Would Jesus Protest?
I decided to break with the lectionary this week. I was reading a thread where someone asks if Christians can protest. Would Jesus protest? This passage popped in my head. I decided to view it as a sign to preach off of this story. Let’s have a look:
This is an interesting story and it appears in different forms in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Usually, Mark is the most concise gospel, but in this case, it is not, rather it is the most detailed and Matthew’s version is the shortest. Here is the version in Matthew:
Now, quick aside, this story, like many others that have parallels in other gospels, which often have differences, this one does as well. One theory is that the individual writers make subtle changes in the stories to make more sense to their intended audiences. In their days and ages, they didn’t think of themselves writing part of “the bible.” They were conveying a story to specific people. In the Jewish tradition, stories were often embellished to convey certain truths. This doesn’t mean the bible is not “true,” rather it was how people in that time period learned. Truth is a more philosophical understanding of the meaning rather than equating truth with fact.
Another theory is, perhaps they just recalled the details differently. Look at it this way, when I was in grad school the first time, my parents got a dog from a local shelter. The dog was clearly trained but did not respond to any commands. When a family friend came over for dinner, we tried something. She was originally from Cuba and speaks Spanish and English. She said “ven aquí!” and Winston slinked his tail, lowered his head, and came to her. Now, when I hear my mom tell the story, after “ven aquí!” Winston perks up, wags his tail, and jumps in her lap. We both saw the same thing, but for whatever reason, our minds remembered details differently. Without video, we do not know whose recollection was exactly right, I mean, of course mine was, but in reality, both stories share the same thing, the command mystery was solved, we had a bilingual dog!
So, whether the authors intentionally recalled the stories differently for their audiences, or whether it was a case of the bilingual dog, it is not nearly the huge deal some make of it. The only way this is a huge deal is if we hang on every word as a literal word from God to speak as literal, precise fact. Many traditions of Christianity do this and say they do this because they take scripture seriously. The irony is, this actually limits the value of scripture and does not take the Jewish and ancient Christian history seriously, because that is not how they understood scripture.
So anyway, In Mark and in Luke, there is one man possessed by many demons named Legion. In Matthew, two men had demons in them, but the name or numbers of the demons were not mentioned. In all three gospels, the story is in roughly the same place, a region outside of Judea, inhabited by gentiles rather than Jews, and was an area known for being a Roman command post. In all three stories, Jesus heals the man or men by removing the demons into a herd of pigs.
If this is just read as us modern westerners, specifically the kind that hangs on every literal word without deeper meaning would read it, this would be the end of the story. A man was possessed, in need of help, and Jesus healed him. We likely wouldn’t think much about the pigs. They just happened to be there and were insignificant. We might think that demon possession was how they understood mental illness in that time, but likely would not think much beyond that. In this time and culture, these details are all important. These were tribal people that learn who they are and their connection to the world and God through myths, just like many native tribes still do today. The details of the story are everything.
So, what does any of this have to do with protest and our setting today? Let’s first look at the man in Mark. He lives among the tombs. Theologian Herman Waetjen says the following:
Not only does he come out of the tombs, places of uncleanness, according to Jewish tradition, where demons dwell; the tombs are his home, while he himself is the home of unclean spirits. A complete necrophile, he is the embodiment of living death, and he is distinguished by the narrator’s rather redundant description of his condition as the most dehumanized and wretched individual whom Jesus has yet encountered.
The man lives amongst the unclean and is the embodiment of death. The author of Mark goes into great detail about this man when throughout most of the gospel, he skims over the details. In this story, this is more than a mere man, but he is a representation of something bigger. He is likely a representation of a person from this region, maybe a Jew that went rogue or maybe a gentile, that has lived amongst and embodied the Roman empire. Scripture often used satanic and demonic images to describe Rome and what it represents. This was very common in the book of Revelation. The Romans occupied Israel and were oppressing the Jewish people. Not only was he an embodiment of Rome, but he also was likely beaten down and subjected by Rome for not being of their elite status. So, that’s something to consider when looking at this man and what he might represent.
Next, let’s look at the demons. In 2 of the 3 versions, the demons were called “Legion.” The Greek word used here is the same Greek word that means a Legion of Roman troops, which was a regiment of 6000 troops. It’s the same word.
While it could technically be a coincidence, as the word also means a large number (note the above example in Matthew 26), it is quite likely meant to nod towards Rome, considering the context of the when the story was written and when and where the characters in this narrative were. The hearers of this story in this time and place would immediately know what this means. The demons just happen to have the same name as the troops that subjugate them. Now, it looks as if the theory about the possessed man is possessed by and the embodiment of Rome, is looking more likely.
In all 3 versions of this story, the demons were cast by Jesus into the pigs. There are a few things to note here. This is not likely insignificant. They were not likely just random animals that were nearby. 1) Pigs were unclean to Jewish people. Jesus has now associated the demons known as Legion, with an animal considered profane in their culture. 2) The seal of the Roman army in this area around this time period was a wild boar. The pigs do not seem so random anymore, nor does the alignment of Legion with Rome (Marcus). 3) The symbolism of the pigs running off the cliff could have a couple meanings. First, why didn’t Jesus just not give the demons their demand? He could have said no, you will not be cast into those pigs, go back to Hell where you came from. But, he didn’t. He cast them into the pigs. Some believe it was because God was going to deal with Rome later (Dowd). So, let’s look at this symbolism here. One could be this as described by theologian Warren Carter: “God’s empire destroys the pigs, symbols of Roman commercial, religious, and military power, possessed by demons, agents of the devil’s reign. . . The representatives of Roman power end up in the same place as Pharaoh’s army. Drowned. Another take can be heard by Waetjen:
The demonic possession of the swine produces a profound change in their character; instead of scattering into different directions, they violently stampede as a herd [pigs do not travel in herds] plunging off the cliff into the sea. The torment they had dreaded has been afflicted on them: they meet their eschatological doom by being banished to the realm of the abyss, symbolized by the sea, but ironically by the very hosts by which they expected to remain in the country of the Gerasenes. The swine, the prototype of uncleanliness, have become the ‘scape-pigs’ [insted of scapegoats] of the demoniac and, by returning the demons to their place of origin, have rendered them ineffective.
Either way, this shows God’s view of empire, a profane animal being possessed by demons and ultimately running off the cliff to their demise. All past empires have come to an end. All current ones will. The end is never pretty.
Lastly, let’s look at how the people reacted to this. In all three versions, the people wanted Jesus out of there. They did not meet with Jesus in a pleasant way. For one, these pigs were the livelihood of the town, or at least part of it. Jesus just disrupted their businesses to do justice for this one man, or in the case of Matthew, 2 men. Jesus destroyed their property! Jesus was an outside agitator to these people. If he disrupted this one line of business, what else would he disrupt? Get him out of here.
So, here, we have a lot in what seemed like a simple story of Jesus healing a man of demon possession. It turns out that whether or not there was a literal demon possession and demons being cast into literal pigs, or the allegorical understanding of Roman occupation, there is still an allegory of the power of God, the character of God, undermining empire, which it seems God views as demon-possessed. Any state that is not living according to the teachings of the prophets and the example of Jesus, which is every country, state, or empire that has ever existed, is likely to at some point face the same fate.
So, would Jesus protest? Jesus, by casting these demons, that represents Rome, into the livelihood of someone’s business that operates within the Roman system, to me sounds like a protest. He disrupted a system to help someone being hurt by it. He disrupted the agenda of the demons, and it happened to be taken out on the business folks raising those pigs. Were those pigs used to feed the Roman army (quite likely)? Were they just random pigs, but Jesus viewed this man’s need as greater than the livelihood of those farmers and their business partners? Did the state of Rome have a stake in them? The story does not answer these questions. What the story does answer, is that Jesus was willing to take this step, which both healed one, while disrupting another. As Warren Carter states:
The story celebrates Jesus’ liberating reign, which subverts claims made by religions and imperial powers and points to God’s sovereignty over Rome.
Protest is part of the very nature of Christ: Protesting that which brings death. Protesting false religion. Protesting the status quo. Jesus opposes and undermines all that causes death, in other words, sin. He protests it to the point that he heals it. He takes what was wrong and makes it right. This is not simply acknowledging, confessing, apologizing, or feeling guilty for mistakes, but it is the change of direction. Even if we were not the guilty party, if our changing of direction can make something right, then that is what we ought to do. Jesus was not guilty of any crime other than legal technicalities, but he showed us repentance by going to the cross, even though he himself needed no repentance. He did it for us.
Sources:
Herman Waetjen: A Reordering of Power
Warren Carter: Matthew and the Margins
Joel Marcus: Mark
Dormandy, The Expulsion of Legion
