“From the stories (e.g., Mk 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29) and the summaries, the most frequent type of Jesus' healings is exorcism, often listed separately (e.g., Mt 8:16-17 // Mk 1:32-34 // Lk 4:40-41; Mk 3:10-11 // Lk 6:17-18; Mt 10:1 // Lk 9:1).” (Bell) In addition, Jesus' disciples were given the same authority to cast out demons in His name. I would like to just zero in on the four incidents mentioned in the title above since they are narrated in more detail than the others.
As with the miracle stories in the Bible, the exorcisms cannot be subsumed under a simple literary formula as form-critics attempt to do. If there is such a thing as a standard format of an exorcism, it is said to consist of the following general elements:
The exorcist approaches the afflicted person.
In other words, the exorcist is supposed to be the one to make the first move in the process in order to take the initiative.
The source of the exorcist's power is recognized by the evil spirit.
There is some controversy among Bible scholars on this point, with some feeling that this is the opening move on the spirits' part since knowing an opponent's name is one means of gaining control over them. H. Anderson thus states that in the Mark 5 example, “the first play of the demon was to get the name of his opponent right in order thereby to disarm him of his power.”
Mann similarly says, “The question What is your name? is Jesus' acknowledgment of the ancient belief that knowledge of a name gave power over demons as well as enemies.”
Others just feel that it is a recognition on the spirits' part that they are up against a formidable foe.
The exorcist determines the spirit's name.
In the same manner, the exorcist must now even the playing field by learning the name of his opponent. Marcus says, “In magical contexts, knowing the name of a god or demon grants power over it.” Anderson echoes this belief: “Part of the strategy of the exorcist was to find out the demon's name in order to gain control over him. For the first narrators of this story [i.e. Mark 5] Legion may have been thought of as a boast of the demoniac whereby he unwittingly divulged his name, or as an evasion...For Mark, however, the question by Jesus and the immediate admission of the demon's name no doubt illustrate Jesus' amazing authority.”
The exorcist then pronounces the words, “I adjure you to come out.”
The actual wording here is felt by some to have been necessary to effect the exorcism. Marcus notes, “'To adjure' is standard exorcistic terminology.” Thus, Anderson's explanation of the Mark 5 exorcism goes on to say, “Failing in his attempt to overcome the exorcist, and apparently more than ever conscious of his mighty power, the demon then implores Jesus in strong language. “I adjure you by God, do not torment me...”
The spirit leaves and the afflicted party is healed.
In some cases such as in Acts 16, it is not said where the spirit ends up, but in others it appears that it must now inhabit another body. The “Legion” in Mark 5 do not want to end up in the abyss, and therefore they ask to be allowed to enter the swine instead. But in both cases, the possessed person is restored to his or her normal condition. As Neil says regarding Acts 16, “Paul's motive in exorcizing the evil spirit is attributed more to irritation than compassion. The effect is, however, to restore the girl to sanity.”
Awe and fear fills the on-lookers.
Ideally this leads to increased recognition of the power invoked by the exorcist. For example, in Mark 1 the result is that Jesus' fame begins to spread to others. In Mark 5, after the legion of spirits have drowned the swine they possessed, the observers are awestruck. “Some have speculated that their fear has to do with the economic loss Jesus' healing has brought about...But in the story it is the townspeople, not the herders, who ask Jesus to leave, and no hint is given that they are the owners of the pigs.” (Marcus)
If the above steps are said to represent the general rule for an exorcism, in the New Testament it appears to be a rule meant to be broken or subverted, as can be seen below:
1. As to who is the party initiating the exorcism process, only in the last case of Acts 19 do the would-be exorcists do the initiating, and they are spectacularly unsuccessful in their results.
2. The spirits in the first three stories all recognize the divine power at work in each case to be, respectively, the Holy One of God, Jesus Son of the Most High God, and slaves of the Most High God.
As Bruce puts it, “The superior authority which such spirits had recognized when Jesus Himself commanded them to leave their victims was equally recognized when His name was invoked by one of His apostles and proved as potent in exorcism as in other forms of healing.”
“As a term for God, 'Most High' has roots both in the OT...and in Greek religion...so that in our passages [in Mark 5] it is appropriately employed by a Gentile demoniac...A particularly close parallel to our passage is provided by Acts 16:17...These exorcistic usages of 'Most High' may reflect its employment in Psalm 91, a text that from its inception as used as a charm against evil spirits.” (Marcus) But if that is so, it is most odd that it would be the evil spirits themselves who use the term.
And one might think that these spirits were giving a powerful testimony of Jesus' identity before others and therefore should not have been silenced. “Yet Jesus exorcised them, and would not accept their testimony as legitimate preaching of the gospel (Mk. 1:34; 3:11,12), any more than Paul accepted the testimony of the spirit of divination...” (Wright)
3. If determining the name of one's opponent is a crucial step in an exorcism, it is interesting that the only time that happens for the exorcist is in Mark 5, and in Acts 19 it is actually the fact that the spirit does not know the would-be exorcists' identity that allows him to conquer them.
4. The next “necessary” step for a exorcist is to use precise language to drive out the demon. As mentioned above, the verb “adjure” (exhorkizo) is felt to be the correct word to use. However, as Link points out, that word only appears in the NT in Matthew 26:63 and Acts 19:13. In the first case, it is used by the high priest to try to get Jesus to say that He is the Messiah, and in the latter case it is totally ineffective when uttered by the seven sons of Sceva. The root Greek word horkizo also appears on the lips of the demoniac of Mark 4, but is never used by Jesus or his apostles. Actually, Marcus feels in that account “there is an element of deliberate parody in the demon's invocation of God and its use of exorcistic terminology, as well as in its plea that Jesus not torture it.”
5. Obviously, the successful exorcism demands that the evil spirit depart. And that is what happens when Jesus or Paul carry it out. The failure of the sons of Sceva confirms their lack of relationship with God.
Note that this series of four narratives concerns exorcists farther and farther away in relationship to God Himself. The first two involve Jesus, who does not need to appeal to any power other than what God had already invested him with. Next, is the apostle Paul, who definitely had a warrant from the resurrected Jesus to carry out his ministry with His delegated power. Finally, we run into seven Jewish exorcists who have a third-hand relationship with God and are only able to weakly claim the name of “the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” This despite the fact that they didn't even know Paul, let alone Jesus or God the Father.
I see this sort of second- or third-hand relationship to God and His word played out in various ways within the church. There are those who take pride in the fact that their parents were in Christian ministry or brag about how popular their preacher or their denomination is, but they themselves have no real relationship with God or Jesus. As has been said many times, “God has no grandchildren.”
Even worse are those examples I have personally witnessed in which a church-goer criticizes someone for quoting Scripture in cases where it disagrees with their “higher authorities” such as a popular Christian writer or a favorite politician or just personally offends them.
6. Ideally at this point, the power of God and Jesus should have been amply demonstrated to others so that at least they would be awestruck and perhaps convinced to to follow Christ afterward. This is certainly the case in the first story of Jesus in the synagogue. But His second exorcism, which took place in pagan territory, seems to only have enraged the populace and resulted in Jesus' departure. However, He did leave the healed man behind to spread the good news. Paul's exorcism of the slave girl also had the effect of not only getting Paul in trouble with the local authorities but also in his expulsion from the city. But before he left, Paul did have time to instill the fear of Rome into the local authorities so that they would hopefully not harass the fledgling church in Paul's absence.
Paradoxically, it was the failure of the Jewish exorcists in Acts 19 which brought about a mass turning among the populace away from their magical practices, another example of how God uses evil to promote good. As Fitzmyer puts it, “Their attempt itself reveals that no one is able to imitate Paul, the representation of the Christian God and emissary of the Christian church. The Jesus that Paul preaches is not taken over by outsiders. The invocation of Jesus' name is efficacious only when uttered by Christians. Luke is trying to get across the idea that Christianity has nothing to do with magic, and that Jesus' name is no magical-incantation formula.”
There are some additional interesting parallels between some of these four exorcisms:
A. In the two cases in Acts, it is the exorcists themselves who are beaten as a result of their actions.
B. There is a sort of reversal between Mark 4 and Acts 19 in that the former story has a naked demoniac becoming fully clothed at the end while the seven exorcists in Acts 19 are clothed at the beginning of the story and naked at the end. Even Paul is stripped of his clothing in Acts 16:22.
C. There are humorous undertones in two of these episodes. Marcus says of the Mark 5 narrative: “There is...an element of burlesque comedy with the demons...This gruesomely funny conclusion emphasizes the destructiveness of the demons as well as their shortsightedness...they unintentionally destroy their new lodgings...” And I have always felt that the story of the sons of Sceva was one of the funniest in the whole Bible. But that, I suppose, is due to what my wife calls “typical male humor.”
D. Marcus, in his comment above, brings up another common factor in some of the stories: the tendency of the impure spirits to engage in self-destructive behavior. Thus, they drive the possessed man in the synagogue to announce his presence to Jesus, the demoniac of Mark 5 to injure himself, the swine to drown, and the spirit in the slave girl to pester Paul so much that it is driven out of its home.
E. In both of Jesus' exorcisms in Mark, the demon says, “What between you and me (or 'us')?” That is an idiomatic expression meaning, “What do you have to do with me (or 'us')?”
Here is some additional information regarding the “non-orthodox” exorcists of the time:
Wright quotes from an Egyptian magical papyrus of the type that was circulating as late as A.D. 200: “I adjure you by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus, Ioa, Iae, Iaoue, etc.” Those last three names represented various attempts to properly pronounce the powerful word Yahweh.
Neil says, “Jewish exorcists are mentioned in the Gospels (Mt. 12:27; Lk. 11:19) and, outside, Jewish magicians were notorious. Those referred to here [i.e. Acts 19] would seem to have been quacks who used the name of Jesus as a magic incantation; this practice was later condemned by the rabbis.” Several commentators add that although their father was said to be a Jewish high priest, no such name as Sceva has been found in Jewish records. He or his sons probably made up that title for use in the pagan land where he lived so as to create a built-in reputation.
In conclusion, we see that these four biblical exorcisms share certain similarities arising from the similar situations that are involved. But at the same time, there are numerous variations in how the stories play out. In other words, these stories have the 'ring of truth' instead of exhibiting the stereotyped literary form one would expect from fictional creations.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments