Mark 5 - In Depth Bible Commentaries

NOT ONLY THE WIND AND THE WAVES–BUT ALSO THE DEMONIC FORCESTHAT DESTROY HUMAN PERSONALITY ARE SUBJECT TO JESUSMark 5:1-205.1 Êá ëèïí åò ô ðÝñáí ôò èáëÜóóçò åò ôí ÷þñáí ôí [Ãåñáóçíí]. 5.2 êáîåëèüíôïò áôï ê ôï ðëïßïõ [åèò] ðÞíôçóåí áô ê ôí ìíçìåßùí íèñùðïò íðíåýìáôé êáèÜñô, 5.3 ò ôí êáôïßêçóéí å÷åí í ôïò ìíÞìáóéí, êá ïä ëýóåé ïêÝôéïäåò äýíáôï áôí äóáé 5.4 äé ô áôí ðïëëÜêéò ðÝäáéò êá ëýóåóéí äåäÝóèáé êáäéåóðÜóèáé ð áôï ôò ëýóåéò êá ôò ðÝäáò óõíôåôñöèáé, êá ïäåò ó÷õåí áôíäáìÜóáé 5.5 êá äé ðáíôò íõêôò êá ìÝñáò í ôïò ìíÞìáóéí êá í ôïò ñåóéí í êñÜæùíêá êáôáêüðôùí áõôí ëßèïéò.5.1 And they came to the other side of the Sea, into the country of the [Gerasenes].5.2 And he, coming out of the boat, [immediately] there met him, out of the tombs, a personwith an unclean spirit, 5.3 who was having the dwelling-place among the tombs; and not evenwith a chain was anyone being able any longer to bind him. 5.4 Because he had many timesbeen bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and theshackles had been broken, and no one was having (the) strength to subdue him. 5.5 Andthroughout every night and day, among the tombs and in the hills he was crying out, andcutting himself with stones.5.6 êá äí ôí Éçóïí ð ìáêñüèåí äñáìåí êá ðñïóåêýíçóåí áô 5.7 êáêñÜîáò öùí ìåãÜë ëÝãåé, Ôß ìï êá óïß, Éçóï õ ôï èåï ôï øßóôïõ ñêßæù óå ôíèåüí, ìÞ ìå âáóáíßóò. 5.8 ëåãåí ãñ áô, Åîåëèå ô ðíåìá ô êÜèáñôïí ê ôïíèñþðïõ. 5.9 êá ðçñþôá áôüí, Ôß íïìÜ óïé êá ëÝãåé áô, Ëåãéí íïìÜ ìïé, ôéðïëëïß óìåí. 5.10 êá ðáñåêÜëåé áôí ðïëë íá ì áô ðïóôåßë îù ôò ÷þñáò.5.6 And seeing the Jesus from afar, he ran and fell upon his face before him. 5.7 And,crying out with a loud voice, he says, “What do you and I have in common, Jesus, Son of theGod, the Highest? I put you under oath, by the God, that you should not torment me.” 5.8For he was saying to him, “Come out, the spirit, the unclean one, out from the person.” 5.9And he was asking him, “What is your name?” And he says to him, “Legion is my name,because we are many.” 5.10 And he was begging him over and over that he should not sendthem out of the country.5.11 Çí ä êå ðñò ô ñåé ãÝëç ÷ïßñùí ìåãÜëç âïóêïìÝíç 5.12 êáðáñåêÜëåóáí áôí ëÝãïíôåò, ÐÝìøïí ìò åò ôïò ÷ïßñïõò, íá åò áôïò åóÝëèùìåí. 5.13êá ðÝôñåøåí áôïò. êá îåëèüíôá ô ðíåýìáôá ô êÜèáñôá åóëèïí åò ôïò ÷ïßñïõò, êáñìçóåí ãÝëç êáô ôï êñçìíï åò ôí èÜëáóóáí, ò äéó÷ßëéïé, êá ðíßãïíôï í ôèáëÜóó. 5.14 êá ï âüóêïíôåò áôïò öõãïí êá ðÞããåéëáí åò ôí ðüëéí êá åò ôïòãñïýò êá ëèïí äåí ôß óôéí ô ãåãïíüò .5.11 Now there was being there beside the hill a large herd of pigs, feeding. 5.12 Andthey begged him, saying “Send us into the pigs, so that we may enter into them.” 5.13 Andhe permitted them. And, having come out, the spirits, the unclean ones, entered into the pigs,and the herd rushed down the cliff into the Sea, some two thousand, and they were drowningin the Sea. 5.14 And the ones herding them fled, and they reported (it) in the city and in thecountryside. And they came to see what it is that had happened.399

5.15 êá ñ÷ïíôáé ðñò ôí Éçóïí êá èåùñïóéí ôí äáéìïíéæüìåíïí êáèÞìåíïíìáôéóìÝíïí êá óùöñïíïíôá, ôí ó÷çêüôá ôí ëåãéíá, êá öïâÞèçóáí. 5.16 êáäéçãÞóáíôï áôïò ï äüíôåò ðò ãÝíåôï ô äáéìïíéæïìÝí êá ðåñ ôí ÷ïßñùí. 5.17 êáñîáíôï ðáñáêáëåí áôí ðåëèåí ð ôí ñßùí áôí.5.15 And they come to the Jesus, and they see the one being demon-possessed,sitting, having been clothed, and being of sound mind, the one having had the “Legion”; andthey were made afraid. 5.16 And those seeing how it happened to the one being demonpossessed,and concerning the pigs, related (it all) to them. 5.17 And they began to beg himto depart from their regions.5.18 êá ìâáßíïíôïò áôï åò ô ðëïïí ðáñåêÜëåé áôí äáéìïíéóèåò íá ìåôáôï . 5.19 êá ïê öêåí áôüí, ëë ëÝãåé áô, õðáãå åò ôí ïêüí óïõ ðñò ôïòóïýò êá ðÜããåéëïí áôïò óá êýñéüò óïé ðåðïßçêåí êá ëÝçóÝí óå. 5.20 êá ðëèåíêá ñîáôï êçñýóóåéí í ô Äåêáðüëåé óá ðïßçóåí áô Éçóïò, êá ðÜíôåò èáýìáæïí.5.18 And as he is getting into the boat, the one who was demon-possessed wasbegging him that he might be with him. 5.19 And he did not permit him, but rather, he says tohim: “Go to your home, to your family; and report to them what things the Lord has done foryou, and (how) he had mercy on you.” 5.20 And he departed, and began to proclaim in theTen-City Area what things the Jesus did for him; and everyone was being amazed.Text with Footnotes: 632632In our study of the Gospel of Mark, we have seen its introduction of Jesus, the Son ofGod, and the Anointed King for God’s people–who has entered into human history, andwho has come from his home in Galilee to the Jordan River to be immersed by John,where he received divine acknowledgement for who he is. Then, immediately following 40days of testing, we have been told concerning his novel, exciting ministry in Galilee–wherehe proclaimed the Good News that the time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of Godhas drawn near–calling upon all people to turn their lives around, and to believe in theGood News. Mark has described how his ministry began at the Sea of Galilee, whereJesus called people to follow him, as he would make them “fishers of people.” We havealso seen how that “fishing expedition” began, with Jesus’ remarkable ministry of teaching,and healing, and casting out of all evil that thwarts human life. He was indeed “throwingout a large net,” seeking to reach all the people–including women and children, and theoutcasts of society, such as people infected with leprosy, and the hated tax-collectors.Mark has described how the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem rejected Jesus,deciding to put him to death–because this kind of ministry was breaking all their ancienttraditions of separation from such people, and because of the newness of what Jesus wasdoing. But while there was this growing, murderous opposition, Mark has also pictured thecrowds of people who kept on coming to Jesus, listening for his teaching, longing for hishealing touch. Out of their number there was beginning to grow an “inner circle” ofbelievers, who became the nucleus of the “Church”–or the “New Israel,” the “Family ofJesus,” with its twelve envoys representing Jesus–who would share in his ministry ofteaching the Good News, and casting out all evil. We have read Mark’s description of thekind of Message that Jesus gave–revealing the “Mystery of the Kingdom of God”–as being(continued...)400

632(...continued)like a farmer planting wheat seed in varying types of soil. In the same way, Jesus and hisfollowers were not only a “fishing expedition,” seeking to catch all people; they were also“farmers,” engaged in planting the divine seed of the Word of God in human hearts. Jesustaught his followers that their responsibility was to be faithful in this task of planting theseed, and he assured them that from that faithful planting, a great harvest, even auniversal harvest, would one day come.But who was this one who had come, leading these common Galilean people intosuch a “fishing expedition,” and showing the way of “sowing the seed of the Word of God”in human hearts? What right did he have to reach out across the barriers imposed byJudaism, in such a novel ministry, breaking the Jewish traditions? Was he simply anotherJew, claiming to be the Messiah, the Anointed One, but who would soon be proven to bean imposter, leading the people astray?Mark has related the story of how Jesus, so obviously human, was able to speak anauthoritative word of command to the storm on Lake Galilee, causing it to become calm–and Mark has told that story in order to give his readers insight into who this Jesus reallyis–the astounding fact is that Jesus is none other than YHWH God in human flesh–theCreator himself, coming to his creatures, overwhelming the chaotic forces that surroundand threaten them, giving them peace in the midst of life-threatening storms. So this firstof the Gospels believes, and reports.Now, in Mark 5:1-20, this same theme continues. No sooner did Jesus commandthe storm to be still, than he was confronted by an individual on the eastern side of the Seaof Galilee–whose life had been dominated by the darkest forces of human evil imaginable,a person whose life had been twisted and destroyed by terrifying dark powers of evil. Notonly is Jesus able to calm the stormy seas; he is fully able to calm the inner storms thatdominate and destroy humanity’s life. Mark tells of Jesus’ “remarkable control over theuntamable force of a man possessed not just by one demon but by a whole army of them.”(France, p. 226). This Jesus is the one who can meet humanity’s deepest needs for innercleansing, healing, and wholeness. What a claim. Jesus is, according to Mark, the greatVictor over all the dark forces of evil in human history. Do we dare to believe this ancientand earliest report of the Good News?Please read Mark 5:1-20 in at least two or more modern English translations, andthen see if you can answer the following questions before going on with these study-notes:1. Where does Mark say Jesus went? How do you deal with the many differencesconcerning his destination as reflected in the various Greek manuscripts? If the story isthis fuzzy with regards to the geographical location, how accurate do you think it is in theother details? Do you think this makes the historical reliability of this story questionable?2. How should we understand Mark’s description of this person as having “anunclean spirit”? Did the author witness this event himself, or had he received it by reportsfrom others? Did the author hear Peter tell this story in the City of Rome? Should we401(continued...)

632(...continued)characterize Mark’s description of what happened as “actual, historical fact”? Orshould we rather say that Mark is reporting the stories about Jesus told by first-handwitnesses, such as Peter in his preaching and teaching in Rome? How do you think amodern nespaper reporter would tell this same story–especially if the person wassuffering from alcoholism or drug addiction, or was labeled as “criminally insane”?3. If the source of spiritual “uncleanness” is demon-possession, how do you explainthe teaching of Jesus in Mark 7 that uncleanness originates in the human heart, not inanything external, that “comes from without”?4. What do you take the overall point of this story to be for Mark?5. In earlier stories in Mark, Jesus has been described as forbidding the personshealed from reporting what has happened to them. But here, Jesus refuses to let thisperson stay with him, and instead, sends him to report to others what he has experienced.Why the difference?6. Does this ancient story have any real relevance to the modern world and itsproblems? What is that relevance, if any? Should we conclude from this story that theonly real hope for the mentally ill and “insane” is exorcism by priests (or “Spirit-filledhealers”), not the type of psychiatric medicine that is practiced by modern professionaldoctors in the mental health field?7. The author of these notes holds that this story has great meaning andimportance for the modern world. It pictures Jesus as tackling the most difficult problemsknown to first century society, and doing victorious battle with the toughest evils thatafflicted people. Even though the picture is painted in terms of the first-century world-view,a view that is very difficult (or impossible) to hold in the modern western world, the storystill has importance and valid meaning–because it shows how Jesus and his followers aresent into the world of human suffering, to do battle with the most difficult and grievous ofhuman problems; and at the same time it assures the reader that Jesus of Nazareth is theultimate Victor over every form of human evil and uncleanness. What do you think?402

633 6345.1 And they came to the other side of the Sea, into the country of the635 636 637[Gerasenes]. 5.2 And coming out of the boat, [immediately] there met him, out of the633The third person plural aorist verb ëèïí, elthon, “they came,” is changed to the thirdperson singular form of the same verb h=lqen, elthen, “he came,” by a corrector ofSinaiticus (probably), Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Theta, Family 13 of Minuscules,Minuscules 28, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the Old LatinManuscript q, the Syriac tradition, the Bohairic Coptic and Epiphanius of Constantia (whodied 403 A.D.).The variant does not change the meaning of Mark, but only makes it center in Jesushimself, rather than in Jesus and his disciples.634What Mark evidently means is that Jesus and his followers went across the northernend of the Sea of Galilee, from the northwest shore to somewhere on the eastern side ofthe Sea. Compare footnote 605 on Mark 4:35.635The name Ãåñáóçíí, Gerasenon, “(of the) Gerasenes” (as is also read by Luke8:26), is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Minuscule 2427(probably), the entire Latin tradition and the Sahidic Coptic.It is changed to read (as does Matthew 8:28) Gadarhnw/n, Gadarenon, “(of the)Gadarenes,” by Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Family 13 of Minuscules, the“Majority Text,” the Peshitta Syriac and the Harclean Syriac.It is changed to read Gergusthnw/n, Gergustenon, “(of the) Gergustenes,” by W.It is changed to read Gergeshnw/n, Gergesenon, “(of the) Gergesenes,” by acorrector of Sinaiticus, L, Delta, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 33, 565,579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac andthe Bohairic Coptic.With this array of variant readings, it is very difficult to say what the original readingactually was. Taylor notes that “The textual variations are due to the fact that both Gerasa(30 miles to the southeast)...and Gadara (6 miles to the Southeast) are too far from thelake, and to the necessity of finding a site where the mountains run down steeply into thelake...” (P. 278)France likewise comments that “The complicated textual variants among the threesynoptic versions are perhaps best accounted for by an original Gadarhnw/n, Gadarenon inMatthew and an original Ãåñáóçíí, Gerasenon in Mark and Luke, with Gergeshnw/n,Gergesenon and related variants as subsequent attempts (perhaps originating withOrigen...) to provide a more suitable lakeside location...Near El Kursi, further north on theeast shore, there is a suitably steep bank. Hence the attraction of the later readingGergeshnw/n, Gergesenon, since ‘Gergesa’ is traditionally associated with El Kursi, and the(continued...)403

638 639 640tombs, a person with an unclean spirit, 5.3 who was having the dwelling-place among635(...continued)existence there of an impressive Christian church of the fifth century suggests that it hadsome traditional association with the story...” (Pp. 226, 227)We agree with Taylor and France in this evaluation, and because of the manyvariant readings, place the name of the country within brackets. And even so, thesealternative locations are unknown archaeologically as far as the coast-line of the Sea ofGalilee is concerned. To say the least, the geographical location is problematical. Thevariant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but they do place the exact locationin great doubt, and may indicate that the story is non-historical.If we accept the reading “(of the) Gerasenes,” we may conclude that the text impliesthat the City of Gerasa (modern “Jerash”), some thirty miles to the southeast, ownedterritory that extended all the way to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee. The fact is thatthere is simply insufficient evidence to determine the exact site intended by Mark; and itmay well be that the divergent textual evidence is a result of Mark’s own geographicalinexactitude, or even perhaps due to the fact that the story is non-historical, symbolical andtheological in nature. What do you think?636The adverb u,, euthus, “immediately,” is omitted by Vaticanus, W, Minuscule2427, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac and the Peshitta Syriac.Here the weight of the textual evidence is favorable for including the adverb; butMark’s constant use of the adverb may have lead copyists to insert the word. The adverbis placed within brackets to denote uncertainty as to its originality.637 rdThe 3 person singular aorist verb ðÞíôçóåí, hupentesen, which we have translated“there met (him)” (since the subject of the verb will be given later in the sentence, “aperson”), is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta, Theta,Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 579, 700, 1424, 2427, 2542,Lectionary 2211 and some other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read avph,nthsen, apentesen, a synonym with the same meaning, byAlexandrinus, W, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but says the same thingin a slightly different way.France comments that “The man’s voluntary approach to Jesus is surprising in viewof the attempt at disassociation in the next verse. Is it that there is something irresistableabout Jesus’ presence? Or is there an element of conflict within the man himself betweenhis own desire to meet Jesus and the reluctance of the ‘resident’ demons? (P. 227)638Or, “out of the graveyard.” Taylor notes that “It was a popular belief that cemeteries(continued...)404

638(...continued)were haunted by demons, and according to verse 3, the man has his dwelling-place there.”(P. 279) France comments that “Few more suitable places of shelter would be available toone ostracized from normal society than rock-cut tombs or burial caves.” (P. 227)Luccock interprets this element of the story allegorically, stating that “One of themost powerful and vicious evil spirits at work in the world has been, and is, the mentality ofthose who live in the tombs of yesterday...The greatest obstacle to social and spiritualprogress is the influence of those who have their beings in the tombs of yesterday.” (P.712) This is a good example of how allegory quickly reads ideas into a story that werenever really intended by its author. Granted, it may make “good preaching”–but thequestion is, “Is this really what this story means?” Our answer is, “No, it is not.”639The phrase , ek ton mnemeion anthropos, “out ofthe tombs, a person,” is changed to read , anthropos ekton mnemeion, “a person out of the tombs,” by Bezae, W, Theta, Minuscules 565, 700 anda majority of the Old Latin witnesses.It is changed to read only the word , anthropos, “a person,” byMinuscule 1355, a few other Greek manuscripts, a few manuscripts of the Latin Vulgateand the Sinaitic Syriac.The first variant does not change the meaning of Mark at all; it is simply replacingthe original word-order with a different one that means the same thing. The omission ofthe phrase that describes the person as coming “out of the tombs” has very slight textualevidence, and should probably be considered as simply an oversight on the part of thesecopyists and translators. The omission does not change the meaning of Mark.640Literally, “in an unclean spirit.” As Swete notes, the Greek preposition , en, “in,”means “in the sphere of,” or “under the influence of.” (P. 92). See footnote 124 on Mark1:23 for a discussion of his matter of “unclean spirits.”Maclaren comments that this story “...Paints for us not merely a maniac, but ademoniac. He is not a man at war with himself, but a man at war with other beings, whohave forced themselves into his house of life. At least, so says Mark, and so said Jesus;and if the story before us is true, its subsequent incidents compel the acceptance of thatexplanation. What went into that herd of swine?” (P. 178)But even if we agree with Maclaren’s argument, and interpret this story in a literalway, what does it mean for our own self-understanding, and for our ministry in this modernworld? Shall we see “demon-possession” in every person who acts in “bizarre, even crazy,self-destructive ways”? Shall we dismiss the findings of modern psychology andpsychiatry, and insist that the only solution to the problem of mental illness is to get“exorcists” to do their work in the mental hospitals instead of on channel television or intent-revivals?(continued...)405

640(...continued)The fact is that no matter how we may choose to interpret this story–whetherliterally, or symbolically, or in terms of an out-dated, pre-scientific way of describing mentalillness–the fact remains that we are always involved in a mysteriously difficult matterwhenever we seek to describe the “interior life” of human beings, especially when we aredealing with unusual, bizarre behavior that defies our usual understanding.Whenever we try to describe the “inner beings” of persons, what is happening“within” others, and ourselves, we are attempting to speak of and describe that which isintangible, mysterious, and incapable of being described literally and exactly. Weacknowledge this, confessing by our language that we live in a world surrounded by themysterious, by the intangible, by realities far greater than the physical senses are able todescribe.The stories we tell, or the psychological models we use, to describe these realitiesare not to be taken exactly, and literally (for example, the “id,” the “ego,” and the “superego”),but they are certainly to be taken seriously. They point to the reality of theseunseen, mysterious beings or forces that are at work in our lives, that cause us to do whatwe do, whatever their exact nature.The ancient world chose to describe these unseen, mysterious realities in terms of“demons” or “unclean spirits.” Our modern world chooses to use descriptive terms thathave grown out of the study of depth psychology and mental illness. It is obvious that ourmodern understanding and descriptive language has changed markedly as various schoolsof psychology have held sway.But regardless of the inability to arrive at a uniform, exact descriptive language, thereality of these unseen, inner forces at work in human personality simply cannot besuccessfully denied.There is far more to a human being than just a physical body that is born, thatmoves through life, and then dies, to be no more. There is within every human being amysterious “spiritual reality” that defies description, but that is nonetheless known, andreal, and of far greater value than simply bones and flesh and hair. And all too often, thatmysterious “inner being” becomes divided and confused, and comes under the powerfulinfluence of “unclean forces” that are destructive of human personality. This fact cannot beavoided–and the biblical documents do not seek to avoid it, but confront it openly andfrankly.When these biblical documents (such as Mark) seek to describe this reality in termsof people being under the influence and control of “unclean spirits,” what are we tounderstand by this? Must we, in their light, forsake the modern view, with its psychologicallanguage and models, and return to that earlier, first-century view, in which the earth ispictured as being inhabited by spirits and demons, by good and evil “angels” fighting forthe possession of human hearts? If so, there is little chance that the biblical message isgoing to get a fair hearing in our modern world.406(continued...)

640(...continued)But even if we are unable to share in this ancient way of describing this mysteriousreality, the fact is that there are still many people in this modern world who have beenovercome by, and who live under the influence of, “unclean spirits.” They have lost controlof their “inner lives,” and they have come under the control of destructive, terribly harmfulforces. Instead of directing their lives to positive, pure, morally upbuilding goals, theymove relentlessly towards negative, immoral, destructive ends–towards ruin. They hurtthemselves and those around them. They throw away family fortunes, and even take theirown lives in dangerous pursuits and addictions.Their “inner being,” their “spirit,” however we may choose to describe it, instead ofbeing a governing force for good and truth and purity, and instead of being in control, haslost control, and has become the source of life-threatening destructive forces. Is this not afact of human experience in our modern world, one that is all too real in many a brokenfamily, and in every city and country of our modern world? How else can we explain whatwe today label “alcoholism” or “sexual perversion,” or “drug addiction,” or “criminalinsanity”? Do not all of these labels point to the experienced fact that something has gonewrong “inside” persons, that their “inner being” or “spirit” has gone terribly wrong, and hasbecome “twisted,” or “perverted”?In the first century, the authors of the Gospels such as Mark, deeply influenced bytheir surrounding culture and world-views, sought to describe such universal humanexperiences in terms of being “possessed,” as “having a demon,” or as being under thedominating influence of “an unclean spirit.” The first century Jewish world had come underthe powerful influence of Persian religion, with its “dualism,” its God of Light (“AhuraMazda”) and its God of Darkness (“Ahriman”), with an array of heavenly angels and hellishdemons. The Jewish people, including Jesus, and the writers of the New Testament, weredeeply influenced by that “dualistic” world-view as they described the reality of evil innerforces in human lives.But is the student of Mark, or the disciple of Jesus in the modern world, bound toaccept that ancient “world-view,” that first century manner of explanation and description?Is it not much better to realize the culturally conditioned nature of that first centurydescription, and admit that it is no longer appropriate in the light of our modern way ofunderstanding and explanation?We insist that even though Mark, and Jesus, may have used this way of describingthe destructive inner forces in human personality, it is also true that according to Mark 7:1-23, especially verses 14-23, Jesus taught that the origin of uncleanness in the human spiritis from within, not from without, and placed responsibility for spiritual uncleanness squarelyon the individual’s inner thoughts and desires.“And again having called the crowd together, he was saying to them, ‘All of you,listen to me and understand. There is nothing from outside the person, which entering intohim, can make him common [or unclean]. But rather, those things that come out of theperson are the things that make the person common [or, unclean].’ And when they hadentered into a house, (away) from the crowd, his followers were asking him (concerning)(continued...)407

641the tombs; and not even with a chain was anyone being able any longer to bind him. 5.4640(...continued)the puzzling comparison. And he says to them, ‘Are you also likewise withoutunderstanding? Don’t you understand that everything that enters into the person from theoutside is not able to make him common [or unclean]? Because it does not enter into hisheart, but rather, into the stomach, and goes out into the toilet.’ (He is making all foodsclean.)“And he was saying that ‘that which comes out of the person, that is what makes theperson common [or unclean]. For from within, out of the heart of the people the evils planscome out–sexual misconduct, thefts, murders, violations of marriage covenants, desires toalways have more, malicious acts, deception, lack of self-control, stinginess, abusivespeech, haughty pride, lack of moral judgment–all these evil things come out from within,and make the person common [or unclean].”In spite, then, of using descriptive language that can be understood as meaning thatthe source of moral impurity is “external,” coming into a person from the outside, fromunclean, demonic forces, Jesus taught his followers specifically and pointedly that thesource of moral impurity is internal, not external; that the origin of defilement in humancharacter is “the heart,” the internal “spirit”–not something outside the human being.What an important teaching this is for our understanding of Jesus. We must alwaysevaluate whatever the New Testament says concerning “demons” or “unclean spirits” inthe light of this teaching. But however we may describe such phenomena, and howeverinexact, inadequate, and culturally conditioned both the biblical and our own description ofthese phenomena may be, this matter of people “having an unclean spirit” is dreadfully,painfully real.Human history is not the simple story of the always upward and onward march ofhumanity from simple, backward, low moral beginnings, to much higher, purer, intellectualgoals of sweetness and light. No, there is evil–real, destructive, powerful evil that canovertake our inner beings, and overwhelm every impulse for goodness and truth andpurity. There is a “spirit of uncleanness” that can take over our inner lives and pervertour characters.And, as we realize this discouraging fact, and contemplate the meaning of Markabout Jesus and the unclean spirits, we will begin to hear the Good News. It is that all thechaotic powers of evil and moral impurity–in whatever way we may choose to describethem–have met their match in Jesus of Nazareth. The fact of human experience inrelationship to Jesus is nothing less than this: any person who “turns around” and “placesdeep-seated confidence” in Jesus and his authoritative teaching, can find deliverance fromall those evil forces and unclean spirits that inhabit and control their inner beings, and thatthereby thwart and threaten and destroy their lives.641The implication of this statement is that at one time, people had been able to bind him(continued...)408

Because he had many times been bound with shackles and chains, and the chains had been642torn apart by him, and the shackles had been broken, and no one was having (the) strength643 644 645to subdue him. 5.5 And throughout every night and day, among the tombs and in the641(...continued)with a chain; but now he had become even more violent, and it was no longer possible.See the next sentence, that makes this fact explicit.642 The lengthy phrase , dia toauton pollakis pedais kai halusesin dedesthai kai diespasthai hup’ autou tas haluseiskai tas pedas suntetriphthai, “Because he had many times been bound with shackles andchains, and the chains had been torn apart by him, and the shackles had been broken,” ischanged to read o`,ti polla,kij auvto.n dedeme,non pe,daij kai. a`lu,sesin evn ai-j ev,dhsandiespake,nai kai. ta.j pe,daj suntetrife,nai, hoti pollakis auton dedemenon pedais kaihalusesin en hais edesan diespakenai kai tas pedas suntetriphenai, “Because oftentimeshe, having been bound with shackles and with chains in which they bound (him), he hadtorn apart and the shackles he had broken,” by Bezae, W (see), Family 1 of Minuscules(see), Minuscules 28 (see), 565 (see), 700 (see), 2542 (see), the Latin Vulgate (see),some of the Old Latin witnesses (see), the Sinaitic Syriac (see), and the Peshitta Syriac(see).The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but re-words it in aslightly different way, in a way found time and again in the Bezae manuscript of Acts.643Or, “tame (him)...” Maclaren comments that “He has superhuman strength, and hasknown no gentle efforts to reclaim, but only savage attempts to ‘tame’ by force, as if hewere a beast.” (P. 178)644Luccock asks, “What more perfect picture could be drawn of a futile dealing with agrave social problem?” (P. 713) He goes on to point out how this method of dealing withmental illness–the use of chains and fetters, “was inadequate in the Palestine of Jesus’day. But almost nineteen centuries went by without making any difference...The hoarysuperstition of the power of fetters and chains has flourished. There has been a blind trustin force as the only reason in dealing with conditions where force is no solution at all, butan acute aggravation of the disease.“It is true in penology–centuries of fetters and chains, of revenge and punishment,have brought no healing to the disease of crime. Poverty has at odd times been treatedwith stone walls and iron bars...We even try to meet the spreading disease of war withforce and more force. The ancestral delusion about ‘making our nation so strong withweapons that no other nation will dare to fight’ is the most often exploded superstition onearth. And still we labor under it.409(continued...)

hills he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones. 646644(...continued)“Jesus approached this social problem in a different way–with understanding,coming to the demoniac as a person, reaching into the seat of the trouble, the derangedmind and spirit behind the outward signs, and bringing with him the power to expel the evilspirit lodged within.” (P. 713)We appreciate very much Luccock’s deep social concern which he brings to thetext, and with which he interprets it–but we doubt very much whether this is the meaning ofMark–the abolition of force in the treatment of the criminally insane, or the abolition ofdefensive weapons on the part of world governments. It is always tempting for pacifistorientedinterpreters to read such matters into certain texts–while completely omitting oravoiding the powerful biblical motif of “Holy War,” and that of the “Divine Warrior” who useshuman armies to accomplish his will–which is that of conquering evil, with the ultimate goalof bringing universal peace to the world.645 The lengthy phrase , kai oudeis ischuen auton damasai; kai dia pantos nuktos kaihemeras, “and no had strength to subdue him. And throughout every night and day,” ischanged to read kai. mh,dena auvto.n ivscu,ein dama,sai. Nukto,j de kai. h`me,raj, kai medenaauton ischuein damasai, nuktos de kai hemeras, “and no one had strength to subdue him;but then night and day...” by Bezae, W (see), Minuscules 565 (see), 700 (see), and the OldLatin Manuscript e.Mark.This variant gets rid of Mark’s over-statement, but does not change the meaning ofThis phrase, “throughout every night and day,” is a literal and exact translation of theGreek text, and is another example of Mark’s committing the “all-fallacy.” Swete attemptedto water this down: “That is, at intervals during the night and the day...yet without anyprolonged intermission–practically ‘throughout every.’” (P. 178) We agree that this isprobably what Mark means; but just as we ourselves commonly do, Mark in fact overstatesthe fact.646Swete comments that “...His body may in this way have been gashed and scarred allover.” Maclaren interprets this as follows: “Insensible to pain, and deriving some dreadfulsatisfaction from his own wounds, he has gashed himself with splinters of rock, andhowled, in a delirium of pain and pleasure, at the sight of his own blood.” (P. 178)Lane holds that the individual was suicidal, attempting to take his own life in despairat ever finding sanity: “At intervals during the night and the day he would be seen amongthe tombs or on the mountains, wildly shrieking, cutting his flesh with sharp stones,attempting to destroy himself and bring to an end the torment of an unbearable existence.”(P. 182)410(continued...)

647 6485.6 And seeing the Jesus from afar, he ran and fell upon his face before him.646(...continued)This person would today, in a country like ours, be sent to a State Hospital, andwould be restrained with chemotherapy. His diagnosis would be that of a borderlinepersonality–a person who takes on the character of his surroundings. Such a person findsnothing good enough within himself to identify with and hang onto–and therefore cannothelp being influenced by whatever there is in his environment.This unique individual found himself, according to Mark’s story, split into 6,000 (theapproximate number of soldiers in a Roman “Legion”) or more personalities. There was nocohesion for his life and character, but only little bits and pieces, due to the total lack of acoherent “self.” In meeting Jesus, he found the kind of person he could look up to, andimitate–enabling him to find the coherence he lacked, and become able to hold himselftogether. At least this is the way one modern Psychologist has explained this story.We would simply say, in happening upon Jesus, this formerly “mad” person foundsomeone who would not run from him, or fear him, but who would reach out to him withhealing and sanity. This is the Good News of the story; the “how” (or the “where”) ithappened is beyond our investigation.647The aorist verb used here, ðñïóåêýíçóåí, prosekunesen, means “he worshiped,” “heprostrated (himself),” literally “he kissed towards.”For the only other use of this verb in Mark, see 15:19, where it used of the mocking“worship” of Jesus by the Roman soldiers.648The dative singular pronoun áô, auto, literally “to him,” is read by Sinaiticus,Bezae, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to the accusative singular form of the pronoun, auvto,n, auton, “him” asthe direct object of the verb, by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta,Minuscules 892, 1241, 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.The variant reading is in the nature of a grammatical correction of the original text,with these copyists holding that the accusative form of the pronoun is more correctgrammatically than the dative. But the variant does not change the meaning of Mark. Weare reminded of the many grammatical corrections made to the grammar of the originaltext of Revelation by later copyists and translators.France comments that “...Two spiritual powers are here in confrontation, and thenature of the man’s approach makes it clear which is the superior.” (P. 228)411

6495.7 And, having cried out with a loud voice, he says, “What do you and I have in650 651common, Jesus, Son of the God, the Highest? I put you under oath, by the God, that649Here again (see footnote 601 on Mark 4:35), Mark uses a present tense verb, therebymaking his readers a sort of “contemporaries” with the story being told.650Literally, “What to me and to you...?” Compare Mark 1:24. Of course, the implicationof the question is that “We have nothing in common.”Luccock sermonized that “In a deeper sense it has been through the years astandard question put to Jesus both by individuals and by disordered societies...Theanswer to the demoniac was that Jesus had much in every way to do with him...Jesus hasmuch to do with the individual disordered in body and mind.thOne of the most notable advances of the present [20 ] century in the whole realm ofmedicine is the discovery of the place and power of religious faith in healing. We arelearning that the line between body and spirit can never be rigidly drawn. Physical ills havea close relationship to mental and spiritual states. Jesus has much to do with illness, in thebringing of the gifts of a real faith–peace of mind, inner security, the calming of fears andneurotic storms, the calling forth of new interests, lifting life out of the shallow miseries of adebilitating self-concern.“Jesus has much to do with chaotic lives, not torn with physical disease so much astorn with conflicting desires, making an anarchy rather than a kingdom...Jesus has much todo with turning chaos into harmony, coming into disintegrated lives, and making ‘out of themany, one.’ He has much to do with society...He has much to do with marriage, and thehome, with education, with profit making...Jesus has cast out unclean spirits from men andwomen, the unclean spirits of greed, licentiousness, aggression, pride, race hatred. Thatis not theory; it is history. It is history reaching back to the dawn of the Christian era, toPeter and Zaccheus, to thieves and runaway slaves. It is contemporary history whereverlife has been brought into one great allegiance to Jesus as master, out of the frenzies ofmany passions.” (P. 714)Surely this kind of interpretation is a proper understanding of this text–not the kind ofinterpretation that rejects the modern view of mental illness, and spends its energies inattempting to defend this ancient way of describing mental illness as “demon possession.”651See Mark 1:1 with its footnote 7, and Mark 1:11 with its footnote 54. This crazedperson with an “unclean spirit” makes a completely orthodox confession concerning whoJesus is–“Son of the Highest God.” See the earlier story in Mark 1:23 with its footnotes114 and 115.“Highest God” is !Ay*l.[, lae, )el (elyon in Hebrew--see Genesis 14:18, 19 where itis the name used by the Canaanite Priest of God Most High [ôï èåï ôï øßóôïõ, toutheou tou hupsistou], Melchizedek, which is then adopted by Abraham and later used by(continued...)412

652you should not torment me.” 5.8 For he was saying to him, “Come out, the spirit, the653unclean one, out from the person!”651(...continued)others in Israel in their description of YHWH, God of Israel, and which is the exact phraseused by Mark at this point.Especially in the Hellenistic Dispersion (when so many Jews were scattered acrossthe Empire of Alexander the Great and his successors--the “Seleucids,” the “Ptolemies”and others, during the centuries prior to the coming of Jesus), this name for God wascommonly used, for example, a common name for Zeus was “Zeus Most High,” Zeuju[yistoj, Zeus hupsistos.652The person with an unclean spirit recognizes Jesus as his dangerous “opponent,” asone who can “torture me by judicial examination” (ìå âáóáíßóò, me basanises), whichimplies “destroy me legally.” Compare Mark 1:24, where the unclean spirit cries out thatJesus “has come to destroy him” (see footnote 128 on that passage). The implication iscertainly that Jesus has judicial authority over the unclean spirit within the person, and can“pass legal sentence” over that spirit. Jesus is recognized as the supreme Judge ofhumanity and its inner life in such a “confession.” See Revelation 18:7-8 and 20:1-3, 7-10,for this matter of punishment of the demons. Taylor comments that “Foiled in his hope ofappeasing the strange exorcist and rendering him powerless by the use of his name, thedemoniac in his terror makes a frantic appeal, ‘I adjure thee by God torment me not.’” (P.280)France comments that this is “an attempt to bind Jesus by oath to leave the demonsalone. The use of ovrki,zw, orkizo by the demon is surprising, since the term is morenormally associated with the exorcist who binds the demon by oath to come out, as in Acts19:13. Is this a deliberate attempt by the demons to reverse the normal encounter, and topre-empt Jesus’ expected use of such an oath formula? It is certainly an attempt toestablish control over Jesus...There is plenty of evidence in the magical papyri that to knowand declare the name of a person or spirit was believed to give power over them...Theexpectation on the part of the demons that Jesus’ purpose must be to torment themassumes that his relation to them is one not only of superiority but also of hostility.” (P.228)653This means that already, before the unclean spirit’s speaking to Jesus, Jesus hadcommanded (more than once, since Mark uses the imperfect tense, ëåãåí, elegen, “hewas saying”) the unclean spirit to come out of the person. Does this use of the imperfecttense also imply that Jesus was unable to cast out the unclean spirit with only onecommand? Note the use of the imperfect tense in the next sentence also, “And he wasasking,” ðçñþôá, eperota.Taylor wants to avoid this conclusion, holding that “Mark’s ëåãåí, elegen is used inthe sense of the pluperfect, ‘He had been saying’...This explanation is preferable to theview that Mark means that Jesus was repeatedly saying ‘come forth...’” (P. 281) But we(continued...)413

654 655 6565.9 And he was asking him, “What is your name?” And he says to him,657 658 659“Legion is my name, because we are many.” 5.10 And he was begging him over653(...continued)think that it makes the Greek tenses almost meaningless if we can arbitrarily say theimperfect is meant as pluperfect.654The implication of Mark’s use of the imperfect here is that the unclean spirit refusedto answer Jesus’ question when first asked, causing Jesus to repeat the question. Taylorcomments that the question as to the unclean spirit’s name is “...connected with theancient belief that knowledge of the name carries with it power over an adversary(compare Genesis 32:29) and over a demon...Wellhausen suggests that perhaps thedemon avoids giving its name, giving its number instead...” (P. 280) See footnotes 653and 660.655For this use of the present tense, compare footnote 649, and see the next footnote forthe variant readings in which the aorist tense is used instead of the present.656The phrase ëÝãåé áô, legei auto, “he says to him,” is changed to read avpekri,qh,apekrithe, “he answered,” by Bezae, a few other Greek manuscripts and a majority of theOld Latin witnesses.It is changed to read avpekri,qh le,gwn, apekrithe legon, “he answered, saying,” byE, Minuscules 565, 700 and many other Greek manuscripts.The variants do not change the meaning of Mark. They both are simply differentways of saying the same thing, the first changing from the present tense to the aorist, andthe second changing to the aorist with a present participle.657The name Legiw,n, Legion, is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, the first writer ofVaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae (see), L, Delta, Minuscules 579, a corrector of700 (probably), 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read Legew,n, Legeon, an alternative way of spelling the nameLegion, “a Legion,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, a corrector of Vaticanus,W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”In the Greek inscriptions starting in the first century A.D., the name often appears,and it is spelled in both of these ways in those inscriptions.“Legion” is a Roman military term [legio], found often in Roman military inscriptions,and used by both the Greeks and the Jews as a “loan-word.” It indicates an army or bandconsisting of some 6,000 soldiers, usually with approximately the same number of auxiliarytroops. As Swete notes, “To a Palestinian of our Lord’s time the name would connote not(continued...)414

660 661 662and over that he should not send them out of the country.657(...continued)only vast numbers...and submission to a superior will...but the miseries of a militaryoccupation by a foreign power...” (P. 95) France comments that “Jesus is not confrontedby one demon, but by an army of them.” (P. 229)Luccock comments that “One of the great services of Jesus to individuals is theintegration of personality...’Conversion’ is the unification of life, the end of the inner civilwar by the great peace of a unified mind and spirit, the making of one out of the many...How many there are who can truly say: ‘My name is Legion. There are many persons inme, pulling in opposite directions, many clamorous voices in the town meeting of the mind,with no gavel in the hands of a powerful chairman to bring them to order.’” (Pp. 714-15)Compare footnote 646.658 rdThe present indicative active, 3 person singular verb evsti,n, estin, “it is,” isinterpolated into the text by Vaticanus, Bezae (see–with a different word order), Family 13of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate andsome of the Old Latin witnesses.This variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but only makes explicitwhat is already implicit in the original text.659The strange combination of singular and plural with reference to this one person whois “many” is striking. The same combination of singular and plural is found in the earlierstory of a possessed person in Mark 1:21-28, where in verse 24 the person with anunclean spirit cries out saying, “What do we have in common, Jesus of Nazareth? Youhave come to destroy us. I know you, who you are–the Set-apart One of God.”Swete interprets as follows: at first, the individual spoke in the singular because the“spirits” were still working through one conscious “ego.” But then, when the “spirits” sawthat they were about to be driven out of the individual, they returned to using the plural.“The spirits at length dissociate themselves from the man, for they know that their holdover him is at an end, and the plural is consequently used.” (P. 96)Maclaren is more to the point with his statement, “Note the momentary gleam of thetrue self in the first word or two, fading away into the old confusion.” (Pp. 180-81) Itseems that we should see in this combination of singular and plural verbs the marks of the“border-line personality,” in which the individual, while struggling for self-identity andcontrol, is still under the control of all sorts of influences from the environment. Taylorquoted Bartlett: “In applying this name to himself the possessed man appealed to Christ’spity. It meant that he felt himself a mere congeries of uncoordinated impulses and evilforces–lacking a moral unity of will, and so not one, but an aggregate of many.” (P. 281)415

663 6645.11 Now there was being there beside the hill a large herd of pigs, feeding. 5.12660Literally, “And he was begging him many things (or, ‘much’)...” The implication of theimperfect verbs used in this story is that there was a lengthy conversation and strugglebetween Jesus and this person with an unclean spirit. Compare footnotes 653 and 654.661The phrase áô ðïóôåßë, auta aposteile, literally “them (neuter accusative plural)he might send forth,” is read by Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta and Theta (in adifferent word-order).It is changed to read auvtou.j avpostei,lh|, autous aposteile, literally “them (masculineaccusative plural) he might send forth,” by Bezae, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “MajorityText,” and in a different word order by Alexandrinus, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules579, 1241, Lectionary 2211, some other Greek manuscripts, and a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses.It is changed to read auvto.n avpostei,lh|, auton aposteile, literally “him (masculineaccusative singular) he might send forth,” by Sinaiticus, L, Minuscule 2427, a few otherGreek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriacand the Bohairic Coptic.This last reading, but in a different word order, is found in K, W, Minuscule 892 andsome other Greek manuscripts.The variant readings are rooted in the ambiguity of the text as to the nature of thedemon-possessed, whether he should be considered as one person or many, and whetherthe demon(s) should be referred to as masculine or neuter. But the variant readings do notchange the meaning of Mark.662Taylor notes that “The idea implicit in ‘out of the country’ was widely held in theancient world. Demons, it was held, were specially associated with a particular localityfrom which they were loath to be removed.” (P. 282) France notes that “Luke...understandsthe alternative as much more drastic than a mere change of earthly location: eijthn abusson apelqein, eis ten abusson apelthein (compare Revelation 20:1-3).” (P. 230)663In Israel still today, it is common to see animals being kept in cave-like holes in theside of hills–by far the easiest way to care for animals in a land where trees are so scarce,and where the rock is relatively easy to cut and dig into. This is probably what we are toimagine in this story.664The early commentators on this story point to how appropriate it was that the“unclean spirits” should be sent into the “unclean pigs.” France mentions that “aBabylonian exorcistic incantation offers a pig as an alternative host for the expelleddemon.” (P. 230) On the Jewish attitude towards pigs, see the following passages:(continued...)416

664(...continued)Leviticus 11:7 (the chapter lists the “unclean” animals); Deuteronomy 14:8 (see verses 1-22 for a shorter list of “unclean” animals and foods); Isaiah 65:2-7; 66:3, 17 and Proverbs11:22. Note especially the passages from Isaiah:“I spread out my hands all the day to a faithless people, who walk in a way that isnot good, to people who provoke me to my face continually; who sacrifice in gardens andburn incense upon bricks, who crouch in tombs, and spend the night in caverns; who eatswine’s flesh, and broth of unclean things is in their vessels; who say, ‘Stay where you are,do not come near me, for I make you unclean.’ They are smoke in my nostrils, a fire thatburns all the day. Behold, it is written before me: ‘I will not keep silent, until I have requitedit, I repay into their bosom their iniquities, and your fathers’ iniquity together,’ says YHWH.Those who burn incense upon the mountains and speak sacrilegiously of me upon thehills, to them I will measure the recompense into their laps.” (Isaiah 66:2-7)It is obvious from this passage that the eating of swine’s flesh was part of a fertilityritual, much akin to “black magic,” in which such eating was held to give the participants“power” with the deities being worshiped. As Claus Westermann points out, “‘Crouching intombs’ was for the purpose of obtaining oracles from the dead, and ‘spending the night incaverns’ signifies incubation [in Greek and Roman religion, a rite of sleeping on a skin oron the ground in order to enter into communion with the earth-gods through dreams] rites.”(Isaiah 40-66, p. 401) We think it quite possible that the eating of the swine’s flesh wascombined with the drinking of the animal’s blood, in an effort to have the powerful “spirit” ofthe swine enter into the worshipers, imparting new life and power to the worshipers thatwould make them a “source of uncleanness” to others. It was this kind of “idolatrousworship” that called down the judgment of doom against these people of Israel who wereforsaking the worship of YHWH God.“He who slaughters the ox–kills a human being; he who sacrifices a sheep–breaks adog’s neck; he who presents a cereal offering–it is swine’s blood; he who offersincense–he blesses the idol...’ Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into thegarden behind one in the midst eating swine’s flesh and [reptiles] and mice, shall come toan end together,’ says YHWH.” (Isaiah 66:3, 17)Here again, the Spokesperson is crying out against perversions of true worship; theworship of Israel has become detestable to YHWH. Involved in this worship is some usageof swine’s blood and mice–and it seems clear that if we knew more about the use of theseanimals in the fertility religions that they would be understood as having sexual, magicalfunctions in such a “debased” religion (at least in the eyes of the Spokespersons forYHWH in Israel). It may well be that the “one in the midst” who goes out into the gardenwith the worshipers is the sacred prostitute.At any rate, even though nothing more than a bare mention is made of swine inthese passages, it is clear that Israel connected swine with idolatrous worship, and felt thattheir use in worship was both debasing and immoral. Swine were included among God’s(continued...)417

665And they begged him, saying “Send us into the pigs, so that we may enter into them.” 5.13666And he permitted them. And, having come out, the spirits, the unclean ones, entered into664(...continued)“very good” creatures, according to Genesis 1:1-2:3. But something had happened inhistory to make these originally “clean” animals “unclean”–as is made clear by thepassages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. What had caused this? Our answer is that theswine had been made unclean by being used in the magical rites of the fertility religionssurrounding Israel, as these two passages from Isaiah 66 make abundantly clear.665The masculine nominative plural present participle, ëÝãïíôåò, legontes, “(they are)saying,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Family 1 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 892, 2427 and some other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read pa,ntej, pantes (this word is missing in K, Minuscule 579 andsome other Greek manuscripts) oi` dai,monej le,gontej, hoi daimones legontes, “all thedemons are saying,” by Alexandrinus, Minuscule 33 (probably) and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read panta, panta (this word is missing in Bezae) ta. daimo,niaeiv,ponta, ta daimonia eiponta, “all the demons, saying” (with an aorist participle instead ofthe present participle), by Bezae, Theta, Minuscules 565, 700 (see), a few other Greekmanuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscript a.It is changed to read parakale,santej ei=pon, parakalesantes eipon, “begging, theysaid,” by W, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28 and 2542.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate thefreedom felt by later copyists and translators to make slight changes and commentary-likeadditions to the original text in an effort to enhance its reading.666The phrase ðÝôñåøåí áôïò, epetrepsen autois, literally “he permitted to them,” isread by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules,Minuscules 28, 579 (see), the first writer of 892, 2427, 2542, the Old Latin Manuscripts b,e, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Peshitta Syriac, the Bohairic Coptic and Epiphanius of Constantia(who died 403 A.D.).It is changed to read ev,pemyen auvtou,j, epempsen autous (+ o` vIhsou/j, ho Iesous,by Minuscules 565 and 700), “he sent them (the Jesus),” by Theta, Minuscules 565 and700.It is changed to read euvqe,wj ku,rioj vIhsou/j ev,pemyen auvtou,j eivj tou.j coirou,j,eutheos kurios Iesous epempsen autous eis tous choirous, “immediately Lord Jesussent them into the pigs,” by Bezae, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old LatinManuscripts c (see), a corrector of ff, I (see), and a corrector of r.418(continued...)

667the pigs, and the herd rushed down the cliff into the Sea, some two thousand, and they were668 669 670drowning in the Sea. 5.14 And the ones herding them fled, and they reported (it) in the666(...continued)It is changed to read evpe,treyen auvtoi/j euvqe,wj o` vIhsou/j, epetrepsen autoiseutheos ho Iesous, literally “he permitted to them immediately the Jesus,” byAlexandrinus, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 1241 (in a different word-order),the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, and the HarcleanSyriac.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but do change thepronoun from dative to accusative, and then add in additional words that are alreadyimplied in the original text. Here again we witness the freedom felt by later copyists andtranslators to make slight changes to the text being copied / translated, without altering itsoverall meaning.France comments that “The appeal pe,myon h`ma/j, pempson hemas, ‘send us,’underlines further the total submission of the demons to Jesus’ authority. There is noquestion that he will send them away; the only issue is where.” (P. 230)667Or, “down the steep slope” (kata. tou/ krhmnou/, kata tou kremnou), used in ClassicalGreek for the steep bank or edge of a river.668 rdThe 3 person plural imperfect passive verb ðíßãïíôï, epnigonto, means “they werechoking,” or “they were strangling,” or “they were drowning.”669Johannes Weiss holds that “It was the paroxysm accompanying the exorcism whichset the herd in motion. The man hurled himself upon the swine, struck terror into them,and drove them down the steep. For long he had been overpowered by the idea that thedemons by whom he was possessed would like to enter into them, and he recognized theopportunity provided by the strange exorcist who asked him his name...” (Quoted byTaylor, pp. 282-83)Some have, on the basis of this passage, charged Jesus with something akin to thedestruction of private property through allowing the demons to enter the pigs, and therebybecoming responsible for their destruction. Lane responds to such criticism with the words“Jesus allows the demons to continue their destructive work, but not upon a person.” Headds, “Jesus allowed the demons to enter the swine to indicate beyond question that theirreal purpose was the total destruction of their host.” (P. 186)According to Mark, both the unclean spirits and the unclean swine were driven byJesus into the depths of the sea, thereby totally destroying those unclean, chaoticelements that threaten humanity. Jesus, just like YHWH God in the Hebrew Bible, is theconqueror of chaos.419(continued...)

671city and in the countryside. And they came to see what it is that had happened.672 6735.15 And they come to the Jesus, and they see the one being demon-674 675possessed, sitting, having been clothed, and being of sound mind, the one having had the669(...continued)France comments that “Jesus’ acceptance of the appeal [of the demons] results inthe destruction of a large herd of pigs [2,000!]. Neither Mark nor the other synopticevangelists show any awareness of the moral questions which so naturally arise in amodern Western mind with regard to both the gratuitous and large-scale loss of animal lifeas well as the substantial economic loss inflicted on an innocent third party.” (P. 230)670 rdThe 3 person plural aorist indicative verb ðÞããåéëáí, apeggeilan, literally “theyannounced,” is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus,Bezae, K, L, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 579, 700, 892, 1241, 1424,2427 and many other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read avnh,ggeilan, aneggeilan, with the same meaning, by W, Delta,Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 2542, Lectionary 2211, many other Greekmanuscripts and Epiphanius of Constantia (who died 403 A.D.).The variant reading is another example of the freedom felt by copyists to substitutea synonym for the word used in the original, without changing the meaning of Mark.671Literally, “...and into the fields,” or “...and into the farm-villages” (åò ôïò ãñïýò, eistous agrous).672This verb, e;rcontai is in the present tense, “they come,” as is the following verb,qewrou/sin, “they see,” thereby placing the reader in the story as an eye-witness. Comparefootnotes 649 and 655.673See the preceding footnote.674The word translated “demon-possessed” is an accusative present participle in Greek(ôí äáéìïíéæüìåíïí, ton daimonizomenon), and it seems that Mark would have used adifferent tense–like the perfect, “who had been demon-possessed,” as he does in thephrase that follows, “the one having had the legion” (ôí ó÷çêüôá ôí ëåãéíá, toneschekota ton legiona) and in verse 18, äáéìïíéóèåò, daimonistheis, “having beendemon-possessed.”675In the description of this person, four present participles are used--äáéìïíéæüìåíïí,êáèÞìåíïí, ìáôéóìÝíïí, êá óùöñïíïíôá, daimonizomenon, kathemenon, himatismenon,(continued...)420

676“Legion”; and they were made afraid. 5.16 And those seeing how it happened to the one677being demon-possessed, and concerning the pigs, related (it all) to them. 5.17 And they675(...continued)kai sophronounta, “being demon-possessed, sitting, being clothed, and being of soundmind.”As Swete points out, this “possessed” person is now pictured as “...free from theslavery of headstrong passions, master of himself again.” (P. 98) What a change it makesin human character to get in touch with Jesus–still today, almost 2,000 years later!676The phrase ôí ó÷çêüôá ôí ëåãéíá, ton eschekota ton legiona, “the one havinghad the legion,” is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, L, Delta, Minuscules 579, 2427, theOld Latin Manuscript aur and some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.It is changed to read to.n evschko,ta to.n legeo,na, ton eschekota ton legeona, “theone having had the legeon,” by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0107, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The phrase is omitted by Bezae, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses,the Sinaitic Syriac and the Bohairic Coptic.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark. The first variant is simplythe alternative way of spelling “legion” (see footnote 643). The omission of the phrase maybe an expression of the desire of these copyists and translators to shorten the text byeliminating unnecessary words–since the omission does not change the meaning in anyway.For this name “Legion,” or “Legeon,” see footnote 657.677Compare footnote 674. Here again, strangely, the present participle is used, ôäáéìïíéæïìÝí, to daimonizomeno, “to the one being demon-possessed.”421

678 679began to beg him to depart from their regions.680 6815.18 And as he is getting into the boat, the one who was demon-possessed was682 683begging him that he might be with him. 5.19 And he did not permit him, but rather, he678The phrase ñîáíôï ðáñáêáëåí áôí, erksanto parakalein auton, “they began tobeg him,” is changed to read pareka,loun, parekaloun, “they were begging,” by Bezae,Theta, Minuscules 565, 700, 1424, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old LatinManuscript a and a few manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic.The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but says the same thingas the original, only in a briefer way.679Literally, “from their boundaries.” France comments that “Jesus’ meek acceptance ofthe local people’s desire to be rid of him is assumed without comment.” (P. 232)Strange reaction, isn’t it? Luccock, while admitting that this story has many“opaque” features, holds that this is an all too typical response of our world to thetransforming power of Jesus. “Apparently they feared sanity less than insanity...Manypeople today, and through the years, concerned for the continuation of some existing orderor custom, either because it works to their advantage, or because of the dead weight ofinertia, fear sanity far more than the perpetuation of delusion. They are afraid of man in hisright mind. The militarist fears with congealing terror the spectacle of a humanitystruggling to emerge from the delusions of force. The disciples of ‘white supremacy’ fearthe debunking of humbug on the subject of race...It is easy to grow indignant and scornfulabout the blind folk, like these villages of Gerasa, who prefer the evils of disorder to sanityof mind and spirit. But the question comes home to each of us. Are we infected in anyway by that blindness? Can we listen in our day to the voice of Jesus saying, ’Comeout...you unclean spirit’?” (P. 716)Schweizer comments on verses 15-16 that “Accurate eyewitness accounts may behelpful–but all this does not result in the understanding of faith.” (P. 106)680Maclaren notes, “And he goes away. The tragedy of life is that we have the awfulpower of severing ourselves from His influence. Christ commands unclean spirits, but Hecan only plead with our hearts.” (P. 184)681Here, in contrast to the preceding two present participles used to describe thedemon-possessed person (verses 15 and 16), Mark here uses the aorist participle, äáéìïíéóèåò, ho daimonistheis, which means “the one who was possessed” (but now isnot).682For the phrase “to be with Jesus,” compare Mark 3:14 with its footnote 406. “Beingwith Jesus” was the first prerequisite for becoming an “envoy” for Jesus in the world. Isthis what the formerly demon-possessed person desires to become? And what could(continued...)422

684 685 686says to him: “Go to your home, to your family; and report to them what things the Lord682(...continued)possibly be wrong with this request?683We have entitled the section Mark 3:7-12 “Loving Deeds of Ministry to All People–OnHis Own Terms, Not Theirs.” There, Mark pictured Jesus as warning people who hadbeen cleansed of unclean spirits against making him known–see footnote 395 on thatpassage.Jesus retains the authority to call his “envoys,” and to determine who will be withhim. He does not simply do whatever people desire him to do. So it is with this formerlydemon-possessed person. He desires to become a close associate of Jesus, perhaps tobecome one of his envoys–but Jesus has other plans for his future.Maclaren comments on the refusal of Jesus to grant this request: “Strange thatJesus should put aside a hand that sought to grasp His in order to be safe; but His refusalwas, as always, the gift of something better, and He ever disappoints the wish in order tosatisfy the need.” (P. 184)France comments that “The reason for his refusal is...the positive one that this manhas an opportunity, which is uniquely his, to spread the news of what God is doing throughJesus of Nazareth among those who have known what he was before, and who thereforecannot ignore the dramatic change which has resulted from his encounter with Jesus.” (P.232)684Literally, “your house, to those who are yours” (ïêüí óïõ ðñò ôïò óïýò, oikon soupros tous sous).As Swete notes, “the man’s first duty was to his own house (where he had longbeen a stranger) and to his relatives and acquaintances...His tale was to be told in his owncircle first.” (P. 99)Schweizer comments that “Jesus’ answer shows how impossible it is to have astereotyped definition of discipleship. One person is taken away from home and family(1:16-20), another is sent back to them contrary to his own wishes. Discipleship is not away of salvation by which the individual can secure his own happiness. The concern ofdiscipleship is always how the Good News can best be proclaimed and passed on toothers.” (P. 114)Luccock comments that “These final words to the healed demoniac have apermanent and universal meaning for all who have in any way been recipients of therestoration, the healing, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Go into your familiar andaccustomed world and there bring your steady witness to the power of the Master. It is thehardest thing to do, but it is also the most fruitful...(continued...)423

687 688has done for you, and (how) he had mercy on you.” 5.20 And he departed, and began to684(...continued)“That refusal [of Jesus to allow the demoniac to stay with him] has much to say to usall in the great business of channeling religious emotion into duty and service. So oftenthis flow is blocked by an emotional desire to stay with the original religious experiences, tokeep life fixed at that point...There is the allurement of new surroundings and scenes ofoperation. It seems like an anti-climax to a great experience to go back to the familiar andperhaps prosaic routine of ordinary life. But Jesus gave the test of religious devotion, ‘Gohome to your friends, and tell them.’ Go into the family, into the workshop, into civil life,where there is endless need for effective witness.” (P. 717)685 ndThe 2 person singular aorist imperative verb , apaggeilon, “report!” isread by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Theta, Minuscules 579, 2427and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to the form dia,ggeilon, diaggeilon, meaning the same thing, by P45,Bezae, W, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 700, 2542 and a few otherGreek manuscripts.It is changed to read avna,ggeilon, anaggeilon, meaning the same thing, byAlexandrinus, L, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The variant readings are examples of the freedom felt by later copyists to substitutesynonyms for words found in the original, without changing its meaning. See the use ofthis same verb in verse 14.686Swete notes that “the Lord” is the same as “YHWH” or “Adonay” in the Jewish Bible.Commentators are divided over whether this means “Tell them what I, the Lord,have done for you,” or “tell them what YHWH, Adonay, has done for you.” But it seemsobvious that the text means to identify Jesus as “the Lord,” as the one in whom andthrough whom YHWH, the God of Israel, Adonay, is at work in human history.France comments that “In this narrative context o` ku,rioj, ho kurios, ‘the Lord,’ usedin Jesus’ words as a third-person designation of the one who is the source of the ev,leoj,eleos, ‘mercy,’ must surely refer to God rather than Jesus himself (Luke has explicitly o`qeo,j, ho theos, ‘the God’)...” (P. 232) What do you think?687The phrase êýñéüò óïé, ho kurios soi, “the Lord for you,” is read by Sinaiticus (see),Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Theta, Minuscule 2427 and the first writer of theOld Latin Manuscript ff.It is changed to read soi o kurioj, soi ho kurios, “for you the Lord,” byAlexandrinus, L, W, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule(continued...)424

689 690proclaim in the Ten-City Area what things the Jesus did for him; and everyone was being687(...continued)33, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate and some of the Old Latin witnesses.It is changed to read, as does Luke 8:39, soi o` qeo,j, soi ho theos, “for you, theGod,” by Bezae and Minuscule 1241 (see).The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, especially the change inword-order does not. The change from “the Lord” to “the God” is a typical variant reading,and makes little difference for the narrative.688It is unusual for Mark that here the cleansed person is charged by Jesus to report, totell what Jesus has done, and the mercy shown to him. Elsewhere in Mark those whohave been healed are forbidden to tell anyone–compare for example, Mark 1:44 with itsfootnote 216, and Mark 3:12 with its footnote 395.France comments that “The contrast with Jesus’ command to silence in 1:44 (andsubsequently in 5:43; 7:36; 8:26) is striking, and prompts the question why Jesus is sokeen to avoid publicity among Jews but has no objection to Gentiles hearing about hismiracles. This is, of course, part of the whole enigma of the theme of secrecy in Mark. Butif it is true that publicity among the Jews posed the risk not only of inconvenient popularenthusiasm (compare 1:45-2:2) but also of a misguided popular assessment of hismessianic role...in Gentile territory this risk did not exist, since it was far from the scene ofJesus’ regular ministry and there was no ready-made messianic expectation to contendwith.” (Pp. 232-33)We agree with France. This former demon-possessed person lives in the area tothe east of the Sea of Galilee–in the “Ten-City Area,” and his telling of what Jesus hasdone is not nearly so apt to bring more crowds and trouble to Jesus as he leaves thatcountry and returns to Galilee. Swete suggests that “The request is refused, because theman is wanted for immediate service. The eastern shore of the lake was for the presentclosed against Jesus and the Twelve. A preparatory publication of the demoniac’s storywas necessary in anticipation of a later visit (Mark 7:31ff). What had been prohibited inGalilee (Mark 1:43-44) is under other circumstances not only permitted but commanded inDecapolis.” (P. 99)689The infinitive verb is êçñýóóåéí, kerussein, “to proclaim aloud (as a herald),” “topreach.”Swete notes that “the man became a kh,rux, keruks [‘herald,’ ‘preacher’], sharing inhis measure the ministry of Christ and the Apostles (1:14; 3:14).” (P. 100)France comments that “The use of êçñýóóåéí, kerussein suggests that here is agenuine Gentile equivalent to the proclamation which is being made both by Jesus (1:14,38-39) and by his disciples (1:45; 3:14) among the Jews of Galilee.” (P. 233)425

amazed. 691690The noun (in the dative) is Äåêáðüëåé, Dekapolei, literally “in (the) Ten City [Area].” Itis the name of a league of originally ten cities, in the area now occupied by Jordan. Itsnorthern boundary was Damascus; its southern boundary was Philadelphia; one of itscities (Scythopolis) was on the western bank of the Jordan River.691Here is a description of one of the earliest “preachers”; his successful proclamationresulted in many (Mark again commits the “all-fallacy” here by stating that “everyone wasamazed”) people being attracted to the possibility of a divine manifestation having occurredin Jesus.Anderson thinks that “the Greek verb in ‘they were afraid’ [èáýìáæïí, ethaumazon,rdthe 3 person plural imperfect, literally ‘they were being afraid’] signifies religious awe forMark (see especially 4:41 and 16:8) and would here denote awe before the mystery ofJesus’ authority.” (P. 147)France comments that “Already the foundation has been laid for the extension to theGentiles of the ministry and mission of the Jewish Messiah (13:10; 14:9).” (P. 233)But what shall we make of this story, occurring as it does in such a powerfuldocument as the Gospel of Mark?The American preacher, Halford Luccock, admitted frankly, “The story reflects thedemonology of the day, with additional features, resembling a folk story...about demonsconjured into swine, joining unclean spirits with unclean animals...Surely the long andfruitless debate over this story between Huxley and Gladstone, with Huxley rejecting thewhole story and Gladstone defending to the death the literal truth of every detail, points outthe futility of literalist dealing...The chief point is...the calm confidence and courage withwhich Jesus handles the demoniac. All else is secondary. Yet there are validsuggestions, taken not as doctrine, but as first aid to the imagination, picturing theresources of Christ for disordered minds and a society in the grip of evil spirits.” (P. 712)This is quite a subjective judgment; how are we to distinguish between what is“primary” in the story, and what is only “secondary”?Schweizer characterizes the story as “...One of the strangest stories in Mark. Onesuspects that an account of a healing by Jesus has been combined with a popular fairytale about a ‘defrauded devil’...An ancient story about Jesus casting out a demon [which]has been enlarged by the addition of various legendary features, but primarily through theaddition of the folksy description of the pigs which rushed into the water.” (Pp. 111-112)Taylor, however, evaluated this story in a much more positive manner: “The manyartless details, the picture of the man smashing his fetters and cutting himself with stones,the dialogue, the expulsion, the description of the man ‘sitting, clothed, and in his rightmind,’ the attitude of the spectators, the kind of message the man proclaimed in theDecapolis, are details taken from life. We have good reason to classify the narrative as(continued...)426

691(...continued)Petrine [that is, as having been told by Simon Peter in Mark’s hearing] in origin. It isanother question how we are to interpret what is told...“The greatest difficulty is the account of the swine. If we reject mythicalexplanations, or the suggestion...that a secular story has been incorporated...and if weaccept a psychological explanation of possession, we must explain the panic of theswine...as occasioned by the paroxysm of the man’s cure.” (P. 278) Compare footnote669.Maclaren states that “The awful picture of this demoniac is either painted from life,or it is one of the most wonderful feats of the poetic imagination. Nothing more terrible,vivid, penetrating, and real was ever conceived by the greatest creative genius.” (P. 177)We think that Maclaren is greatly overstating the case, and that writers of fiction canoftentimes duplicate such a horrifying story. See, for example the movie The Exorcist.A more recent student of Mark, Lane, holds that “The vivid details appear to reflectin part eyewitness report and in part the explanation supplied by townspeople long familiarwith the history of the violent man of the tombs. Mark has not included the narrative in hisGospel merely because he delights in a well-told story. This account, more graphicallythan any other in the Gospels, indicates that the function of demonic possession is todistort and destroy the image of God in man. The subordinate detail of the destruction ofthe herd of swine has bearing upon this fact. For this very reason Jesus could not avoid asignificant confrontation with demonic possession. His sovereign authority and the qualityof his salvation that he brings finds graphic illustration in this historic account.” (P. 180)What should we conclude from all of this, with its array of conflicting opinionsconcerning the nature of this biblical story?We should recognize forthrightly the story’s culturally limited description of mentalillness in terms of “demon possession” (see footnote 640); and in the light of this, weshould acknowledge that in this story, a first-century author, who held to the ancientworld’s way of understanding and describing mental illness (indeed, what else could hedo? This is what we call the “human element” in the story), is giving his testimony to thehealing power of Jesus.But at the same time, we should recognize that this story is dealing with a timelessproblem, one which we continue to face at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Andwe should be open to the possibility of hearing in this story the Good News of God’sdeliverance through Jesus that is being offered to a humanity that suffers under thepowerful influence of mental illness and distorted character.According to this story, our Creator God has entered into human history, to do battlewith, and overcome, all the evil, chaotic forces that pervert and destroy human character.He who could bring peace to the raging storm at sea, has been just as victorious over all(continued...)427

691(...continued)those raging storms within the human psyche, at great cost–and as a result of his victory,offers suffering humanity sanity and wholeness of life. This (what we call the “divineelement” in the story) we can believe and proclaim–and it is indeed Good News for each ofus, and for the whole world.Of course, if we can solve all our problems by ourselves–if our children are notinvolved in drug addictions, or in mental illnesses, or in suicides--and if we have theanswers to criminality, and to sexual perversions that lead to AIDS and other venerealdiseases, as well as to crimes against others (even little children)–then we can simplydismiss such an ancient story as worthless, and something we can easily afford to neglect,refusing to take it seriously.But if we find ourselves and our families trapped in our human weaknesses andfolly, and down-right sinfulness, we will quickly recognize that such an attitude is utterfoolishness. The fact is, we are weak and sinful; the world we live in is plagued with tragicmental illness and disease, and social aberrations and evils that threaten us withdestruction.Indeed, in a symbolic way, this individual named “Legion” could stand for modern,twenty-first century humanity–with the preceding century’s terrible possession of thedemons of Nazism, and Atheistic Communism, and Materialism, and the worship ofPleasure and Selfishness, and murderous Racism. Dare we think that all of theseterrifying demons have been exorcized from the twenty-first century?The fact is, we desperately need a divine source of sanity, of being set free from theterrible chaotic forces that attack and destroy human happiness and hope and justice andpeace. Jesus of Nazareth, according to the Good News of Mark, is just such a source–theOne sent from God with the power to overcome all the forces of chaos that threaten anddestroy human life.Mark wants us to know that we are not alone in this struggle against the chaoticevils that confront us in human history. No, our Creator God has taken our side in thefight. He himself has entered into history, to do battle with all the dark forces of evil. TheGood News is that in Jesus of Nazareth he has won the victory. That’s the Good News ofMark.Mark 5:1-20 informs its readers that the Creator God, YHWH of Israel, who hascome to us in Jesus of Nazareth, is none other than the Victor over all the chaotic forces ofevil that afflict and distort humanity in history. The manifold evils that inhabit our innermostbeings have met their Conqueror in Jesus. The unclean spirits and the demonic forcesthat hinder and confuse and blind and bind us have met their match–we are not engagedin a helpless fight with no hope of victory. We are assured of ultimate triumph, and we donot have to be afraid of the powers of darkness. Our victorious King has come–he hasconquered all the forces of evil–and in following him, we too are assured of victory. That’sthe Good News of Mark.428(continued...)

691(...continued)429

PRAYERO God, we confess that in the presence of your greatness, we are weak and small; weare unable to save ourselves apart from your powerful action on our behalf. We are part of amodern world faced with seemingly incurable problems–with drug addictions, and with mentalillnesses that weigh down upon us like a heavy hand, leaving us unable to pull ourselves up byour own bootstraps. We do not have the answers to crime, to terrorism, or to drug addiction,or to crime, or to the juvenile violence that fills our schools and city streets. The AIDSepidemic has struck deep into our midst, and even though we are making some strides incontrolling the disease, still hundreds of thousands of lives are lost every year to this scourge,world-wide, especially in the countries of Africa–but also in our own cities and counties of theUSA. Our homes are broken, and our marriages fall apart; our children rebel against us, andwreck their lives.No, we are not the strong and the powerful, who are in control of our futures–we are intruth people who are weak and sinful, and dying. We face dark, evil forces–unclean demonicpowers that have taken control of our world in the twentieth century, such as the dark forces ofNazism, and Atheistic Communism, and closer to home, our Racism, and a Materialism thatdenies your name, and seeks to find ultimate meaning in life through devotion to physicalpleasures and sensations. We have come to worship Pleasure, and Power, and Possessions–and by whatever name they are called, truly they are “Legion”–and we are their victims. Theytake up their dwelling-place within our personalities, and lead us to destroy ourselves.O God, how deeply we need a divine source of sanity and purity, that will enable us tobe freed from the terrifying demonic forces that attack and destroy human happiness, andhope, and peace. We have gathered here today to rejoice in the Good News that we find inour Bible–telling us that Jesus of Nazareth is just such a source of wholeness of mind andgenuine goodness and purity. He is the One sent from you, to overcome all the demonicforces of evil that threaten to destroy us, and we can be victorious over all demonic evil, if wewill only let him cast out our evil, and restore our right minds.Yes, you yourself have taken our side in this fight to the finish with evil. You haveentered into our history in Jesus, to do battle with all the dark forces of evil–and through him,you have won eternal victory for us. Through him, the manifold evils that inhabit our innermostbeings have met their Victor–and therefore we are not engaged in a hopeless fight, but areassured of eternal victory–because our King has come, and has taken our side, and has wonthe victory for us. Thanks be to you, our God. Eternal praise and glorious radiance be yoursforever and ever.Let us here and now, resolve to hide our lives in Jesus, commiting ourselves to hisguidance and care, letting him win the victory over evil in our own hearts and lives. In thisway, grant us the victory, through our Lord and King, Jesus. In his name we pray. Amen.430

SIGNS OF THE COMING KINGDOM:SICKNESS AND DEATH CONQUERED BY THE KINGMark 5:21-435.21 Êá äéáðåñÜóáíôïò ôï Éçóï [í ô ðëïß] ðÜëéí åò ô ðÝñáí óõíÞ÷èç ÷ëïòðïëò ð áôüí, êá í ðáñ ôí èÜëáóóáí. 5.22 êá [äï] ñ÷åôáé åò ôíñ÷éóõíáãþãùí, íüìáôé ÉÜúñïò, êá äí áôí ðßðôåé ðñò ôïò ðüäáò áôï 5.23 êáðáñáêáëå áôí ðïëë ëÝãùí ôé Ô èõãÜôñéüí ìïõ ó÷Üôùò ÷åé, íá ëèí ðéèò ôò÷åñáò áô íá óùè êá æÞó. 5.24 êá ðëèåí ìåô áôï.5.21 And when the Jesus had crossed over [in the boat] again, to the other side, agreat crowd was gathered to him, and he was being beside the sea. 5.22 And [look–] one ofthe synagogue-rulers, by name, Jairos, comes, and having seen him, falls at the feet of his.5.23 And he begs him over and over, saying that "The little daughter of mine is at the point ofdeath–so that, having come, you might lay the hands on her, so that she may be made well,and may live." 5.24 And he departed with him.Êá êïëïýèåé áô ÷ëïò ðïëýò êá óõíÝèëéâïí áôüí. 5.25 êá ãõí ïóá í ýóåéáìáôïò äþäåêá ôç 5.26 êá ðïëë ðáèïóá ð ðïëëí áôñí êá äáðáíÞóáóá ô ðáñáôò ðÜíôá êá ìçäí öåëçèåóá ëë ìëëïí åò ô ÷åñïí ëèïóá, 5.27 êïýóáóá [ô]ðåñ ôï Éçóï, ëèïóá í ô ÷ë ðéóèåí øáôï ôï ìáôßïõ áôï 5.28 ëåãåí ãñ ôéÅí øùìáé êí ôí ìáôßùí áôï óùèÞóïìáé. 5.29 êá åèò îçñÜíèç ðçã ôïáìáôïò áôò êá ãíù ô óþìáôé ôé áôáé ð ôò ìÜóôéãïò.And a great crowd was following him, and they were pressing in on him. 5.25 And awoman, who is in a hemorrhage (for) twelve years, 5.26 and who has suffered much undermany physicians, and who has spent everything she has, and who has profited nothing, butrather, who has become even more severe; 5.27 who has heard [the things] concerning theJesus, who has come in the crowd, from behind, touched the robe of his. 5.28 For she wassaying that, "If I could touch just the robes of his, I will be made well." 5.29 And immediatelythe source of the bleeding of hers was dried up, and she knew in the body that she has beenmade well from the torment.5.30 êá åèò Éçóïò ðéãíïò í áõô ôí î áôï äýíáìéí îåëèïóáíðéóôñáöåò í ô ÷ë ëåãåí, Ôßò ìïõ øáôï ôí ìáôßùí 5.31 êá ëåãïí áô ï ìáèçôááôï, ÂëÝðåéò ôí ÷ëïí óõíèëßâïíôÜ óå, êá ëÝãåéò, Ôßò ìïõ øáôï 5.32 êá ðåñéåâëÝðåôïäåí ôí ôïôï ðïéÞóáóáí. 5.33 ä ãõí öïâçèåóá êá ôñÝìïõóá, åäõá ãÝãïíåí áô,ëèåí êá ðñïóÝðåóåí áô êá åðåí áô ðóáí ôí ëÞèåéáí. 5.34 ä åðåí áô,ÈõãÜôçñ, ðßóôéò óïõ óÝóùêÝí óå ðáãå åò åñÞíçí êá óèé ãéò ð ôò ìÜóôéãüò óïõ.5.30 And immediately the Jesus, knowing within himself the power that had gone out,out from him, turning around in the crowd, was saying, "Who touched the robes of mine?"5.31 And the disciples of his were saying to him, "You see the crowd pressing in on you, andyou say, 'Who touched me?'" 5.32 And he was looking around to see the one having donethis. 5.33 So then the woman, being fearful and trembling, having known what had happenedto her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 5.34 So then he said to her,"Daughter, the faith of yours has made you well; depart into peace, and be healthy from thetorment of yours."431

5.35 Åôé áôï ëáëïíôïò ñ÷ïíôáé ð ôï ñ÷éóõíáãþãïõ ëÝãïíôåò ôé ´Ç èõãÜôçñóïõ ðÝèáíåí ôß ôé óêýëëåéò ôí äéäÜóêáëïí 5.36 ä Éçóïò ðáñáêïýóáò ôí ëüãïíëáëïýìåíïí ëÝãåé ô ñ÷éóõíáãþã, Ì öïâï, ìüíïí ðßóôåõå. 5.37 êá ïê öêåí ïäÝíáìåô áôï óõíáêïëïõèóáé å ì ôí ÐÝôñïí êá ÉÜêùâïí êá ÉùÜííçí ôí äåëöíÉáêþâïõ. 5.38 êá ñ÷ïíôáé åò ôí ïêïí ôï ñ÷éóõíáãþãïõ, êá èåùñå èüñõâïí êáêëáßïíôáò êá ëáëÜæïíôáò ðïëëÜ, 5.39 êá åóåëèí ëÝãåé áôïò, Ôß èïñõâåóèå êá êëáßåôåô ðáéäßïí ïê ðÝèáíåí ëë êáèåýäåé. 5.40 êá êáôåãÝëùí áôï.5.35 While he is still speaking, they come from the synagogue-ruler, saying that "Thedaughter of yours died. Why bother the teacher any more?" 5.36 But then the Jesus, havingoverheard the word being spoken, says to the synagogue-ruler, "Don't be afraid. Onlybelieve!" 5.37 And he did not allow anyone to follow with him, except the Peter, and Jacob,and John, the brother of Jacob. 5.38 And they come into the house of the synagogue-ruler,and he observes an uproar, and crying and wailing many things. 5.39 And, entering, he saysto them, "Why are you making an uproar, and crying? The child did not die, but is sleeping."5.40 And they were ridiculing him.áôò ä êâáëí ðÜíôáò ðáñáëáìâÜíåé ôí ðáôÝñá ôï ðáéäßïõ êá ôí ìçôÝñá êáôïò ìåô áôï êá åóðïñåýåôáé ðïõ í ô ðáéäßïí. 5.41 êá êñáôÞóáò ôò ÷åéñò ôïðáéäßïõ ëÝãåé áô, Ôáëéèá êïõì, óôéí ìåèåñìçíåõüìåíïí Ô êïñÜóéïí, óï ëÝãù, ãåéñå.5.42 êá åèò íÝóôç ô êïñÜóéïí êá ðåñéåðÜôåé í ãñ ôí äþäåêá. êá îÝóôçóáí[åèò] êóôÜóåé ìåãÜë. 5.43 êá äéåóôåßëáôï áôïò ðïëë íá ìçäåò ãíï ôïôï, êá åðåíäïèíáé áô öáãåí.So then he, having thrown them all out, takes along the father of the child and themother, and those with him, and he enters where the child was being. 5.41 And, taking holdof the hand of the child, he says to her, Talitha, koum, which is, being translated, "The littlegirl, I tell you, arise!" 5.42 And immediately the little girl got up and she was walking around,for she was being twelve years old. And they were beside themselves [immediately] with greatamazement. 5.43 And he ordered them over and over so that no one should know this; andhe said it should be given to her to eat.Text with Footnotes: 692692Mark wants its readers to concentrate attention upon the identity of Jesus of Nazareth.He is the Son of God--and the reality of who he is can be seen in his power to speak to thestorming wind and its waves, commanding them to be still. It can be seen in his ability tocommand the most powerful of unclean spirits that inhabit the heart of humanity, destroying,crippling, and ruining human existence. He can cast all the chaotic powers of evil into thedepths of the sea. So Mark tells us--this Jesus is the divine Victor over all of the dark forcesof chaos that threaten and destroy human life. And in addition to this, he is the "GreatPhysician"--who has come to touch and to heal, especially those people counted the leastworthy in first century society--elderly women with long-time sicknesses that caused them tobe considered "unclean" among the Jews, and frail, dying little girls--who were considered"nobodies" by many in the first century world. Before continuing with the study of Mark 5:21-43, please ask yourself the following questions:432(continued...)

693 694 6955.21 And when the Jesus had crossed over [in the boat] again, to the other side,692(...continued)1. Does Mark emphasize Jesus' relationship with older, suffering, penniless womenand little girls with terminal illness in this passage? Do you think that this is intentionallyemphasized by Mark in order to show that Jesus was different from the typical malechauvinists of his time and place, who would have discounted both of these females asworthless drains on society, undeserving of the attention of a religious leader such as Jesus?2. In describing Jesus' relationship to sickness and death, and specifically to two suchindividuals as are depicted in this passage, what is Mark trying to tell its readers?3. What is the relationship of Jesus to modern medicine and physicians? Is thispassage a “proof text” for the New Testament’s rejection of medical science, in favor of“spiritual healing” apart from medical doctors and medicines?693France notes that in verse 21 “The essential scenery for the following narrative is putin place.” (P. 235)694The phrase ôï Éçóï í ô ðëïß, tou Iesou en to ploio, “the Jesus in the boat,” isread by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus (see), Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, UncialManuscript 0132, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427 (see), the “Majority Text,”the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitta Syriac, the Harclean Syriac, some manuscripts of theSahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic.It is changed to read only ôï Éçóï, tou Iesou, “the Jesus,” by P45 (probably),Bezae, Theta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542, a few other Greekmanuscripts, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses and the Sinaitic Syriac.It is changed to read í ô ðëïß ôï Éçóï, en to ploio tou Iesou, “in the boat theJesus,” by W and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, especially the change inword order doesn’t. The omission simply shortens the wording of the original text, withoutchanging its meaning.France comments that “The absence of [‘in the boat’] in several early texts (and itslocation before [‘the Jesus’] in W), and the varying order and occasional absence of[‘again’] and [‘into the other side’], produce a number of permutations none of which affectsthe sense of Jesus’ return across the lake to the western shore. There seem to be noobvious reason for the differences other than stylistic preference...” (P. 233)695The phrase ðÜëéí åò ô ðÝñáí, palin eis to peran, “again into the other side,” is readby a corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, UncialManuscript 0132, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427 (see), the “Majority Text,”433(continued...)

696 697 698 699a great crowd was gathered to him, and he was being beside the sea. 5.22 And695(...continued)the Old Latin Manuscripts aur, l, the Latin Vulgate, the Harclean Syriac and the BohairicCoptic.It is changed to read åò ô ðÝñáí ðÜëéí, eis to peran palin, “into the other sideagain,” by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Bezae, Minuscules 565, 700, a majority of the OldLatin witnesses and the Peshitta Syriac.It is changed to read only ðÜëéí, palin, “again,” by P45 and the Old Latin Manuscriptf. It is changed to read åò ô ðÝñáí, eis to peran, “into the other side,” by Theta, a fewother Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic Syriac and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic.It is changed to read pa,lin h=lqen eivj to. pe,ran, palin elthen eis to peran, “again hecame into the other side,” by Family 13 of Minuscules, a few other Greek manuscripts andthe Sahidic Coptic (see).In spite of this array of variants, none of them change the meaning of Mark. SeeFrance’s comment in footnote 694. We suspect that there has been a problem in theprimitive text at this point, and that later copyists and translators have dealt with it in thebest way they could. Here, to. pe,ran, to peran, "the other side," means the western shore,perhaps at Capernaum. Compare footnote 605 on Mark 4:35.696For Mark's references to a "great crowd," see 4:1; 5:21, 24; 6:34; 8:1; 9:14, and 12:37.Once again Mark emphasizes the difference between the ministry of Jesus and that ofthe ordinary rabbi of his day--in its openness and welcome to all people, regardless of theirsex or background, or ritual purity or impurity, or age. All were welcomed by Jesus.697 rdThe 3 person singular aorist passive verb óõíÞ÷èç, sunechthe, "was gatheredtogether," is the verb from which the noun sunagwgh, sunagoge, "synagogue" or "gatheringplace" has been formed.The sea-side has become Jesus’ chosen “synagogue.”698Literally, "...upon him." Mark's language can be understood as emphasizing the"pressure" of the crowd that was surrounding Jesus. See verse 24.699Mark means, of course, the "Sea of Galilee."434

700 701 702 703 704[look–] one of the synagogue-rulers, by name, Jairos comes, and having seen him,700Following the conjunction Kai, Kai, “And,” the demonstrative particle ivdou, idou,“look!” is interpolated into the text by P45, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, UncialManuscript 0107, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” theOld Latin Manuscripts c, f and the Harclean Syriac.This word is not read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, L, Delta, Theta, Minuscules892, 2427, the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac, thePeshitta Syriac or the Coptic tradition.The interpolated word does not change the meaning of Mark, but the evidence for itsoriginality is so balanced that the word is enclosed within brackets in the text, to indicateuncertainty as to its originality.701What were the ñ÷éóõíáãþãùí, archisunagogon, "synagogue-rulers"? The synagoguewas not peculiar to Israel, but was found throughout the Greek and Roman world of the firstcentury. The word simply means a "gathering" of people, and is applied to the "building" inwhich the people gathered.Wolfgang Schrage, in an article in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, VII,pp. 844-47, states that "We find an avrcisuna,gwgoj, archisunagogos [‘synagogue-ruler’] inpagan cults and guilds...and commonly in the cultic unions of Greece...“The function of the [ruler of the synagogue] in a society was obviously that of thepresident (often he was also the founder) who convened and led the [synagogue]...Whetherthe title of the Jewish synagogue president was taken from the sphere of the Greek guild orthe latter borrowed from Judaism one can hardly say. At any rate it took on greaterimportance in the synagogue than in the guild...“The rights of synagogue ownership and administration were vested in thecongregation. Since in a Jewish population this was identical with the civil community, civiland synagogal government were one and the same...[Thus, this ‘synagogue-ruler’ would bethe equivalent in some ways to a modern ‘city council member,’ who is also a devout churchleader. As France notes, “he is an ‘important man’...’a man of consequence.’ P. 235]"There is abundant testimony to [synagogue-rulers] in literature and inscriptions from allparts of the Roman world. Synagogue presidents were highly regarded [being called ‘mosthonorable,’ ‘remarkable,’ and ‘shining’]. One of the tasks of the president of the synagoguewas to conduct worship and to apportion functions in it, i.e., to choose those who would recitethe prayer and [calls to worship], and read and expound the portions of Scripture. He wasalso responsible for erecting and maintaining the building...Often the office remained forgenerations in the same family...“The New Testament accounts agree with Jewish records that the 'ruler' of thesynagogue is responsible for the order and progress of worship." In the uncovering of ancient435(continued...)

705 706 707falls at the feet of his. 5.23 And he begs him over and over, saying that "The little701(...continued)synagogues throughout Galilee, corner-stones have been found with lengthy inscriptionsdetailing the work and importance of synagogue-rulers.702The phrase íüìáôé ÉÜúñïò, onomati Iairos, “by name, Jairos,” is changed to read w`|ov,noma Ia,iroj, ho onoma Iairos, “to whom a name, Jairos,” by W, Theta, Minuscules 565and 700.The phrase is omitted by Bezae and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.We see no reason for the omission of the phrase, and consider it simply a mistakeon the part of Bezae and the Old Latin witnesses (who may have followed Bezae). Theother variant does not change the meaning of Mark at all, but is simply a different way ofsaying the same thing. France thinks that the omission in Bezae, etc., “is more likely to beaccidental (or perhaps influenced by the absence of the name in Matthew) than a reflectionof an original text omitting the name.” (P. 233)703This name ÉÜúñïò, Iairos, is an attempt to place a Hebrew name in Greek letters. TheHebrew name is probably ryaiÛy", Ya)iyr, "He (God) will enlighten," or ry[iªy", Ya(iyr, "He (God)will arouse."704Here again Mark uses the present tense, thereby placing the reader in the midst of thehistorical scene as a witness. Interestingly, the present tense is used predominantly withreference to the ruler of the synagogue and his daughter, while verbs in the past tense areused predominantly with reference to the woman who touched his robe in verses 24-34.705Swete comments that "The prostration [at the feet of Jesus] is the more remarkable asthat of a dignitary in the presence of a crowd. His dignity was forgotten in the presence of agreat sorrow; he recognized his inferiority to the Prophet who had the power to heal." (P. 101)Luccock notes that "Here was a new teacher, reputed to be a healer; perhaps he couldhelp. His mind was not closed, and he made the venture. Think how many obstacles stood inthe way of his coming and kneeling and making his unreserved venture. He was a ruler of thesynagogue, a little world in which tradition, not experiment, ruled. He had to cast aside hisrank, his prestige, in falling at the feet of an unauthorized, itinerant teacher. But he could openhis mind to the new, to the possibility that a divine power was at work in an unexpected andeven unlikely person. Seeing Jesus, he made the venture of faith." (P. 718)How many other prominent people there are who have experienced this same thing.Proud, egotistical, sensing no need of help, they make their own way through life, asking fornothing from anyone, cynical of weaklings who cry out for help from a higher power. But thenwhen their precious child--a daughter or a son--falls victim to a sickness, or accident, or(continued...)436

705(...continued)addiction, over which they have no power, the story quickly changes. Then, they come towhatever source of help they may sense is available, humbly asking for help. Do we have towait that long before we recognize and call upon the divine help that is ours in Jesus?A fellow-student at Duke University, who was doing his doctoral dissertation on theGospel of Mark, and who was teaching in the undergraduate religion department, told manytimes how he delighted in knocking the “Sunday School religion” out of his students, and madefun of their pious beliefs in prayer, etc. I wondered what in the world he was doing studyingand teaching the New Testament.Then one day, this fellow-student came to my study-desk in the Duke library, greatlyworried, and wanting to talk. I listened to him as he told how his wife was pregnant, and themedical doctor had warned them that the baby might be mentally defective or malformedbecause of his (the father’s) use of LSD, a popular “recreational drug.” He asked if I would bewilling to pray for the baby. Of course, I was glad to do so–but was puzzled as to where hisproud rejection of “Sunday School religion” had suddenly gone.Maybe Jairos was like that. He knew the opposition to Jesus by the Separatists, and allthe things that were being said warning against Jesus. But now, his little daughter was dying–and he came to Jesus for help.Luccock points out that Jairos came to Jesus because of his concern for another life."That has been true especially of parents. The coming of children into the home has madethem see and feel that the child needs an equipment for life, a wholeness, a fortification,something they cannot give of themselves. So they come to One who has much to give andsay, 'My little daughter,' 'My little son...'" (P. 718)706The phrase êá ðáñáêáëå, kai parakalei, “and he begs,” the present tense, is read bySinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Minuscules 28, 33, 565, 892, 1241, afew other Greek manuscripts, the Sahidic Coptic and a few manuscripts of the BohairicCoptic.It is changed to read kai. pareka,lei, kai parekalei, “and he was begging,” theimperfect tense, by Vaticanus, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscripts 0107, 0132, Families 1 and13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 2427, the “Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the OldLatin witnesses and the Bohairic Coptic.It is changed to read the present participle without the conjunction, parakalw/n,parakalon, “begging,” by Bezae, the Latin Vulgate (see), some of the Old Latin witnesses(see) and the Sinaitic Syriac (see).These same textual witnesses change the later word polla, polla, “many (things),”to the conjunction kai, kai, “and.”437(continued...)

708 709daughter of mine is at the point of death-- so that, having come, you might lay the hands710 711 712on her, so that she may be made well, and may live." 5.24 And he departed with him.706(...continued)These variants do not change the meaning of Mark, but only change the tense of theverb–from present, to imperfect, to a present participle--demonstrating the freedom felt bycopyists and translators to make such minor changes to the text being copied / translated.707The nominative singular masculine adjective polu,j, polus, “much,” “many,” is used hereas an adverb in the accusative plural, ðïëë, polla–literally “many things,” which we havetranslated by "over and over." It is used as an adverb to mean "greatly," "earnestly," "strictly,""loudly," or "often." Compare Mark 5:10 with its footnote 660.708The feminine singular noun ÈõãÜôçñ, thugater means "daughter"; the neuter singularnoun used here, èõãÜôñéüí, thugatrion, means "little daughter," and probably is meant as aterm of endearment, rather than as an indication of size or age. (The little girl is 12 yearsold–see verse 42.)709The phrase ó÷Üôùò ÷åé, eschatos echei, literally, "(My little daughter) finally has," anidiom in Greek that means "My little daughter is terminally ill (or, ‘is dying’)." The deep anxietythat lies behind these troubled words is obvious. The wealthy, prominent citizen hasoftentimes been able to provide for his own needs, and those of his family and community.But now he is confronted with a desperate need which he is powerless to meet, regardless ofhis fame or financial standing. In desperation he falls before Jesus for help. As France notes,“he is asking for miraculous healing before she dies, that she may be cured (swqh|/, sothe) andthus may continue to live (zh,s|h, zese),” both of which are subjunctive verbs.Are we today so different from this prominent citizen? Are we able to provide for ourbeloved children when terminal cancer, or automobile accident, or drug overdose, or thedesire to commit suicide threatens to bring their lives to an end?710The phrase íá ëèí ðéèò ôò ÷åñáò áô, hina elthon epithes tas cheiras aute,“so that having come, you might lay the hands on her,” is changed to read evlqe. a-yaiauvth/j evk tw/n ceir/wn sou, elthe hapsai autes ek ton cheiron sou, literally, “come, totouch her out of the hands of yours,” by Bezae, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, theSinaitic Syriac (see) and the Peshitta Syriac (see).The variant reading does not change the meaning of Mark, but is only another wayof saying the same thing. We are reminded in this variant of many of the variants in Actsthat are given by these same witnesses.France notes that “For the laying on of hands as a natural gesture of healingcompare 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; and compare the mention of touch already in 1:31, 41.” (P.(continued...)438

713And a great crowd was following him, and they were pressing in on him. 5.25 And a710(...continued)236)711The words seem hurried, as if "tumbling over" one another, caring little that they form anincomplete sentence--as the anxious father begs Jesus to come and heal his little daughter. Itis not a time for the niceties of correct grammar.Luccock preached on this passage to Christian parents: "Jairus begged Jesus to layhis hands on a child. Can Christian parents make the same prayer unreservedly? All toooften there is trace of fear lest Christ lay his hands too closely on a young life; lest the youthtake him too seriously, and follow him into unusual paths, perhaps dangerous ones; lest theyoung life be not stamped with the familiar pattern of a social set. The future of Christianitydepends in a real way on the number of parents who will say to Christ, 'Lay thy hands uponthis child.'" (P. 719)712Luccock observed that "What Jesus had been planning for this day we do not know; butcertainly it was not that he be taken aside on a journey into which was inserted still anotheraside. To the eye of a modern efficiency expert, skilled in the organization of time andplanning, it might well look like a ruined day...We can readily imagine someone else, notJesus, under such circumstances saying: 'Why bother me? I'm a busy [person]. Can't yousee the crowd waiting? I have my work all laid out here. Come back in a few days.'"This record of a day of interruptions in Jesus' life reminds us that a detour may beGod's straight line to his purposes. The story warns us of the danger of setting a scheduleabove the call of life and the need for the service of love...Jesus could always be bothered bypeople in need. That was God's priority...No man can have two masters. He cannot serveGod and the order of the day." (Pp. 719-20)713France comments that “A further mention of the crowd (compare verse 21) preparesfor the scene which follows.” (P. 236)439

714 715 716 717woman, who is in a hemorrhage (for) twelve years, 5.26 and who has suffered much714Following the noun h, gune, “a woman,” the indefinite pronoun tij, tis, “a certainone,” is interpolated into the text by Bezae, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 ofMinuscules, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscripts a, f and the Syriac tradition.The indefinite pronoun is not read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, W, Delta, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 892, 2427,2542, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate or some of the Old Latin witnesses.It appears to be a later addition to the original text, designed to “enhance” itsreading, but whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark.Following this phrase, "And a woman..." come some seven participles (one presentparticiple, six aorist participles) each introducing a descriptive phrase, enabling a word-pictureof this woman in great detail (we have introduced each participle with "who," in order toindicate this Markan usage). The actual continuation of "And a woman" comes at the end ofverse 27, "...she touched his robe."Taylor notes that "This passage [verses 25-27] is remarkable as being one of the veryfew examples in Mark of a longer Greek [sentence] with subordinating participles, in contrastto the repeatedly used...construction [of placing short sentences side by side]." (P. 289)France comments that “The second suppliant, whose social standing is in markedcontrast to that of Jairus, is introduced in a sentence which piles seven participial clauses onone another before reaching the main verb (h` ,yato, epsato) in verse 27. This interestingdeparture from Mark’s more usual paratactic [‘the coordination of grammatical elements suchas phrases or clauses without the use of coordinating elements such as conjunctions’] styleallows the reader (or hearer) to build up a sympathetic mental portrait of the woman’s situationbefore her story begins...” (P. 236)715Literally, "...who being in a flow (or, "flowing") of blood..." It is the present participle thatis used here (ïóá, ousa, "being").France comments that “In Decapolis Jesus confronted ‘unclean spirits,’ located amongtombs, and appropriately transferred into pigs, as unclean animals. Now back on the westbank he confronts the uncleanness of a menstrual disorder, and (assuming that she really wasdead) of a corpse, and yet in both cases Mark records physical contact (verses 27, 41).Since the issue of uncleanness, and of Jesus’ apparently cavalier attitude to the laws ofpurity, will become a central feature of the story in chapter 7, it may be that Mark hasdeliberately prepared the way by this sequence of narratives. But it must be confessed thatthe issue is implicit rather than explicit in the account of the woman with the hemorrhage, andif anyone noticed the problem of potential defilement in the case of Jairus’ daughter Markgives no hint of it.” (P. 235)440(continued...)

718 719under many physicians, and who has spent everything she has, and who has profited715(...continued)“Menstrual impurity is a prominent concern in the Old Testament (especially Leviticus15:19-33) and was later to become the subject of a whole tractate of the Mishnah (Niddah;compare also Zabim); defilement through contact with even a normally menstruant womanmust be scrupulously avoided. This woman’s long and fruitless search for a cure wastherefore motivated not only by physical distress but by her social and religious isolation.”(Ibid., p. 236)716Here, the feminine singular aorist active participle is used, ðáèïóá, pathousa, “whohas suffered,” or “having suffered.”717The adjective ðïëë, polla, “many things,” here translated "much" is the same word thatis used in verse 23, where it is translated "over and over." See footnote 707. This word canbe used as either an adjective or an adverb, and as a result can mean "many things" or"greatly," and it is difficult to determine which is meant. Compare Mark 5:10 with its footnote660.718For a discussion of the history of medicine and physicians in the ancient world, andespecially in the Jewish and Christian Bibles, see the article of Albrecht Oepke inTheological Dictionary of the New Testament, III, pp. 194-215."About the only thing primitive [humanity] can understand as a cause of physicalailment is the wound received in battle. By way of analogy he comes to regard sicknesseswhich he cannot understand as 'attacks.' The assailants suspected are more or lesspersonally conceived evil powers which either strike [humanity] down, bombard him with lesspowerful but more artful shots, or even take possession of him. He expects healing throughthe overcoming of these hostile powers by magic, if necessary by counter-magic, or bypropitiatory offerings." (P. 195)"Medicine first developed among the ancient Egyptians in the third millennium. But itwas the Greeks who first established the art of healing on an empirical and rationalfoundation." Oepke discusses the Ebers Papyrus which describes medical developments inEgypt between 2600-1600 B.C. In this document, physicians play a large role, lancing sores,setting broken bones, stitching up wounds, and filling teeth; they prescribed the use of drugs,and even used a primitive inhalation device. Oepke holds that medical science in Egypt laterdegenerated into magic, and rejects the view that medical science developed out of magic.In Greece, Oepke finds that "True medicine arises from the 6th century [B.C.] onwardsin the colonies of Asia Minor, Greater Greece and Africa, as the doctors themselves developinto a kind of guild. Doctors are publicly appointed and a special levy is raised to pay them.The Hippocratic oath bears fine witness to the growing ethics of the profession...'I will followthat method of treatment which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefitof my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give nodeadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give(continued...)441

718(...continued)to a woman an instrument to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my lifeand practice my art. I will not cut a person who is suffering with a stone, but will leave this tobe done by practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I may enter, I will go into them forthe benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary art of mischief and corruption; andfurther myself from the seduction of females or males, bond or free. Whatever, in connectionwith my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I may see or hear in the lives of menwhich ought not to be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should bekept secret.'"Alcmaion of Croton (c. 500 B.C.) and Hippocrates of Cos (c. 420 B.C.) were not onlypioneers and discoverers; they also founded famous schools..." (P. 196) But, Oepke warns,"We must not form exaggerated ideas as to the general spread of scientific medicine.Alongside it there flourished in every age superstition and religion. The boundaries are fluid.Religion was recognized as an independent force by medicine, nor did it wholly scorn to makealliance with the latter. From around the 1st century A.D. the scientific enlightenment waschecked by a new growth of religion, and also of superstition." (P. 196)Among both the Greeks and the Romans, Asklepios or Aesculapius was looked uponas the god of healing (along with other gods). The sanctuary of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,located on the eastern shore of the Greek Peloponnesus, was one of the most famous healingcenters of the ancient world, and much can be learned from the archaeological discoveriesmade there. It was an ancient "Lourdes." Other centers of healing were to be found inAthens, Pergamos, and Jerusalem (just to the north of the Temple Mount), but especially atCos, on an island off the coast of southwestern Turkey.For a beautiful Jewish description of the worth of a physician, see Sirach (orEcclesiasticus), chapter 38:1-15:“Honor the doctor for his services, for the Lord created him. His skill comes from theMost High, and he is rewarded by kings. The doctor's knowledge gives him high standing andwins him the admiration of the great. The Lord has created medicines from the earth, and asensible person will not disparage them. Was it not a tree that sweetened water and sodisclosed its properties? The Lord has imparted knowledge to human beings, that by their useof his marvels he may win praise; by using them the doctor relieves pain and from them thepharmacist makes up his mixture. There is no end to the works of the Lord, who spreadshealth over the whole world.“My son, if you have an illness, do not neglect it, but pray to the Lord, and he will healyou. Renounce your faults, amend your ways, and cleanse your heart from all missing of themark. Bring a savory offering and bring flour for a token and pour oil on the sacrifice; be asgenerous as you can. Then call in the doctor, for the Lord created him; do not let him leaveyou, for you need him. There may come a time when your recovery is in their hands; thenthey too will pray to the Lord to give them success in relieving pain and finding a cure to savetheir patient's life. When a person has sinned against his maker, let him put himself in thedoctor's hands."442(continued...)

718(...continued)Oepke shows how belief in YHWH effectively and largely did away with magic in Israel,but not completely. In the Talmud there are many references to conjurations, exorcisms, andthe use of "sympathetic magic." But rational medicine was slowly developed, beginning withIsrael's experience in Egypt. "The great prophets presuppose that there are doctors andbalsam to help wounds to heal (Isaiah 3:7; Jeremiah 8:22...)." (P. 201) "But the true andonly doctor is Yahweh. To define the relationship between His creative power and human skillis more difficult than in the non-biblical world. Yet the tendency is towards a both-and ratherthan an either-or, with the accent on the ultimately omni-causal power of Yahweh."In speaking of Jesus as the physician, Oepke states that "Hardly another imageimpressed itself so deeply on early Christian tradition as that of Jesus as the great Physician."(P. 204) Then, in a theological appraisal of the healing miracles of Jesus, Oepke states,"Whether in the form of plain rejection, of reinterpretation, or of the evaluation of what isrecounted in terms of myth, religious history, or symbol, a threadbare rationalism may indulgein radical criticism of all miracle stories. On the other hand, an exclusive supernaturalism maypress for a complete schematic isolation of the miracles of Jesus. These are two modes ofapproach which are more or less equally ruled out by the actual data."Many miracles of healing from many different sources, both ancient and modern, arewell attested. Furthermore, recent scientific research has shown us how relative are naturallaws. Greater elasticity is thus demanded as regards our view of what is possible or notpossible...Modern medicine has overcome the abstract separation of soul and body and theisolated material or psychological treatment of an earlier day..." And, Oepke asks, "WhereGod intervenes so expressly in human history, who is to measure His work by ordinarystandards?" (P. 211)Oepke adds, "Jesus cares for the soul as well as the body...In general, non-Christianmiracles are performed for their own sake. The Gospel miracles, however, have a materialpoint outside the miracle itself. This is usually pastoral...The miracles of Jesus are signs, butthey are not spectacles...The miracles of Jesus are simple and yet powerful signs that theprophecies of the age of salvation are beginning to be fulfilled...In face of them the Baptistought to see, and even opponents are forced to recognize, that the royal dominion of God hascome to them...The miracles are themselves partial victories of God's rule. The host ofdemons flees...Each partial victory is a foretaste and guarantee of the final victory...“As the Hero of God who perfects creation, Jesus invades the kingdom of Satan withpower...He conquers, and nothing can resist Him. Even though He is put to death, thekingdom of God comes thereby. This Messianic and eschatological context gives to theearliest records (Mark) the distinctive impetus for which there are not the slightest parallels inAesculapius or Dionysus. In spite of every analogy, the miraculous healings of Jesus thusoccupy a unique position in religious history. They are inseparably connected with theuniqueness of Jesus and with His unparalleled sense of mission." (Pp. 212-13)719The phrase ô ðáñ áôò, ta par’ autes, literally “the things with her,” (i.e., herbelongings), is read by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, L, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of(continued...)443

720 721nothing, but rather, who has become even more severe; 5.27 who has heard [the things]722 723concerning the Jesus, who has come in the crowd, from behind touched the robe of his.719(...continued)Minuscules, Minuscules 33, 2427 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read simply e`auth/j, heautes, “her own,” by Bezae, W, Theta, Family1 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28 (with a different word-order; see), 565, 700, 1424, 2542,and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read par v e`auth/j, par’ heautes, “with her own,” by Sinaiticus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, K, Delta, Minuscule 1241, Lectionary 2211 and some other Greekmanuscripts.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but are simply alternativeways of saying the same thing.720Literally, "...but rather, more into the worse having come."France comments that “Mark’s unflattering account of the medical profession providesa sharp (and perhaps deliberately humorous?) contrast with the completeness and immediacyof the cure she receives through touching Jesus.” (Pp. 236-37)721Following the feminine singular aorist active participle êïýóáóá, akousasa, “whohas heard,” or “having heard,” the accusative plural definite article ta, ta, “the things,” isinterpolated into the text by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the first writer ofEphraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Minuscule 2427 and a few other Greek manuscripts.The text without the definite article is read by a corrector of Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, W, Theta, Uncial Manuscript0132 (probably), Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” theSyriac tradition and the Coptic tradition.This textual evidence is fairly evenly balanced, and so the article is placed in thetext, but within brackets, to indicate uncertainty with regards to its originality. Whether reador not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark.722Luccock asked his readers to "...Consider those who spread the report about Jesus...This woman came because they had brought her a report of One who could restore life, andher hope lived again. It is a great role, that of a reporter; frequently anonymous, as with theunseen company in this story, but vital..." (P. 721)We must ask ourselves, "Have persons ever come to Jesus because of what theyheard from us?" “Have they been turned away from coming to Jesus because of what they(continued...)444

724 7255.28 For she was saying that, "If I could touch just the robes of his, I will be made well."722(...continued)have heard, and seen in us?”723The implication of the adverb ðéóèåí, opisthen, "from behind," is that the woman wasvery bashful, not desiring to act openly or publicly, but in as inconspicuous a manner aspossible. It is also possible to read this adverb with the preceding verb, i.e., "she had comebehind him,” instead of our “from behind she touched his robe.” Taylor holds that "She comessecretly...because the malady rendered her ceremonially unclean and would conveyuncleanness to all who came in contact with her (compare Leviticus 15:25)." (P. 290)France comments that “...In other individual cases in Mark’s narrative it is Jesus whotouches rather than who is touched...The woman’s idea that to touch Jesus’ clothes withouthis knowledge would convey the same effect as to be touched by him suggests a more‘primitive,’ even ‘magical,’ understanding of miraculous healing (and one which will reach evenmore elaborate lengths in the expected effects of Peter’s shadow, Acts 5:15, and of Paul’sclothing, Acts 19:12)...“Modern readers often find it remarkable that Jesus does not repudiate her approach...and indeed seems rather to accept it as not only practically effective but also an example oftrue pi,tij, pistis [i.e., ‘belief,’ or ‘faith’]...Mark’s Jesus is less bound by correct procedure,and even correct theology, than some of his followers.” (P. 237)724Mark does not mean that she was "saying" this openly, for others to hear. What itmeans, we think, is that she was saying this to herself. Here the author of Mark plays the roleof the omniscient editor, who reveals the inner thoughts of his characters.725 stThe 1 person singular future passive verb óùèÞóïìáé, sothesomai has been translated"I will be made well." This is the verb that is commonly translated "I will be saved." Sw,zein,sozein has the root meaning "to make safe or sound." In the New Testament it is used in thevarious meanings "to save," "to keep from harm," "to preserve," and "to rescue." It is used inthe sense of preservation or rescue from natural dangers and afflictions--for example, beingsaved from death, or being brought out safely from a situation in which there is mortal danger.It is used of being saved or freed from disease (as in this case in Mark, and also in the story ofJairos’ daughter, see verse 23). It is used of being kept or preserved in good condition. In thepassive, it is used to mean "to thrive," "to prosper." This verb is also used in the sense "tosave or preserve from eternal death," that is, from eternal judgment, and from all that mightlead to such death, for example, "missing of the mark." Used in this way, it points to theeternal salvation that Jesus imparts to his people.We think that Mark’s language implies that both of these females–the Synagogueruler’sdaughter, and this 12 year old little girl, are examples of people being “saved” (“madewhole”) through the ministry of Jesus.(continued...)445

726 727 728 7295.29 And immediately the source of the bleeding of hers was dried up, and she knew730 731 732in the body that she has been made well from the torment.725(...continued)Maclaren described this woman's faith as being little more than magical superstition,and yet as having been respected and rewarded by Jesus. Taylor states that "In ancient beliefeven handkerchiefs and aprons carried from the healer's person possessed healing virtue(compare Acts 19:12), and also his shadow (Acts 5:15). The person of the healer himselfwas regarded as potent, and his garments or shadow, as the case might be, were looked uponas extensions of his personality." (P. 290) Such is the case here, with respect to this sufferingwoman’s faith. Here again, we see the closely parallel relationship between religion andmagic.726France comments on verses 29-30 that “The narrative continues in a similarly‘primitive’ vein [compare footnote 723], in that the effect of the cure is immediately felt bothby the patient and by the healer. V,Egnw tw| / sw,mati, egno to somati, ‘she knew in thebody,’ presumably refers to the woman’s physical sensation of well-being, while evpignou.jevn eàutw| / th.n evx auvtou/ du,namin evxelqou/san, epignous en heauto ten eks autou dunaminekselthousan, ‘recognizing in himself the power going out, out of him,’ suggests that thishealing perceptibly ‘took something out of’ Jesus, in a way not paralleled in other gospelhealing narratives...“The sequence might suggest an almost mechanical sense of physical ‘transfer’ of[power] from one body to the other...though Mark is careful to counter this impression bothby stressing that it was not mere physical contact that mattered (since many others werepressing against Jesus at the time) and that the basis of this healing, as in other synopticmiracles, is in fact pi,stij, pistis (verse 34).” (P. 237)727Once again we hear Mark's typical language of immediacy, of action. See footnote 55on Mark 1:10 and footnote 733.728Literally, "the spring," "the fountain" ( ðçã, he pege).729Literally, "her blood."730Swete notes that the perfect passive tense of the verb áôáé, iatai, “she has been madewell,” "...transfers the reader into the region of the woman's thoughts: the conviction flashed(continued...)446

7335.30 And immediately the Jesus, knowing within himself the power that had gone734 735out, out from him, turning around in the crowd, was saying, "Who touched the robes of736mine?" 5.31 And the disciples of his were saying to him, "You see the crowd pressing in on737 738you, and you say, 'Who touched me?'" 5.32 And he was looking around to see the one730(...continued)through her mind, iv ,amai, iamai: 'I have received a permanent cure.'" (P. 104) Here again wesense the omniscient editor’s comment. Compare footnote 724.731Or, perhaps, “her” torment, but the text reads “the torment.”732The feminine singular genitive noun used here, ìÜóôéãïò, mastigos, means "(from the)lashing" or "(from the) lashes." It is used figuratively for "torment" or "suffering," or "scourge."Lane aptly comments, "Her existence was wretched because she was in a constant state ofuncleanness [from a Jewish viewpoint] and would be generally shunned by people sincecontact with her rendered others unclean...A woman suffering from this complaint was called azabah, and came under the restrictions of Leviticus 15:25-33. So important was consideredthe regulation of life for such a person that the tractate Zabim of the Mishnah is devoted tothis topic." (Pp. 191-92) Perhaps Lane is correct, but it seems more obvious to relate the“torment” to the constant physical discomfort of the bleeding itself.733Compare footnote 727 for this indication of Mark's "language of immediacy."734Swete comments that "The Lord also experienced an instantaneous sensation in thesphere of his consciousness...amounting to a definite knowledge of the fact...He was fullyaware that this power had gone forth from Him..." (P. 104) Compare footnote 728.735The imperfect verb ëåãåí, elegen, “he was saying,” is changed to the aorist verbei=pen, eipen, “he said,” by Bezae, W, Theta, Minuscules 565 and 700.The change in tense does not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrates thefreedom felt by Bezae and these other copyists to make such minor changes to the originaltext being copied.736Literally, "pressing together."737The words of Jesus' followers are meant as a "rebuke," implying that Jesus' question issilly and unnecessary. Compare footnote 619 on Mark 4:38. Similar "rebukes" of Jesus byhis followers are to be found at Mark 6:37 and 8:4.447(continued...)

739 740having done this. 5.33 So then the woman, being fearful and trembling, having known741 742what had happened to her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.737(...continued)Luccock comments that "It might be said with some show of truth that if you wish to findthe particular glories of the Christian gospel, you must look at the things for which the disciplesrebuked Jesus. Such passages are of high historical value, as being least likely to have beenreported by compilers or revised by 'editors.' Here Jesus is impatiently reproached because ofhis concern for a single individual in the mass...Jesus responded to the shy approach ofindividual need as surely and deftly as a magnetic needle responds to the North Star..." (P.722)France comments that “Jesus’ sudden challenge takes everyone by surprise. Thecommonsense response of the disciples (to which Jesus does not even deign to reply) servesto heighten the peculiarity of his question; how can one ‘touch’ be singled out among a jostlingcrowd? The effect is again to set Jesus apart as one with supernatural insight, who canperceive the special situation of the one among the many.” (P. 238)738Literally, "the (one)." But in Greek, both "the" and the phrase "who had done" arefeminine.739France continues (see footnote 737), “That supernatural insight [of Jesus] does not,however, apparently extend to an instant recognition of the culprit...” (P. 238)740 Following the aorist participle ôñÝìïõóá, tremousa, “trembling,” the phrase dio.pepoi,ekei la,qra, dio pepoiekei lathra, “because she had acted secretly,” is interpolatedinto the text by Bezae, Theta (see), Minuscules 28, 565, 700 (see), a few other Greekmanuscripts and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.This interpolation appears to be of the nature of early commentary on the originaltext, seeking to give a reason for the woman’s “fear and trembling.” It is a goodexplanation–but not part of the original text. This again reminds us of the manner in whichBezae has treated the text of Acts in so many instances.France comments that “ her fear may derive not only from her awe in the presenceof the miraculous healer and the general embarrassment of the situation, but also from theawareness that in touching Jesus without permission she has made him ritually unclean; ifthat is the case, however, neither Jesus nor Mark mentions the point.” (P. 238)741The feminine singular dative pronoun áô, aute, “to her,” is read by Sinaiticus,Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Minuscules 892, 2427, Lectionary 2211 and afew other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to read evp v auvth|/, ep’ aute, “upon her,” by Alexandrinus, W, Theta,(continued...)448

743 744 7455.34 So then he said to her, "Daughter, the faith of yours has made you well;741(...continued)Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 1 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read evp v auvth,n, ep’ auten, “upon her” (using the accusative insteadof the dative) by Phi, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 565, 1241 and a few otherGreek manuscripts.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate thefreedom felt by later copyists and translators to slightly change the grammar of the textbeing copied in order to improve its reading–we think, unnecessarily so at this point.Here again Mark uses a series of three participles to describe this woman--compare thesecond paragraph of footnote 714.742 The accusative singular noun ëÞèåéáí, aletheian, “truth,” is changed to read aivti,anauvth/j, aitian autes, literally, “case of hers,” by W, Family 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 1(see), 28, 2542 and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic.This change in reading demonstrates the freedom felt by these copyists andtranslators to slightly change the original text, as they change from “the truth” to “her case.”But this makes little difference for the meaning of Mark.743The feminine singular nominative noun ÈõãÜôçñ, thugater, “daughter,” is read byVaticanus, Bezae, W, Minuscules 28, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and apparentlyby the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, although this last witness is almost illegible.It is spelled quga,ter, thugater in the vocative case, “O daughter,” by Sinaiticus,Alexandrinus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus (probably), L, Theta, Uncial Manuscript0132, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The word is omitted by Minuscule 579 and a few other Greek manuscripts.These variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark.France comments that “No one else in the gospels is addressed by Jesus asÈõãÜôçñ, thugater, ‘daughter,’ the nearest parallel is the use of te,knon, teknon, ‘child,’ forthe paralytic in 2:5.” (P. 238)Sometimes people are heard addressing Jesus as "Father" in their prayers, and more"orthodox" people want to correct such "incorrect theological language." However, here inthese words Jesus addresses this suffering woman as his "daughter," using languageappropriate to a father addressing his child. It seems obvious that for Mark, Jesus is theembodiment of YHWH God in human history--and that therefore he can be addressed as"God," and looked up to as the heavenly Father reaching out in mercy to fallen humanity.(continued...)449

746 747 748depart into peace, and be healthy from the torment of yours."743(...continued)However this may be, it is obvious from such language that Jesus "identifies" with thissuffering woman, and addresses her as a "member" of his "family."744France notes that “For pi,stij, pistis, ‘belief,’ ‘faith,’ as the basis for healing compare10:52 (where the same formula is used) and 2:5; 5:36; 9:23-24; for the same condition formiracles generally see also 4:40; 11:22-24...“Such pi,stij, pistis consists more of a practical conviction of Jesus’ [power,authority] than of a theologically developed understanding of who he is; even this woman’s‘superstitious’ belief in healing by physical contact is sufficient to count.” (P. 238)The ðßóôéò, pistis ("faith," "confidence," "belief") of this woman is far more than"intellectual assent" to some religious dogma. It is an attitude of longing that causes her toreach out to touch Jesus, to trust in his power to make her well again.Can people truly claim to have "faith" without such a "reaching out" to touch Jesus,confident that he will act on their behalf? Schweizer comments, "...It was the woman'smanner--'a little craftiness, a little modesty, a little shyness due to her own uncleanness, andthrough it all an unlimited confidence in him' (Lohmeyer)--which expressed the faith that madeher well." (P. 118)745 rdThe 3 person singular, perfect indicative active verb óÝóùêÝí, sesoken (see footnote725 for a discussion of the verb sw,zein, sozein) is in the "perfect" tense; it means "your faithhas saved you," "your faith has made you well."Maclaren preaches a sermon on this passage entitled "The Power of a Feeble Faith."He points out how this woman's faith was largely ignorant and self-seeking, but that Jesusresponded to that imperfect faith with healing, granting her wish. Her faith was almost"magical" in orientation, believing as she did that her healing could come by a finger's touch ofhis robe. Maclaren argued that none of us have "perfect faith"--but that even the mostinadequate of faith will be rewarded by Jesus, if it insists on reaching out to him while he ispassing our way. (Pp. 199-212)746What wealth of meaning can be heard in this divine command of Jesus. It is the role ofthe "Messianic" King that he will bring peace to the nations. And it is the conviction of the NewTestament that Jesus indeed imparts such "peace" to his followers.France comments that “The Old Testament formula of reassurance and blessing,u[page eivj eivrh,nhn, hupage eis eirenen, ‘depart into peace’ (compare Judges 18:6; 1Samuel 1:17; 2 Samuel 15:9), confirms that she may now enjoy at last the ~Al+v', shalom,‘peace,’ ‘prosperity,’ which she has long needed...” (P. 238)450

749 7505.35 While he is still speaking, they come from the synagogue-ruler, saying that751 752 753"The daughter of yours died. Why bother the teacher any more?" 5.36 But then the747The feminine singular nominative adjective ãéò, hugies means "healthy," "sound."France comments that “the further assurance i;sqi u`gih.j avpo. th/j ma,stigo,j sou, isthihugies apo tes mastigos sou, ‘be whole from the torment of yours,’ makes it clear that hercure is not a merely temporary remission...The effect of the cure will be...to remove herimpurity and restore her to a normal place in society.” (P. 238)748A large amount of legend has surrounded this story, giving the name "Veronica" to thiswoman, and telling of a statue built in her honor at Caesarea Philippi, or presenting her as aprincess of Edessa--see Swete, p. 106.749Here again the use of the present participle and present tense verb is obvious, as theauthor of Mark wants his readers to enter into this story, to identify with what "is happening,"as if they were actually present. Compare footnote 601 on Mark 4:35. Swete comments that"The coincidence [of their coming] was a happy one for the [woman who had just beenhealed], for the new arrival at once diverted the attention of the crowd." (P. 106)750See footnote 701.751France comments that “The interrupted narrative is resumed with the news that the delayhas proved to be fatal.” (P. 238) Those are harsh, cold words, "Your daughter died..." Isn'tthere some easier way to say it, some other words to use that won't cut so sharply and sodeeply? No, there is not. No matter how we may try to ease the pain, the death message isalways harsh and cold and cutting, no matter how delicately and kindly phrased. Whether welike it or not, the death message comes, whether soon or late, to each of us. It may be ourmother, or father, our son or daughter--but one day it comes for every one of us, to cut us tothe quick. How shall we be prepared to receive that message?752 ndThe 2 person singular, present indicative active verb óêýëëåéò, skulleis means "you arewearying," "you are harassing"; "you are troubling," "you are annoying."Swete observes that "The remark shows that the power of raising the dead was not yetgenerally attributed to Jesus..." (P. 106) France comments that “It is...assumed that theappeal lapses, and Jesus has no more to contribute. Mark does not say whether Jairusshared this assumption–Jesus gives him no time to express his opinion.” (P. 238)753Jesus is called "the teacher" 12 times in Mark's Gospel. See footnote 618 on Mark4:38.451

754 755Jesus, having overheard the word being spoken, says to the synagogue-ruler, "Don't be754The masculine singular aorist active nominative participle ðáñáêïýóáò, parakousas,“over-hearing,” or “having over-heard,” is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, and a latercorrector; Vaticanus, L, W, Delta, the first writer of Minuscule 892, Minuscule 2427, a fewother Greek manuscripts and the Old Latin Manuscript e.It is changed to the shorter and simpler verb avkou,saj, akousas, “hearing,” or “havingheard,” as is found Luke 8:50, by a corrector of Sinaiticus, Bezae, Theta, UncialManuscript 0126, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, a corrector of892, 1241, 1424, 2542, some other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, some of the OldLatin witnesses and the Coptic tradition.It is changed to read euvqe,wj avkou,saj, eutheos akousas, “immediately hearing,” byAlexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, N (in a different word-order), Uncial Manuscript0132, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,” the Old Latin Manuscript a (see) and the HarcleanSyriac.France thinks that avkou,w, akouo, “to hear,” is “likely to have been substituted forparakou,w, parakouo in the majority of manuscripts as the more familiar verb...The fact thatparakou,w, parakouo can also mean ‘ignore’ or even ‘disobey’ may have influenced thesubstitution. ” (Pp. 233-34)BAGD gives the following three meanings for this verb: (1) "hear what is notintended for one's ears," "overhear"; (2) "pay no attention to," "ignore"; or (3) "refuse tolisten to," "disobey." Either of the first two meanings would be appropriate here, and it isdifficult to determine which meaning was intended.France notes that this verb “suggests that the report was made personally to Jairus,but that Jesus overheard it.” Jesus is “the one person who is not deflected by the report,and proposes to press on regardless. He takes charge of the situation and expects faith,even in the face of death.” (P. 238)Luccock, understanding this verb as meaning "ignoring," comments that "...The artof ignoring, here illustrated by Jesus, is one of the fine arts of faith...The place that seemedto be a blank wall, a dead end, was to Jesus a place from which he would go on, with theresources of God entering the situation. To Jesus men's report on anything was never thelast word. The last word belongs to God. Jesus did not deny the reports. He entered intono argument with them. He simply ignored them. Christian faith ignores the rumors thathope has died, and remembers other words, 'I will build my church, and the powers ofdeath shall not prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18), not even the bewildering powers ofdeath that in an atomic age can be let loose at a moment's notice." (P. 723)755The phrase to.n lo,gon lalou,menon, ton logon laloumenon, ‘the word being spoken,”is changed to read to.n lo,gon to.n lalou,menon, ton logon ton laloumenon, “the word, theone being spoken,” by Vaticanus and Minuscule 2427 (see).(continued...)452

756 757afraid. Only believe!" 5.37 And he did not allow anyone to follow with him, except the758 759Peter, and Jacob, and John, the brother of Jacob. 5.38 And they come into the house of755(...continued)It is changed to read tou,ton to.n lo,gon, touton ton logon, literally, “this the word,”by Bezae and a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.These variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate thefreedom felt by later copyists and translators to make such minor changes to the text beingcopied / translated, in order to enhance its reading.756This is what Jesus says to the person who has just received the harsh, cutting words of adeath message: "Don't be afraid; only believe, only have confidence." There isn't much needfor fearlessness or confidence when everything is going our way, when there is no trouble orheart-ache. But when death comes to our loved ones, then comes the testing of our innerbeings--will we be strong, will we have the strength, will our confidence hold? At that very timeJesus speaks to his people, saying that we don't need to be afraid of death, and that this is thetime to put our confidence / faith / belief to work for us. And what the great Physician andShepherd of the sheep says is true.757The phrase ïäÝíá ìåô áôï óõíáêïëïõèóáé, oudena met’ autousunakolouthesai, literally, “anyone (or no one) with him to follow with,” is read bySinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Delta, Minuscules 892 and 2427.It is changed to read ouvde,na auvtw| / sunakoluqh/sai, oudena auto sunakoluthesai,literally “anyone (or ‘no one’) him to follow with,” meaning exactly the same thing, butomitting the preposition met v, met’, and changing the genitive pronoun to the dative, byAlexandrinus, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of Minuscules and the “MajorityText.”Alexandrinus, K, Minuscules 33 and 1241 leave off the prefixed sun-, sun- from theinfinitive avkoluqh/sai, akolouthesai, “to follow.”The phrase is changed to read ouvde,na auvtw| / parakoluqh/sai, oudena autoparakolouthesai, “anyone (or no one) with him to follow beside,” by Bezae, W, Family 1 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, the first writer of 2542 and a few other Greekmanuscripts.The variants do not change the meaning of Mark, but show the freedom felt by latercopyists to make such minor changes to the text being copied.758The original text ôí ÐÝôñïí, ton Petron, literally “the Peter,” is read by Sinaiticus,Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Delta, Minuscules 2427 and 2542.453(continued...)

760 761the synagogue-ruler, and he observes an uproar, and crying and wailing many things.7625.39 And entering, he says to them, "Why are you making an uproar, and crying? The child758(...continued)The definite article is changed to read mo,non, monon, “alone,” by W.The article is omitted by Alexandrinus, Bezae, L, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0132,Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, and the omission of thearticle may only reflect the differing convictions on the part of Greek writers across thecenturies as to whether or not the article should be used with nouns and names. Thechange from the article to mo,non, monon may reflect the desire of the copyist of W toenhance the meaning of the text while omitting the article found in the original.759It is because of the mention of these three individuals, Peter, Jacob and John, here inMark 5:37, then again in 9:2 and in 14:33, that it has been concluded that these three formedan "inner circle" of close associates of Jesus from among the twelve. Swete comments that"...So careful is the Lord not to invade at such a time the seclusion of the home life. Threewere sufficient as witnesses..." (P. 107)760The masculine singular accusative noun èüñõâïí, thorubon is used of the noise andconfusion of excited crowds.761The phrase êá êëáßïíôáò êá ëáëÜæïíôáò, kai klaiontas kai alalazontas, “both cryingand wailing...” is changed from the accusative form of the participles to the genitive form,klaio,ntwn kai. avlala,zontwn, klaionton kai alalazonton, with the same meaning, byBezae, Minuscule 565 (see) and the Old Latin Manuscript a.This is a grammatical correction of the original, or at least a change in grammar, asthe original is just as understandable as the correction. It does not change the meaning ofMark.The verb avlala,zein, alalazein implies a shrill, ringing noise, "wailing" loudly over thedeath of someone in "lamentation." Undoubtedly this has reference to professional"mourners" called in and paid by the family to assist in the "proper" ritual of mourning thedead.France comments that “The presence of noisy mourners is a clear indication thatthere was no doubt about the girl’s death, and Jesus’ response assumes that is why theyare there.” (P. 239)762Following the conjunction kai, kai, the interrogative accusative singular pronoun ti, ti,“why,” is interpolated into the text by Bezae, Theta, Minuscule 28 and a majority of the Old(continued...)454

763 764did not die, but is sleeping." 5.40 And they were ridiculing him.762(...continued)Latin witnesses.The interpolation does not change the meaning of Mark, but is another example oflater copyists and translators attempting to enhance the reading of the original by suchminor additions.763What did Jesus mean by this strange, enigmatic statement? Is he denying that death isreal? Or, is he insisting that the pronouncement of death has been mistaken? Is he to beunderstood as saying that the little girl is not dead, but only "asleep," or "in a coma"?How many times when the death message has come to us, have we rejected it as false,and clung to the hope that it is mistaken, that in truth it was someone else who has died, thatour loved one is really still alive? Is Jesus guilty of this same thing--of rejection and denial ofthe reality of death?Swete holds that "The Lord's meaning seems to be: 'a death from which there is to beso speedy an awakening can only be regarded as a sleep.'" (P. 108) Taylor, after extendeddiscussion of what Jesus might have meant, states that "...It is possible that, while [‘she issleeping’] does not mean death as men use the word, it describes it as God sees it, namely,as a sleep from which there is to be a speedy awakening." (P. 295) Schweizer agrees withthis, stating, "Jesus' statement is an expression of the fact that he views the child in the sameway that God does. For him the coming resurrection is so certain that even now it is more realthan the testimony of human eyesight. In the same way Jesus views the future kingdom asalready active in the present." (P. 119)Maclaren states, in a sermon on this text, that "Christ's great word was spoken for us allwhen our hearts are sore and our dear ones go...Sleep is rest, and bears in itself the pledge ofwaking. So Christ has changed the 'shadow feared of man' into beauty, and in the strength ofHis great word we can meet the last enemy with 'Welcome, friend.'" (Pp. 196-97) Then headded, "It is strange that any one reading this narrative should have been so blind to itsdeepest beauty as to suppose that Jesus was here saying that the child had only swooned,and was really alive. He was not denying that she was what men call 'dead,' but He was, inthe triumphant consciousness of His own power, and in the clear vision of the realities ofspiritual being, of which bodily states are but shadows, denying that what men call deathdeserves the name." (P. 197)764 rdThe 3 person plural, imperfect indicative active verb êáôåãÝëùí, kategelon means "theywere laughing at,” “they were ridiculing." Rengstorf states that "This obviously denotesscornful laughter on the basis of supposedly better information and therefore of a superioritywhich is not slow to make itself felt." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, p.660)Luccock comments that "There they were, confronted by the final fact, death. Anyonewho suggested that there might be anything more on the other side of that fact, anyone who(continued...)455

765 766So then he, having thrown them all out, takes along the father of the child and the764(...continued)ventured beyond the fixed limits of their world, was someone to be laughed at...WheneverJesus, his teaching, his gospel, have cut across the finalities of any settled world of thoughtand custom, men have laughed at him...There were any number who laughed at the vision ofa universal Christ and a universal salvation for all men. And how the pagan worshipers ofMars [the god of war] have always laughed...These people in Jairus' house laughed becauseJesus refused to accept death as the last word. Who is he to deny the common-sense factthat the undertaker and the gravedigger have the last word about death? Diffused throughoutthe whole nineteenth century was an ill-concealed note of laughter--laughter at the impossibleromanticism of the Christian faith..." (P. 724)We can today add to Luccock's comment that this same "laughter" at basic Christianteachings was to be heard throughout the 1960's in American schools and universities (andeven seminaries), as supposedly Christian teachers proclaimed "The Death of God" andridiculed such things as the reality of a living God, or the genuine hope of resurrection andeternal life. Later, in the 1990's such cynical unbelief came to be recognized for what it is, andthe very teachings laughed at a few decades prior once again became the treasuredpossession and joyful proclamation of the people of God.765The phrase, auvto,j de, autos de, literally “he, then,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, L, Delta, Theta, Minuscules 33, 579, 892, 2427, Lectionary2211 and a few other Greek manuscripts.It is changed to o` de, ho de, another way of saying the same thing, by Alexandrinus,W, Uncial Manuscript 0132, Family 13 of Minuscules and the “Majority Text.”It is changed to read o` de. vIhsouj, ho de Iesous, “the Jesus, then,” by Phi, Family 1of Minuscules, a few other Greek manuscripts and the Harclean Syriac (with markings toindicate this reading was not found in the exemplar being copied / translated).The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate thefreedom felt by later copyists and translators to slightly change the original text beingcopied / translated.766The masculine singular nominative aorist participle evkbalw,n, ekbalon, literally “castingout,” or “having cast out,” may well have connotations of "driving out," "expelling," literally"throwing out." However, it is also used without the connotation of force, "send out," "remove."Luccock, commenting on this, notes that "Only with difficulty does the Christian faithshine through the...[sad expressions] of mourning and burial. So much suggests a pagandarkness; so little, comparatively, suggests the faith of a glorious resurrection, a faith in theGod of the living. All such conventional attitudes and practices Jesus puts outside, as he putthe noise-makers outside the home of Jairos...There is always a new situation when Jesuscomes in, and faith drives out despair and fear." (P. 724)456

767mother, and those with him, and he enters where the child was being. 5.41 And, taking768 769hold of the hand of the child, he says to her, Talitha, koum, which is, being translated,767Following the word ðáéäßïí, paidion, “child,” the accusative singular neuter activeparticiple avnakei,menon, anakeimenon, “lying,” is interpolated into the text by Alexandrinus,Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscule 33 and the “Majority Text.”A synonym, katakei,menon, katakeimenon, is read by W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 ofMinuscules, Minuscules 28, 565, 700, 2542 and a few other Greek manuscripts), the LatinVulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses and the Syriac tradition.The text without any interpolation is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, L, Delta,Minuscules 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses.The interpolations do not change the meaning of Mark, but are apparently theadditions of later copyists and translators.768The phrase (quoting Jesus in Aramaic) Ôáëéèá êïõì, Talitha koum, literally “The littlegirl, arise.” is changed to read Taliqa koumi, talitha koumi, with the same meaning, byAlexandrinus, Theta, Uncial Manuscript 0126, Family 13 of Minuscules, the “MajorityText,” the Old Latin Manuscript q, the Latin Vulgate and the Harclean Syriac, in an attemptto sharpen the grammar of the Aramaic quotation.It is changed to read only the one word, Tabiqa, Tabitha, a proper name that hasbeen taken from Acts 9:40, by W, the Old Latin Manuscripts a, a corrector of r, and withthe addition of koumi, koumi by a majority of the Old Latin witnesses.It is strangely changed to read ràbbi. qabita koumi, hrabbi thabita koumi, by Bezae.We think that the reading of the proper name is an indication of the inability of thecopyist and the Latin translators to read Aramaic. The difference between êïõì, koum andkoumi, koumi is the difference between the masculine singular imperative and the femininesingular imperative in Aramaic, so that the first variant reading is a grammatical correctionof the original text by these later copyists and translators who obviously understoodAramaic. See Metzger, p. 87.The variant readings do not change the meaning of Mark, but demonstrate thedifficulty found by Greek writers and others in understanding Aramaic.769The present passive nominative neuter singular participle ìåèåñìçíåõüìåíïí,methermeneuomenon, means "when being translated."457

770 771"The little girl, I tell you, arise!" 5.42 And immediately the little girl got up and she was772 773 774walking around, for she was being twelve years old. And they were beside themselves770Mark's "translation" adds in some words not in the Aramaic statement quoted fromJesus.Some scholars have concluded, on the basis of such quotations of Jesus, in whichAramaic is used (see also Mark 7:34 and 15:34), that Jesus' original language was Aramaic.But this is a very questionable conclusion. Time and time again (far more than a hundred toone) Jesus is quoted as speaking in Greek. Why then should we not conclude that his originallanguage was Greek?The best conclusion to draw is that Jesus was bi-lingual or tri-lingual, that he couldspeak Aramaic, in the native Jewish homes, or read Classical Hebrew in the synagogues, butthat he could and did speak Greek in the heavily cosmopolitan Galilee of his day (Sepphoris,the seat of Roman power, with its Greek language, was only four miles from Jesus’ hometown).What we are learning from archaeological discoveries in Capernaum and Sepphoris isthat first century Galilee was much more cosmopolitan and multi-lingual than was previouslythought.Luccock comments that "...This picture of Jesus, taking the hand of the little girl andbidding her to rise, suggests vividly what he has meant to young womanhood. His influence inlifting the crushing burdens which society has so often bound on the frail shoulders of little girlscan never be measured or even described. Man's inhumanity to little girls is a special andagonizing brand of man's inhumanity to man. In the Mediterranean world, in the first centuryA.D., they were so often merely unwanted things. They were exposed to the elements, a fairlycommon form of child murder. Even where such cruelty did not prevail, they were regardedmore as a misfortune than as a blessing. The new valuation of persons, which the gospel ofJesus brought, changed the conception of them: they were no longer things, but persons,precious in the sight of God."Another of the dark chapters of the history of childhood is that of the coming of theindustrial revolution to England. Little girls under ten crawled around mine pits and workedlong hours in factories. It took a long time--far too long--before the aroused Christian socialconscience spoke effectively the words of Jesus, ‘Little girl, I say to you, arise.’ The voice ofthe Master sounded out through the devoted life of Josephine Butler, who strove to bringwithin the circle of mercy and love girls condemned to prostitution." (P. 725)771Compare footnotes 727 and 733 for this typically Markan "language of immediacy."772Taylor notes that "The tenses are carefully distinguished and should be given their fullforce: the child arose and continued walking." (P. 297)773Why does Mark add this statement "...For she was twelve years old"? Is it because itsreaders might think of the child as being too young to walk around? The woman just healed(continued...)458

775 776 777[immediately] with great amazement. 5.43 And he ordered them over and over so that773(...continued)by Jesus had been sick for twelve years–throughout the life of this little girl. Are we to see anysignificance in the two-fold use of "twelve" here? If so, it is not obvious.774This is the same verb that was used in Mark 3:21 by those closest to Jesus, when theysought to take hold of him, saying that "He's beside himself,” or “he’s gone crazy." Seefootnote 442 on that passage. Here, instead of meaning "gone crazy," it means "to beamazed," "to be astonished and filled with fear," "out of their senses" because of the unusual,miraculous nature of what has happened.775The adverb euvqu,j, euthus, “immediately,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, EphraemiRescriptus, L, Delta, Minuscules 33, 579, 892, 2427, a few other Greek manuscripts, somemanuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and the Bohairic Coptic.It is changed to pa,ntej, pantes, “everyone,” by Bezae, a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses, some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic and a few manuscripts of the BohairicCoptic.It is omitted by P45, Alexandrinus, W, Theta, Families 1 and 13 of Minuscules, the“Majority Text,” the Latin Vulgate, some of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, theHarclean Syriac and some manuscripts of the Bohairic Coptic.Whether read or not makes no difference for the meaning of Mark. We do not agreethat the adverb should be placed in the text, even though within brackets.776Literally, "...with a great ecstasy." This is the language of "Theophany," describing thekind of amazement and "ecstasy" that are felt in the presence of divine revelation. See theuse of this same noun in Mark 16:8, the verse with which the oldest (and in our opinion, thebest) Greek manuscripts of Mark end.Schweizer comments that "The fact that God became a concrete reality within theexperience of these human beings immediately produced fear. This shows howuncomfortable the presence of God is, because it disturbs the status quo in which [humanity]feels more or less at home." (P. 120)France comments that “The raising of the dead fits in appropriately with Jesus’ otheracts of power, rather than being singled out (as it is more clearly in John 11) as a miracle suigeneris [‘unique’]. It is possible that the use of the verbs ev,geire, egeire, ‘arise’ and avne,sth,aneste, ‘she rose up,’ both of which occur frequently in the New Testament to denote theresurrection both of Jesus and of believers, served to suggest to Mark’s readers the idea thatin this resuscitation of a dead girl there was a fore-shadowing of the power over death whichwould be the basis of the Christian faith. But the verbs are common ones, and in this storycould hardly have been avoided; Mark gives no overt indication that he wishes to suggest a(continued...)459

778 779no one should know this; and he said it should be given to her to eat.776(...continued)resurrection typology. This was, after all, a return to earthly life (and subsequent death), notresurrection.” (P. 240)777The adjective , polla, which we have translated “over and over,” is omitted byBezae, Minuscule 1424, a few other Greek manuscripts and a majority of the Old Latinwitnesses.The omission changes the text slightly–instead of Jesus being so insistent that noone know what had happened, it is, with the omission, simply mentioned that theyshould not let anyone know.Literally, , polla means "...many things,” or “much." Compare Mark 3:12; 5:10(with its footnote 660), and footnotes 707 and 717.778Again we confront what scholars have called the "Messianic Secret" in Mark. Francecomments that “The command to secrecy is by now a familiar refrain in Mark, though 5:19-20has provided a fascinating exception to the rule. This time the command stands even lesschance of success, in a setting where the dead girl must soon be presented alive to themourning neighborhood.” (P. 240)Why does Jesus want to keep this matter unknown or secret? It seems obvious thatpremature knowledge of the nature of Jesus' mission and work could have easily led tohindrance to, and even prevention of, his fulfilling his mission in Galilee. See Mark 1:44 withits footnote 216; also Mark 3:12 with its footnote 395. By way of contrast, compare footnote688.Even for modern students of Mark, the same thing is true. If we learn from passagessuch as this to look upon Jesus as God's chosen King who conquers sickness and death--without connecting this victory with the necessity for his own suffering and death andresurrection--we too will greatly misunderstand who Jesus is. He is not the conqueror ofsickness and death apart from his own suffering and death. Only the risen Lord, in his eternalkingdom, can be humanity’s hope. We think that this is what lies at the heart of the so-called“Messianic Secret.”779Instead of seeking to receive glory and recognition for who he is, Jesus centers hisconcern on the welfare and health of the little girl who has been restored to life.Swete comments that in this "...We have fresh evidence of the sympathetic tendernessof the Lord, and His attention to small details in which the safety or comfort of others wasinvolved. In the excitement of the moment the necessity of maintaining the life which hadbeen restored might have been overlooked. But life restored by miracle must be supported byordinary means; the miracle has no place where human care or labor will suffice." (P. 110)460(continued...)

779(...continued)Anderson, however, insists that "The request to give the child something to eat is not somuch a testimony to Jesus' very human concern for the child's needs as impressiveconfirmation of her restoration to normal bodily existence, i.e. confirmation of the reality of themiracle." (P. 156)These two views of Swete and Anderson are not exclusive, and should be combined--here is an attention to detail that in fact confirms the reality of the miracle.Schweizer comments that "Mark presents the raising of this dead person as a singleexception [to the normal finality of death], which, although it demonstrates Jesus' authority,does not solve [humanity's] problem of death. The fact that in a particularly tragic case Jesusrestored a dead person to [her] family for a few more years does not mean that [she] hadovercome death..." But by this story, says Schweizer, "The believer can...learn through Jesusto take the reality of the God who raises the dead more seriously than the apparent reality ofdeath. Then, by the side of a casket or on his own death-bed he will be able to believe in a lifewhich is more concrete and real than anything on earth which is called personal life." (Pp.120-21)Schweizer also states, "Undoubtedly, [this story is] reporting a straight-forward miracleof resurrection. Of course, a thing like this might seem almost natural to them, since suchmiracles were attributed to Greek wonder-workers and even were authenticated by thetestimony of physicians. We, however, live in a completely different situation...The situation of[people] today is so different that [our] attention becomes fixed upon the miracle itself--whether or not [we] believe it to be true. In the process the story loses its 'symbolic' meaning."It must be recognized that the resuscitation of a corpse and the person's return to whatfor all practical purposes is the same kind of an earthly life...is the exact opposite of what theBible calls resurrection--recreation by God to an existence which is entirely new. It is life in amanner that is inconceivable, because it is existence in fellowship with God. To be sure, Godprovides signs for this. But to transfer the question of faith from the thing itself to the signwould be fatal...The real miracle in this story is the emergence of faith which believes God isable to triumph over death." (Ibid.)Anderson holds a very similar view: "...Even if the miracle itself were proven, we shouldthen only have an isolated, local instance of the restoration of a child to normal day-to-dayexistence--and that might merely teach us in the presence of death to expect a similar kind ofphysical miracle. Such expectation (doomed to disappointment.) is to be sure radicallydifferent from the faith that is not broken by death but goes on believing in God's power toconquer it and to bestow that new life (of the resurrection) that unimaginably transcends ourpresent everyday existence...So the Evangelist would have understood this story (whosehistorical credentials he would not, like us, have paused to question) as paradigmatic for faith,faith in God's victory over death...Mark's reader is asked to believe in the creative power ofGod's word in Jesus, as well in the face of death as in everyday living." (Pp. 156-57)Lane sums up the story by saying, "The resuscitation of Jairus' daughter is both a deedof compassion and a pledge of the conquering power of Jesus over the combined forces of(continued...)461

779(...continued)death and unbelief, in which the Kingdom of God was disclosed as a saving reality. It isprecisely in deliverance from death that the salvation which Jesus brings finds its most pointedexpression." (P. 199) He quotes G. Sevenster: "The dead are raised, because in Jesus'action that Kingdom is beginning to be realized in which there will be no more death(Revelation 21:4 and 20:14)." That is why we have named this study, "Signs of the ComingKingdom: Sickness and Death Conquered by the King." It was in the light of a life-time spentin translating such stories as this, that the English scholar and translator, J. B. Phillips, wrotethe following words:"Christ taught an astonishing thing about physical death: not merely that it is anexperience robbed of its terror, but that as an experience it does not exist at all. To 'sleep inChrist,' 'depart and be with Christ,' 'fall asleep,'--these are the expressions the NewTestament uses. It is high time the 'icy river,' 'the gloomy portal,' 'the bitter pains,' and all therest of the melancholy images were brought face to face with the fact: Jesus Christ hasabolished death."Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) wrote: "Death is not death if it raises us in a momentfrom darkness into light, from weakness into strength, from sinfulness into holiness...Death isnot death if it rids us of doubt and fear, of chance and change, of space and time, and allwhich space and time bring forth and then destroy."What about us? What will we say in the face of death? Are we able to share in thisunshakeable confidence of Jesus?462

PRAYERLord Jesus, we are learning from the Gospel of Mark who You are: You are the Sonof God, who can speak to the storming wind and waves, commanding them to be still. Youare the One who can command the unclean spirits in human hearts, getting rid of thoseevil forces that destroy and cripple and ruin our lives. More than that, You are the GreatPhysician, Who reaches out to touch and heal those who are suffering–especially thosepeople considered the least worthy in first-century society–elderly women with long-timesicknesses, considered “unclean”; and frail, dying little girls, considered “nobodies” bymany in the first century world. How thankful we are that You reached out to them withYour mercy and healing!For we still need Your touch today, in our twenty-first century world. In spite of ourabundance of medical facilities, we are still the victims of life-threatening accidents, ofterminal cancer, and heart attack, and numerous dread diseases. Sometimes weourselves, and our beloved children, become addicted to drugs, or get caught up withcompanions that lead us in the wrong direction. There is nothing better that we can ask forourselves, and for our beloved children, than that You, Lord Jesus, will lay Your handsupon us and them, filling us with Your Spirit and life. O Lord, let us today, as we worship,reach out to You, opening our hearts and our lives to Your saving presence. Let us notallow our worship to be empty, or hollow ritual–but rather, let us together earnestly seekYour presence! We desperately need Your touch!Today, all around us, we still hear the voice of cynical despair and of unbelief; wehear the crude mockery of things divine, denying Your reality, or the possibility of new lifehere, or of eternal life beyond the grave. O Lord, let us refuse to pay attention to thosevoices, and instead pay attention to Your voice, saying to us, “Don’t be afraid. Onlybelieve!” Give us strength of faith to believe that death is little more than a sleep, and thatYour hand will raise us up from death into the eternal, resurrected life of Your Kingdom,where death is conquered and powerless, and where love and goodness and truth and joyreign forever. Let us never give in to the common view that the under-taker and gravediggerhave the last word about death!O Lord, death is not death if it raises us in a moment from darkness into light, fromweakness into strength, from sinfulness into purity. Death is not death it if rids us of doubtand fear, of chance and change, and all which space and time bring forth and then destroy.You have abolished death; You have given us life that knows no end. Thanks be to You,Lord Jesus! Amen.463