This is an essay I wrote for my Biblical Hermeneutics class. We were assigned the task of choosing a Gospel pericope (story/passage) and were suppose to describe and analyze it. I thought it was a pretty good read, so I thought I would post it here. I must warn you, it is long (3500 words, 10 pages double-spaced!), but I think it’s a good analysis of exorcism, Jesus and the disciple’s ministry regarding this practice, the ministry of the Other exorcist, and how we should respond in embrace and partnership with modern day “exorcists.” I hope it challenges you to think more broadly about the Kingdom, who is in and out, and who can and is taking part in its work. (PS-This version is absent about 50 footnotes…if you want the original version, go here.)

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, an attitude of exclusivism and exclusion has plagued the Church as various strains within Christianity seem quick to border Jesus in from the Outsider, while attacking and alienating the “Other” with little consideration to embrace and partner with them. What is worse, those walling Jesus in the fastest seem to be more content to live out the American Dream— complete with $93 million church facilities, Christian bookstores, and Purpose-Driven, Live-Your-Best-Life-Now easy listening messages—than the Way of Jesus, even while the Other seems to do a better job at “being Jesus” than the Church; those whom the Church writes off as outside the boundaries of Jesus’ group oftentimes are doing what He would do more often, passionately, and better than His very disciples, a modern-day phenomenon that mirrors an oft-overlooked Gospel pericope found in the Book of Mark.

In Mark 9:38-41, Jesus confronts this same exclusive “Us” vs. “Them” spirit in His disciples. Rather than applauding His their efforts to prevent a non-disciple from exorcising in His name, Jesus rebukes them for creating borders around His Kingdom and having a narrow concept of who is involved in it’s work. But though this pericope has great implications for the modern church as it relates to the Other, a survey of scholarship shows a lack of concern for this passage. While commentaries do handle this text and provide insight, a search on ATLAReligion resulted in only two articles for this pericope. Despite sparse scholarship material, though, I aim to describe and analyze Jesus’ instructions in Mark regarding the ministry of a non-disciple and the response of the disciples’ to that non-disciple. Using the passages immediate context and connecting synoptic material, I expect Jesus’ subversive teachings on who is in and out to establish a robust ethic for modern readers on the art of embracing and partnering with the Other for the good of Jesus’ Kingdom and the world.

Technorati Tags: exorcism, jesus, the other, the book of mark

PART I: THE MINISTRY OF EXORCISM
CULTURE AND THE OTHER

While the gospels focus on the exorcistic ministry of Jesus and the disciples, their culture had a rich, deep history with demonic engagement. In both pagan and Jewish accounts, exorcism was an accepted feature of the ministry of those claiming to be men of God who would cure physical ills. Before the 1st century, Ancient Near Eastern cultures tended to view humanity’s engagement with the demonic spiritual world as an outward bodily torment; the physical manifestations brought on by the possessions were viewed as a physical disease and illness that, when medically treated, brought physical relief and healing. It seems that it was not until Zoroastrianism’s ethical dualism teachings on human partnership with good or evil that a shift from outward tormentors to indwelling presences occurred. Similarly, the dualism of Jewish intertestamental writings present a clear boundary and hierarchy between two opposing powers, providing an environment well-suited to the practice of exorcism in which a victim is restored to a state of well-being and the demon returned to it’s proper realm. Additionally, impurity codes heavily influenced Jewish practice, where the act of exorcism functioned like a purification rite. This Jewish and pagan understanding of the “demon world” created a culture in which men and women actively participated as demon cleansers, eventually paving the way for Jesus’ ministry.

At the time of Jesus, it was not uncommon to encounter the destructive work of demons in human life nor was it unusual to find successful exorcists, both Jewish and pagan, performing the rites of spiritual cleansing. The Magical Papyri, the story of Eleazar, Jewish exorcists of Matthew, the sons of Sceva, rabbinic material, and the so-called strange exorcist of Mark all illustrate successful exorcists. The success of these ancient demon cleansers was generally viewed as the result of what they said and did based on the methods they employed. Methods included several different approaches: in one method, priests fashioned clay or wax likenesses of the demon, recited certain formulas, and then destroyed the icon as a representation of destroying the demon; in a different technique, a priest would create a representative figure of the possessed and command the evil spirit to leave the human body and enter the crafted image; finally, shaman healers would employ medication in the treatment of the possessed person. In fact, in His encounter with Jewish leaders over His exorcism ministry in Matthew 12:27, Jesus argues that the Pharisaic leaders were unjustified in calling Him an ally of Satan because their very own disciples widely practiced exorcism and were successful. Clearly, demon possession was a recognized phenomenon in Ancient Near Eastern cultures, both Jewish and pagan, before the time of Jesus, leading to the wide practice of demonic cleansing by the Other.

JESUS AND THE DISCIPLES

The synoptic gospels clearly indicate that spiritual healing was a major component of Jesus’ ministry, and subsequently the disciples’. Particularly with Jesus, exorcism is a key identifier in the Markean narrative as it was the first miracle Jesus performed at the beginning of his ministry. In fact, quantitatively exorcism played a large role in Jesus’ ministry, it qualitatively marked His own understanding of His mission, and it was this single activity that drew the wrath of the important public figures of his time. Throughout the Book of Mark, four individual accounts of exorcism are recorded (which the reader is reminded is only a portion of His wider exorcism ministry), resulting in direct dialogue between Jesus and the demons and a confrontation with Jerusalem scribes. And in these exorcistic pericopes, Mark offers a visible, dramatic display of Jesus’ exousia (authority) and manifestation of the presence of the kingdom of God. While the sovereign authority of Jesus the Messiah in healing and exorcism is uniquely to and powerfully present in Jesus, his disciples drew upon that authority through faith, because Jesus authorized them to do so.

For much of Jesus’ ministry, the disciples were uninvolved observers. But following several stories of powerful acts of restoration, Jesus began to more actively involve them in His ministry by empowering them with the same power and authority granted to Him by God and commissioning them to act on His behalf in the ministries of exorcism and healing. As followers of Jesus, they were empowered to bring spiritual (and inevitably physical) restoration to men and women as co-inaugurators of the Kingdom with Jesus, an act He closely associated with this inauguration. In view of Jesus sending the disciples out to preach the Kingdom of God and the fall of Satan’s Kingdom, Jesus would have assumed that his command to preach of the Kingdom would have involved a ministry of exorcism. This point is underscored in a separate pericope in Mark 14-29, when the disciples experience a spectacular failure to fulfill this commission and join Jesus in confronting the Kingdom of Satan with the Kingdom of Heaven through the casting out demons. Interestingly enough, in the Lukean version of this pericope, Luke situates the mission of the disciples before exorcist story and the disciples’ failure at casting out a boy’s demon, providing a striking parallel to the failure of the disciples to successfully live-out their mission and the success of a non-disciple in that same ministry.

The word for exorcism in the Greek is exorkizw, which literally means to compel or command someone (or something) to do something—and, in this case, by invoking a transcendent power. In essence, Jesus confronted demons to leave individual humans with the power and authority of God, while passing on that same authority to His disciples as an essential part of their mission. This confrontation was an integral part to both Jesus’ and the disciple’s mission, because it represented a physical manifestation of the “at hand” nature of Kingdom of God and seismic clash of Kingdoms—the Kingdom of God over against the Kingdom of Satan. And in light of this commissioning, they would have considered this power an exclusive part of heir personal ministries. But as the pericope of the Other Exorcist illustrates, the nature of who is involved in that mission is just as subversive as the Kingdom of God itself.

PART II: THE MINISTRY OF THE OTHER
THE DISCIPLES’ EXCLUSION

In light of the seemingly exclusive nature of the power and ministry of exorcism bestowed on the disciples by Jesus, one could understand the disciples’ hostility toward an “unauthorized” exorcist, especially in light of their earlier failing in Mark 9:14-23. And that is exactly what the reader finds in this pericope: a hostile reaction and exclusionary attitude. In both the Mark and Luke versions, the pericopes open with John telling Jesus that he and the other disciples tried to prevent a man from casting out demons in His name. Now if the man was abusing Jesus’ name, misusing it, or using it unsuccessfully a case could be made in defense of John and the others actions. The reason they give, though, is unfortunate and underscores their incomprehension of the way of the Kingdom.

The disciples excuse their actions in this way: oujk ajkolouqei hjmin. Literally, John claims this Other was “not disciplining after us.” Interestingly, Mark uses ajkolouqejw as a term for discipleship, but always with its object as Jesus. In his commentary on the Book of Luke, Joel Green writes, “Jesus had effectively negated conventional issues of status, yet John and his companions had operated within those conventional issues in order to deny this ‘outsider’ permission to work in Jesus’ name. That is, they had engaged in boundary-making on the basis of conventional notions of perceived honor. He did not belong to the community around Jesus, so his behavior was disallowed.” That the disciples excluded this non-disciple on the account that he was not part of their group, instead of following Jesus, underscores Jesus rebuke against exclusion and response with inclusion that much more.

But not only was this man a non-disciple acting outside the “approval” of Jesus’ inner-circle (the disciples), he was probably non-Jewish, as well. In the surrounding context, the last location where the disciples could have recently seen such a man was in Caesarea Philippi. According to R. T. France, this last known location is a largely non-Jewish region, which further explains the disciple’s misguided actions. Though the man could have been from Capernaum, which was the last stated location just before the pericope, it is unlikely because John was reporting on events previous to their arrival in Capernaum, which most likely was during their stay in Caesarea Philippi. The weight of both the mans success and non-Jewishness rings louder when one considers the disciple’s failure in Caesarea Philippi. In light of this failure, the disciples’ complaint “drips with irony,” because not only do they try and prevent a non-disciple, non-Jew from doing something only they were suppose to do, he is successful. It is not a far stretch to imagine the events of the previous day or two affecting their anger over an Other doing something only they were supposed to have been commissioned to do, but only better. Clearly, the success of the Other is contrasted with the failure of the disciples, and despite this failure they insist that powers let loose by the authority of Jesus be restricted to them. Their response comes into sharp focus through Jesus’ surprising embrace of the Other and his ministry.

JESUS’ INCLUSION
In addition to linking back to the disciples’ previous failure, this incident is especially closely tied to the preceding episode in Luke so that the common theme of welcoming the Other is stressed by Jesus’ inclusion and rebuke. His rebuke reminds the reader of His radical teachings on table fellowship, where He felt the table was to be a place of fellowship, inclusion, and acceptance, embodying the “Jesus Creed” to love God and the Other. Likewise, when it comes to Jesus’ mission of the Kingdom of God, all were welcomed to participate in His mission, hence his rebuke: “Do not stop him!” Rather than encouraging the disciples protectionism, Jesus throws open wide the gates to His kingdom by including the Other in it’s work as disciples. In his book, Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard reminds us that discipleship for Jesus was not about association with a group (such as being a Christian or being one of the Disciples), but rather partnering with His mission and doing what He was doing, among others. Even though the disciples assumed the exorcist had no authority to invoke Jesus’ name since he was not commissioned as a disciple, Jesus says that those who do as I would do are not enemies, but allies; for whoever is not against Jesus is for him. But this is no act of modern pluralism. Rather, it is precisely because the Other invokes Jesus’ name that he is welcomed in as an ally.

In both versions of the pericope, all of the stress falls on the compelling authority of Jesus, an authority that the Other pursues. Unlike many Jewish and pagan exorcists of his day, the Other clearly and deliberately associates his practice with the authority of Jesus, an association immediately acknowledged by Jesus in the clause: ejpi tw ojnojmatij mou, which is translated, “in my name.” The clause in this pericope and the one directly preceding it, conveys acting on the authority of Jesus, an authority with which the Other has chosen and associated himself. It is this “deed of power” that Jesus most closely identifies as a reason for not stopping the Other exorcist, because he is using exorcism as the representative of all Jesus’ mighty deeds that manifest God’s saving power. Because the Kingdom of God is closely associated with the confrontation of the Kingdom of Satan, and because exorcism is such a prominent part of the ministry of Jesus and commission of His disciples, the Other is certainly on their side, rather than the side of evil. It is clear from this pericope that Jesus has little patience for the exclusivism of His disciples and, instead, welcomes the Other into His mission as a disciple, a vision we should promote within the Body of Christ, too.

EMBRACING AND PARTNERING WITH THE OTHER

Narrators are like the boss of a circus. They structure time, sketch the space, bring characters in and take them off, and write to enforce a point of view. The two narrators of this pericope are no different, because they sought to convey two separate but equal ideas: the rebuke of boundary-making and the inclusion of the Other in the mission of Jesus. In the case of Luke’s version, it sits nicely within an overall motif that highlights His concern with distinguishing between “us” and “them” in order to undercut it. Especially with the arrival of the Messiah and new Kingdom, a radical re-evaluation of who is inside and who is outside is naturally undertaken in light of Jesus discipleship demands. One of the threats to the community of Jesus is sectarianism, the deliberate attempt to embark on a path of special interests with some others, while excluding some from the whole. It is this exact notion of separation, segregation and exclusion that Luke and Jesus confront in this interplay between Jesus and the disciples. Instead, at the heart of the Kingdom practice of Jesus is the practice of inclusion and breaking of all obstacles to that Kingdom. May the church respond to Jesus’ rebuke to His disciples by opening wide the doors of the Body of Christ to include and welcome the Other with no consideration of boundaries.

In addition to Luke’s emphasis on the dissolution of boundaries, Mark writes to reinforce Jesus’ notions of discipleship and mission. While the Other exorcist invokes the name of Jesus to cast out demons, an obvious allegiance to and reliance on His authority, in a broader sense the phrase “in my name” connotes “doing as I would do,” rather than necessarily invoking the name of Jesus as a mantra As one writer notes, “The Strange Exorcist is on Jesus’ side in the battle against the demonic world. In contrast John (and Peter), who are progressively against Jesus, the Other Exorcist acts in Jesus’ stead.” While John and Peter were frequently at odds with Jesus over His own mission, this Other was clearly on board with the vision of the Kingdom of God. The Other joined Jesus and His mission by faith and, in turn Jesus accepted Him as a disciple.

CONCLUSION

What is so striking about this pericope is not only did this non-disciple grasp that an essential dimension of Jesus’ mission was to confront and defeat Satan, he also joined in with Jesus by using and relying upon His name to bring release to men who had been enslaved to demonic possession. Oh that we would be so quick to welcome such people in our day-in-age! While the church is quick to draw borders around Jesus, we must remember that the ultimate aspirations as His follower is not the walls of organized Christianity, but rather the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ mission. Jesus did not call us to start a religion and be his gatekeepers (which seems to be the aspirations of the disciples!), but rather to join in with him in His Kingdom movement. We are called to show a different way of living and be for the world what Jesus was for the world, while inviting all who are willing to join in that mission, Christian or not. May the Body of Christ find instruction from Jesus’ words of rebuke to John and inspiration from the actions of the Other. May the church cease it’s boundary-making activates and invite all into the mission of the Kingdom of God. And in so doing, may the church, finally, embrace and partner with the other, for the sake of the Kingdom and the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

Boring, M. Eugene. Mark: A Commentary. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Danker, Fredrick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Evans, Craig A. Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 8:27-16:20. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Finkelstein, Roberta. “Mark 9:38-41: An Unknown Exorcist.” The Unitarian Universalist Christian 44, no. 3-4 (1989), 78-87.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

_____. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Garland, David. Mark: The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Green, Joel. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997

_____. The Theology of The Gospel of Luke. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Klutz, Todd. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Kozar, Joseph Vicek. “Meeting the Perfect Stranger: The Literary Role and Social Location of the Encounter Between Jesus and the Strange Exorcist in Mark 9:38-41.” Proceedings EGL MWBS 24 (2004), 103-123.

Lane, William. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary: Luke 9:21-18:34. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993.

Shirock, Robert. “Whose Exorcists Are They?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992), 42-52.

II. Secondary Sources

Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abdington
Press, 1962.

Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Narrative. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Gibbs, Eddie and Bolger, Ryan K. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in
Postmodern Cultures. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005

Green, Joel and McKnight, Scott. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Guijarro, Santiago, “The Politics of Exorcism,” Pages 159-174 in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

McKnight, Scott. Jesus Creed. Brewster: Massachusetts, 2004.

Peterson, Eugene H. Christ Plays In Ten Thousand Places. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2005.

Selmanovic, Samir, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness,” Pages 236-243 in An Emergent
Manifesto of Hope. Edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity.
Tübingen, Germany: Paul Mohr Verlag, 2002.

Sterling, Gregory E. “Jesus as Exorcist: An Analysis of Matthew 17:14-20, Mark 9:14-29, Luke
9:37-43.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no 3 (1993) 467-493.

Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist. Tübingen, Germany: Paul Mohr Verlag, 1993.

Willard, Dallas, Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering the Hidden Life in God. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1998

Wright, NT. Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Volf, Mirslov, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and
Reconciliation. Nashville: Abdington Press, 1996