 545. 282 France, 366; BDF, 238, §455(3). 283 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 284 Wallace, 123. 285 France, 267. 286 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 287 Zerwick, 83, §253. 288 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 136. 289 BDF, 233, §488(3). 290 France, 267. 291 Wallace, 488. 292 Zerwick, 85–86, §261. 293 Wallace, 717. 294 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 295 Wallace, 237–238. 296 BDF, 140, §267(1). 297 France, 367. 298 Evans, 52. 299 BDF, 216–217, §420(3). 300 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137; Zerwick, 91, §272. 301 Wallace, 721. 302 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 303 Collins, 439. 304 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 305 Zerwick, 11, §34.

214

Cheryl Stewart Pero

306 Donahue and Harrington, 279. 307 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 655. 308 Wallace, 719–720. 309 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 310 BDF, 85, 155, §1, their emphasis. 311 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 312 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 313 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137; Wallace, 592–594. 314 BDF, 218, §423(2). 315 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137. 316 Zerwick, 18, §49. 317 Wallace, 544. 318 BDF, 157, §300(2). 319 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 137; see also Zerwick, 40, §119. 320 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 209. 321 Collins, 439. 322 This exorcism follows Jesus testing by Satan in the wilderness in 1:12–13, setting the stage for the conflicts with Satan and the exorcisms to follow. 323 Donahue and Harrington, 280. 324 Marcus, Mark 8–16, 657. 325 Boring, 273. 326 Collins, 436. 327 Evans, 50. 328 Collins, 437. 329 France, 363. 330 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 119. 331 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 120. 332 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 121. 333 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 123. 334 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 188. 335 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 189. 336 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 152, n. 41. 337 Collins, 439.

Liberation from Empire

215

338 Collins, 437. 339 France, 366. 340 Collins, 439. 341 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 188. 342 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 173. 343 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 135. 344 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 70. 345 France, 367. 346 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 172. 347 Collins, 438; Boring, 275. 348 Boring, 274. 349 France, 363. 350 Collins, 437; Donahue and Harrington, 278; France, 365; Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 187; Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 121. 351 Boring, 273–274. 352 Collins, 437. 353 Boring, 274. 354 Collins, 439. 355 Myers, 255. 356 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 88. 357 Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 189. 358 Collins, 439; Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 123. 359 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 125. 360 Boring, 276. 361 Boring, 272. 362 Neyrey, 121. 363 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 168. 364 Donahue and Harrington, 281. Mark never labels the spirit evil, but rather, mute, unclean and deaf. 365 Some families of non-violent possessed persons were able to do so, keeping their possessed family members at home, e.g., the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter in 7:30. 366 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 234. 367 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 86.

216

Cheryl Stewart Pero

368 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 237. 369 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 234. 370 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 252–253. 371 Although the narrator leaves the purpose of the crowd “running together” unexplained, there has been some scholarly speculation. Collins, 439, suggests that this might be the narrator’s method for returning to the story. Donahue and Harrington, 279, speculate that there is a chance of a riot brewing. France, 368, posits that the growing crowd is simply re-gathering around Jesus. Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 87, wonders if the crowd closes in around Jesus in order to observe his exorcism technique. 372 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 234. 373 Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” NIB 8:509–733, citing 634. 374 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 86. 375 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 252. 376 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 123. 377 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 125. 378 See the narrative analysis of this passage and 215nn363–64, above; and Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 88; and idem, In the Name of Jesus, 125. 379 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 253. 380 Malina and Rohrbaugh, 253. 381 France, 369. 382 France, 370. 383 Perkins, 633. 384 Boring, 276. 385 Rhoads, Reading Mark, 102, 125. 386 Strecker, 125. 387 Strecker, 123. The behavior of the possessed looks like the performance of a role, the “possession idiom.” Strecker credits Vincent Crapanzano with coining this phrase to describe public manifestations of strange behavior within a society. 388 Strecker, 127. 389 Strecker, 128. 390 Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 167. 391 Horsley, 81. 392 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 120–121. Twelftree understands this to mean that, according to the boy’s father, the disciples did not have the innate strength to perform the exorcism. He draws a comparison between the disciples’ innate inability and Jesus’ innate ability, conferred

Liberation from Empire

217

on him by the Holy Spirit in his baptism in 1:11. For “…despite having been with Jesus they have remained without faith.” 393 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 88. 394 Donahue and Harrington, 280. 395 Liew, Politics of Parousia, 109. 396 Myers, 237. 397 Myers, 256. 398 Strecker, 125. 399 Guijarro, “The Politics of Exorcism,” 165. Guijarro points out that the public venue of three of our exorcism narratives makes adult males the most likely candidates for exorcism. 400 France, 369. 401 By “force” I mean a character whose actions are based on its own agency, without being defined by its interactions with other characters. 402 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 263, his emphasis. 403 Collins, 272. 404 Twelftree, Jesus the Miracle Worker, 287. 405 Neyrey, “Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits,” 111. 406 Neyrey, “Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits,” 111. These distinctions would be based in purity boundaries. 407 Neyrey, “Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits,” 124. 408 Myers, 192. 409 Myers, 193, his emphasis. 410 Myers, 194. 411 Donahue and Harrington, 171. 412 Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 123. 413 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 141. 414 Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 146. 415 Patterson, 26. 416 Samuel, 128. 417 Simon Samuel, “The Beginning of Mark: A Colonial/Postcolonial Conundrum,” BibInt 10 (2002), 405–19, quoting 407. Simon borrows this concept from Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994); and Gayatri Spivak, The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues (ed. Sarah Harasyn; New York: Routledge, 1990), which has also been used in biblical studies by Daniel Boyarin in his reading of Paul, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Contraversions 1; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

C

H A P T E R

7

Conclusions The Kingdom of God

I

have investigated demonic possession and Jesus’ exorcistic activity in the Gospel of Mark. In Mark’s story, Jesus inaugurates the kingdom of God by bringing restoration and liberation to a Palestinian society in which demonic possession, various forms of illness, threats from nature, impurity, and human oppression abound. Demons possess people. Sickness/illness weakens individuals and families, causing the afflicted to become isolated and the family to become fractured.1 Nature (drought, famine, earthquake, etc.) endangers families and communities. Impurity marginalizes people and threatens the integrity and boundaries of the community. People oppress other people. Jesus’ numerous deeds of power demonstrate the neediness of the people and ushers in the kingdom of God while engaging in ongoing cosmic conflict with Satan. In Mark’s narrative, Palestinian society was in disarray. One example of the disarray was demonic possession. By “disarray,” I mean that human values, values that accepted imbalanced and unjust uses of power, had become more influential among the population than God’s values, functionally undermining the values of the kingdom of God. In Mark, the values of Satan (and analogously the Roman Empire, the Judean authorities, and sometimes even the disciples) were in conflict with the values of the kingdom of God. Mark even connected the kingdom of the world with the kingdom of Satan in 5:9 when the demonic/unclean spirit in the Gerasene cemetery identifies itself to Jesus as “Legion.” This connection is illustrated clearly and explicitly in Mark 8:33 where, after rebuking Peter, Jesus then chided him for thinking in human terms. The following illustrates additional examples of societal disarray in Mark. 1. Multiple competing claims of authority rendered leaderless, “like sheep without a shepherd” (6:34), and for a leader (13:21–22). 2. Drought, famine, and providing food for the Roman the peasant population to be physically hungry (6:35;

the populace on the lookout Empire caused 8:1–3). Human

220

Cheryl Stewart Pero

3.

4. 5.

6.

lives were endangered by the threats posed by nature itself (e.g. storms, 4:39–41; drowning, 6:47–50). The repeated challenges the Jewish authorities made against the little tradition of the peasant village population regarding purity rules (2:18, 22–23; 3:1–6; 7:1–13) created a climate of religious defensiveness among the peasants. The activity of the spirit world intruded into daily life, resulting in many cases of demonic possession (1:21–28; 5:1–20; 7:24–30; 9:14–20; 9:38– 39). . … Many people suffered from (in some cases long-term) sicknesses/illnesses (1:30–31, 32–34, 40, 45; 2:1–5; 3:7–10; 5:29; 6:5, 53–56; 7:32–36; 8:22–26; 10:47–52) that removed them from meaningful participation in the life of their family/community.2 The political and military incursion of the Roman Empire caused peasants to be apprehensive, individually and corporately, about the oppressive implications and ramifications of its presence and threat (15:1–20).

Mark’s theological history3 depicts Jesus as God’s agent/broker, intervening in the disarrayed society of Palestine; he was commissioned to proclaim the good news and to establish the governance of God. Authorized by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit at his baptism (1:9–11), Jesus’ first experience at opposing Satan and Satan’s kingdom in Mark came during his testing in the wilderness (1:12–13). After binding (1:13) the strong one (3:27), Jesus, the stronger one (1:7), plundered Satan’s household (3:27), expelling possessing spirits and liberating oppressed and possessed people (3:27) from Satan’s domination. Satan’s minions, demonic/unclean spirits, possessed humans in both the Jewish and the Gentile communities. As a counter to the disarray caused by demonic possession, Jesus’ exorcisms stand as one dimension of his kingdom building activity. Jesus’ proclamation of the good news and his deeds of power, healing and exorcizing, provided a glimpse of the kingdom of God to both Jews and Gentiles. For the Judean community, Jesus restored afflicted people to their families and their village communities. For the Gentile community, Jesus reformed Israelite tradition by breaking social, religious, and geographical boundaries, intentionally including all persons in God’s new kingdom (5:1–20 and 7:24–30). Jesus commissioned the Twelve to be his agents/brokers with the responsibility to proclaim/heal and exorcize (3:14–15; 6:7, 13), without dominating other humans. The Twelve continued Jesus’ ministry of proclamation, healing the sick/ill and exorcizing the possessed; in so doing, they invited others to participate in extending the kingdom of God to still others.

Liberation from Empire

221

Jesus’ exorcistic activity revealed that when the people in Mark’s story world personally experienced Jesus’ proclamation, Jesus’ kingdom building activity (1:14–15),4 the result was the proper realignment of people’s relationships with God, their families, their communities, and the rest of the cosmic order. In Mark’s construction, all the sick/ill and the possessed return to the state of God’s created order.5 Brief examples of restoration include Peter’s mother-in-law in 1:29–31, who, after healing, “began to serve them.” She was able to resume her role among her family and within the society. The paralytic in 2:11 picks up his pallet and walks. The Gerasene demoniac is found by the townspeople sitting with Jesus, clothed and in his right mind (5:15). Jairus’ daughter eats food in 5:43. In 7:30, upon the exorcism of her daughter, the Syrophoenician woman returns home to find that all is back to normal. Jesus and his agents, the Twelve, seek to bring liberation, healing, and wholeness to the society, to condemn human oppression over others—and so to reestablish proper power relationships in life under God’s governance. Proper power relationships in the kingdom of God are demonstrated when one chooses to serve the most vulnerable in the society in order that they might be liberated. In this larger story of Mark, demonic possession and exorcism play a significant role. Demonic possession is an extreme example of Satan’s misuse of power to oppress and possess. We learn the nature and extent of satanic influence from Mark’s depiction of demonic possession. Exorcism is a vital expression of God’s power to liberate from possession and oppression. We learn about the nature of God’s power to deliver the possessed and to liberate the oppressed from Mark’s description of exorcism. Exorcisms were expressions of the presence of the kingdom of God, inviting the participation of the Markan audience. Participation in the Markan Jesus’ kingdom of God was predicated on particular points of view. Entrance was determined by one’s behavior: doing the will of God (3:33). Doing the will of God was having faith in Jesus as God’s agent (e.g., 1:40–42; 3:5; 5:34; 6:6), for only by having faith could the afflicted experience Jesus’ healing and exorcism. God through Jesus was the leader who provided food for the hungry (6:41–44; 8:6–10), healing for the sick/ill (1:30– 31, 32–34, 40, 45; 2:1–5; 3:7–10; 5:29; 6:5, 53–56; 7:32–36; 8:22–26; 10:47–52), and deliverance for the possessed (1:21–28; 5:1–20; 7:24–30; 9:13–29). Compliance with God’s will was at stake whenever the Markan Jesus reinterpreted the Pharisaic interpretation of Mosaic tradition (see 7:6–12; 10:2– 12, 17–22; 11:5–19; 12:18–27, 28–34) by affirming the little tradition practiced by the Galilean peasants (7:14–19) and lifting up God’s command to love one another (12:28–31). Obedience to God included serving others instead of dominating others (10:41–43).

222

Cheryl Stewart Pero

But Jesus’ establishment of the kingdom of God, God’s new governance, does not come about without conflict. Mark’s overarching plotline describes the two major fields of conflict Jesus encounters as he fulfills his mission to proclaim and establish the kingdom of God. Jesus conflicts with humans—the Romans, especially in 15:1–24; the Judean authorities, most pointedly in 7:6–12; 10:2–12, 17–22; 11:5–19; 12:18–27, 28–34, 14:53–65; and the disciples, summarized in 8:14–21—and with non-humans, 1:21–28, 32, 39; 3:11, 22, 24– 25; 5:1–20; 7:24–30; 9:14–29 (Satan and demonic/unclean spirits). Cosmic conflict, conflict between Jesus and non-humans, is a major Markan subplot.6 Conflict with demonic/unclean spirits is cosmic conflict because demon/unclean spirits participate in cosmic disarray as agents of Satan and as members of Satan’s household (3:23–27). Mark’s use of cosmic language is an indication of the cosmic nature of the on-going conflict. Jesus’ cosmic conflict was actualized in his exorcizing Satan and demonic/unclean spirits from the Markan landscape. There is a direct link between God’s cosmic conflict and Jesus’ exorcistic activity; the veracity of this observation is substantiated by Jesus’ first (1:21–28) and last (9:14–29) exorcisms, each of which follows a cosmic encounter. Mark’s Jesus’ first exorcism occurs shortly after Jesus’ baptism in which God reveals Jesus’ identity privately. Jesus’ final exorcism follows immediately after his transfiguration in which his identity is affirmed by God in front of the three disciples who accompanied him. In both cases, Jesus establishes his authority and power by exorcizing demonic/unclean spirits. However, the final resolution of the cosmic conflict will not occur in the course of Mark’s story but at Jesus’ parousia (13:24–27, 32–33), allowing humans to choose to participate in extending the kingdom of God by becoming part of Jesus’ new kinship group. Jesus Messiah inaugurated God’s new order, a governance that delivered the possessed from demonic power. By means of the proclamation to the larger community of believers (1:45, 2:12, 5:20, 7:36) and the proclamation of the Twelve (3:14–15; 6:7, 13), the kingdom of God grew and the governance of God expanded. God’s plan was to lay waste the kingdom of Satan through Jesus’ exorcisms, the repeated plunder of demonic/unclean spirits, and the deliverance of those whom Satan’s agents possessed. Jesus always emerged victorious from these conflictual cosmic encounters. Only through these victories will God regain control over the created order.7

Demonic Possession Demonic possession is a major malady in Mark’s story world, more significant than often acknowledged. Mark narrates and/or refers to demonic possession/activity thirteen times in his Gospel. However, in order to

Liberation from Empire

223

understand fully the significance of exorcism in Mark’s overall plot, I need to point out how extensive the phenomenon of demonic possession is in the Markan narrative. Commentators have not fully detailed the extent of possession in Mark’s story world. Scholars tend to focus on the few demonic possessions that are described in some narrative detail: the man in the synagogue at Capernaum (1:21–28), the Gerasene demoniac (5:1–20), the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24–30), and the man who brought his son to Jesus (9:14–29). Note, however, that the Markan narrative treats these as typifying examples of what Jesus’ performed regularly and often in his ministry activity. For example, after the first exorcism, when the Sabbath passed (1:32), people brought to him all those who were sick and all those “having demons,” implying that there were many possessed people in Capernaum alone. When Jesus moved on to other places in Galilee (1:39), Mark says that Jesus went “proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out the demons.” The implication is that Jesus encountered numerous demons and demoniacs in each village of Galilee, just as he had in Capernaum. When people flocked to him, the crowds included demoniacs, whose possessing spirits would cause the possessed to fall on their knees and cry out, “you are the Son of God” (3:11). In 3:22, Jesus’ activity of exorcism was the basis for the Jerusalem authorities’ attack on him; and, of course, Jesus’ rebuttal claims that there were many demons in Satan’s household (3:24–25).8 When Jesus went to Gentile territory, the situation is worse; here, just one man is possessed by a “Legion” of demons, implying as many as two thousand.9 The condition of demonic possession knew no bounds—Galileans, Judeans, Gentiles, males, females, adults, children, in private spaces (7:24–30) and in public places (1:21–28 and 9:14–29), in both Palestinian territory (1:21– 28 and 9:14–29) and Gentile territory (5:1–20 and 7:24–30), in clean (1:21–28) as well as unclean locations (5:1–20). A human host could be possessed by one demonic/unclean spirit, as in 9:14–29, or by multiple spirits, as in 5:1–20. When we add all these narratives and summaries together, we have a picture of a multitude of demons/unclean spirits possessing people. Clearly, the number of possessed people and the activity of exorcism were central to Mark’s narrative and to the activity of establishing the kingdom.10 Mark’s story of Jesus narrated the on-going cosmic conflict between Jesus, God’s agent, and Satan, focusing on the manner in which Satan possesses human beings and how Jesus exorcizes them. A common social understanding in the Markan context was the idea of personal causation; namely, that actions, events, and conditions were caused by human beings or personal non-human forces, such as God, Satan, demons/unclean spirits, and angels. Mark describes

224

Cheryl Stewart Pero

the demonic/unclean spirits’ domination of human beings as demonic possession, the invasion of a human being by a numinous entity that takes over the entire being of its human host, controlling the whole persona of the human being. As I have pointed out, demonic/unclean spirits are narrative characters in their own right11 that cause their human hosts to act in peculiar ways. Despite the arguments of some who see demonic possession mainly as an allegorical cipher for political forces12 or as a psychological coping method,13 the view I present here is that demons/unclean spirits were real spirits that possessed real people in a real way in real life.14 My review of the symptoms of demonic exposed distinctive behavior caused by the possessing entity among those who were possessed: 1. The demonic cried out Jesus’ name (1:24, 5:7), perhaps part of the effort to manipulate its host; 2. The demonic cried out and convulsed its host during its departure (1:26; 9:26); the demonic also convulsed the possessed without crying out (9:20); 3. The demonic had supernatural strength (5:3–4); 4. The demonic caused sleeplessness (5:5); 5. The demonic caused the possessed to indulge in self-destructive violence (5:5); 6. The demonic caused muteness (9:17); 7. The demonic cast its host on the ground (9:17); 8. The demonic caused the possessed boy to grind his teeth; his body became rigid (9:18); 9. The demonic caused the possessed to foam at the mouth (9:20); 10. The demonic cast the possessed into fire and water at the risk of the life of the possessed (9:22). In short, the demonic/unclean spirit totally dominated its human host. Domination meant that the will of the possessing spirit became the will of the possessed. It made the man in the Capernaum synagogue cry out in its behalf (1:23). It caused the Gerasene demoniac to live in the cemetery because no one in the village was able to control or restrain him (5:3). Demonic/unclean spirits went so far as to attempt to control Jesus by naming him (1:24, 34; 3:11; 5:7). Even the routines of those who were responsible for the possessed were impacted by the possession of their loved ones, not only in caring for them but also in seeking out Jesus’ exorcistic powers (7:24–30, 9:14–29). The possession of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter caused the Gentile woman to risk shaming herself by seeking out Jesus, a Jewish healer and exorcist (7:27–28), in

Liberation from Empire

225

order to exorcize her daughter. The possession of the little boy caused his father to risk shaming himself by publicly coming to Jesus. But he was desperate because his son’s life was in danger: the possessing spirit would cause his son to fall on the ground, grinding his teeth and foaming at the mouth (9:18, 20) and to be thrown into the fire and the water, nearly killing the little boy (9:22). In Mark 5:1–20 and 9:14–29, the destructive nature of the demonic/ unclean spirit is clearly in evidence. In some cases, it shook or convulsed the possessed person (1:26; 9:18, 26). It forced the Gerasene demoniac to act in ways both self-destructive and destructive to other human beings: He broke chains and shackles (5:4), he did not sleep (5:5), he cut himself with rocks (5:5). The possessing entity eventually destroyed the pigs and itself by running off a cliff and drowning (5:13). In the case of the possessed boy, the demonic/unclean spirit caused him to be thrown to the ground where he foamed at the mouth and ground his teeth (9:18). Earlier it had thrown him into fire and water (9:22). While non-possessed humans were able to exercise judgment and make choices, a demoniac’s choices were made by the possessing entity, as I have just demonstrated. Most important, however, demoniacs were unable even to express their faith because of their domination by demonic/unclean spirits. The man in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28) and the Gerasene demoniac (5:1– 20) never expressed personal faith in Jesus; in each episode the demonic/unclean spirit responded to Jesus’ very presence and confronted him. In the cases of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30) and the possessed boy (9:14–19), the parent of each child approached Jesus in behalf of their possessed children; the parents were the ones who expressed faith and came to Jesus as supplicants. One of the most striking features of demonic/unclean spirits is that they were fearful. In 1:24 and 5:7, Mark described the hostility and aggressiveness of the possessing spirit directed towards Jesus because of its/their fear.15 In 1:24, Mark’s audience observed the fearful and hostile reaction the demonic had just being in the presence of Jesus. The demonic/unclean spirit took the initiative and, before Jesus addressed it, it cried out loudly, naming Jesus and drawing attention to its cosmic knowledge of Jesus’ identity.16 It was/they were fearful that Jesus had come to destroy them (i.e. all the demons 1:24). The Gerasene demons/unclean spirits pled with Jesus and attempted to put Jesus on oath not to torture them, to torment them or destroy them (5:7), ironically in God’s name, but instead to “send us to the pigs so we might enter them.” They feared that what they were doing to their human hosts would be turned around and done to them!

226

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Issues related to purity/impurity were significant in Mark’s construction of demonic possession and exorcism.17 The possessed man in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21) was out of place; purity guidelines prohibited his entrance into and presence in the synagogue because the possessed man represented a potential source of pollution to those gathered in the synagogue. The Gerasene demoniac was encompassed by impurity: he resided in the Gentile territory of Gerasa (5:1), he lived in the cemetery, evidently near pigs, where he was possessed by demonic/unclean spirits (5:2). Mark addressed the crossing of purity boundaries when he narrated Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman: Jesus was in Gentile territory (7:24), the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician (7:26), she went to Jesus without a male escort (7:25), her daughter was demon possessed (7:25), and she pled with Jesus for her daughter’s deliverance (7:26). Even the exorcism of the possessed boy raised purity concerns: In light of Jesus’ transfiguration just prior to the exorcism episode, the public venue posed a pollution threat (9:14) populated, as it was, by crowds including a little boy possessed by an unclean spirit. For Mark,18 demons were “unclean” spirits and they rendered the possessed person “unclean.” To understand the profound implications of the nature of purity/impurity issues surrounding demonic possession, we recall (from the social science analysis) that anyone who violated ritual boundaries was considered to be out of place or polluted; consequently that person presented a pollution threat to the community. Persons and things out of place were dirty or unclean and needed to become purified in order either to maintain their meaningful places in the community or to be reinstated into the community. Someone whose behavior was out of place (in this investigation, someone who was controlled by the demonic) was considered impure. Those whose behavior was controlled by demons/unclean spirits and, as a result, was out of place, risked expulsion from the community. The charge of demon possession was an extremely serious deviance label. Incidents of deviance labeling provided the community with an opportunity to scrutinize the deviant and their deviant behavior and to explain its causality. Deviance labeling functioned as a social sanction by identifying and controlling inexplicable behavior. The demon-possessed violated ritual community boundaries and did not live by the societal rules, placing the family/community at risk. When a person displayed deviant behavior patterns, the community imposed sanctions, often declaring the person unclean and isolating that person outside the dyadic kinship community.19 Linked with the issue of the impurity of the possessed, was the impurity of the possessing spirit. Mark’s repeated references to demonic spirits as unclean were in itself an important indicator. I have noted 20 that the Markan author

227

Liberation from Empire

often used to\ pneu=ma to\ a)ka/q arton [the unclean spirit] to identify a possessing entity (1:23, 26, 27; 3:11, 30; 5:2, 8, 12, 13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:24). “However, almost without exception the expression [“impure spirits”] serves to highlight a particular aspect of impurity and the nature of demonic influence on people.” 21 In the case of unclean spirits, demonic possession posed a threat of contamination (spreading impurity) and the withdrawal of God’s blessing, the ultimate rejection of the community by God.22 In order to protect its boundaries and its purity, the community’s response to incidents of demonic possession, then, was often ostracization and/or marginalization of the possessed. This is best illustrated by the episode of the Gerasene demoniac in 5:1–20. Mark also informs his audience that isolation was not always the case with the possessed, e.g., the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30) was kept at home; Mark implies that the possessed son in 9:14–29 was also kept at home with his family where his father observed the symptoms Mark used to describe his possession. Ostracization of the impure caused the first-century CE Mediterranean family and community to become fractured and separated: Persons who previously had a meaningful place and relationship in their families and communities became alienated and peripheral: “The Levitical health care system excluded chronically ill patients from the community and so ruptured the Jewish community.”23 Living outside one’s dyadic kinship group rendered one without group identification or meaning in life, a sure method for becoming socially meaningless and hopeless.

Exorcism In Mark’s story, exorcism was the most vivid expression of God’s new governance of the world. Mark’s episodes of Jesus’ exorcisms are presented as the remedy paralleling documented incidents of demonic possession. Mark’s summaries of Jesus’ ministry activities indicated that Jesus performed numerous exorcisms: at Peter’s house in Capernaum (1:32–24) as well as in various villages scattered around Galilean territory (1:39; 3:11), in the Capernaum synagogue (1:21–28), in a Gentile cemetery (5:1–20), in a private Gentile home (7:24–30), and in a public setting (9:14–19). Jesus authorized and empowered the Twelve to perform exorcisms (3:14–15; 6:9, 13) as a critical part of their mission. He also corrected the judgement of the Jerusalem scribes outside his own home in Capernaum (3:19b–30), challenging them to see the work of the Holy Spirit in his works of exorcism. Demonic possession was understood as an improper state of life, that is, life lived not under the dominion of God but under the domination of Satan and Satan’s followers, demonic/unclean spirits.24 Exorcism restored order and meaning to the lives of possessed people, returning them to a proper

228

Cheryl Stewart Pero

relationship with God and community. A proper relationship with God was one predicated in doing the will of God; that is, having faith in Jesus as God’s agent because of one’s love for God, and loving God’s people, one’s neighbors (12:29–31), where loving God meant serving others (11:42–45). A proper relationship with one’s dyadic community was based on the appropriate ordering of relationships and the participation of the former demoniac in a purposeful role that fulfilled a need within one’s own family and village community. Both healing and exorcism restored persons “to their proper status, to a desirable state of being, to life as God intended it to be lived.”25 Sickness/illness in the ancient world had serious social consequences: It altered one’s state of being in relation to God, one’s family, and one’s community. Good health was “a state of being in which one lived faithfully and obediently under the influence of God’s spirit.”26 Because health care and healing was a primary concern among the ancients, Jesus’ healing ministry proved to be a significant method of attracting potential converts to the Jesus movement. In Mark the audience sees crowds coming together around Jesus from his first exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue to the final exorcism of the possessed boy, in spite of the fact that Mark’s Jesus often tells those whom he heals and exorcizes to return to their homes (1:44–45; 5:19). Not only was healing accessible locally, but also its cost was within the means of the peasant population: faith in the ability of God to heal,27 even from a distance. Mark narrates eight healing miracles28 in which the sick/ill were released from a physical incapacity or abnormality: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7)

fever in 1:30–31; leprosy in 1:40–45; paralysis in 2:3–5; an atrophied hand in 3:1–5; resuscitation in 5:22–24, 35–43; deafness and muteness in 7:31–37; two cures of blindness in 8:22–26 and 10:46–52.

The outcome of healing was restoration to a valued state of being in the community, the ability to resume one’s tasks. Peoples’ illnesses/sicknesses were always healed except when they were unable to display faith in Jesus’ ability, as in Nazareth (6:1–6). There are similarities in Mark’s description of the behavior of the sick/ill and the possessed, in the language Mark uses to describe Jesus’ healings and

Liberation from Empire

229

exorcisms, in Jesus’ charges to healed/delivered persons, and in the efficacy of the suppliants’ faith in Jesus’ healings and his exorcisms. Two brief examples of these similarities are identifiable in the healing of the leper (1:40–45) and the resuscitation of the daughter of Jairus, the synagogue leader (5:21–24, 35–43). 1. The leper in 1:40 came to Jesus begging and kneeling before him, just like the unclean spirits in 3:11 and 5:6 as well as the Syrophoenician woman in 7:25–26. The leper questions Jesus’ ability to heal in 1:40, as does the father of the possessed boy in 9:22. The leper proclaims what Jesus did for him, in spite of Jesus’ charge to silence (1:44) just like the Gerasene demoniac in 5:20. In 1:42, Mark says that the leprosy left him, as do the demons/unclean spirits in the exorcism episodes and, in so doing, Mark personifies the leprosy (as he does Peter’s mother-inlaw’s fever in 1:31). 2. Jairus came to Jesus, begging and falling at Jesus’ feet in 5:22–23 like the leper above, pleading for his daughter’s life in 5:23, as did the Syrophoenician woman in 7:25 and the father of the possessed boy in 9:17. Jairus’ faith proved to be the factor most important for the healing of his daughter (1:36), as was the faith of the Syrophoenician woman in 7:28–29 and the Jewish father in 9:24. The importance of faith in both healing and exorcism cannot be overstated.29 It is clear that those commissioned to exorcize in the name of Jesus, as well as the parents who bring their possessed children to Jesus, must have faith: Jesus berated the Twelve for not having the faith to drive out the demonic/unclean spirit from the possessed child when he addressed them in 9:19 as: “You faithless generation. …” Then Jesus said in 9:29: “…this kind only comes out by prayer,” by which Jesus meant prayer that strengthens faith (see chapter 11:20–26). In 9:23 Jesus said: “All things are able for the one believing.” Note the father’s prayer in response in 9:24: “I believe; help my unbelief.” Note also the Syrophoenician woman’s persistence as she pleaded her daughter’s case with Jesus in 7:26–29; her words to Jesus were her prayer and they proved efficacious for her daughter’s deliverance. Later, in 11:12–14 and 20–24, Jesus will explain to the Twelve that praying to God holds the key to accomplishing deeds of power in order to continue building God’s new kingdom. Jesus’ exorcisms were direct interactions with demonic/unclean spirits, not with the demoniacs. The demons/unclean spirits confronted Jesus aggressively, not by way of supplication but in hostilely (1:24; 5:7). Jesus only addressed the demon itself (or themselves), not the demoniac. In 1:25, Jesus rebuked the

230

Cheryl Stewart Pero

demon by saying: “Be muzzled and come out from him!” In 5:8–9 and 13, Mark informed the audience that Jesus had rebuked the demonic earlier and only in the episode under scrutiny asked its name. After learning its name, “Legion,” Jesus gave it permission to enter into the nearby herd of swine. In 9:25 Jesus told the demonic/unclean spirit: “Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never again may you enter into him..” Only after the demon/unclean spirit had departed from the little boy does Jesus relate directly to the demoniac: He took the boy by the hand and helped him stand. And only after the demon/unclean spirit had been exorcized does Jesus’ conversation with the demon/unclean spirit cease. Demons/unclean spirits were right to fear Jesus because he had authority and power over them. He was identified as the “stronger one” by John in 1:7. After his baptism (1:9–11), Jesus bound Satan in the wilderness (1:12–13) where the demons/unclean spirits witness Jesus’ trouncing of Satan; Jesus’ identity and mission has been revealed to them. Jesus emerged from the wilderness experience30 to announce the nearness of the rule of God, the proximity of the kingdom of God (1:14–15). The demons/unclean spirits knew Jesus came to “destroy” (1:24) or “torment” (5:7) them. Jesus drove out a legion of uncontrollable unclean spirits (5:3–5). When Legion tried to name him in order to get power over him, Jesus instead extracted its name and drove it out (5:9–13). Jesus even exorcizes at a distance (7:29–30). Jesus’ rebuke commanded the demonic/unclean spirits to “get out” of their human hosts and they did (1:26; 5:8; 9:26). In the final exorcism episode, Jesus even told the demonic/unclean spirit to never enter the boy again (9:25). We can assume that the demonic/unclean spirit obeyed Jesus. Although Legion is presumably destroyed in the herd of swine when they drown in the sea (5:13), it is not clear if Jesus destroyed the demonic/unclean spirits or if they just left the demoniac and selfdestructed. The effect of exorcism was to restore order in a community and world in disarray. When the demons/unclean spirits left people, the demoniacs were restored to their former states of being with their families and communities. Mark described the difference in people after exorcism: 1. By implication, the Capernaum synagogue demoniac is restored to his community and family. 2. The Gerasene demoniac is sitting with Jesus, dressed and in his right mind (5:15). Jesus tells him to go home to his family/friends and tell them what the Lord had done for him (5:19).

Liberation from Empire

231

3. The Syrophoenician woman found her daughter lying on bed with the demon/unclean spirit gone (7:29). By implication, the little girl was restored to her mother and family. 4. The possessed boy appeared dead but rose when Jesus’ lifted him by the hand (9:27). By implication, the possessed boy was restored to his father and family. Exorcism restored the human capacity to express faith in Jesus, most particularly in the case of the Gerasene demoniac. The exorcized Gentile man was able to make choices once again: He clearly chose to do the opposite of what Jesus charged him to do and, instead of telling his friends and family how much the Lord God had done for him (5:19), he told people around Decapolis what Jesus had done for him (5:20). Jesus’ exorcisms also restored purity within community. Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit (1:10) empowered him to spread holiness.31 The demon/unclean spirit in the Capernaum synagogue (1:24) recognized Jesus and identified him as “The Holy One of God,” an ironic contrast provided by the Markan narrator. The exorcized Gerasene demoniac (5:20) must have been declared clean just in order to be received back into his community following his isolation in the cemetery. Jesus was commissioned to act as God’s agent to heal and to exorcize. He was authorized by God and anointed with Holy Spirit at his baptism (1:9–11). The Holy Spirit’s superior power conferred superior power on Jesus. As a result, he healed and drove out demons/unclean spirits and even had authority over nature (4:39–41; 6:47–51). He commissioned the Twelve with the same authority and power with which he had been commissioned (6:7, 13). The episode with the unknown exorcist in 9:38–40 demonstrated that even Jesus’ name held power over demons/unclean spirits. In Mark’s storyline, the audience observes a variety of opinion about the source of Jesus’ authority and power. Some, like the Twelve in 4:41 and 8:29, rightly believed that Jesus’ power came from God; others, like the Jerusalem scribes in 3:22–30, believed that Jesus power was derived from the prince of demons, Beelzebul or Satan. Later in 11:27–28, fearful of the divine origin of Jesus’ authority that called their human sources of authority into question,32 “the chief priests, the scribes and the elders” in Jerusalem directly demanded from Jesus the source of his authority. In 3:26, Mark’s audience probably concurred with Jesus’ parable about Satan’s divided house, because, according to Avalos’ insight, “Beelzebul would not be party to an act that damages his dominion by dividing it.”33 Although Satan ranked higher on the cosmic scale than demons and humans, Jesus ranked still higher than Satan. Jesus’ exorcistic

232

Cheryl Stewart Pero

activity reordered the cosmic hierarchy, placing humans above demonic/unclean spirits, perhaps even above Satan.34 Exorcism was Jesus’ on-going cosmic battle indicating that the “beginning of the end” of Mark’s present age had arrived. Jesus clearly addressed this in the Beelzebul controversy. In 3:37 Jesus said: “…no one is able to enter into the house of the strong one to plunder his property unless/except one first tied up/bound the strong one and then will plunder the house.” Jesus is implying that he had entered into the strong one’s house and bound the strong one; he bound the strong man during his testing in the wilderness (1:12–13). Jesus’ exorcisms were indications that he was plundering the strong one’s house, freeing the possessed and trouncing the possessing sprits. This was the beginning of the end of Mark’s present age, Jesus’ establishing the kingdom of God. Mark’s Gospel narrated Jesus’ ministry of exorcism, namely liberation, or deliverance and restoration, as a method for correcting the social disarray caused by demonic possession. Exorcism described the manner by which Jesus, as God’s agent, wrested control from Satan and plundered Satan’s kingdom in order to fulfill God’s cosmic plan: to regain control over a disarrayed creation under subjugation to the power of Satan. Satan was bound during Jesus’ testing in Mark’s prologue, and in exorcism, Jesus plundered Satan’s house, casting out the demonic/unclean spirits and liberating the possessed in the process. “In the biblical and apocalyptic material, the subjugation of the demonic powers is understood as a necessary part in preparing for the establishment of God’s rule over his creation.”35 Only by subduing Satan and his minions can the kingdom of God be spread, restoring and reforming proper relationships among creation.

Possession/Exorcism and the Larger Activity of God’s Liberating Kingdom Mark’s story of Jesus narrates the ongoing cosmic conflict between Jesus, God’s agent, and Satan, focusing on the manner in which Satan’s agents, demonic/unclean spirits, possess human beings and how Jesus exorcizes them. In the course of this investigation, we have seen how Mark’s depiction of demonic possession and exorcism compared and contrasted the governance of God with the dominance of Satan. The view that I have presented is that demons/unclean spirits were real spirits that possessed real people in a real way in real life. For the ancients, demonic possession was a condition that was to be avoided at all costs and by any means necessary.36 Those who came, or were brought, to Jesus for healing from sickness/illness and deliverance from

Liberation from Empire

233

demonic/unclean spirits represented the most vulnerable and desperate in the society. From an analysis of demonic possession and exorcism, we have learned about Mark’s understanding of the dynamics of liberation and the kingdom of God. Liberation by Jesus from possession and oppression became the invitation to the people following Jesus to participate in the kingdom of God under God’s new governance. Mark’s kingdom of God was interstitial, linking heaven and earth, Judea, Galilee and southern Syria, Jews and Gentiles, the privileged few and the unprivileged many, the pious and the sinners, the pure and the impure, the great ones and the most vulnerable in the society. The kingdom of God in Mark is a realized geographical space as well as a future eschatological place. The kingdom of God brought together a multinational, multicultural, intergenerational, gender inclusive community of transcultural hybridity. Mark’s construct of the kingdom of God both mimics and counters the Roman Empire, undermining the colonial powers while posing an alternative vision of what God’s future holds. I will say more about this in the next section. Here are some reflections on demonic/unclean spirits in Mark’s story, particularly as demonstrated in 1:21–28, 5:1–20, 7:21–28, and 9:14–29. Demonic/unclean spirits mount an offensive attack: They confront Jesus both in holy spaces like the Capernaum synagogue, and in impure places like the Gerasene cemetery (5:1–20); they act in ways that counter Jesus’ establishment and spreading of the kingdom of God. Demonic/unclean spirits possess people: They are so in possession of their human hosts that the possessed have no will or personality of their own. Demonic/unclean spirits have emotions: They are afraid Jesus will destroy them and other unclean spirits. Demonic/unclean spirits have knowledge: they know who Jesus is and what Jesus’ purpose is. Demonic/unclean spirits interact with other characters in Mark’s story, but they only obey the command of someone with superior power; after convulsing their human hosts, they scream and leave them, ultimately complying with Jesus’ commands. The traits of demonic/unclean spirits are similar to those of the Roman colonizers, as well as the rulers of Israel who collaborate with the Romans, and, at times, even the disciples. We have seen how the Markan narrator very subtly aligned the kingdom of Satan with rulership by human forces both in Jerusalem and in Rome. Demonic/unclean spirits are committed to spreading the kingdom of Satan directly though possession and indirectly through the oppression practiced by the Roman Empire and the Jerusalem elites. Any time people act contrary to the ways of God they are acting in concert with the ways of Satan, such as when Peter becomes an obstacle to Jesus in 8: 33 and Jesus says to him “Get behind me Satan!” Demonic/unclean spirits occupy land and

234

Cheryl Stewart Pero

possess people in a way analogous to the Roman Empire’s occupation and possession of the people in as well as the land of Palestine.37 Jesus used force to liberate people from demons/unclean spirits. But Jesus cannot and does not use force to exorcize the Roman colonizers as he does the demonic/unclean spirits. And because no use of force can be justified against humans, Jesus can only condemn human oppression, call for oppressors to repent, model a refusal to cooperate, and present an alternative nonviolent way of service. Table 1: The Three Kingdoms of Mark’s Gospel Compared KINGDOM OF GOD

KINGDOM OF SATAN

ROMAN EMPIRE

The Holy Spirit possesses and occupies Jesus.

Demons/unclean spirits possess and occupy people.

The Roman Empire occupies and possesses the land and the people.

Jesus spreads holiness to the land and the people.

Demons/unclean spirits spread disarray and fear among the people.

The Roman Empire spreads chaos in the land and fear among the people.

Jesus establishes the Kingdom of God with deeds of power in which he breaks traditional boundaries.

Demons/unclean spirits spread the kingdom of Satan by possessing people.

Human rulers spread the kingdom of Rome by enslaving people and annexing their land.

The Holy Spirit possesses and occupies people and the land through Jesus, in order to liberate and invite them into the new kingdom of God.

Demons/unclean spirits possess and occupy people in order to aggrandize Satan and manipulate people.

Romans possess and occupy territory and people in order to aggrandize themselves and control people.

Jesus eliminates non-human demons/unclean spirits; he does not dominate anyone in Mark’s story world.

Demons/unclean spirits manipulate and dominate those whom they possess and occupy in destructive ways.

Romans control those whom they possess in coercive ways; they destroy what they occupy.

Jesus’ deeds of power are done to lead people to faith in God in order to create a loving and liberating community.

Demons/unclean spirits possession is designed to lead people into having faith in Satan in order to create a community of possessed and oppressed humans.

Rome’s occupation is designed to coerce people into having faith in the Roman Emperor in order to extend the power of the empire.

Jesus cannot be controlled by any entity except God.

Demons/unclean spirits resist being controlled by any other than Satan.

Human rulers fiercely resist being controlled by others.

Table 1—Continued next page

235

Liberation from Empire Table 1—Continued While Jesus is afraid of death/loss/destruction, he does not avoid it.

Demons/unclean spirits are afraid of death/loss/ destruction.

Human rulers are afraid of death/loss/destruction.

Jesus is threatened by human forces that execute him. His control over nonhuman forces and nature restores creation to God’s original order.

When demons/unclean spirits are threatened, they seek to get power over the threat in order to control and destroy or divert it.

When human rulers are threatened, they seek to get power over the threat in order to control and destroy or divert it.

Jesus is both human and nonhuman.

Demons/unclean spirits are non-human forces.

Romans are human beings.

Jesus is authorized and empowered to be the agent/broker of God.

Demons/unclean spirits are directly under the authority of Satan.

Humans are indirectly influenced by Satan.

Persons possessed by the Holy Spirit display their faith in Jesus.

Persons possessed by demons/unclean spirits are incapable of faith in God.

Persons dominated by Rome are capable of faith in God.

Persons possessed by the Holy Spirit are able to express agency.

Persons possessed by demons/unclean spirits are unable to express agency.

Persons oppressed by Rome are unable to express agency.

Jesus uses force to expel demons.

Demons/unclean spirits use force to impose their will on people.

Human rulers (both Roman and Judean) use force to impose their will on people.

Jesus has no authority to dominate other humans.

Demons/unclean spirits dominate their human hosts.

Human rulers (both Roman and Judean) dominate the people.

A comparison between the Roman Empire and the kingdom of Satan in Mark yields some similarities and differences. By adding parallel aspects characterizing Mark’s kingdom of God, the above chart lends additional clarity to our understanding of the larger activity of God’s liberation.

The Impact of Mark’s Story on his Audience Mark’s late first-century CE Mediterranean audience was looking for relief and hope from the fear with which they daily lived: relief from the fear of demonic possession, sickness/illness, nature, impurity, and the Roman Empire; hope for a different future. Although Jesus brought relief and hope to the daily routine of people in Palestine and southern Syria, his healings and exorcisms were met

236

Cheryl Stewart Pero

with mixed reactions by the characters in Mark’s story, perhaps also by his real audience. The synagogue leaders, both local and Jerusalem based, were threatened by Jesus’ ministry, Jesus’ use of power.38 The sick/ill who came (or were brought) to Jesus were healed and restored to their families and their respective communities; their faith in Jesus as God’s agent was tangible. The crowds affirmed Jesus as long as they benefited from his deeds of power; at his trial before Pilate, they abandoned Jesus (15:6–15)39 in favor of the temple elites who were in collusion with the Roman authorities.40 Mark portrays the Twelve as inconsistent at best. Earlier I noted that the local synagogue scribal leaders and the representatives of the Jerusalem temple elites were skeptical about the source of Jesus’ authority and power. Their skepticism led to their defensiveness regarding Jesus’ deeds of power: Instead of seeing his exorcizing activities as the work of the Holy Spirit, they saw Jesus as blaspheming God. Mark traced the Jerusalem elites escalating animosity toward Jesus in 2:6–9, 16, 18, 24; 3:1–6, 22–30; 7:1–2, 5; 8:11–12; 9:14; 11:18, 27–28. In Mark 12, this animosity is couched in terms of challenges related to human observances of the Great Tradition, the interpretation of the Mosaic Law by the Judean elites; in each instance Jesus responded to their challenge and eluded their net. Beginning in Mark 14, the Jerusalem temple authorities began their active campaign to have Jesus killed on the charge of blasphemy, another Markan irony based in the Beelzebul controversy between Jesus and the Jerusalem scribes. They succeeded in their plot and Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross. But, in Mark’s story world, Jesus’ influence will be realized in their future, culminating at his parousia within the generation of his death.41 He will appear as the Son of Man coming in the clouds (13:26) and sitting on the throne (14:62). Although the Roman Empire continued to expand during the time of Mark’s writing,42 so did the kingdom of God. Suppliants in Mark were those who sought out Jesus for themselves or on behalf of others. The faith of the sick/ill themselves caused them to be determined to touch Jesus (6:54–56) or to be touched by him (10:13) or even to grasp the hem of his garment in an effort to be relieved from their adversity (1:32, 40; 2:3–5; 3:9–10; 5:22–23, 27–28; 9:17; 10:13, 46–47). The suppliants’ faith in Jesus’ ability to heal the sick/ill and deliver the possessed caused them to act in behalf of those who could not. They brought those who were desperate and had nothing left to lose to Jesus (2:2–5; 5:21–24; 7:25–26; 8:22; 9:17; 10:46–47). In particular, because demonic possession was real for the ancients, deliverance was critical for their welfare. The restoration of the possessed to a state of wellbeing was a major manifestation of the kingdom of God.

Liberation from Empire

237

Beginning with Jesus’ first exorcism in the Capernaum synagogue, the crowds in Mark were astounded/amazed at his ability (1:22, 27; 5:20; 6:2; 7:37; 9:15); through the gossip network, they begin to spread the word about Jesus (1:28) to as far away as Tyre and Sidon. His successful deeds of power (healings and exorcisms) captured the attention of crowds (3:20, 32; 4:1). From the author’s descriptions, we have learned that the Markan crowds were comprised of the vulnerable and the poor (3:7–10; 5:25–27), those labeled sinners (2:15), the sick/ill (1:32–33, 40; 6:54–56), and the hungry (6:33–36; 8:1–2). Some are even awed at Jesus’ deeds of power to the point that they became fearful of Jesus themselves (5:15, 17; 11:18; 12:12). In Mark, the Twelve clearly misunderstood Jesus (8:14–21) and his kingdom building activity. Their completed missionary journey had been successful (6:7–13, 30–31): They proclaimed the good news, healed, and exorcized. On behalf of the other eleven, Peter confessed that Jesus was Messiah in 8:27–29, immediately before Jesus rebukes him for acting Satan-like by thinking in human terms (8:33). Jesus explained to them privately the need for combining their faith with prayer in order to increase their faith and to continue their ability to exorcize (9:29). John complained that another unknown exorcist was encroaching on their territory (9:38). They argued about which of them was the greatest (9:34) and who would take places of honor beside Jesus (10:37). Judas betrays Jesus (14:10–11, 43–46), and the others abandon him, perhaps epitomized in Peter’s three-fold denial (14:66–72). These observations are about the responses of the characters in Mark’s story world to Jesus and his ministry. How did Mark’s audience respond? There seems to be a link between the characters in Mark’s narrative and his audiences: Mark’s characters might be a cipher for real audiences who are invited to return to Galilee (14:29, 16:7), where Jesus first appeared in Mark’s story (1:9), to meet Jesus anew in order to accept God’s invitation to participate in Jesus’ kingdom building activity.43 By identifying with Mark’s characters, Mark’s audiences are called to renounce their fear(s) and to come to a new place of belief and faithfulness under the sovereignty of God. They are now able to express their agency, to choose to have faith in Jesus, and follow him on the way (1:53, 10:2). To what actions/beliefs might Mark’s story of Jesus Messiah have led his ancient audiences? How did Mark hope his story would affect his audiences? Mark’s message to his audience is about relationships in God’s new kingdom, under God’s new governance, as modeled by Jesus Messiah, God’s agent/ broker. Mark’s story gave his audience a reason to hope for relief from the present age by Jesus’ immanent return in glory. Mark’s Jesus is clear about the connection between thinking in human terms and the enslavement of people to demonic, political, and cultic bondage. Mark’s Jesus promotes thinking in divine

238

Cheryl Stewart Pero

ways, ways that free people to act in behalf of the other by lifting up and advocating for the most desperate and vulnerable in the society. Mark perhaps hoped that his audience would relinquish thinking in human ways (that is, living a life possessed and oppressed by others) and instead embrace thinking in divine ways (that is, living a life of service to others). Mark most likely hoped that his audience would have faith in the Jesus Messiah portrayed in his Gospel, that they might reject manipulating and dominating others, and instead work toward the liberation of all. For the new kingdom of God was about the proper use and the improper misuse of power, as well as the choice to refuse to exercise power at all. All Jesus’ ministry activities demonstrate two aspects of power: the proper use of it and when not to use it. While Jesus is authorized to use power in order to free people from non-human manipulation and domination, he cannot coerce or force humans to his will. In 10:43–45, Mark’s Jesus expects his new kinship group to follow his model: They are not to manipulate others, but instead they ought to serve others. In Mark’s story world, the scribes, the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the Jerusalem temple elites illustrate the improper uses of power and what Jesus struggles to correct. In the end, however, those who refused to use their power for purposes of coercion will be included in the kingdom of God. In Mark’s view, those who have misused or abused their power will not be a part of God’s new kingdom—when Jesus returns in power at the right hand of God. Mark’s Jesus makes three allusions to the use/misuse of Roman power: the Gerasene demoniac (5:1–20), the comparison of Gentiles’ ways with the jockeying of James and John for public honor and recognition (10:35–45), and the trick question from some Pharisees and Herodians about paying taxes to Caesar (12:13–17). In all three of these references, those not following Jesus are thinking in human terms instead of in divine terms. Rome will ultimately fail just as Legion, the demonic/unclean spirit(s), fails in the presence of Jesus; Gentile ways are coercive and do not build honor for and loyalty to one another; and because coins are minted by the empire they belong to empire, not to God. In typical Markan rhetorical fashion, the hermeneutical key to Jesus’ understanding of how to use one’s power is the middle citation of the three, Mark 10:42–45. [Jesus] said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (NRSV)

Liberation from Empire

239

Mark’s Jesus is very clear about the fact that there was no room in the kingdom of God for power games: There were entirely too many people who were sick/ ill and sought healing, who were labeled impure and sought wholeness, who were oppressed by Rome and sought liberation, who were possessed and sought deliverance. The call of God through Jesus was to liberate all through serving all, not counting the cost. In my examination of the Markan text, Jesus’ kingdom building is not about replacing one oppressive regime with another. Two Markan references lead me to this point of view. In Jesus’ teaching the Twelve about the signs of the end times (3:26), he states that the new kinship community, the kingdom of God, “…will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” He continues in 13:27 saying that the Son of man will send his angels to gather up those who followed Jesus, “his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” A mopping up operation indeed! The second Markan citation occurs during Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. In response to the high priest’s question (14:61): “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus states (14:62): “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Jesus is saying that he will be seated at the right hand of God when God returns. Although the kingdom of God may look as if it is an empire, what Jesus is establishing is a reformed community that demands a radically new and different understanding of the rule/reign/sovereignty of God. The significant difference between the old and the new community is how power is wielded by humans and the recognition that that power comes from God. In Mark governance by God both mimics and counters the Roman Empire by mocking it, undermining the colonial authorities while posing an alternative vision of what God’s future holds. God’s kingdom mimics the Roman Empire insofar as there is a central power figure, somewhat like an emperor; it counters the Roman Empire in so far as there is no emphasis on coercion or force by the one who heads the kingdom. The new order of power in God’s kingdom is oriented not to having abusive power over others but rather to serving people, and those who serve God’s new order are committed to the egalitarian ways in which power is exercised in God’s new order. As such, it mocked and undermined the Roman Empire’s colonial authorities that had the establishment of the Roman Empire as their mission. Jesus thus provides an alternative vision of God’s future kingdom in which 1. all are welcome equally without being forced to participate in the patronage system, 2. the common good is more important than individual want/need,

240

Cheryl Stewart Pero 3. healing and deliverance are available to all locally at no cost, 4. one’s relationship to God is understood to be doing the will of God (that is, having faith, loving God, and loving one’s neighbor), and 5. no one coerces any other person for any purpose.

This investigation has demonstrated that demonic possession was not, in Mark’s scheme, sickness/illness. The Markan narrator clearly implies that there is a difference between sickness/illness and possession when he notes in the summaries of Jesus’ ministry (1:34 and 39) and the commissioning narratives for the Twelve (3:14c–15, 6:13) that the focal point of ministry activity was preaching, healing, and exorcizing. In the same vein, this investigation has shown that exorcism is much more than healing; it is the total deliverance, the reclaiming of a human being, from a hostile demonic takeover. Mark’s audience would have welcomed these activities of healing and deliverance as liberation. In the episode of the unknown exorcist (9:38–39), Mark even authorizes his audience themselves indirectly to exorcize demons in the name of Jesus. Early in Mark’s narrative, in 4:40, Jesus juxtaposes fear with faith: “He said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Have you still no faith?’” On a variety of occasions in Mark’s story people who witnessed Jesus’ acts of power reacted by becoming fearful or afraid: 5:15, 33, 36; 6:50, 9:6, 32; 10:32; 11:18; 12:8. It is clear that for Mark, faith is expressed in spite of fear. Mark appears to be directing future audiences to overcome the fear that his characters, including the disciples and women at the end of his gospel, bear even in associating with Jesus! Jesus, too, fears, but unlike the disciples and the women, fear does not prevent him from demonstrating his faith in God by being faithful. Mark seems to encourage people, who are paralyzed by fear in the face of the threat of rejection and persecution, to act in faith in spite of their fear, that is, to use their agency on behalf of the kingdom of God.

Summary Reflections While Mark has provided the basic landscape for this investigation, the narrative, social science, and postcolonial overlays enhance Mark’s landscape. I have taken Mark’s text at face value and resisted the impulse to impose twentyfirst century explanations on the moral world and values of the first-century Mediterranean. The narrative analysis has demonstrated that the Gospel of Mark is a discrete literary unit, a theological narration of Jesus’ reclamation of Palestine and southern Syria from the forces of Satan, Rome, and the Jerusalem temple elites. I have examined the plot, the narrative point of view, characterizations, particular settings, and rhetorical features in the Beelzebul controversy, the summaries, references, specific incidents, and the exorcism

Liberation from Empire

241

episodes themselves. It is clear to Mark that God’s created order is in disarray. One aspect of the disarray was conflict. The historical period in which Mark’s story of Jesus takes place is one in which conflict was a given, politically with the expansion of the Roman Empire and spiritually with the spread of the kingdom of Satan. Another aspect of disarray was the presence of demonic possession. Mark’s story is about Jesus, God’s Son and agent/broker, who proclaimed the arrival of the kingdom of God in words and deeds, righting the disarray that was running rampant by establishing God’s new kingdom. The social science analysis demonstrated that establishing the kingdom of God was a conflictual cosmic enterprise involving a variety of earthly and heavenly characters: God, Jesus, angels, Satan, demons/unclean spirits, and humans. Because of both the heavenly and earthly nature of the conflict, Jesus’ mission was a full-fledged war that witnessed heinous acts of hostility and violence. This cosmic war is replete with skirmishes and battles, victories and losses, loyalty and betrayal, elation and disappointment, despair and hope, and the execution of the protagonist, Jesus. Mark’s characterization of Jesus as the pivotal force in theological history underscores his description of Jesus’ ministry of healing and exorcism. Although Mark narrates Jesus’ baptism very succinctly (1:9–11) during his introduction to the Gospel, I am convinced that Jesus’ baptism is the axis around which the rest of Mark’s story rotates. For it was in his baptism that Jesus was given the authority and power to establish the kingdom of God. Jesus’ baptism allows him to spread holiness to the impure: reinterpreting Mosaic tradition, forgiving sins, healing the sick/ill, exorcizing the possessed, liberating the oppressed, and expanding the boundaries of the kingdom of God by including the forgiven, the healed, the exorcized and Gentiles in a new dyadic community. In the postcolonial overlay, I have connected Jesus’ engagement in repeated cosmic conflicts and ongoing religious challenges to the liberation of a society in disarray. His hybridity, being both human and divine, enabled him to model resistance to the satanic, Roman, and Jerusalem powers through mimicry (leading to mockery) and ambivalence. Jesus’ ministry conferred on his followers the authority and power by which they could continue to extend the kingdom of God. His kingdom building paid no heed to political, geographical, or social boundaries. All those who had faith in Jesus’ ability to heal and exorcize were liberated. What healing accomplished for those experiencing physical disability, exorcism accomplished for those who suffered from demonic possession. Perhaps demonic possession even functioned to illustrate the nature of Satan’s dyadic community, a community where chaos and brokenness emerged as archetypes of control and manipulation by Satan’s minions (and as an extension, the Roman Empire). A correlative observation is

242

Cheryl Stewart Pero

that exorcism might be seen as an example of God’s new dyadic community, providing both a glimpse of the kingdom of God and a paradigm for entrance into God’s kingdom. This research contributes to a revitalization of the theological and liturgical understanding of exorcism. Jesus’ baptism is pivotal for coming to a fresh visualization of a liberated twenty-first century CE Christian community, the contemporary kingdom of God. It has the potential to build a more profound appreciation in the current church catholic for the role of exorcism in the sacrament of baptism. The sacrament of baptism is the Christian rite within which exorcism is lodged; the rite where, in the name of Jesus, the Christian church renounces Satan and other demonic activity. There is correspondence between Mark’s community and Christian community today: in baptism God’s created order is called forth as a counter to the chaos of the day, just as Jesus’ exorcisms countered the chaos of his day, liberating many from empire.

NOTES 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

Hector Avalos, Health Care and the Rise of Christianity (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 118. Avalos, 118. James Robinson’s (15–16) label of aretalogy stands in contrast to Mary Ann Tolbert (65) who describes the genre of the Gospel of Mark as an ancient novel. Blount, 87, states: “In other words, Jesus’ behavior, his coming, his intervention into the scene and the Galilean landscape, is contextualized by, and therefore given meaning through his act of preaching. Jesus, who is God’s intervention, comes preaching that the kingdom of God, which is a metaphorical way of describing God’s intervention, has come near,” his emphasis. I agree with Robinson’s insight (89—90) that in contrast to the narrative dissonance prior to healing or exorcism, afterwards there is serenity and consonance. Rhoads, Reading Mark, 7, with whom I agree, confirms this. Kee, 246. Kee notes that exorcisms contribute to fulfilling God’s cosmic plan to regain control over an estranged and hostile creation under subjugation to the powers of Satan. See also Robinson, 86. Robinson, 85. Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 194. His observation that demons may be self-identified “analogically with the Roman ‘army of occupation’” seems particularly apropos here. This observation is underscored by Mark’s account of the emergence of demons/unclean spirits in greater numbers and strength (1:24; 5:9; 9:17–18, 20, 22, 26) after Jesus binds the strong man (1:12–13).

Liberation from Empire

11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

243

I would add demonic/unclean spirits to Rhoads’ classifications (Mark as Story, 116; Reading Mark, 49–51) of the actors in Mark’s story. Myers, 137–143. Myers suggests that demonic possession is an archetype for those in the society in need of liberation from illness, where their illness is demonic possession. For example, see Horsley, Hearing the Whole Story, 140–148. I disagree with Strecker, 124, on his category of transformance because he is using twentyfirst century categories to describe first-century behavior. But I think that he points us in the correct direction of seeing Jesus’ exorcistic activity as transformative or as transformational. Robinson, 88. Unlike people, demons/unclean spirits know who Jesus is presumably because they belong to the household of Satan who had been defeated by Jesus in the desert (1:13). In his essay, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” Jerome Neyrey makes an excellent case as he examines purity/impurity issues in the Gospel of Mark. Mark addressed issues related to purity and uncleanness most directly and clearly in 7:1–23. In this episode the Pharisees instigated another challenge/riposte exchange with Jesus (see 3:22–30 for reference), this time by making an accusation of ritual impurity: Jesus’ disciples ate with defiled hands, not observing the tradition of the elders (7:3). Jesus responded to their charge first by accusing the Pharisees of hypocrisy (7:6), which illustrated their hypocrisy in 7:9–13 by describing how the Pharisees, in appealing to the tradition of the elders, abandoned and reinterpreted the commandments of God—and of Moses! Then Jesus changed the topic from defiled hands to food (7:14–15), declared all foods to be clean (7:14–20), redefined defilement as what comes out from a person’s heart (7:20), and defined evil (7:21–23), using the phrases oi9 dialogismoi\ oi9 kakoi\ [evil intentions] and tau=ta ta_ ponhra& [these evil things]. Malina and Rohrbaugh, 192–194, 229–231; Avalos, 118. See “Social Science Criticism,” in my review of the material from Malina and Rohrbaugh on demons and demon possession. Wahlen, 172. Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” 93. Avalos, 118. Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 76. Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 77–78. Pilch, Cultural Dictionary of the Bible, 76. Avalos, 2, 117–118. Mark succinctly narrates one cure in 5:25–29, 34, in the process of which he describes what disease and cure included: Now there was a woman who had been suffering from hemorrhages for twelve years. She had endured much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had; and she was no better, but rather grew worse. She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, “If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.” Immediately her hemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. He [Jesus] said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.” [NRSV]

244

29

30 31

32

33 34 35 36

37

38

39

40

41

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Mark also narrates two nature miracles (4:39–41 and 6:47–51) and two feeding miracles (6:30–44 and 8:1–9) performed by Jesus. Robinson, 122. His astute observation of the link between fear and faith has led the way for others like Mary Ann Tolbert to explore the connection more closely. In contrast to Tolbert’s assertion of faith as a response to healing [Sowing the Gospel, 173], however, Mark presents faith as a necessary prerequisite for healing or deliverance. Robinson, 76, locates the beginning of the church’s eschatological history at this point in Mark’s narrative. I surmise that exorcism is part of what John the Baptist meant in 1:8 when he announced that Jesus, the stronger one, would baptize with the Holy Spirit, where the Holy Spirit spreads holiness, exorcizing demonic/unclean spirit(s). Liew, Politics of Parousia, 67–68. Liew’s point here is insightful: He connects the decisions that the Jerusalem elites make to their fear of the crowds, putting forth the notion that their authority derives from human sources (and perhaps a method by which they could gain honor). The divine authority demonstrated by Jesus threatened them. Avalos, 86. Rhoads addresses this in his discussion of God’s hierarchical ordering of power, Mark as Story, 64. Kee, 239. The Greek Magical Papyri contains extant examples of preventative procedures that the ancients used to ward off adverse spirits and potential bad luck. These include charms, amulets, spells, incantations, as well as rituals for healing and exorcism. This investigation had demonstrated that in the Greco-Roman world, the fear of spirit invasion was not only prevalent but also equally threatening to those in every social stratum. The urban elites were more able to afford palliative measures and, according to Mark’s story, when these measures failed to reverse their maladies, they, too, came to Jesus for deliverance/liberation (cf. 5:25– 34 and 7:24–30). I agree with Moore, 194–196. In his analysis, the land and the people of Galilee, in particular, were possessed by the demonic spirit of the Roman Empire and in need of exorcism. According to Moore, exorcism served to purge the Galilean land and people of demonic Roman occupation along with “the collaborating local elites.” Pilch, Cultural Tools, 65–67, notes that Jesus’ exorcisms were political activities because of the questions raised by the Jerusalem authorities in regards to the source of Jesus’ authority and power. Perhaps this dynamic might best be understood as the description of what both Blount, 217, and Simon, A Postcolonial Reading, 123, refer to, respectively, as internalized oppression or an internal form of colonialism. Liew, Politics of Parousia, 74, Moore, “Mark and Empire,” 195, and Samuel, A Postcolonial Reading, 141, all corroborate this dynamic of the political reality of collusion as part of Roman imperialism in first century Palestine. I concur with Liew’s assertion that Mark’s approach to telling the story of Jesus was within the context of Jewish apocalyptic literature in response to other ancient experiences of colonial oppression, Politics of Parousia, 57, 63.

Liberation from Empire

42 43

245

There is a certain irony when one notes that the kingdom of God and the Roman Empire became united under Constantine in 313 CE. I agree with Blount, 195–196, whose premise that Jesus’ invitation to participate in kingdom building extends to persons even today is very convincing.

Bibliography Ancient Sources Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Betz, Hans Dieter. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic Spells. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol 1. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Translated by C. F. Cruse. Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 1998. Hippocrates. “The Sacred Disease.” Pages 127–83 in vol. 2 of Hippocrates. Translated by W. H. S. Jones. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943. Josephus, Flavius. “The Jewish War.” Pages 665–936 in The New Complete Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston; commentary by Paul L. Maier. Rev. and expanded ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. K”nt: The Traditional Hebrew Text and Its New Translation. 2nd. ed. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2000. Lightfoot, J. B. and J. R. Harmer, eds. and trans. The Apostolic Fathers. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Lucian. “The Lover of Lies.” Pages 319–81 in vol. 3 of Lucian. Translated by A. M. Harmon. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921. Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Translated by F. C. Conybeare. 3 vols. Loeb Classical Library. London: William Heinemann; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1912.

Secondary Sources Achtemeier, Paul. J. “Mark, Gospel of.” Pages 541–57 in vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 4: 541–557. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, eds. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader London: Routledge, 1995. Avalos, Hector. Health Care and the Rise of Christianity. Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson, 1999. ———. Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East: The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 2004. Best, Ernest. “The Miracles in Mark.” The Review and Expositor 75 (1978): 539–54. ———. Mark: The Gospel as Story. Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1983. Blass, F. and A. DeBrunner, eds. Trans. Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Blessing, Kamila. “Call not Unclean: The Pigs in the Story of the Legion of Demons.” Proceedings. Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies. 10 (1990): 92–106.

248

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Blount, Brian K. Go Preach! Mark’s Kingdom Message and the Black Church Today. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1998. Bonner, Campbell. “The Technique of Exorcism.” Harvard Theological Review 36 (1943): 39–49. Boring, M. Eugene. “The Synoptic Problem: Minor Agreements and the Beelzebul Pericope.” Pages 587–619 in The Four Gospels: Festschrift. Frans Nierynck. BETL 100. Edited by F. van Segbroeck et al., Louvain: Peeters, 1992. Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Contraversions 1. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Chadwick, J. and W. N. Mann, eds. The Medical Works of Hippocrates. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific, 1950. Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Danker, Frederick William, Walter Bauer, W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Davies, Stevan L. Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity. New York: Continuum, 1995. Donahue, John R. and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SP 2. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Donaldson, Laura E. “Gospel Hauntings: The Postcolonial Demons of New Testament Criticism.” Pages 97–113 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore, and Fernando F. Segovia. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Dube Shomonah, Musa W. Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2000. Dunn, James D. G. and Graham H. Twelftree. “Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament.” Churchman 94 (1980): 210–225. Elliott, John H. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34A. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Cheryl Exum, J. and Stephen D. Moore. Biblical Studies/Cultural Studies: The Third Sheffield Colloquium. JSOTSup 226. Gender, Culture, Theory 7. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. ———. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Gaster, T. H. “Demon, Demonology.” Pages 817 –24 in vol. 1 of The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Guijarro, Santiago. “The Politics of Exorcism: Jesus’ Reaction to Negative Labels in the Beelzebul Controversy.” Pages 159–74 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegeman, Bruce Malina and Gerd Thiessen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. ———. “Why does the Gospel of Mark Begin as it Does?” Biblical Theology Bulletin 33 (2003): 28– 38. Hauck, Friedrich. “ba/llw.” Pages 526–529 in vol. 1 of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel; edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ———. (ed.) Paul and Empire. Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press, 1997. ———. “Submerged Biblical Histories and Imperial Biblical Studies” Pages 152–173 in The Postcolonial Bible, Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998).

Liberation from Empire

249

———. Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ———. Jesus and Empire. The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———, ed. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press, 2004. ———. “Renewal Movements and Resistance to Empire in Ancient Judea.” Pages 69–77 in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. ———. “My Name is Legion: Demon-Possession and Exorcism as Responses to Roman Domination.” Unpublished paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, San Diego, 2007. Huat, Tan Kim. “Exorcism and Empire in Mark.” Trinity Theological Journal 14 (2006): 34–47. Hübner, Hans. “Unclean and Clean: New Testament.” Page 741–45 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Humphries, Michael L. “The Kingdom of God in the Q Version of the Beelzebul Controversy.” Forum 9 (1993): 121–150. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Juel, Donald H. Mark. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1990. ———. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. ———. The Gospel of Mark. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” New Testament Studies 14 (1968): 232–246. ———. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark’s Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Keller, Catherine, Michael Nausner, and Myra Rivera, eds. Postcolonial Theologies: Divinity and Empire. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice, 2004. Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Satan: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Kinukawa, Hisoko. “Mark..” Pages 367–78 in Global Bible Commentary. Edited by Daniel Patte. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. Kittel, Gerhard, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Klutz, Todd. “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 156–165 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis. JSJSup 63. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ———. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts. SNTSMS 129. Cambridge: The University Press, 2004. Kohlenberger, John R., III, ed. The NRSV Concordance Unabridged Including the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Liew, Tat-siong Benny. “Margins and (Cutting-)Edges: On the (IL)Legitimacy and Intersections of Race, Ethnicity and (Post)Colonialism.” Pages 114–165 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ———. “Postcolonial Criticism: Echoes of a Subaltern’s Contribution and Exclusion.” Pages 211–231 in Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. ———. 1999. Politics of Parousia: Reading Mark Inter(con)textually. Biblical Interpretation 42. Leiden: Brill. ———. “Tyranny, Boundary and Might: Colonial Mimicry in Mark’s Gospel.” Pages 206–23 in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. Edited by R. S. Sugirtharajah. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006, 206–223. Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986. ———. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Rev ed. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993.

250

Cheryl Stewart Pero

———. “Social-Scientific Methods in Historical Jesus Research.” Pages 3–26. Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Malina, Bruce J. and Jerome Neyrey. Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew. FF, Social Facets. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1988. Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Scientific Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Marcus, Joel. “The Jewish War and the Sitz Im Leben of Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature. 111 (1992): 441–462. ———. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2002. ———. Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27A. New York: Doubleday, 2009. Martin, Ralph P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Exeter, England: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972. McVann, Mark. “Destroying Death: Jesus in Mark and Joseph in ‘The Sin Eater’.” Pages 123–35 in The Daemonic Imagination: Biblical Text and Secular Story. Edited by Detweiler, Robert and William Doty. AARSR 60. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Moore, Stephen D. “Questions of Biblical Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree Outside Delhi; or, The Postcolonial and the Postmodern.” Pages 79–96 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ———. “Mark and Empire: “Zealot” and “Postcolonial” Readings.” Pages 193–205 in The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. R. S. Edited by Sugirtharajah. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. ———. “Deconstructive Criticism.” Pages 95–110 in Mark and Method: New Approaches to Biblical Studies. 2nd ed. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Moore, Stephen D. and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ———, eds. “Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Beginnings, Trajectories, Intersections.” Pages 1–22 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism. Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1988. Neville, David J. “Moral Vision and Eschatology in Mark.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 359–384. Newheart, Michael Willett. “My Name is Legion.” The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac. Interfaces. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004. ———. “Legion: A Violent Soul in a Violent Society (Mark 5:1–20).” Pages 199–217 in Religion, Psychology and Violence. Vol. 2 of The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2004. Neyrey, Jerome. “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel.” Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World; Semeia 35 (1986): 91–128. ———. “A Symbolic Approach to Mark 7.” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988), 63–91. ———. “Unclean, Common, Polluted, and Taboo: A Short Reading Guide.” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988), 72–82. ———. “Clean/Unclean, Pure/Polluted, and Holy/Profane: The Idea and System of Purity.” Pages 80–106 in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Penguin Gospel Commentaries. Middlesex, England: Penguin, 1963. Oakman, Douglas E. “Rulers’ Houses, Thieves and Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope.” Forum 4, no. 3 (1988): 109–123.

Liberation from Empire

251

Patterson, Stephen J. Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Perkins, Pheme. “The Gospel of Mark.” Pages 509–733 in vol. 8 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Perkinson, James. “A Canaanitic Word in the Logos of Christ; or the Difference the SyroPhoenician Woman makes to Jesus.” Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading; Semeia 75 (1996): 61–85. Pilch, John J. “Healing in Mark: A Social Science Analysis.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 15 (1985): 142–150. ———. “Understanding Healing in the Social World of Early Christianity.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22 (1992): 26–33. ———. “Second Sunday of Advent.” Pages 4–6 in The Cultural World of Jesus: Sunday by Sunday, Cycle A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995. ———. “Eleventh Sunday in Ordinary Time.” Pages 97–99 in The Cultural World of Jesus: Sunday by Sunday, Cycle B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. ———. “Sixteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time.” Pages 112–114 in The Cultural World of Jesus: Sunday by Sunday, Cycle B. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1996. ———. “Fourteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time.” Pages 106–108 in The Cultural World of Jesus: Sunday by Sunday, Cycle C. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1997. ———. The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1999. ———. Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. ———. “Improving Bible Translations: The Example of Sickness and Healing.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 30 (2000): 129–134. ———. “First Sunday of Advent.” Pages 1–2 in The Cultural World of the Apostles. The Second Reading: Sunday by Sunday, Year A. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. ———. Cultural Tools for Interpreting the Good News. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2002. Pilch, John J. and Bruce J. Malina. Biblical Social Values and Their Meaning: A Handbook. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. Powell, Mark Allan. What is Narrative Criticism? GBS. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. ———. Jesus as a Figure in History. How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Rhoads, David. Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Mitchie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004. Robbins, Vernon K. “The Beelzebul Controversy in Mark and Luke: A Rhetorical and Social Analysis.” Forum 7 (1991): 261–277. Robinson, James M. The Problem of History in Mark: And other Marcan Studies. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Robinson, James M., Paul Hoffman, and John S. Kloppenborg, eds. The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English with Parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Robinson, William. The Devil and God. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945. Roetzel, Calvin J. The World that Shaped the New Testament. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Rohrbaugh, Richard L. ‘The Social Location of the Marcan Audience.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 23 no. 3 (1993): 380–395. ———. The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996. ———. “Ethnocentrism and Historical Questions about Jesus.” Pages 27–44 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Samuel, Simon. “The Beginning of Mark: A Colonial/Postcolonial Conundrum.” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 10 (2002): 405–19. ———. A Postcolonial Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. London: T&T Clark, 2007.

252

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad, 1983. Segovia, Fernando F. “Mapping the Postcolonial Optic in Biblical Criticism: Meaning and Scope.” Pages 123–178 in Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. Edited by Stephen D. Moore and Fernando F. Segovia. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Segovia, Fernando F. and Mary Ann Tolbert, eds. Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective. Vol. 2. of Reading from This Place. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity. WUNT 2/157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Soulen, Richard N. and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. The Post-Colonial Critic: Interviews, Strategies, Dialogues. Edited by Sarah Harasyn; New York: Routledge, 1990 ———. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Pages 66–111 in Colonial Discourse and Post-colonial Theory. Edited by Williams, P. and L. Chrisman. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. Stauffer, Ethelbert. “e)pitima=w.” Pages 623–67 in vol. 2 of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Kittel, Gerhard; edited. and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Stegemann, Wolfgang, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen, eds. The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Strecker, Christian. “Jesus and the Demonics.” Pages 117–34 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegeman, Bruce Malina, and Gerd Thiessen. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Sugirtharajah, R. S. “The Syrophoenician Woman.” Expository Times 98 (1986): 13–15. ———. Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. The Bible and the Third World: Precolonial, Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ———. Postcolonial Reconfigurations: An Alternative Way of Reading the Bible and Doing Theology. St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice; Great Britain: SCM Press, 2003. ————, ed. The Postcolonial Biblical Reader. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel. Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. ———. “Mark.” Pages 350–62 in Women’s Bible Commentary, expanded ed. Edited by Carol A. Newsom, and Sharon H. Ringe. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Twelftree, Graham H. “Demon, Devil, Satan.” Pages 163–172 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992. ———. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. ———. Jesus the Miracle Worker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. ———. In the Name of Jesus. Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Waetjen, Herman C. A Sociopolitical Reading of Mark’s Gospel: A Reordering of Power. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT 2.185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallis, Jim. “A Call to Repentance.” Sojourners 37, no. 1 (January 2008): 12–17. Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987. Williams, Daniel Day and Stacy A. Evans. The Demonic and the Divine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Williams, Joel. “Does Mark’s Gospel Have an Outline?” Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society. 49 (2006): 505–25. Williams, Patrick and Laura Chrisman, Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader. New York: Columbia, 1994.

253

Liberation from Empire

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Adapted from the fourth Latin ed. by Joseph Smith. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici. 114. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. ———, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993.

On-Line Resources National Center for Science Education. http://www.ncseweb.org/image/ancient-hebrewcosmology. Smith, Mahlon H. Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus. http://virtualreligion.net/ iho/texts9.html#exorcism, nos. 332, 337, 338. Toner, P. J. “Exorcism,” “Exorcist.” New Advent: The Catholic Encyclopedia Online Edition. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05709a.htm. New York: Kevin Knight, 2009. Article last updated Nov. 3, 2004. White, L. Michael. WGBH’s Frontline. From Jesus to Christ. “A Portrait of Jesus’ World: Galilee.” PBS. Boston: WGBH, April 1998. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion /portrait/galilee.html.

Index of Modern Authors KAJ Achtemeier, Paul J., 67n79 Anderson, Janice Capel, 38n79 Ashcroft, Bill, 36n55 Avalos, Hector, 242nn1–2, 243n19, 243n23, 243n27, 244n33

KBJ Bhabha, Homi K., 217, 417 Best, Ernest, 65n31, 66n58 Blessing, Kamila, 205n119 Blount, Brian K., 19, 20, 34nn19–21, 35n22, 67n84, 90nn33–34, 90n40, 242n4, 244n39, 244n43 Bonner, Campbell, 11n5 Boring, M. Eugene, 64nn5–6, 64n16, 64n20, 65n23, 65n28, 66n48, 66n50, 66nn52–53, 66n55, 67n88, 88n2, 88n6, 89n11, 89n13, 89n23, 90n37, 90n56, 91n82, 91n84, 92n97, 124n2, 125n7, 126n29, 126n45, 126n47, 127n50, 127n54, 128n81, 128n86, 128n99,129n123, 129n127, 130n133, 130n140, 130n156, 131n 164, 131n166, 131nn173–74, 131nn178– 79, 131n184, 132nn196, 132n198, 132n201, 132n221, 133n241, 202n54, 203n67, 203n84, 205n108, 208n176, 208n178, 209n182, 209n187, 211n250, 212n269, 214n325, 215nn347–48, 215n351, 215n353, 215nn360–61, 216n384 Boyarin, Daniel, 217n417

KCJ Chrisman, Laura, 36n55 Collins, Adela Yarbro, 44, 64n9, 67n74, 88n4, 89nn12–13, 89n21, 92n90, 126n28, 126n35, 128n88, 128n90, 128n89, 128n97, 128n102, 129n107, 129n109, 129n111, 130n157, 130n159, 131n168, 131n170, 131n175, 132n197, 132n211, 132n219, 200n3, 200n11, 202nn53–54, 203n65, 203n72, 203nn79–80, 205n105, 205n109, 206n125, 208n173, 209n183, 209n191, 209n206, 212n255, 212n257, 212n273, 213n278, 213n303, 214n321, 214n326, 214n328, 214n337, 215n338, 215n347, 214n350, 215n338, 215n340, 215n347, 215n350, 215n352, 215n354, 215n358, 216n371, 217n403

KDJ Davies, Stevan L., 35n30 Davila, James R., 11n5 Dewey, Joanna, 34n9, 90n31, 91n88, 92nn91–92 Donahue, John R., 64nn7–8, 65n24, 65n26, 65n28, 65n29, 65n36, 66n54, 66n60, 67n85, 89n6, 89n9, 89n11, 89n25, 90n38, 90n41, 90n45, 90n56, 91n80, 91n83, 92n96, 125n8, 125n17, 126nn33–34, 126n36, 126n46, 127n53, 127nn55–56, 127n69, 127n72, 127n77, 128nn91–92, 129n106, 129n108, 130n131, 130n144,

256

Cheryl Stewart Pero

131n185, 131nn188–89, 131n192, 132n209, 132n214, 133n226, 133n236, 201n17, 202n54, 203n72, 204n84, 205n102, 205n108, 205n118, 207n135, 208n166, 208n170, 208nn174–75, 209n186, 209n189, 210n220, 210n232, 211n249, 212n258, 213n278, 213n204, 314n323, 215n350, 215n364, 216n371, 217n394, 217n411 Donaldson, Laura E., 27, 37n59, 211n240 Dube Shomonah, Musa W., 27, 211n240 Dunn, James D. G., 11n5

KEJ Elliott, John H., 22–23, 27, 34n3, 35nn28–29 Evans, Craig A., 130n150, 130n154, 130n157, 130n160, 131n163, 131n167, 131n176, 131n187, 132nn204–5, 132nn212–213, 133n225, 133n229, 133n237, 213n276, 213n298, 314n327 Exum, J. Cheryl, 37n58

KFJ France, R. T., 43, 64n1, 65n23, 65n28, 65n31, 65n35, 66n44, 66n51, 66nn56– 57, 66n61, 125n11, 127n76, 128nn80– 82, 128n87, 128n91, 128n96, 129n113, 130n149, 130n153, 130n155, 131n169, 131n171, 131n177, 131n190, 132n199, 132nn202–3, 132n206, 132nn216–18, 133nn223–24, 133n227, 133n230, 133n235, 133n238, 133n240, 200n6, 200n8, 200n14, 200n16, 201n28, 201n35, 202n54, 202n59, 203n67, 203n76, 204n84, 205nn109–10, 205n116, 208n171, 209n209, 210n225, 210n229, 210n233, 212n263, 212n269, 212n273, 213n278, 213n282, 213n285, 213n290, 213n297, 214n329, 215n339, 215n345, 215nn349–50, 216n371, 216nn381–82, 217n400

KGJ Garrett, Susan R., 66n56 Gaster, T. H., 12nn16–17, 12nn20–21 Griffiths, Gareth, 36n55 Grosvenor, Mary, 89n6, 125n9, 125n15, 132n198, 132n200, 150, 200n7, 201n20, 201n26, 202nn54–55, 202n58, 202n61, 203nn62–63, 203n66, 203nn70–71, 203n74, 203n78, 204nn87–88, 204n90, 204n92, 204n96, 204nn98–100, 208n180, 212nn261–62, 212n264, 212n266, 212n268, 212n271, 213n277, 213n279, 213n283, 213nn286, 213n88, 213n294, 213n300, 213n302, 214nn307, 214n9, 214nn311–13, 214nn315, 214n319 Guelich, Robert A., 64n21, 65n27, 65n42, 66n51, 66n53, 66n62, 88n5, 89n6, 89n11, 89n13, 89n18, 89nn25–28, 90n37, 90n42, 90n81, 92n89, 92n94, 124n3, 125n11, 125n16, 125n19, 126n27, 126n32, 126n39, 127n66, 127n75, 127n79, 128n89, 128nn91– 92, 128n94, 128n98, 129n110, 129nn127–28, 130n132, 130n148, 200n13, 201n18, 201n22, 202nn53– 54, 203n72, 204n84, 208n169, 208n171, 208n176, 208n178, 209n181, 209nn194–95, 209nn203–4, 209n208, 209n211, 209n212, 210n219, 210n228, 211n246 Guijarro, Santiago, 35n36, 35n39, 91nn65–66, 125nn5–7, 207n152, 216n390, 217n399

KHJ Harrington, Daniel J. 64nn7–8, 65n2n24, 65n26, 65n28, 65n29, 65n36, 66n54, 66n60, 67n85, 89n6, 89n9, 89n11, 89n25, 91n70, 91n80, 91n83, 92n96, 125n8, 125n17, 126nn33–34, 126n36, 126n46, 127n69, 127n72, 127n77, 128nn91–92, 129n106, 129n108,

Liberation from Empire 130n131, 130n144, 131n185, 131nn188–89, 131n192, 132n209, 132n214, 133n226, 133n236, 201n17, 202n54, 203n72, 204n84, 205n102, 205n108, 205n118, 207n135, 207n147, 208n166, 208n170, 208nn174–75, 209n186, 209n189, 210n220, 210n232, 211n249, 212n258, 213n278, 213n204, 214n323, 215n350, 215n364, 217n394, 217n411 Hauck, Friedrich, 11n13–14 Hoffman, Paul, 87n2 Horsley, Richard A., 27, 28–29, 37nn72– 77, 38n78, 67nn67–68, 67nn70–73, 89n17, 91n71, 126n23, 126n37, 127n71, 127n74, 128n84, 130n143, 207n143, 207n145, 209n190, 209nn200–202, 209n205, 210n213, 210n224, 210n226, 210n234, 211n242, 216n371, 216n391, 217n413–14, 242n13 Huat, Tan Kim, 203n69, 207n148, 207n155, 208n256, 208n159, 208n161 Humphries, Michael L., 89n13

KJJ Johnson, Luke Timothy, 64nn11–15 Juel, Donald H., 91n87, 125n6, 210n222, 210n235

KKJ Kee, Howard Clark, 3, 11n5, 11nn7–8, 201n27, 242n7, 244n35 Kelly, Henry Ansgar, 7, 8, 9, 12n27, 12n29, 12nn32–34, 12nn35–39, 13nn43–47 Kinukawa, Hisoko, 67n78 Kloppenborg, John S., 87n2 Klutz, Todd, 11n5

257

KLJ Lewis, Gladys S., 11n5 Liew, Tat-siong Benny, 27–28, 37nn64– 71, 84, 91nn72–73, 91nn76–77, 91n79, 127n67, 130n147, 217n395, 244n32, 244nn40–41

KMJ Malina, Bruce J., 11nn2–3, 22, 24–25, 35n31–32, 35nn34–38, 35nn42–45, 36nn47–52, 90n30, 90n50, 90nn57– 60, 91n61–64, 91nn67–69, 126n40, 126n42, 126nn48–49, 127n62, 129nn114–16, 129nn118–20, 129nn125–26, 130n134, 131n180, 131n186, 132n194, 132n221, 133n232, 200n2, 202n44, 206nn120–21, 207n146, 210n221, 210n223, 210nn230–31, 215n366, 216nn368– 70, 216n372, 216nn375–76, 216n379– 80, 243nn19–20 Marcus, Joel, 64n16, 65n23, 65n25, 65n28, 65nn31–33, 65n43, 66nn44– 46, 66n47, 66n49, 66n51, 66n53, 66n59, 66n62, 67n83, 67nn86–87, 67n89, 89n6, 89n10, 89nn13–14, 89nn19–20, 89n22, 90n39, 90nn43– 44, 90n46, 90n56, 91n85, 92n93, 92n95, 125n4, 125n12, 125n14, 125n18, 126n22, 126n26, 126n30, 126n43, 127n60, 127n73, 128nn82– 83, 128nn91–92, 128n95, 128nn100– 101, 129n104, 129n112, 130n152, 130nn157–58, 131n165, 131n172, 132n215, 133n233, 200n6, 200nn9– 10, 201n19, 201nn42–43, 202n54, 202n60, 203nn67–68, 203nn73–74, 203n81, 205n103, 205n108, 205nn111–12, 205n115, 205n117, 206n122, 207n132, 207n134, 208n163, 208n171, 209n185, 209n192, 209nn198–99, 210n217, 210n227, 211n239, 212n274, 213n305, 214n324 Martin, Ralph P., 132n213

258

Cheryl Stewart Pero

McVann, Mark, 34n10 Metzger, Bruce M., 65n43, 128n81 Michie, Donald, 16, 34n9, 90n31, 91n88, 92nn91–92 Moore, Stephen D., 27, 29–30, 36n58, 37nn60–63, 38nn79–89, 84, 91n86, 124n1, 207n155, 211n240, 242n9, 244n37 Myers, Ched, 23, 25–26, 34nn2–3, 36nn53–54, 65n28, 67n75, 89n7, 89n29, 90n52, 90nn45–55, 92n98, 131n193, 202nn51–52, 203n83, 206n127, 207n140, 207n142, 207n144, 207n149, 208n178, 210n218, 210n228, 211n248, 212n254, 215n355, 217nn396–97, 217nn408–10, 242n12

KNJ Neville, David J., 67n77 Newheart, Michael Willett, 135, 200n1, 200n3 Newman, Carey, 11n5 Neyrey, Jerome, 36n50, 91nn62–63, 91n67, 91n69, 200n4, 201nn40–41, 202nn46–47, 205nn113–114, 215n362, 217nn405–7, 242n17, 243n22 Nineham, D. E., 203n68

KOJ Oakman, Douglas E., 89n16

KPJ Patterson, Stephen J. , 206n128, 207n136, 208n160, 217n415 Perkins, Pheme, 216n373, 216n383 Perkinson, James, 211n236, 211n238, 211n241, 211n243, 211n245 Pero, Cheryl, 34n1

Pilch, John J., 11n5, 23, 25, 34nn2–3, 35n33, 35n40, 65n39, 67n81, 88n3, 88n5, 90n49, 90n51, 91nn74–75, 127n51, 129nn116–17, 131nn182–83, 202n48, 243nn24–26, 244n38 Powell, Mark Allan, 17, 34nn4–6, 34n8, 34nn11–13

KRJ Rhoads, David, 16, 19–20, 34n9, 35nn23–27, 67n80, 67n82, 90n31, 91n88, 92nn91–92, 129n129, 130n130, 131n181, 201nn36–39, 208n164, 209n193, 209nn196–97, 209n207, 209n215, 211n244, 215n344, 215n363, 216n385, 242n6, 242n11, 244n34 Robbins, Vernon K., 90n53 Robinson, G. L., 67n81 Robinson, James M., 18, 20, 34nn14–17, 64n2, 67n75, 87n2, 242n3, 242n5, 242n8, 242n15, 243nn29–30 Robinson, William, 90n32 Roetzel, Calvin J., 127n64 Rohrbaugh, Richard L., 11nn2–3, 23, 24– 25, 35nn31–32, 35nn34–35, 35nn37– 38, 35nn42–45, 36nn47–52, 67n69, 90n30, 90n50, 90nn57–60, 91n61, 91n64, 91n68, 126n40, 126n42, 126nn48–49, 127n62, 129nn114–16, 129nn125–26, 131n180, 131n186, 132n221, 133n232, 200n2, 201nn42– 43, 202n44, 206nn120–21, 207n146, 210n221, 210n223, 210nn230–31, 215n366, 216nn368–70, 216n372, 216nn375–76, 216n379–80, 243nn19– 20

KSJ Samuel, Simon, 27, 30–33, 38nn90–91, 38nn93–97, 39nn98–105, 66n47, 91n78, 127n68, 130n135, 130n138,

Liberation from Empire 130nn145–46, 202nn49–50, 208n158, 211n252, 217nn416–17, 244n40 Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth, 132n196 Segovia, Fernando F., 27, 36n58, 37nn60–63, 211n240 Sorensen, Eric, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11n4, 12n48, 12n50, 12n28, 12nn30–31, 12n40, 13n41–42, 13nn48–49 Soulen, R. Kendall, 34n7 Soulen, Richard N., 34n7 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 217n417 Stauffer, Ethelbert, 3, 11nn9–11 Stegemann, Wolfgang, 35n36 Strecker, Christian, 206nn123–24, 216nn386–89, 217n398 Sugirtharajah, R. S., 26–27, 36nn56–57, 37n59, 206n126, 207nn137–39, 207n141, 207nn150–51, 207nn153– 54, 208n157, 211n237, 211n247, 211n251

KTJ Theissen, Gerd, 35n36 Tiffin, Helen, 36n55 Tolbert, Mary Ann, 18, 20, 34n18, 36n58, 64n3, 90nn35–36, 90nn47–48, 132n195, 214n320, 214n334–36, 215nn341–44, 215n350, 215n357, 215n359, 242n3, 243n29 Twelftree, Graham H., 6, 10, 11n5, 12nn23–24, 13nn50–53, 35n41, 69, 87n1, 125n20, 126n21, 126n25, 126n31, 126n38, 126n44, 127n52, 127n59, 127n61, 127n63, 127n70, 127n78, 128n103, 129n105, 129nn121–22, 129nn124–25, 130n137, 130nn141–42, 132nn207–8, 132n210, 132n220, 133n228, 133n231, 133n234, 153, 201n23, 201nn29–30, 204n101, 205n104, 205nn106–7, 209n210, 210n212, 212n259, 214n330–33, 215n346, 215n350, 215n356, 215nn358–59, 215n367, 216n371, 216n374, 216nn376–78,

259 216n392, 217n393, 217n402, 217n404, 217n412

KWJ Waetjen, Herman C., 50, 65n41, 92n99, 126n41, 127nn57–58, 127nn65–66, 130n136, 130n139, 131n191, 133n239, 208n167, 209n184 Wahlen, Clinton, 35n46, 202n45, 243n21 Wallace, Daniel B., 64n22, 65n30, 125n10, 125n15, 200n15, 201n21, 201n25, 201n31, 201n33, 202n56, 203n64, 203n70, 203nn77–78, 203n82, 204n89, 204nn94–95, 208n180, 212n260, 212n272, 213n277, 213n281, 213n284, 213n291, 213n293, 213n295, 213n301, 214n306, 214n313, 214n317 Wallis, Jim, 39n106 Wengst, Klaus, 66n64 White, L. Michael, 66n66 Williams, Joel, 64nn17–18 Williams, Patrick, 36n55

KZJ Zerwick, Maximilian, 89n6, 125n9, 125n15, 132n198, 132n200, 150, 200n7, 201n20, 201n24, 201n26, 202nn54–55, 202n58, 202n61, 203nn62–63, 203n66, 203nn70–71, 203nn74–75, 203n78, 204n85, 204nn87–88, 204n90, 204n92, 204n96, 204nn98–100, 208n165, 208n180, 212nn261–62, 212n264– 266, 212n268, 212n271, 213n277, 213n279, 213n283, 213nn286–88, 213n292, 213n294, 213n300, 213n302, 214nn307–9, 214nn311–13, 214nn315–316, 214n319

Index of Ancient Authors and Literature KHebrew BibleJ Genesis 1:1 47 5: 21–24 7 6:1–4 7 Exodus 23:20 48 34:8 52 Leviticus 11 205n119 11:7 157 17–26 23, 155 19:11 187 19:13 187 Numbers 22:22–35 6 22:22 6 22:34 6

1 Kings 17:18 201n19 19:4–8 52 2 Kings 3:13 201n10 3 Kingdoms (LXX 1 Kings) 12:31 104 13:33 104 1 Chronicles 12 12n 26 15–16 12n 26 21:1 12n25 27 12n 26 30 12n 26 2 Chronicles 35:22 201n19

Deuteronomy 12–26 23 17:6 105 19:15 105 32:17 6 8

Job 1:1–4 78 1:6–12 6 2:1–7 6

Judges 11:12 201n19

Psalms 106:37 6

1 Samuel 16:14–23 6

Isa iah 1:6 128n95 40:3 48

1 Kingdoms (LXX 1 Samuel) 12:6 104

262 Hosea 14:8 201n19 Zechariah 3:1–2 6

Cheryl Stewart Pero 3:1 6 3:2 6 Malachi 3:1 48

KApocryphaJ Tobit 1 :1–14:15 6–8 3:8 8 3:17 8 6:5–7 8 6:17–18 8 8:2–3 8

Baruch 1:1–5:9 8 4:7 7

KPseudepigraphaJ 1 Enoch 7 6–16 7 7:1–8 :4 7 10:4 84 15:8–12 7 19 7 55 :3–4 7 55 :64 7 55 :69 7

Jubilees (cont.) 10:5–9 7 10:7–11 84 10:8 7 10:11 7 11:3–4 7 11:11 7 17:16 7 18:1–13 7

Jubilees 4:16–22 5:6 84 5:6–10 10:1–2 7

Testament of Levi 18:10–12 92n95 Testament of Solomon 1–128 7

KDead Sea ScrollsJ Corpus 6 Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) Corpus, 10, 11n8 XX, 28–9, 3

1QHa 5.21, 10 15:13, 10 1Q10.21 10 4Q201 7

Liberation from Empire

263

Dead Sea Scrolls (cont.)

4Q560 Exorcism ar 10

4Q202 7

11Q5 24:12–13 10

4Q242 PrNab ar 10 11Q13 (11QMelch) 10 13n49

KNew TestamentJ (Q) 11:14–15 87n2 11:17–22 87n2 12:10 87n2 Matthew 4:1–11 8 9:34 87n2 10:25 89n13 12:22–32, 87n2 12:24 89n13. 12:25–26 88n2 12:27 89n13 12:29 88n2 12:32 88n2 13:18 8 13: 38–39 8 Mark 1:1–3:12 94 1:1–3:6 102 1:1–2:8 47 1:1–45 101 1:1–28 172, 200n3 1:1–15 18, 43, 47, 58–59, 136, 192 1:1 47, 48, 51, 54, 98 1:2–3 48, 52, 59 1:3 49 1:4–8 48, 49, 59 1:4–6 49 1:4 49, 152 1:6 49 1:7–8 49, 59 1:7 49, 51, 53, 75, 137, 152, 176, 182, 190, 220, 230 1:8 49, 60, 138 1:9–15 47, 76 1:9–11 50, 59, 60, 144, 180, 182, 220, 230, 231, 241

1:9 50, 237 1:10–11 50 1:10 50, 51, 59, 231 1:11 45, 50, 98, 192, 217n392 1:12–13 51, 59, 60, 63, 112, 112–13, 136, 141, 144, 151, 196, 214n322, 220, 242n10, 229, 232 1:12 5, 51, 66n.46 1:13 52, 59, 101, 114, 157, 192, 220, 242n10 1:14–15 48, 54, 60, 101, 108, 221, 230 1:14 48, 52, 140, 152 1:15 54, 60, 176, 192, 196 1:16–21 45 1:16–20 74, 102, 103, 105–106, 109, 110, 136 1:16–19 110 1:16 140, 175 1:17 112 1:19 118 1:21–3:12 103 1:21–3:16 98 1:21–28 29, 32, 63, 69, 73, 77, 85, 98, 101, 102, 111, 136–46, 151, 161, 176, 180, 181, 186, 193, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227, 233 1:21–27 86 1:21–22 95, 125n13 1:21 94, 95, 96, 97, 137, 140, 225 1:22 80, 104, 106, 109, 137, 139–40, 141,143, 144, 151, 175, 236 1:23–24 137–38 1:23 142, 148, 183, 186, 195, 224, 226 1:24 48, 96, 116, 141, 144, 148, 149, 153, 157, 160, 183, 187, 194, 195, 197, 224, 225, 229, 230, 231, 242n10 1:25–26 195

264 Mark (cont.) 1:25 95, 97, 98, 138–39, 183, 186, 197, 229 1:26 139, 153, 191, 195, 197, 224, 225, 226, 230 1:27 17, 80, 95, 104, 106, 109, 125n13, 139–140, 141, 142, 143, 151, 158, 175, 195, 197, 226, 236 1:28 3, 137, 140, 141, 144, 236 1:29–31 221 1:29 96 1:30–31 96 220 221 228 1:31 229 1:32–34 45, 63, 72, 93–94, 95, 96–97, 98, 99, 100–101, 102, 145, 220, 221 1:32–33 94–95, 236 1:32 222, 223, 236 1:32a 96 1:32b 95, 96 1:33 95, 96, 97, 1:34 3, 51, 86, 95,96, 102, 116, 206n123, 224, 239 1:34a 95 1:34b 95, 97 1:34c 97 1:35–38 94 1:35–36 145 1:35c 95 1:36 229 1:38, 152 1:39 3, 45, 51, 63, 72, 93–94, 95, 97, 98, 100–101, 102, 145, 152, 157, 206n123, 222, 223, 227, 239 1:40–45 228, 229 1:40–42 221 1:40 208n172, 220, 221, 229, 236 1:42 229 1:44–45 228 1:44 229 1:45 220, 221 1:53 237 2:1–5 220, 221 2:2–5 236 2:2–3 70 2:3–5 228, 236 2:6–9 236 2:7 78, 183 2:10 104, 106

Cheryl Stewart Pero 2:11 221 2:12 80 2:14–16 210n216 2:14 74 2:15 236 2:16 236 2:18 220 236 2:22–23 220 2:24 236 3:1–35 101 3:1–6 220, 236 3:1–5 228 3:4–5 222 3:5 221 3:7–12 102 3:7–10 94, 220, 221, 236 3:8 124n3, 165, 166 3:9–10 236 3:10–11 206n123 3:11–13 63 3:11–12 3, 45, 72, 86, 93–94, 98, 99, 101 3:11, 48, 95–96, 145, 148, 164, 222, 223, 224, 226, 227, 229 3:12 95, 96 3:13–8:26 102, 103 3:13–35 94 3:13–19 45, 102, 103 3:14–19 70 3:14–15 3, 25, 93–94, 103, 104, 105– 106, 110, 206n123, 220, 227 3:14 105, 106, 150, 152, 167, 188 3:14a 104, 128n85 3:14 b 128n85 3:14c 128n85 3:14c–15 239 3:15 52, 72, 77, 98, 102, 106, 109, 110, 111, 180, 182, 184 3:16–37 103 3:16–19 103, 110 3:19b–30 79, 227 3:20–6:6 103 3:20–30 25 3:20–26 72 3:20–21 70, 76, 103 3:20 72, 182, 210n216, 236 3:21–35 45, 63 3:21–23 184 3:21 70, 72, 77, 80

Liberation from Empire Mark (cont.) 3:22–30 20, 29, 32, 69, 71–72, 76, 77, 84, 85, 103, 172, 223, 231, 236, 243n18 3:22–27 87n2 3:22–23 72, 73, 82 3:22 25, 51, 63, 66n55, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 85, 86, 88n2, 89n13, 181, 182, 196, 222 3:23–30 86 3:23–27 72, 77, 222 3:23–26 75 3:23 51, 69, 73, 74, 87, 112 3:24–26 74, 78 3:24–25 77, 84, 86, 222, 223 3:24 72, 74 3:25–26 88n2 3:25 72, 74, 84 3:26 60, 72, 74, 77, 78, 89n18, 231, 238 3:27 72, 74–75, 77, 85, 88n2, 89n18, 152, 159, 176, 182, 190, 220 3:28–29 75–76, 88n2 3:28 72, 78 3:29–30 25, 76 3:29 25, 72, 76, 78, 86 3:30 72, 76, 78, 80, 226 3:31–35 70, 71, 72, 88n6, 103, 121 3:31–34 72 3:31–32 76 3:31 71, 74 3:32 71, 72, 103, 236 3:33 71, 72, 95, 221 3:34–35 76, 110 3:34 71 3:35 71, 79 3:37 231 4:1–34 103 4:1–20 210n216 4:1 236 4:10 103 4:15 8, 63 4:19–34 243n18 4:26–29 210n216 4:30–32 210n216 4:33 112 4:35–41 44, 103, 146 4:34 147 4:39 112, 220 4:39–41 231, 243n28 4:40 240

265 4:41 147, 231 4:55–10:45 103 5:1–20 27, 29, 32, 60, 63, 103, 146–63, 162, 176, 180, 187, 193, 198, 210n222, 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 227, 233, 238 5:1–5 159 5:1 45, 147, 152, 226 5:2–5 151 5:2 147–148, 152, 156, 159, 183, 226 5:3–5 148, 230 5:3–4 224 5:3 146, 148, 224 5:4 148, 152, 159, 176, 182, 190, 225 5:5 148, 152, 157–58, 159, 224, 225 5:6 148, 152, 156, 157, 229 5:7–10 156 5:7–9 161 5:7 48, 148, 149, 152, 154, 160, 186, 187, 197, 224, 225, 230 5:8–9 229 5:8 3, 4, 149, 152, 153, 156–57, 186, 197, 205n119, 226, 230 5:9–13 230 5:9 29, 149, 150, 152, 154, 157, 195, 219, 242n10 5:10–12 153, 157 5:10 149–50, 152, 153 5:12–13 195 5:12 152, 226 5:13 150, 153, 197, 202n54, 204n86, 225, 226, 229, 230 5:14–20 17 5:15 150, 207n130, 221, 230, 236, 240 5:16 150, 198 5:17 151, 165, 198, 204n86, 236 5:18 150, 151, 155, 204n86 5:19 146, 148, 150–51, 154, 157, 228, 230, 231 5:20 151, 169, 198, 206n124, 229, 231, 236 5:21–43 106, 146 5:21–42 44 5:21–44 220 5:21–24 236 5:21 146, 155 5:22–43 45 5:22–24 228 5:22–23 229, 236

266 Mark (cont.) 5:22 164, 208n172 5:23 229 5:25–34 244n36 5:25–29 243n28 5:25–27 236 5:27–28 236 5:29–41 181 5:29 220 221 5:31 103 5:33 208n172, 240 5:34 221, 243n28 5:35–43 228, 229 5:36 240 5:39–41 181 5:41–42 191 5:41 198 5:43 221 6:1–13 107 6:1–6 65n40, 103, 185, 228 6:1–6a 146 6:2 236 6:5–6 103 6:5 100, 220, 221 6:6 221 6:7–30 45, 105 6:7–13 45, 103, 104–105, 107, 109, 120, 236 6:7 25 93–94, 100, 103, 104–105, 106– 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 180, 182, 188, 220, 222, 226 6:8–12 103 6:9 227 6:11 105 6:12–13 1056:13, 3, 25, 52, 93–94, 100, 103, 104–106, 108, 188 6:12 152 6:13 106–107, 108, 109, 110, 206n123, 220, 222, 227, 239 6:14–19 163 6:30–44 163, 210n216, 243n28 6:30–31 236 6:30 128n81 6:31–44 45 6:31 88n5, 210n216 6:33–36 236 6:34 219 6:35 219

Cheryl Stewart Pero 6:41–44 221 6:45–52 44, 163 6:47–51 231, 243n28 6:47–50 220 6:50 240 6:53–56 163, 220, 221 6:54–56 236 6:55 45 7:1–23 137, 143, 163, 170, 243n18 7:1–21 208n162 7:1–13 169, 210n216, 220 7:1–2 236 7:1 84 7:3 169, 243n18 7:5 236 7:6–12 221, 222 7:6 243n18 7:9–13 243n18 7:14–23 53, 169, 210n216 7:14–20 243n18 7:14–19 221 7:14–15 243n18 7:19 210n216 7:20 243n18 7:21–28 233 7:21–23 243n18 7:24–8:21 146 7:24–30 29, 32, 35n34, 163–73, 191, 193, 198, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 244n36 7:24 152, 164, 165, 226 7:25–26 229, 236 7:25 164, 165, 166, 171, 208n170, 226, 229 7:26–29 229 7:26 51 , 164–65, 167, 226 7:27–28, 163, 165, 166, 172, 224 7:28 163 7:28–29 229 7:29–30 165, 230 7:29 3, 4, 130n155, 165, 167, 230 7:30, 168, 214n365, 221 7:31–37 44, 163, 169, 173, 228 7:31 45 7:32–36 220, 221 7:37 236 8:1–10 45, 111, 163, 167, 173 8:1–9 210n216, 243n28

Liberation from Empire Mark (cont.) 8:1–3 219 8:1–2 236 8:6–10 221 8:11–21 111 8:11–13 163 8:11–12 236 8:14–21 163, 222, 236 8:22–39 205n119 8:22–27 45 8:22–26 111, 163, 220, 221, 228 8:22 173, 236 8:27–30 111, 113 8:27–29 237 8:29 115, 116, 231 8:31–32a 111, 113, 115 8:31 45, 123, 179 8:32b–33 93–94, 111, 116 8:32b 112

8:33 53, 63, 112, 201n27, 219, 233, 237 8:33c 112 8:34–9:1 117 8:34 112, 113 8:38 67n76 9:1–13 45 9:2–14 180 9:2–13 173 9:2–8 117, 180 9:6 240 9:7 45, 192 9:9–13 117 9:10 113 9:13–29 221 9:14–29 29, 63, 117, 119, 120, 173–93, 180, 189, 193, 222, 223, 224, 227, 233 9:14–20 220 9:14–19 225, 227 9:14–16 182 9:14 174, 175, 180, 181, 185, 226, 236 9:15 174–75, 181, 185, 236 9:16–17 175 9:16 175, 176, 182, 183 9:17–18 183, 188, 242n10 9:17 181, 183, 224, 229, 236 9:18 51, 175–76, 183, 187, 190, 224, 225 9:19 174, 176, 177, 181, 182, 185,

267 188, 194, 229 9:20 176–77, 181, 183, 187, 197, 224, 225, 242n10 9:21–23 184 9:21 177, 184, 185, 193 9:22 177, 181, 183, 184, 187, 194, 224, 225, 242n10, 229 9:22a 183 9:22b 184, 185 9:23–24 177–78 9:23 185, 194, 229 9:24 3, 4, 184, 185, 194, 226, 229 9:25–26 189 9:25 98, 178, 181–82, 183, 186, 188, 194, 201n27, 230 9:26 17, 179, 181, 182, 183, 187, 224, 225, 230, 242n10 9:26a 183 9:27–29 180 9:27 181, 182, 230 9:28–29, 179, 182–83 9:28 51, 173, 194 9:29 190, 194, 229, 237 9:30–32 117 9:31 45, 54, 124, 179 9:32 113, 240 9:33–35 117 9:34 237 9:36–37 117 9:38–41 119 9:38–40 231 9:38–39 93–94, 117, 220, 240 9:38 2, 10, 51, 100, 117–118, 119, 120, 121, 237 9:39 117, 118, 127n53 9:40 118 9:41 118 10:1–44 1 10:1a 45 10:2–12 221, 222 10:2 237 10:13 236 10:17–22 221, 222 10:17 208n172 10:32 113, 240 10:33–34 45, 124, 179 10:33 54 10:35–45 238

268 Mark (cont.) 10:37 237 10:41–49 113 10:41–43 10:42–45 238 10:43–45 124, 238 10:46–52 45, 179, 228 10:46–47 236 10:47–52 220 221 11:5–19 221 222 11:11–25 45 11:12–14 229 11:17b–18 88n2 11:18 236, 240 11:20–26 229 11:20–24 229 11:24 186 11:27–28 231, 236 11:42–45 228 12:1–44 236 12:1–2 210n216 12:8 240 12:12 236 12:13–17 238 12:18–27 221, 222 12:28–34 221, 222 12:28–31 221 12:39–31 228 13:5–37 67n79 13:6 120 13:10 168 13:21–22 58–58, 219 13:24–25 67n76 13:26 67n76, 236 13:27 238 14:1–16:8 103 14:1–72 236 14:10–11 237 14:9 60 14:10–11 237 14:29 237 14:32–42 45, 193 14:41 54 14:43–46 115, 237 14:53–65 222 14:61b–64 14:61 239 14:62 67n76, 236, 239

Cheryl Stewart Pero 14:66–72 45, 237 15:1–20 15:1–24 222 15:6–15 235 15:9 192 15:39 45, 48, 51 16:7 54, 237 Luke 4:6–7 8 4:11–13 8 6:13 128n81 8:29 205n119 9:49 10 10:34 128n95 11:14–15 87n2 11:15 88n2, 89n13 11:17–22 87n2 11:18 89n13 11:19 89n13 11:21–22 88n2 12:10 88n2 John 1:1 47 7:20 88n2 8:44 9 8:48–52 88n2 8:48 88n2 10:20–21 88n2 10:20 88n2 12:31–32 9 13:2 88n2 13:2a 9 13:27 9 Acts 5:3–4 9 10:38 9 13:6–11 9 16:17 10 19:11–16 9 19:13 10 26:17–18 Romans 16:17–20 7–8

Liberation from Empire 1 Corinthians 5:5 8 10:14 8 10:20–21 8 12:2 8

269 1 Thessalonians 2:18 8 3:5 8 2 Thessalonians 1:1–3:18 8

2 Corinthians 2:10–11 8 11:12–15 8 12:7 8

1 Timothy 1:1–6:21 8 James 2:19 8

Galatians 4:8 11n34 5:19–21 11n34

1 Peter, 8 Revelation 2:13 9 2:24 9 3:9 9 12:8–9 9 12:9 9 12:10 9 13:1–18 9 20:2–3 92n95 20:2 9 20:7 9

Ephesians 6:11–12 8 Colossians 2:8 11n34 2:18 11n34 2:20 11n34

KNew Testament ApocryphaJ Gospel of Thomas 35 87n2 35 88n2 35:1–2 88n2 44 87n2 88n2

Nag Hammadi Codices II.2 88n2

KAncient Jewish LiteratureJ Philo Corpus 6

Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 6

KGreco-Roman LiteratureJ Hippocrates Morb. Sacr. 2.127–83 212n269

Josephus 6 Jewish War 1.657 128n95

270 4.503 202n54 14.4 66n65 Lucian 6 Philopseudes 2 Philops. 16 10 212n269 PGM (Greek Magical Papyri) 2 244n36 4.1245–48 84 Philostratus Vita Apollonii (Life of Apollonius) 2, 64n4 Vit. Apoll. 3.38 10 Vit. Apoll. 4.20

Cheryl Stewart Pero

Studies in Biblical Literature This series invites manuscripts from scholars in any area of biblical literature. Both established and innovative methodologies, covering general and particular areas in biblical study, are welcome. The series seeks to make available studies that will make a significant contribution to the ongoing biblical discourse. Scholars who have interests in gender and sociocultural hermeneutics are particularly encouraged to consider this series. For further information about the series and for the submission of manuscripts, contact: Peter Lang Publishing Acquisitions Department P.O. Box 1246 Bel Air, Maryland 21014-1246 To order other books in this series, please contact our Customer Service Department: (800) 770-LANG (within the U.S.) (212) 647-7706 (outside the U.S.) (212) 647-7707 FAX or browse online by series at: WWW.PETERLANG.COM