Whatever else he may have been Jesus was clearly a teller of tales. His stories remind me of the world's first photographic process, the daguerreotype. His tales, like those old photos, were black and white, grainy, and often blurry, but nevertheless provided realistic images of life in first-century rural Galilee. For the most part the stories replicated common life in small peasant villages. Chances are that all his characters in peasant village life were accurate to type, but those few modeled on characters from the upper classes are, likely, lacking in verisimilitude because of the inaccessibility of the oral "folk poet" to their exclusive social circles. Few of the stories reflect religious motifs, however general, and none of the stories are theological or eschatological in character. Theology and eschatology are brought to them by pious believers, and early "Christians," who preserved them purely for theological and religious reasons.
The stories treat human beings in Palestine momentarily caught in the act of being human—except two. One of these (Luke 16:19-31) contrasts the states of the rich and the poor after death. The other, a Q story (Matt 12:43-45a = Luke 11:24-26a), describes "unclean" Spirits who possess an individual. This last narrative provides the only confirmation among the stories that their artistic creator shared in the mythology of evil spirits, and demons endemic to the ancient world. According to the Jesus Seminar this story did not originate with Jesus, and it seems to be little discussed in academic literature. Brandon Scott, Craig Blomberg, and Arland Hultgren do not include the story in their parables surveys; Graham Twelftree does not include it in his book on spirit possession and exorcism in Palestine.
The story of the twice–possessed person, however, is narrative, as is the classic form of "parable." In form the story is not unlike other better known stories Jesus told. The story of the twice-possessed person narrates a case of possession by an "unclean" Spirit, later described as "evil." Contrary to the highly respected German scholar, Joachim Jeremias, the Spirit is not "cast out," but merely goes out of the person of its own volition. It passes through the desert (i.e., "waterless places") seeking rest, but finding none (why the Spirit needed rest is not stated), the Spirit returns to its "house," in the person in whom it formerly resided. It found the "house" cleaned up and put in order (Matthew adds that it was "empty"). Speaking in images like the story, apparently during its residency this possessing Spirit had only disarranged and cluttered the house, leaving a dirty floor. The Spirit went out again, and found seven other Spirits "more evil" than itself. And all eight entered and dwelled there. Q added an interpretive conclusion (Matt 12:45a = Luke 11:26a), "and the last state of that person becomes worse than the first." Matthew adds a second interpretation (12:26c): "So shall it also be with this generation."
The story describes the helpless and the hopeless condition of a person possessed by a Spirit: if for some reason the possessing Spirit decides to vacate its "house," nothing prevents it from returning and causing even more serious harm to its host, who had in the interim regained an ordered life. Jeremias argued that the relapse is not "predetermined and inevitable," but merely possible, and makes the individual responsible for keeping free of future possession by not letting the "house" become empty, and hence subject to repossession.
In short the story describes the absolute control that evil spirits exert in the ancient world. Apparently anyone could be possessed or repossessed at the whim of any Spirit. Matthew regards the story as a curse upon "this evil generation" (Matt 12:45c; 12:38-39). In Luke it becomes a warning about the dangers of demon possession (Luke 11:14-26). Jeremias turned it into Christian theology. He thinks the life of the healed individual must be filled with a spiritual element—"the word of Jesus."
The canonical gospels, with the exception of John, relate several stories about the exorcism of demons. Oddly there is only one story about Spirit possession in the Old Testament (1 Sam 16:14-16; 18:10; 19:9), but the amelioration of Saul's depression by David's harp playing is scarcely an exorcism in the later Hellenistic style (cf. Tobit 3:7-8; 6:7-8, 16-17). None of the other seven exorcism stories in the gospels concern repeat possessions by evil Spirits.
Does this story of Spirit possession have any relevance in the 21st century, other than as an astute observation on life in the 1st century?
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
11 comments:
Here’s one possible take on the material: 1. Matthew’s order: (a) Beelzebul Controversy, (b) Asking for a Sign, (c) Return of the Unclean Spirit, and (d) Jesus’ True Relatives. 2. Luke’s order: (a) Beelzebul Controversy, (c) Return of the Unclean Spirit, (e) On Blessedness, and (b) Asking for a Sign
Generally, the story seems to have come through the tradition in association with (a), an exorcism controversy. Therefore, I think it probably is to be understood as describing an exorcism that ‘didn’t take,’ so to speak. Contextually, the story seems to have something to do with obedience, as this is a central theme in (b) “Nineveh repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and something greater than Jonah is here” (d) “whoever does the will of my Father is my family” and (e) “blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” In this interpretation the “evil spirit/demon” is a metaphor for disobedience which compounds itself in further disobedience (“seven more evil than itself”) when its motive is not adequately replaced.
In Pauline theology, of course, disobedience is “the” demon, and it can only be successfully cast out with “trust;” however, there seems to be nothing in these gospel verses that contrasts disobedience with trust; so they do not point us in the Pauline direction.
As referenced by the early church Fathers, this story was apparently not found in Marcion’s Evangelion, although the Evan did have references to the Beelzebul controversy, Asking for a Sign, True Relatives, and On Blessedness. (BeDuhn, The First New Testament, 105, 110, 146, 161).
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa
As a teacher my career was in schools with a high percentage of fundamentalist families I saw in one instance the harm the belief in “Spirit possession” can do. One student seemed to have a paranoid schizophrenia break with reality. Since I was in charge of special education for the school, I took her for testing at the region center. The experts confirmed my suspicion and wanted her hospitalized. The parents, instead, sent her to school with a Bible. When her hallucinations, accompanied by some rather odd outbursts, became so great we insisted (on our dime) treatment, they took her out of school. I heard before the end of the year that this seventh grader had become pregnant, her dad suspected of being the father. “Spirit possession” has relevance, but not in a way that I feel is conducive to good mental hygiene!
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Good Morning Gene,
Thanks for responding. I have a brief comment about looking at the story "contextually" (i.e., in its literary context). Such a reading tells you little about the story but only about how Luke and Matthew understood it,
On your comment that the Spirit is a metaphor for disobedience. How did you come to the idea that the Spirit is a metaphorical figure for disobedience? What in the story leads you to that leap? Or put another way: how can I be certain that the metaphorical leap from personified evil Spirit to an ethical value (disobedience) is directed by the elements of the narrative or if happens only in your mind and has nothing to do with the narrative? In other words it is a particular reader's response to the narrative. If so, it would seem that it tells us a lot about you, but little about the narrative. So I must ask, on what in the story do you base the idea that the story is metaphor? You may of course be correct, but that judgment would be based on the evidence for the story being fashioned as metaphor.
Another question: do you think the story originated with Jesus or is its presence in the Jesus tradition due to Q appropriating a traditional narrative, which has nothing to do with the Jesus tradition?
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, your response is appreciated. I wasn't attempting to go beyond what Matthew and Luke might have thought. The "disobedience" notion was found in both gospels in the materials surrounding the "returning demon" story. So I thought, what if Matt and Luke wanted us to see the returning demon as a metaphor for disobedience? There's actually nothing in the story itself that suggests what kind of demon was being dealt with, and perhaps Matt and Luke were in as much of a position of guessing about it as we are.
I've never thought of this story as originating with Jesus because, demon-wise, there seems to be nothing in the gospel traditions except stories of Jesus' superior strength to demons in an adversarial relationship where they are successfully cast out. Also, although Jesus provided all kinds of metaphors/parables for what the Kingdom of God is like, this story, if it does have any metaphor qualities, characterizes the kingdom of a personal hell. The kingdom of hell is like...
As far as contemporary application, how about addictions: an addict - alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, internet, etc. - when she stops, needs to replace/control the addiction motive and not assume everything has been cleaned up forever, otherwise seven more like it move in and wreak havoc.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Afternoon, Gene,
Thanks for the dialogue. My comments relate to your paragraph 2: the promythium "the kingdom of God is like," introducing some of the parables (less than half actually) are not inside the story world of the parable; hence it is part of the evangelists' hermeneutical strategy with respect to these stories. Both promythium (introductory comparative frame) and epimythium (concluding gnomic sentence about the story) are attached to the parable by the evangelists and are not traditional in my view.
However there is no such comparative frame introducing this story in either Matt or Luke inviting a metaphorical reading. Also when you examine the stories there are actually very few recognizable tropes inside the stories, which should discourage readers from using either allegorical or metaphorical reading strategies. Following the evidence I have come to the conclusion that the stories mean preciscely what they say and perhaps more, but the "more" that readers find arises in a reader's mind as a result of an engagement with the story, and is not found in the story inself.
See Hedrick, Many Things in Parables. Jesus and his Modern Critics (Westminster/John Knox, 2004).
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, I'm new to this site so shut me up when I've talked too much. I regret to say that I have not read your parables book. I have read your 4thR articles, your chapter in Profiles of Jesus (2002), and your editor's intro and chapter in When Faith Meets Reason (2008). Thanks for an introduction to the terms 'promythium' and 'epimythium.'
If I understand correctly, you view the parable stories as a naturalist and monist; they were originally intended to be astute observations of everyday life. They are probably not revealed info, metaphors, or symbols about/for an alternative reality such as the kingdom of God (this is the product of the early Christian writers). Further, the above approach to interpretation can be substantiated in the literature itself and is not, say, an imposed post-Copernican, so to speak, modern imposition on the text. (sorry for any misrepresentation)
As for myself, I think that Jesus, consistent with first century dualism, presented his thoughts with an alternative reality (kingdom of God?) context in mind. It is my only defense to cope with Hedrick's astute observation, "If God actually does have an ethical character, as I must believe, then I am forced to conclude that, for whatever reason, God has withdrawn from the world." (When Faith Meets Reason, 21)
It would seem to me that the 'returning demon' as a naturalistic monist educational text could be paraphrased: Did you know that demons behave like this... As such it might be of first century interest, but for modern interest 'demon' has to be translated into a contemporary reality, which is why I suggested 'addiction.' Did you know that addictions behave like this...
This Hedrick quote makes sense to me: "When human beings interact in certain kinds of ways, I am willing to say...that 'Jesus lives' in those encounters --not in a mythical sense but rather in the practical day-to-day sense that his ideas and practice continue to survive in community." (When Faith Meets Reason, 18). I would expand a bit 'to survive and prove their worth.'
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Morning Gene,
I am delighted to have your engagement with the issue as well as for the opportunity to share ideas. On the blog folks don't have to agree; they only have to disagree amicably. My view is that we all have to find our own way in the world holding views we are comfortable with, and we can all learn from one another.
On your second paragraph: I am of the opinion that we never know what people "intend" or have in mind, and that particularly includes written texts. We only know what they do or did. Hence we can never know what Jesus intended to do with his parables, all we have is the parable; his intention has long since passed into oblivion, and in any case only he knew what it was for sure. I will go a step further: Even when people tell us what their intentions are/were with this and than, we can never know if they speak the truth; we only know what they tell us. And sometimes, if we are honest, we are not even sure of our own intentions. When it comes to written texts, one's intention is not subject to criticism; only what one does can be critiqued. In other words, what one intended to do has no bearing on the product. The product deserves to be critiqued for what it is in itself. In other words the product speaks for itself--and so it is with parables.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, if you have time, could you share how your approach to parables applies to The Shrewd Manager (Luke 16:1-13): You wrote, "the product deserves to be critiqued for what it is in itself. In other words the product speaks for itself..."
(With the exception of those sections marked with an **, the church fathers attest to this story being in Marcion's Evangelion; see BeDuhn, First NT, 115-116, 172)
(NRSV) Then Jesus said to his disciples, "There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. So he summoned him, 'Give me an accounting...you cannot be my manager any longer.' Then the manager said to himself, 'What will I do...not strong enough to dig...ashamed to beg...I have decided what to do so that... people may welcome me into their homes. So summoning his master's debtors, 'You owe my master a hundred jugs of olive oil..., make it fifty. You owe a hundred containers of wheat, make it eighty.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their
own generation than are the children of light;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I tell you make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth, so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the
eternal homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Whosoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own.(Marcion's text: 'what is mine')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot serve God and wealth.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good Afternoon Gene,
I must ask you to wait just a bit longer. I am currently in press with a new book: "The Wisdom of Jesus. Between the Sages of Israel and the Apostles of the Church" (Wipf and Stock, Cascade). It should be out by the end of the year--hopefully by the time of the SBL meeting in November. In the book I have an entire chapter on the parable of "the Fired Manager" (Luke 16:1-7 are the definitive limits of the story). I cannot possibly do justice to such an interesting story in 700-800 words (my limits for the blog). But let me give you the essence of my last lines of the chapter:
The narrative can legitimately be said to raise the question of ends justifying means. But the narrator offers no ethical guidance for addressing the question. Hence the question of where to draw the line in the final analysis was left up to the auditor in the ancient world, and now to the modern reader.
Cordially,
Charlie
Charlie, I look forward to the book. Thanks for the summary of The Fired Manager (Lk 16:1-7). And I like the idea that the story-teller's motive was to create dialogue, to raise the question of means/ends in a provocative way, and thus to create an exploring community which finds truth in dialogue. I do wonder if the master's observation in vs. 8a qualifies for inclusion in the original.
For sometime now my approach to J's parables has been to see them as introducing an Alternative Reality in some way. For example, Fired Manager suggests pursuit of the A-R with a goal oriented passion similar to what is found in Treasure, Assassin, Unjust Judge, etc. Other stories give the A-R a bare-bones structure such as the unobtrusive beginning/huge ending of the Leaven, Mustard Seed, and Sower. Others such as The Samaritan seem to be more focused on A-R behavior content.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
HI Gene,
It is not really a summary of the parable, but rather a boiled down statement of my response to the narrative. I do not assert that the story teaches that ends justify means, but rather argue that the narrative is at least open to such a reading. You will have to evaluate my discussion of the story to see if my bucket holds water.
On verse 8a: Parables scholars are divided on the issue, but I do not think that the statement is part of the parable's world. I take it as the pronouncement of Luke's paper character, Jesus, whom Luke makes comment on the actions of the manager in the story. Again you will have to evaluate the argument.
Cordially,
Charlie
Post a Comment