Thread: Kerygmania: Gadarene swine Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001330
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
This is undoubtedly an old chestnut, but I haven't seen the answer so please bear with me and if you can wrap it up quickly, please do.
Who would have been farming pigs in (presumably predominantly Jewish) C1 Palestine, and why? Was it some kind of Roman garrison farm, perhaps?
[ 31. January 2017, 21:40: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Masses of Gentiles in the area -- not only Romans but Greeks and so forth. You don't have to eat the pigs yourself, just sell them to the goys.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Is that right? You wouldn't be defiled by raising them?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
That story, and the parable of the Prodigal Son, suggests that for whatever reason pig farms must have been part of the landscape. But weren't there a lot of Gentiles living in the regions where the demoniac was healed?
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
If this involved a Roman garrison farm, one would expect some sort of retaliation for the destruction of a substantial number of animals. Indeed, one would expect anger no matter who owned them.
By the way, does the law of Moses forbid wearing garments made from pig leather?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Someone must know about how the Mosaic law works -- is it OK to raise non-kosher foods?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Remember that this is happening in "Galilee of the Gentiles," as Isaiah described it, where there are sizable communities of non-Jews. And it's across the lake, too, which seems to be even more "Gentile" from what I can make out. This community may not have had all that many kosher-keeping Jews.
As for whether you can raise unclean animals, certainly you can--a donkey or camel is "unclean" for purposes of eating or sacrifice, but you could still own and care for one. The whole "cooties" idea about unclean animals seems to come into effect mainly when they die, e.g. if a mouse dies in your cooking pot, bye bye pot (unless it was metal, in which case you could scour it to death and keep it). Living unclean animals don't seem to be "touch me nots" in Mosaic law, though local custom might have made them so.
As for someone bringing charges for the death of the pigs--well, I suppose they could try, but the magistrate would either throw them out as crazy people ("Did he touch your pigs? No? He was just standing 100 yards away? Well, then.") or he might take the exorcism thing with great seriousness, in which case it makes good sense to avoid pissing off a man who shows such remarkable power. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
After all, you wouldn't want to end up Part 2 of Jesus' remarkable exhibition (pigs, wait for me!).
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
That's interesting and helps me understand it- thanks. I know really shamefully little about the historical and socio-economic context of the Gospels.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
You're welcome! Most of this I got by asking the very same questions long ago, I've always been one of those "But wh-y-y-y-yyyyyy?" annoying people.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for whether you can raise unclean animals, certainly you can--a donkey or camel is "unclean" for purposes of eating or sacrifice, but you could still own and care for one. The whole "cooties" idea about unclean animals seems to come into effect mainly when they die, e.g. if a mouse dies in your cooking pot, bye bye pot (unless it was metal, in which case you could scour it to death and keep it). Living unclean animals don't seem to be "touch me nots" in Mosaic law, though local custom might have made them so.
Here's a thought -- since Jews can touch, ride, etc. "unclean" animals, could a first century Palestinian Jew in good conscience raise pigs to sell to the goyim, if he didn't eat them himself?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Don't know but probably like my former muslim pupil, who works in Sainsburys's and who gives me bacon and black pudding as long as he wears gloves.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
There used to be a good Jewish deli in Streatham Hill about 25 years ago which cheerfully advertised, among the flyers for events at the (admittedly Liberal) Synagogue, 'Try our bacon sandwich'. Lot of policemen, few of them I imagine Jewish, used to eat there.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
God, how I miss pastrami on rye. Apropos of nothing.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
At the point in time when my son thought he was going to Iraq (he didn't) I took him to New York City and we ate pastrami on rye at Katz's deli, arguably the best in the world. I wanted him to know what he was fighting for.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
At the point in time when my son thought he was going to Iraq (he didn't) I took him to New York City and we ate pastrami on rye at Katz's deli, arguably the best in the world. I wanted him to know what he was fighting for.
Do they still have the slogan 'Send a salami to your boy in the army'?
Happy memories of a Shipmeet there in 2005!
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
Call me naive or ignorant or whatever. My take is the maniacal shouting of the maniac put the fear of God into the pigs who rushed headlong over the cliff. Jesus took the opportunity to say " there go your demons". And since the only way demons could finally be destroyed was by drowning ( see the other incident where exorcised demons "wandered in waterless places" and returned with 7 fold intensity) this was sufficient proof to the possessed man.
Why do we always have to look for miraculous interventions when a perfectly good explanation is at hand?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes, they still do. If he had gone to Iraq I might have had them send one to my son.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Why do we always have to look for miraculous interventions when a perfectly good explanation is at hand?
Because the gospel writers are not trying to give a literal videotape of the life of Christ.
Much of the supernatural stuff in the gospels are making a point about the nature of God and Jesus, generally through symbolic and imaginative language.
In this case, I find the story very moving as an account of someone regarding themselves as outcast from the community, giving themselves over to self hatred and self harming.
By accepting them, Jesus heals and reconciles them. The flight of the herd of swine symbolises brilliantly the expulsion of the self destructive tendencies.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I've never heard that demons could only be destroyed by water. Where'd you get that?
The wandering-in-the-waterless-places thingy I take to mean that they went to the wilderness, which is more or less desert in that part of the world. But the point is that they banished, exiled, unhoused and away from human contact, not so much that they are like the wicked witch of the West and will melt on contact with H2O.
As for the guy shouting spooking all the pigs--it was a pretty big herd, and he'd been living near it for a long time. Surely they'd be used to it by then? The swineherds didn't put their loss down to the shouting, and they must have known their pigs' behavior pretty well. Plus I don't get the impression Jesus and the man were standing all that close to the pigs at the time. Within eyeshot, yes, but right next to the herd would be an unusual place for a band of Jews to pick (and Jesus and the apostles were Jews), not to mention a dangerous spot, particularly with such a large herd.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And smelly. You do not want to stand right next to a big herd of pigs, particularly if you are wearing sandals.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've never heard that demons could only be destroyed by water. Where'd you get that?
It is a powerful symbol of a psychological deliverance.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It may function that way for you personally, but is there anyone out there who also shares that belief? I mean, the church fathers, early Jewish sources, some reference in Scripture... Just saying "it works for me" is a bit thin when we're studying a text.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Just saying "it works for me" is a bit thin when we're studying a text.
Any interesting post here will be an expression of a personal response to the text of scripture. Why should my response be discounted just because it is mine?
The demons ask to have a different “host” from the man and are sent into the pigs. If they could exist independently of a “host” they wouldn’t need to.
Unfortunately for them, the pigs react badly to possession and act like lemmings. (The demons have already produced self hatred and self harm with their human victim. Animal hosts have a more violent reaction.)
As a result the demons have no hosts and are destroyed.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
My question was specifically about the water/destruction link. Your post appeared to be made in answer to my question, in which case it was less than substantial. If I was wrong, and your post had nothing to do with my question, then naturally there is no problem with it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Some say that pigs in ancient Israel were part of the sanitation system as they ate shit.
Anyway, if the story is supposed to be read as a Roman pig farm, then presumably the reader is supposed to infer some things about Jesus and his power over the Roman occupiers as much as over demons and unclean animals.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
My question was specifically about the water/destruction link. Your post appeared to be made in answer to my question, in which case it was less than substantial. If I was wrong, and your post had nothing to do with my question, then naturally there is no problem with it.
Whilst I can't think of an example of anyone doing it, if the Church Fathers were going to go down that route in commenting on this story, I suspect the tie would be drawn to baptism, setting this up as a type of baptism - where baptism is an entering into water to defeat the demons within oneself.
But all speculative really...
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, if the story is supposed to be read as a Roman pig farm, then presumably the reader is supposed to infer some things about Jesus and his power over the Roman occupiers as much as over demons and unclean animals.
Surely that's also present in the story with the demons being named "Legion," isn't it?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, if the story is supposed to be read as a Roman pig farm, then presumably the reader is supposed to infer some things about Jesus and his power over the Roman occupiers as much as over demons and unclean animals.
Surely that's also present in the story with the demons being named "Legion," isn't it?
I doubt that Legion as a name is linked with the military unit, if that's your meaning. Rather, I'd take it to the large number of demons, a number beyond counting.
Upthread somewhere, there was a question about swine and camels being unclean. AIUI, their being unclean is a reference to eating them. Certainly, there was nothing unclean in having numerous camels to use as beasts of burden and a means of transport. Pigs were prohibited food, but perhaps they could have been kept to consume garbage - their willingness to eat waste being why they were unclean.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anyway, if the story is supposed to be read as a Roman pig farm, then presumably the reader is supposed to infer some things about Jesus and his power over the Roman occupiers as much as over demons and unclean animals.
Surely that's also present in the story with the demons being named "Legion," isn't it?
Dang it, I never noticed either of these things. Fwoar.
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst I can't think of an example of anyone doing it, if the Church Fathers were going to go down that route in commenting on this story, I suspect the tie would be drawn to baptism, setting this up as a type of baptism - where baptism is an entering into water to defeat the demons within oneself.
But all speculative really...
There is nothing like that in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture for this passage. They focus on the demons as being the enemies of humankind, and how we allow them to enter into us metaphorically through sin. There is a lot about Jew (the Church) and Gentile (non-Christians). But nothing about baptism.
Ditto Chrysostom, who in his 28th (or XXVIIIth) sermon takes great pains to point out that the demons would have treated the demoniacs even worse, like they treated the swine, had not God been protecting them (i.e. the demoniacs). An interesting (and not altogether convincing) observation. He then launches into a warning about being the sort of sinful person who by his sins allows the demons to enter himself, which goes on for two pages. The penultimate paragraph being:
Consider then all these things (for the words concerning hell and the kingdom ye are not yet able to hear), and bearing in mind the losses which ye have often undergone from your love of money, in loans, and in purchases, and in marriages, and in offices of power, and in all the rest; withdraw yourselves from doating [sic] on money.
Apparently the story of the demoniacs was a huge warning against filthy lucre.
Anyway not to say that your theory is wrong; only that I couldn't locate it in what little of the fathers I have access to.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
Whilst I can't think of an example of anyone doing it, if the Church Fathers were going to go down that route in commenting on this story, I suspect the tie would be drawn to baptism, setting this up as a type of baptism - where baptism is an entering into water to defeat the demons within oneself.
But all speculative really...
There is nothing like that in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture for this passage. They focus on the demons as being the enemies of humankind, and how we allow them to enter into us metaphorically through sin. There is a lot about Jew (the Church) and Gentile (non-Christians). But nothing about baptism.
Ditto Chrysostom, who in his 28th (or XXVIIIth) sermon takes great pains to point out that the demons would have treated the demoniacs even worse, like they treated the swine, had not God been protecting them (i.e. the demoniacs). An interesting (and not altogether convincing) observation. He then launches into a warning about being the sort of sinful person who by his sins allows the demons to enter himself, which goes on for two pages. The penultimate paragraph being:
Consider then all these things (for the words concerning hell and the kingdom ye are not yet able to hear), and bearing in mind the losses which ye have often undergone from your love of money, in loans, and in purchases, and in marriages, and in offices of power, and in all the rest; withdraw yourselves from doating [sic] on money.
Apparently the story of the demoniacs was a huge warning against filthy lucre.
Anyway not to say that your theory is wrong; only that I couldn't locate it in what little of the fathers I have access to.
I don't believe my theory exists anywhere in the Fathers either. I'm merely attempting to link destroying demons and water - as was being suggested upthread - using similar exegetical approaches to what they use elsewhere - with their constant eye on the life of the Church in interpreting all of Scripture.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Some commentators I've read do think that the demons being named Legion is an intentional reference to the Roman legions, but I'll have to find some references to back that up when I'm at my computer (on my tablet now typing one-fingered). I was under the impression it was a pretty common reading but maybe not.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I doubt that Legion as a name is linked with the military unit, if that's your meaning. Rather, I'd take it to the large number of demons, a number beyond counting.
Hard to see why the word used would be one associated with the Romans. Surely there was a word in contemporary languages for a multitude.
quote:
Upthread somewhere, there was a question about swine and camels being unclean. AIUI, their being unclean is a reference to eating them. Certainly, there was nothing unclean in having numerous camels to use as beasts of burden and a means of transport. Pigs were prohibited food, but perhaps they could have been kept to consume garbage - their willingness to eat waste being why they were unclean.
I don't know the details about Jewish animal prohibitions. However I'd imagine there is a difference between animals like camels and horses - which were acceptable to use as pack animals - and animals like pigs, which were not good for eating, not good for pulling things, not good for clothing.. and maybe only good for eating shit and/or selling to crazy dirty heathen occupiers.
In many different societies those who kept pigs were very low in station. It is hard to imagine this would not be the case with Jews, particularly with the religious prohibitions.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In many different societies those who kept pigs were very low in station. It is hard to imagine this would not be the case with Jews, particularly with the religious prohibitions.
This is also true of those who keep sheep and goats.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Where did this stuff about pigs eating shit come from?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Where did this stuff about pigs eating shit come from?
Not sure what you mean - pig coprophagia is well known, see for example this sciencey news article, but I can also show you academic papers discussing the phenomena if you are interested.
[ 13. February 2016, 14:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Ta Mr. C, but I was more concerned to set the reputation of pigs in context, given the subject matter. So far as I am aware, they only do so in restricted circumstances (herbivore faeces containing undigested nutrients) - as of course do other animals (e.g. rabbits for refection).
Likewise, the dreadful smell point raised above also needs to be set in context - left to themselves, pigs are hygienic animals with a built-in tendency not to foul their resting quarters. Their tendency to cover themselves in mud is primarily to keep cool and protect against sunburn. And in fact, pigs kept in the open air and given freedom to rootle about don't smell much at all, and are more reliably amiable creatures.
A lot of the bad impressions that people have about pigs arise more from the way we tend to treat them.
But as I say, its more a context point.
[ 13. February 2016, 16:44: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Many New Testament manuscripts refer to the "Country of the Gadarenes" or "Gerasenes" rather than the Gergesenes. Both Gerasa and Gadara were cities to the east of the Sea of Galilee. They were both Gentile cities filled with citizens who were culturally more Greek than Semitic; this would account for the pigs in the biblical account. Gerasa and Gadara are accounted for in historical accounts (by writers such as Pliny the Elder and Josephus) and by archaeological research. Today they are the modern towns of Jerash and Umm Qais.
Thus when the villagers demand that Jesus leave the region, it was for cause. He had just wiped out their livelihood and food source.
But what has always intrigued me with this story is who was the demonic? This is the one story in the Gospel of Mark that has a lot of detail in it. When the demonic is healed the villages find him fully clothed with Jesus. After the villages demand Jesus leave their area the (formally) demonic wants to go with Jesus. But Jesus tells him instead to stay and witness to what has happened to him--the one and only time in Mark where Jesus permits the witness of the healing.
Later we are told that when Jesus was arrested Mark tells of a young man who was wearing a linen garment was following Jesus, the arresting authorities seized the man by his garment and he ran away naked. (Note also, the detail of the arrest in Mark).
And in Mark's story of the resurrection we find that the women encounter a young man in a white garment at the tomb who tells them Jesus is not there.
Could all three men be the one and the same person, maybe even the writer of the Gospel we know as Mark? Or at least Mark's primary source?
This side of eternity we will never know.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
As long as we're on a tangent, I'll add that The Gadarene Swine is the name of a Vegan restaurant in Los Angeles. (I wonder how many locals get the joke.) But back to the OP.
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
This is undoubtedly an old chestnut, but I haven't seen the answer so please bear with me and if you can wrap it up quickly, please do.
Who would have been farming pigs in (presumably predominantly Jewish) C1 Palestine, and why? Was it some kind of Roman garrison farm, perhaps?
The gospel writers set this story in different locations. In Mark and in Luke, it is set in the area of Gerasa, which was in central Transjordan, southeast of the Sea of Galilee. The footnotes in my copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible indicate that the population was largely non-Jewish. I don't know if that means Roman specifically, but perhaps we can conclude that Jewish law wouldn't have been a concern for the guy raising the pigs.
Matthew sets the story in Gadara, also in Transjordan but further north, one of the cities of the Decapolis. This being a largely Hellenized area, there's no reason to assume the pig farmer would have been Jewish. (The OAB notes that Gadara was the site of a famous healing sanctuary - which I'm going to assume was Hellenic - and that, combined with the whole swine business, would make the story hilarious to Matthew's Jewish audience.)
[ 13. February 2016, 18:23: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Mamacita, I'm a doofus, but would you spell out the joke for me? I don't see the connection between dead pigs and veganism... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The owner is an officious little douche who thinks that name is high irony. Also, skip the strawberry salad. It's gross.
( Said owner recently got fed his ass on the Bravo show "Top Chef" this week, and he was shamelessly pimping his restaurant when he was supposed to be supporting his teammates in a simulated restaurant challenge. Diners must have heard the phrase "Gadarine Swine" a dozen times that night.)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Just to say that Tom's idea about baptism strikes me as brilliant.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
Whenever I hear the title of this thread, I imagine a pig in a Burberry overcoat...
Taking of which, I'll get mine.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Just to say that Tom's idea about baptism strikes me as brilliant.
The problem with the analogy is that in baptism we enter into the water and the "old man" dies, and we rise again anew. Baptism is a symbol of death and resurrection.
The pigs don't rise again. They just die.
If anything it's a CONTRAST with baptism. Humans die and rise again. Demons just die.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Mamacita, I'm a doofus, but would you spell out the joke for me? I don't see the connection between dead pigs and veganism...
The vegan restaurant was just an aside. I've always thought that Matthew's audience would think it hilarious that Jesus got rid of demons by sending them into unclean animals. Reading this morning that Gadera was the site of a pagan healing sanctuary just seemed to me to be a nice touch of irony. It's like Jesus was saying, You want healing? I'll show you healing!
Kelly, excellent story about the restaurant owner!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I bet you're right. For some reason I can't help seeing the pigs thundering over a cliff, hanging there in thin air cartoon style for a long awful moment--and then PLOOSH!!! they drop into the sea like cannonballs.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I bet you're right. For some reason I can't help seeing the pigs thundering over a cliff, hanging there in thin air cartoon style for a long awful moment--and then PLOOSH!!! they drop into the sea like cannonballs.
Very Wile E. Coyote.
ETA: Or this could have happened.
[ 13. February 2016, 22:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That would be if water really destroyed demons.
"Hey, kids! I feel so much more sane all of a sudden!"
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Just to say that Tom's idea about baptism strikes me as brilliant.
The problem with the analogy is that in baptism we enter into the water and the "old man" dies, and we rise again anew. Baptism is a symbol of death and resurrection.
The pigs don't rise again. They just die.
If anything it's a CONTRAST with baptism. Humans die and rise again. Demons just die.
Which is why I'm not at all convinced of the idea myself. It was a forced attempt at trying to connect water and the destruction of demons.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Well another Biblical association for water is the primal chaos of the opening of Genesis. The demons return to the primal chaos when they are expelled.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Call me naive or ignorant or whatever. My take is the maniacal shouting of the maniac put the fear of God into the pigs who rushed headlong over the cliff. Jesus took the opportunity to say " there go your demons". And since the only way demons could finally be destroyed was by drowning ( see the other incident where exorcised demons "wandered in waterless places" and returned with 7 fold intensity) this was sufficient proof to the possessed man.
Why do we always have to look for miraculous interventions when a perfectly good explanation is at hand?
I don't think this is a good explanation. I spent time growing up with my grandparents and other relatives who raised pigs in small towns and villages where the livestock wandered the streets and grazed freely. From what I saw I don't think a shouting man, even a maniac, would be enough to drive pigs straight into water. They'd run anywhere else they could. I think they'd even charge at a man before diving off a cliff. The witnesses of the incident and the readers of the story would've been familiar with the behavior of livestock and known how strange and unusual that incident was.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I don't think this is a good explanation. I spent time growing up with my grandparents and other relatives who raised pigs in small towns and villages where the livestock wandered the streets and grazed freely. From what I saw I don't think a shouting man, even a maniac, would be enough to drive pigs straight into water. They'd run anywhere else they could. I think they'd even charge at a man before diving off a cliff. The witnesses of the incident and the readers of the story would've been familiar with the behavior of livestock and known how strange and unusual that incident was.
To be fair, I don't think we should judge livestock behaviour in different parts of the world by the standards we are familiar with from a distance of 2000 years. I suspect pigs are considerably more domesticated today, given the developments in agriculture from the 17 to 19 century, than they would have been in first century Palestine.
When I first travelled to the Middle East, I remember seeing a flock of sheep-and-goats wandering along a road. From a distance it was almost impossible to see the difference. Where I am from in Northern Europe, breeding has meant that in most situations goats and sheep do not walk around in the same flock and their shape is usually easy to distinguish.
You might be right about pigs, you might be wrong. Or the point that the story is making might not be anything to do with pig behaviour at all.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
Pigs have been domesticated for a very long time and I'm skeptical that they behaved much differently in 1rst century Palestine. My experience is with pigs in a rural, somewhat remote part of Mexico where the animals are likely descended from the stock brought by Spaniards of 400 years ago rather than the modern breeds found in mechanized farms of developed countries.
If anything, a less domesticated animal would be less likely to feel so threatened by a shouting man to run of a cliff. Either way the people in the Gospels would've lived day to day with their own livestock and known their behavior and known how unusual it was or wasn't.
quote:
Or the point that the story is making might not be anything to do with pig behaviour at all.
I was responding to a post that cast doubt on the truth of the story based on the behavior of the pigs and what was a likely explanation for it.
I'd say the pig behavior does have something to with the point the story is making because part of it has to do with the identity of Jesus and how is it that He has authority over the natural (pigs) and the supernatural (demons). It might have as much to do about the question that's asked more than once in the Gospels ("Who do you say I am?") as it does with the healing of the posessed man.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Pigs have been domesticated for a very long time and I'm skeptical that they behaved much differently in 1rst century Palestine. My experience is with pigs in a rural, somewhat remote part of Mexico where the animals are likely descended from the stock brought by Spaniards of 400 years ago rather than the modern breeds found in mechanized farms of developed countries.
I'm sorry, that's not evidence. Your experience of pigs is of many generations of breeding after those brought by the Spaniards, which itself is of many many generations of breeding after those in first century Palestine.
I've seen wild boar spooked by flashes of light or sudden noises. But, of course, a single person's experience is not evidence of anything.
quote:
If anything, a less domesticated animal would be less likely to feel so threatened by a shouting man to run of a cliff. Either way the people in the Gospels would've lived day to day with their own livestock and known their behavior and known how unusual it was or wasn't.
I don't believe that is true in any sense. And, in fact, I don't know how you can possibly know that from this distance.
quote:
I'd say the pig behavior does have something to with the point the story is making because part of it has to do with the identity of Jesus and how is it that He has authority over the natural (pigs) and the supernatural (demons). It might have as much to do about the question that's asked more than once in the Gospels ("Who do you say I am?") as it does with the healing of the posessed man.
Right, but then into the mix is the issues of culture (relating to the unclean nature of pigs, the nature of the Roman occupation, the supernatural, of mental illness) and so on.
Therefore asserting that the important part of this story is the odd behaviour of the pigs is in fact just an assertion.
[ 17. February 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I hope when we get to Heaven that there is a FAQ board, upon which Jesus will kindly answer questions like this.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I hope when we get to Heaven that there is a FAQ board, upon which Jesus will kindly answer questions like this.
I have always taken comfort in that "through a glass, darkly" verse from 1st Corinthians, with its promise that all will be revealed in the fullness of time. I hadn't considered the mysteries of livestock to be part of that, but I guess you never know.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Well sure -- under 'fan questions'. Things of no theological import, but of fannish interest. Jesus, do you prefer red wine? Did you wear socks with your sandals (and how did this affect foot washing)? What is your position upon Star Wars, were numbers 1-3 accursed by you specially or did George Lucas just fumble them?
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with the analogy is that in baptism we enter into the water and the "old man" dies, and we rise again anew. Baptism is a symbol of death and resurrection.
The pigs don't rise again. They just die.
If anything it's a CONTRAST with baptism. Humans die and rise again. Demons just die.
It may be both, after all the passage through the Red Sea was both a deliverance and death (and is described in Corinthians as a type of baptism), I agree with other posts that it is more likely to be a symbolic of the demons returning to primeval chaos though given the language used.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes, but what makes the passage through the Red Sea analogous to baptism is that it was a passage through death to life via water. The pigs are analogous to Pharaoh's army. They went into the water but never came out. Whereas the children of Israel arose out of the sea, as does the baptisand out of the baptismal waters.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems quite a gruesome thought, but I wonder the extent to which the saving of the people via the parting of the Red Sea was seen as being redemptive due to the destruction of the Egyptian Army. Isn't that the nature of the Myth of Redemptive Violence: that redemption comes via the spilling of blood?
I appreciate that this is a tangent of what MT was talking about, but I wonder if there is indeed an element or illusion here to the Red Sea salvation story. The unclean animals, the Romans (maybe), the evil spirits. The destruction of what is evil and the washing away in the water.
In fact maybe it is even possible to think of this as a contrast to the Passion - here we have many of the normal elements of religious understanding of God's perfection and destruction of the unclean, whereas in the embracing on the cross of all that is unclean we have the subversion of the understanding of what God's salvation really means.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Something also interesting about this account in one of the Gospels is not so much the behaviour of the pigs but that of the demons.
On this occasion, as on others, the demons recognise Jesus and talk to Him. Strange indeed that these creatures, (or whatever they are), seem quickly to acknowledge, and be fearful of a Divine Being, whereas our own muddled consciousness is slow on the uptake by comparison.
With this story the demons intriguingly " beg" Jesus to allow them to go into the pigs, as if they need a host in which to survive whereas being ejected into nothingness is the worst possible thing for them. ISTM either the pigs couldn't handle the demon invasion and went crazy, or they took the honourable step and destroyed themselves along with the demons.
All getting a bit Dr Who really .
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Me, I think the swine were just sensible. As in, "better dead than living with this company."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It also occurs to me to wonder what this says about Demonology in the New Testament writings. From this story it appears that either those in the crowds who listened to Jesus, those to whom the words in the story were repeated - or maybe both - had a fairly complex theology of demons.
First it appears that a demon is not a free agent and that it requires a host. So a demon or demons cast out from an individual need somewhere else to go, even if the only other option is into a herd of farm animals.
Second it appears that if a demon is possessing a pig, who subsequently dies, then that demon is not available to reinfect some other unsuspecting human individual. If that's the case, where does the demon go? If the demon knew that the pigs were going to jump off the cliff (and/or intended this to happen), what was the point in that?
Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on
:
I always took the (well, a) point of the story to be that the demons didn't know that, but Jesus did. He outwits them. We don't make much of the "cunning Jesus," but the Synoptics all present him that way to us at times.
It also says something to me about the inextinguishability of human hope, however much that light might be dimmed. The swine 'realize' they are possessed and end everything the escape this (scare quotes to not anthropomorphize this instinct too much). The humans, on the other hand, gets close to death but hang on.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Another thought; maybe the pigs are just an illustration of the number of demons/evil spirits which were within the young man. He was just one person, but there were enough evil spirits to go into a great herd of pigs.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Furthermore, unless Jesus told someone what the demons said, the bystanders could hear and understand what they were saying. This actually is not unreasonable, if they were at that moment resident in the young man. They could use his communication systems and his Aramaic (or whatever it was they were all speaking).
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, but what makes the passage through the Red Sea analogous to baptism is that it was a passage through death to life via water. The pigs are analogous to Pharaoh's army. They went into the water but never came out.
Sure, but I'm not sure the two things are as separate as that. Contrast with communion, where the communicant receives Christ, but those who eat and drink in an unworthy manner eat and drink judgement on themselves.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Bumping because this comes up again soon in the lectionary readings for June 19.
Luke 8:26-39
[ 28. May 2016, 03:31: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
A couple of things about the story has struck me.
First, when the demons confront him, they call out Jesus name.
Jesus asks the demon's name and they reply Legion for they were many.
In Semitic literature to know a person's name is to have power over that person. When the demons call out Jesus name, they were trying to get the upper hand on Jesus. When Jesus *asks* for their name, they are obliged to give him their name. So this is a story about who has the upper hand.
Now that Jesus has the upper hand the demons plead not be sent back into the abyss. So Jesus allow them to possess a herd of swine who then rush into the sea--which can be seen as actually the abyss. Thus, the joke is Jesus did not send the demons to the abyss, the swine did. In other words, the demons did not even have power over the swine.
We have to remember that we need to avoid looking at the story through 21st century eyes, but try to understand why Mark and Luke would include this piece of propaganda in their gospels.
There is a strong hint, at least in Mark, that the demonic, now in his right mind, was the unnamed witness to the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane and was the person who let the women know that Jesus had risen on the first Easter
(Note the demonic either wore rags or ran around naked and lived among the tombs vs the person who met the women was dressed in a white robe in the area of the tombs--in Mark. Luke said two men dressed in white met woman at the tomb)
[ 19. June 2016, 23:13: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is a strong hint, at least in Mark, that the demonic, now in his right mind, was the unnamed witness to the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane and was the person who let the women know that Jesus had risen on the first Easter
(Note the demonic either wore rags or ran around naked and lived among the tombs vs the person who met the women was dressed in a white robe in the area of the tombs--in Mark. Luke said two men dressed in white met woman at the tomb)
Here is the Mark passage about the demoniac. Where do you see a strong hint that this is the same young man that was at the empty tomb? Perhaps I've missed something, but I assume there was more than one set of white robes available back then.
[ 20. June 2016, 02:26: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I wonder what it says about me that I focus so much on the pigs in the story. Probably something unsavory about my priorities.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Not unsavory at all. The pigs "make" the story. I was rereading the thread earlier and laughing at your observation here about the cartoonish imagery.
I like it when Jesus has a flair for the dramatic.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Sorry for the double post - I needed to go back and check the Luke passage in my OAB.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
First, when the demons confront him, they call out Jesus name.
They not only call him by name, they call him "Jesus, Son of the Most High God." The demons don't just know his name, they know who he *is*. This makes a stunning contrast with the disciples, who still haven't figured it all out.
[Sidebar: Are there other healing stories where the demons/evil spirits know who Jesus is? I seem to remember a commentary that pointed out the supernatural beings recognized Jesus' true identity ... but I'm not sure where I ran across that.]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Poor piggies!
And now I'm picturing the story if it were to happen today, and the resulting lawsuits...
And the judge's face as the lawyers try to establish cause and effect.
ETA: Am I the only one who thinks that Jesus was showing the demons a bit of mercy, not the man here? Because it wouldn't make any difference to the man where the demons went after leaving. I get the impression that they were begging pitifully for some other option than the abyss and, well...
Not that it did them any good since the pigs acted like sensible creatures and declined to house them any longer.
But I like the idea of Jesus showing even the demons some mercy here.
[ 20. June 2016, 03:12: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Mamacita, yeah, there's a bunch of those stories. Pretty much every story where the demons get enough time to draw a single breath they're shouting his identity all over the place and he has to shut them up. Presumably in order to muck up his ministry by concentrating attention on a fact that would bring unwelcome notice from the authorities. Or possibly just because they were totally freaked out.
There is a somewhat parallel story in the book of Acts where an apostle--Peter, was it? is being followed around by a fortune telling girl and the demons infesting her insist on telling everybody that he's there to preach about the true God. Eventually he gets annoyed enough to cast them out--I suspect because there are some "people" you just don't WANT recommendations from.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
ETA: Am I the only one who thinks that Jesus was showing the demons a bit of mercy, not the man here? Because it wouldn't make any difference to the man where the demons went after leaving. I get the impression that they were begging pitifully for some other option than the abyss and, well....
You have beaten me to yesterday's reading. I was going to post this evening.
Why did the demons beg not to be sent to the abyss? What happened to them when they entered the swine that then died in any event?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Total speculation, but I suspect that going to the abyss was equivalent to going back to a supermax prison when they'd managed to get a certain amount of miserable liberty. Even pigs looked better to them than that. They were trying to spin out the time...
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
As noted in the thread in Purgatory, there is a strong parallel with the passage in Isaiah 65 to the extent that it seems unlikely that the gospel writer wasn't alluding to it.
I wouldn't have noticed if we hadn't had both readings together.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
In Masefield's 'The Midnight Folk' he refers to folklore telling that a) pigs cannot swim, and b) if caught up in floods, they cut their throats. Kay wonders how and with what.
But this is not true. Have you seen the footage of swimming pigs ?
Which suggests another end to the story. Which has only just occurred to me. Depends how high the cliff was, of course.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
In Masefield's 'The Midnight Folk' he refers to folklore telling that a) pigs cannot swim, and b) if caught up in floods, they cut their throats. Kay wonders how and with what.
But this is not true. Have you seen the footage of swimming pigs ?
Which suggests another end to the story. Which has only just occurred to me. Depends how high the cliff was, of course.
Our sermon yesterday referred to the ability of pigs to swim.
Lamb Chopped, in Miltonian terms, the demons would have fallen into the abyss as a part of Lucifer's defeated army; perhaps they were too low in rank to comprehend Lucifer's determination to continue the fight. One way of putting what you say is that the demons were themselves victims in the abyss as well as tormentors of those of this creation who fell there. I wonder how they managed to get into this creation to victimise this poor man? And what happened to them after the pigs drowned?
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Ah, I don't think Matthew records this story in his Gospel. I think it is only reported in Mark and Luke.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Lamb Chopped, in Miltonian terms, the demons would have fallen into the abyss as a part of Lucifer's defeated army; perhaps they were too low in rank to comprehend Lucifer's determination to continue the fight. One way of putting what you say is that the demons were themselves victims in the abyss as well as tormentors of those of this creation who fell there. I wonder how they managed to get into this creation to victimise this poor man? And what happened to them after the pigs drowned?
I know Milton, but I'm unsure how much of his story correctly reflects reality. And there isn't much information in Scripture on "the abyss" or why certain demons aren't in it already. The best theory I've been able to put together is that the abyss is a form of permanent and unpleasant detention--either the same thing called the lake of fire in Revelation, or a similar thing. And not all demons have been thrown in the clink yet. Some (all?) have a limited amount of freedom which they mostly use to make life miserable for their fellow creatures (certainly people, and here pigs
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
). But even this limited freedom will be taken from them at the End, and they're really not looking forward to it. Thus coming face to face with Jesus unexpectedly was a shocker--and distantly akin to having your parole officer catch you red-handed as you commit a crime. They knew what his likely response would be, and begged for it to be softened.
But I have no idea what happened after the pigs drowned. I doubt Jesus would have let them go merrily off to infect some other guy.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Ah, I don't think Matthew records this story in his Gospel. I think it is only reported in Mark and Luke.
Matthew 8:28-34
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But I have no idea what happened after the pigs drowned. I doubt Jesus would have let them go merrily off to infect some other guy.
I always assumed they ceased to exist when the pigs died. Maybe that's what they wanted - a permanent death being preferable to the Abyss.
[ 20. June 2016, 18:36: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I always assumed they ceased to exist when the pigs died. Maybe that's what they wanted - a permanent death being preferable to the Abyss.
Hmm. I don't think there is any difference between those two concepts and I don't believe this is the message we should be getting from this passage.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Neither can I see. If you take the abyss as permanent separation from God - and knowing that - then their death in the pigs leads to that result.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests that any creature, angel, human, or animal, has ever been annihilated (which I think is what you mean by "permanent death"). There is a passage in Job which raises this question but does not answer it about animals. But as for sentient beings, the answer throughout is always "they go somewhere else where they continue to exist," whether that is a good place or not, and whether the existence is desirable or not.
The continued existence could still qualify as what the Bible calls "the second death" or "perishing everlastingly" if you bear in mind the ghoulish (but probably accurate) observations of Lewis--that in every case we know from this life, "to be destroyed" does NOT mean annihilation but rather permanent transformation into an undesirable form, into "remains." Thus logs get burned and are transformed into heat, gasses, and ash; to be those things is equivalent to "having once been a log."
If the analogy holds true through all of nature, then there is probably a state which could be called "having once been a demon" or "having once been a human being (but no longer)." We usually refer to it as hell or eternal damnation. It is not a state of nonexistence, but a state of existence in a changed form--and since human beings (and demons!) were never created with this change in mind, it is basically horrible.
So being sent to the abyss may be a reference to entering this sort of state, or it may just be a temporary station on the way to final judgment (and sentence to this state). But whatever it is, the demons didn't want it. They probably WOULD have chosen annihilation if it were on offer--but it doesn't seem to be. No "let there NOT be X" for them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The idea that demons are eternal beings upon which Jesus Christ could have pity relating to their eternal punishment is beyond bizarre.
As suggested in the parallel Isaiah passage I quoted above, God the only reason that God has mercy on his enemies is due to the protection of his people. There would be no point in having mercy on demons, even if there was some kind of difference between death and annihilation in the abyss.
To be this just shows the dangers of getting way, way into the literalness of the text in a totally incomprehensible way.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I also read that there are parallels with Greek hero myths.
In the Odyssey, Circe turns soldiers into pigs:
quote:
"They called her and she came down, unfastened the door, and bade them enter. They, thinking no evil, followed her, all except Eurylochus, who suspected mischief and stayed outside. When she had got them into her house, she set them upon benches and seats and mixed them a mess with cheese, honey, meal, and Pramnian but she drugged it with wicked poisons to make them forget their homes, and when they had drunk she turned them into pigs by a stroke of her wand, and shut them up in her pigsties. They were like pigs-head, hair, and all, and they grunted just as pigs do; but their senses were the same as before, and they remembered everything.
Apropos of nothing in particular - I am not overly familiar with greek myths, I just noticed someone commenting on the similarity and thought it was interesting.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The end of the Circe story is that the men are restored through the agency of their leader aided either by Hermes' gift of the holy moly, or by his own noos (don't know how to do Greek or correct spelling), and when restored, the men are in a better state than they were before transformation.
This is probably not helpful. It is also probably unhelpful that the Circe story may not be unrelated to Celtic ideas about pigs as belonging to the Otherworld of death, from which they were brought to be useful to humanity. (The Galatians were only just up the road from Jerusalem.)
Trying to link Biblical events to myths can be fun, but not necessarily useful.
[ 21. June 2016, 09:35: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Trying to link Biblical events to myths can be fun, but not necessarily useful.
Well I suppose one is then left to ponder the meaning of the term "useful". Some have speculated that this is evidence that the NT writers borrowed from existing Greek hero narratives. Is that a "useful" idea? How are we using that word in that context?
Or on another level, we might ask whether it matters where the text came from, the important part is how the church has understood it. That's a different kind of "useful".
Ultimately, to me, this passage is nearly useless. I think at best it is picture language linking Jesus back to the deity via Isaiah. I don't think it tells us much to be spread relating to demons, and I find the literal theological jujitsu offered above leaves me quite cold.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Lamb Chopped, I think that "annihilated" is a good way of putting it. OTOH, there's that long debate whether on the Last Day, or however, Lucifer/Satan and his followers will be forgiven, or at least given a final opportunity to repent. I don't want to go down that path as it seems to place the abyss into this created universe.
I find the balance of your post useful though. While I don't (yet) accept its basis, it takes the matter I wanted to raise much further down the path than the earlier discussion of the reading.
BTW our OT reading for Sunday was not Isaiah but 1 Kings 19, 1-4, 8-15).
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
BTW our OT reading for Sunday was not Isaiah but 1 Kings 19, 1-4, 8-15).
Then you're in a minority of churches that follow the continuous rather than the related track - the good thing about that is that it stops making possibly artificial links where they don't really exist.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that demons are eternal beings upon which Jesus Christ could have pity relating to their eternal punishment is beyond bizarre.
As suggested in the parallel Isaiah passage I quoted above, God the only reason that God has mercy on his enemies is due to the protection of his people. There would be no point in having mercy on demons, even if there was some kind of difference between death and annihilation in the abyss.
To be this just shows the dangers of getting way, way into the literalness of the text in a totally incomprehensible way.
Wait a sec. You seem to be implying that God cares for his [human people] but not for other bits of creation [here, the fallen angels]. Why? When we know from Jonah and Matthew he cares even about the animals and birds? It seems to me odd to place humanity as the sole object of his care, and everybody/everything else as mere periphery.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Wait a sec. You seem to be implying that God cares for his [human people] but not for other bits of creation [here, the fallen angels]. Why? When we know from Jonah and Matthew he cares even about the animals and birds? It seems to me odd to place humanity as the sole object of his care, and everybody/everything else as mere periphery.
I certainly am implying that. The only destination for non-human evil is annihilation. See all the other bits of the Bible.
[ 21. June 2016, 16:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The only destination for non-human evil is annihilation. See all the other bits of the Bible.
Like, which ones? I can't recall any. I wish I could--annihilationism would be far more comfortable than the traditional view.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Rev 20:10
2 Peter 2:4-6
Jude 6-7
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
What do those verses have to do with annihilation? they are all about evil creatures being kept imprisoned before Judgement Day. If anything, they appear to prove the opposite of annihilationism.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What do those verses have to do with annihilation? they are all about evil creatures being kept imprisoned before Judgement Day. If anything, they appear to prove the opposite of annihilationism.
That's how I read them also.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, but you'd agree that the abyss is a place for the demons to await punishment? No indication that some kind of mercy is on the table, right?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No, expulsion from Heaven to the abyss, that is, absence from God's eternal life and love, is the punishment. There is nothing in that one way or the other about an ultimate act of mercy restoring them to that presence.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No, expulsion from Heaven to the abyss, that is, absence from God's eternal life and love, is the punishment. There is nothing in that one way or the other about an ultimate act of mercy restoring them to that presence.
Would they perceive it as a mercy if they were restored to that presence?
Moo
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, but you'd agree that the abyss is a place for the demons to await punishment? No indication that some kind of mercy is on the table, right?
Fine. That doesn't invalidate the small mercy of letting them put it off as long as possible. The demons certainly didn't think so--they grabbed the chance with both hands and feet.
ETA: I think the confusion is that you think of mercy only in terms of a final sparing; I include anything that makes life more bearable along the way, such as a short reprieve from prison. The demons know that continuing to torment human beings freely is not an option. They're asking for an alternative to what they deserve--and Jesus gives it to them.
[ 22. June 2016, 15:53: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No, expulsion from Heaven to the abyss, that is, absence from God's eternal life and love, is the punishment. There is nothing in that one way or the other about an ultimate act of mercy restoring them to that presence.
Would they perceive it as a mercy if they were restored to that presence?
Moo
Ha, good question. I have serious doubts about that. I expect there'd be major cries of "It burns! It burns!" and a dive for the shadows--of which there'd be none in God's presence.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A good question indeed - but while I suspect that Lamb Chopped's reply is the one that Satan and his chief lieutenants would give, I am not so sure about those lower down. They might well be tired of being bossed around by those who caused their loss.
Can I briefly go back to Lamb Chopped's reply to my original post. I'm casting what I say bearing Milton's approach well to the front because my thought is that Milton's learning and understanding is very close to that of Jewish people in biblical times.
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
That's interesting and helps me understand it- thanks. I know really shamefully little about the historical and socio-economic context of the Gospels.
A professor I once had pointed out how important it is to study, as you put it, the historical and socio-economic context when learning the Bible. He was a Hebrew and Greek language scholar and said it's not just about straight translation, it's about people's history, their feuds, and their games even, when it comes to understanding what a given text means.
During one class he asked us if anyone in the class spoke German. One guy did so the professor asked him how, in German, one would say "He's way out in left field" The student said something and then the prof asked "What does it mean?" and was told it means someone has strange ideas, or is a little crazy. He agrees and asks "What do you have to know to understand that?" I'm kinda proud I figured out what he wanted, which was "You have to know what baseball is"
The Biblical texts have a lot of figures of speech in them, and there never will be an end, I think, to learning about them, or to interpreting them.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A good question indeed - but while I suspect that Lamb Chopped's reply is the one that Satan and his chief lieutenants would give, I am not so sure about those lower down. They might well be tired of being bossed around by those who caused their loss.
Can I briefly go back to Lamb Chopped's reply to my original post. I'm casting what I say bearing Milton's approach well to the front because my thought is that Milton's learning and understanding is very close to that of Jewish people in biblical times.
This has sent me off on another interesting tangent - a long time ago I read a footnote to a translation of the Old English 'Genesis B' poem suggesting that Milton had access to this as a source. I'd noticed the similarity in the way that Satan and his cohorts are represented myself. I hadn't been able to track this down - it isn't in my copy of the OE poem, but a little searching has led me to an essay on the subject. It looks as though, even if Milton did not know the 'Genesis', he and the older poet had access to the same sources, such as the 'Book of Enoch' and others since that was written, which would suggest reasons for his thinking reflecting Jewish thought.
(But if he did not know the older poem, it is very odd that the two poets use just the same sources in just the same way.)
[ 07. August 2016, 13:52: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I can't answer your question directly, but Milton was a poet of great learning across a range of traditions - Greek, Roman and Jewish in particular. So were the text available in the England of the early seventeenth century, it would be a surprise if Milton had not read it.
[ 08. August 2016, 07:16: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
That is basically the argument for him having known it, bolstered by his being a friend of the man who owned it and having visited him.
A slight problem is that it was published a couple of years after he became blind, but someone could have read it to him.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
As all sorts of other books and papers were read to him. He also had a prolific and powerful memory which helped him enormously in his years lacking sight.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Host hat on
This discussion of Milton is interesting, but it really doesn't belong in Keryg.
Host hat off
Moo
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Apologies Moo.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It would make life SO much easier if there weren't 25 accounts in the non-Johannine gospel (0 in John, that's ZERO, no temptation in the desert) of at least 8 events where Jesus interacts with demons.
Luke doesn't count because he wasn't an eye witness and ... we don't know who ANY of the authors actually were. I don't know if ANY of the Matthian & Lucan accounts are distinct from the original Marcan. I suspect not.
BUT, even if there is only one source, these are integral to the story of Jesus. As are the good guy angelic accounts in Matthew and Luke. And the legendary one in John, annually at the Pool of Siloam.
And by the way Gramps49, Matthew says Mark's young man at the tomb was an angel. Trying to make him and the guy who ran away naked from Gethsemane (probably the author, it's such a sharp thing, possibly John-Mark) the same guy as the Gadarene demoniac is a third order, one in a thousand at best, speculation.
One can easily rationalize Jesus' temptation as projection. But one can't rationalize away His and the disciples' transitive exorcisms without getting ever closer to the bone of Adoptionism and worse.
Which validates the whole can of worms of a supernatural realm interacting with ours, not just a synergy of our brokenness. They appear very weak and horribly powerful. A mainly parallel world that barely touches on ours yet threatens it completely and acutely personally.
I'm intrigued that only in the epistles is our need for deliverance from Satan raised, I believe. It's all MOST confusing. And the author of confusion is ...
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I have always liked the idea that the naked young man at Gethsemane was Mark himself. It is otherwise such a pointless little detail.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
What in the Biblical account makes you think the man involved was young?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
What in the Biblical account makes you think the man involved was young?
Other than that he's identified as "young"? Mark 14: 51-52:
quote:
A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wow, that's been there two thousand years eh?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0