Your Sins Are Forgiven - Mark 2:1-12

A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2 They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some men came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus by digging through it and then lowered the mat the man was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

6 Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7 “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things? 9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’? 10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”

In the beginning of the second chapter of the Gospel of Mark, we are back in Capernaum in the, "Galilee of the Gentiles".  This choice of setting by the community of Mark, who we believe had a large Gentile segment, was likely deliberate.  They may have found it important to portray Jesus as delivering his message primarily in areas that had a known Gentile population to reinforce to themselves that Jesus' teaching was not just for Jews.  There must have also been some importance to the community in telling the story of Jesus' early ministry as a rural populist movement.  They have him begin with rural grassroots support before moving him to the large urban centre of Jerusalem.

On his return to Capernaum, Jesus has gained quite a reputation and a large crowd has gathered to hear him; so large that they overflowed the meeting place and were surrounding the building to hear his word.  This must have irked the religious authorities to no end, particularly the, "teachers of the law".  These were religious leaders who had not yet gained the credentials to give their own interpretation, or teaching, but had completed the training and had the permissions to teach accepted interpretations and teachings from those who did.  

The teachers of the law, to get this title would have to have been the best at their Beth Sefer and then their Beth Midrash.  They may have already spent time as a student of a certified Rabbi in order to work their way to the point where they might someday be considered as a candidate for semicha, Rabbinic ordination, and be granted their own s'mikhahto, "authority", and be able to give their own teaching.  Now they had to watch this country bumpkin, shaman, and faith healer draw in crowds of admirers that had come to hang on the words of a teaching he had no right or authority to give.  Why should he get the honour and respect that should be shown to those like themselves who had worked for it and earned it.  No wonder they were spoiling for a fight and looking to find fault that they might discredit him with the people.

Jesus provides that fault when he tells the paralyzed man that his sins are forgiven.  Actually, Jesus identifies what their criticism is going to be before they even get a chance to say it.  "Only God can forgive sins.  Are you so deluded that you think you are God?"  The writer answers the question both for the crowd in the story and for those Jews that would have questioned the legitimacy of Jesus as a criticism of the writer's community.  He does it in a way that both denies Jesus' divinity and establishes his right to give his teaching.

The writer does this in two ways; first in the title he has Jesus claim, and second in the act of healing the paralyzed man.  In Jesus response to the question, "Do you think you are God", he calls himself, "the Son of Man".  This both denies any claim at divinity and names his authority as stemming from his role as one of God's Prophets, one that is chosen by God to speak on his behalf.

"Son of Man", literally in Hebrew, "Human Being",  is the title most often used by God in the Hebrew Scriptures to address one of his Prophets to emphasise the difference between God's divine stature and the Prophet's mortal humanity.  But, noting the semantics, the writer is having Jesus claim another source of authority as well.  Jesus doesn't just call himself a Son of Man, but, "the", Son of Man.  Thereby stating that he is the Messiah, God's chosen king for the new Messianic Age.

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. (Daniel 7:13 NIV)

"The Son of Man", is a title referring to the final king in Daniel's vision in the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel who is described as being" like a son of man". In the vision, four future rulers are portrayed as beast like creatures.  After these leaders a fifth ruler is portrayed as a human/angelic figure.  This last king is given authority and dominion over the earth.  Note the semantics again.  The writer is not having Jesus claim to be, " The One Like a Son of Man".  He is claiming to be the person represented in the vision by an angelic figure, not an angelic creature himself.  Just as the preceding kings in the vision represented as beasts are revealed in the susequent interpretation in the passage as being human leaders of actual empires, the, "one like a son of man", is explained in the interpretation as being an actual man chosen by God to have authority and dominion over the earth.  And, as Jesus explains in the story, this includes the authority to forgive sins.

He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:14 NIV)

The second way Jesus establishes his right to give his own teaching and give authority to the claim he has just made in the story, is to heal the paralyzed man.  The fact that God performs acts of miraculous mercy through Jesus proves that God affirms Jesus' words.  If what Jesus says is not from God, why would God show his power through him?  This is why it was important for the writer and his community to include so many stories of Jesus', "mighty deeds".

The passage also raises a question about the community's view on the cause of illness and infirmaries.  It looks at first glance that they are attributing the cause of the man's paralysis to some sin that he has committed.  However, a closer look at the passage shows the forgiveness of his sin and the healing of his paralysis are two separate acts.  The man is still paralyzed after Jesus forgives his sin.  It is not until after Jesus decides he needs to give the religious authorities an object lesson on his right to forgive sin and commands the man to get up does the healing occur.

So, what was this sin and why in the story is it made more important for the man to be forgiven than healed?  Imagine the bewilderment of the man's four friends.  The man's reuse of his legs was obviously of great importance to them and they made a herculean effort to get him in front of Jesus in order to get that fixed.  They had just worked as a team to haul the guy up on top of the house, dig through the roof and lower him inside on a mat.  Then all Jesus does is proclaim that the guy's sin is forgiven.

Or, were they bewildered?  The modern reader might think they would be, but there is no response from them or the crowd that Jesus missed the point of what they wanted.  To the Jewish mind of the time, the need to have one's sin forgiven was extremely important and prerequset to being accepted by God and by the community.  This was done by making sacrifice at the temple.  But, as a cripple, this man was excluded from the temple, was excluded from forgiveness, and was therefore a social outcast.

16 The Lord said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: ‘For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; (Leviticus 21:16-18)

8 Now David said on that day, “Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites (the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul), he shall be chief and captain.”Therefore they say, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” (2 Samuel 5:8)

The four friends would never have expected Jesus to forgive the man's sin, but it served for them the primary goal, to bring him back into full fellowship with God and their community.  This would have been an important part of the story to the community of Mark.  They were saying that none among them, were they Gentile, female, crippled, or homosexual, were by their nature, or by virtue of who they were, excluded from Jesus' kingdom, or the full fellowship of God.  

A Man with Leprosy - Mark 1:40-45

40 A man with leprosy[h] came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”  41 Jesus was indignant.[i] He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”42 Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.  43 Jesus sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44 “See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 45 Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. Yet the people still came to him from everywhere.
h. Mark 1:40 The Greek word traditionally translated leprosy was used for various diseases affecting the skin.
i. Mark 1:41 Many manuscripts Jesus was filled with compassion

This story marks the beginning of a theme important to the community of Mark in their Gospel, the elevation of compassion over purity as the imitation of God. The significance of the skin disease is that it made the man, "unclean", a literal untouchable according to the laws of Leviticus.

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron,2 “When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a shiny spot on their skin that may be a defiling skin disease,[a] they must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons[b] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on the skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is a defiling skin disease. When the priest examines that person, he shall pronounce them ceremonially unclean.

1. Leviticus 13:2 The Hebrew word for defiling skin disease, traditionally translated “leprosy,” was used for various diseases affecting the skin; here and throughout verses 3-46.

Someone who was, "unclean", was excluded from the worship of God. They were not allowed to come near the Tabernacle ( Num 5:3 ).  It placed a person in a "dangerous" condition under threat of divine retribution, even death ( Lev 15:31). Uncleanness among the people in general was feared. It could lead to expulsion by God of the land's inhabitants ( Lev 18:25 ) and its threat remained on those who did not undergo purification ( Lev 17:16 ; Num 19:12-13 ).

An unclean person was not allowed to eat or tithe consecrated food ( Lev 7:20-21 ; Deut 26:14), and had to celebrate the Passover with a month's delay (Num 9:6-13 ). An unclean person in general had to avoid that which was holy and take steps to return to a state of cleanness. Priests were to avoid becoming ritually defiled ( Leviticus 21:1-4 Leviticus 21:11-12 ), and if defiled, had to abstain from sacred duties.

Not only was a person with leprosy considered to be in an ongoing state of ritual uncleanliness, but anyone who touched that person became unclean as well until they underwent purification. This involved waiting a period of time (until evening for minor cases), and could also involve ritual washings symbolizing cleansing, atoning sacrifices, and priestly rituals.

As such, those with leprosy were treated as a pariah:

If a person contracted the contagious type, a priest declared him a leper and banished him from his home and city. He had to cry, "Unclean" when other people came near. Anyone who came in contact with a leper was also considered unclean. Lepers were not permitted to travel on the roadway, nor could they have any social contact with "clean" people. Therefore, lepers were isolated from the rest of the community so that the members of the community could maintain their status as worshipers. The leper was sent to live in a community with other lepers until he died. Lepers were social outcasts.
Once a man or woman was deemed leprous, he was totally abandoned by society. He had to keep his distance from others: six feet if there was no prevailing wind and over 100 feet if the wind was blowing. He also had to warn anyone in the vicinity that a leper was near by, crying out, "Unclean, unclean!" Upon hearing such a cry, the "normal" people of society would retreat to their homes or run away from the presence of the leper. No one dared to touch a leper either, for to do so would make a person ceremonially unclean. Anything the leper touched became unclean. (Life Application New Testament CommentaryBy Bruce B. Barton, Livingstone)

Persons with leprosy were not to be pitied or treated with compassion.  It was felt that they deserved their fate, that their affliction was a just punishment from God.  Many of the 55 times leprosy is mentioned in the old Testament are in association with punishment or the consequences of sin.  (https://answersingenesis.org/biology/disease/biblical-leprosy-shedding-light-on-the-disease-that-shuns/ )

When, in the story in this passage, the man with leprosy approaches Jesus, the man is breaking the rules regarding proximity and social contact.  He puts Jesus, and the crowd that was most likely around him, at risk of becoming unclean themselves and unable to worship God.  Jesus, however, instead of shunning or rebuking him, not only interacted with the man, but also touched him to heal him, making himself unclean. 


The reason given for Jesus' shocking action is his compassion, his desire to see the man healed.  His compassion in wanting to see the man returned to fellowship with the people and with God overrode any concerns over religious purity and ritual cleanliness.  

The Greek word in verse 41 translated as, "indignant", or, "filled with compassion", is, σπλαγχνισθεὶς (splanchnistheis 4697).  Literally it means to have the seat of ones affections moved.

Cognate: 4697 splagxnízomai – "fromsplanxna, 'the inward parts,' especially the nobler entrails – the heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. These gradually came to denote the seat of the affections" 

To translate this to say that Jesus was indignant at the idea that he might be unwilling to heal the man highlights Jesus attitude even more. No one is unworthy of restoration and inclusion with God and his people no matter what ritual and law stands in the way. To suggest as much is an affront to Jesus' very nature. Love and compassion is priority over law and purity.

It would seem pretty obvious why the community of Mark added this story.  This is a community that includes gentiles and women, people who were by their very nature considered to be, "unclean", by Judaic law and ineligible for full communion and worship of God.  This story told them that they were included, that no ritual or religious law could bar them from full membership in the community and the faith, and that Jesus' coming kingdom was for all of them.

I imagine this story would be especially meaningful to the Gentile members of the community and their advocates since it would remind them of another healing of leprosy told in the fifth chapter of Second Kings.

In the story from 2 Kings, God heals from leprosy the Gentile Naaman, the commander of the king of Aram's army, through his prophet Elisha. This is something there was no precedent of God doing even for those of Isreal.  It portrays Gentiles as being eligible for God's compassion and mercy.

The message of this story that was important to the community of Mark was that compassion is more important than purity.  This is the higher quality of God that they should imitate.  This compassion called them to include in their community and in their worship those who had been marginalized and disenfranchised.

Morning Prayer - Mark 1:35-39

35 Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36 Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37 and when they found him, they exclaimed: “Everyone is looking for you!”

38 Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” 39 So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.

One of the objectives of this blog is to discover the view point of the writers of the Gospel and their community. Why did they pick these stories?  What did these stories mean to them, and why did they tell them in the manner in which they did?  So, how does this apply to the passage above? 

We explored earlier how Jesus, the founder of their Jewish sect, had no mainstream credentials. He had no recognized right by the Jewish religious authorities to offer his own teaching, his own Mishnah, or interpretation of Scripture. Not having been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination, Jesus did not have, s'mikhahto, "authority". His claim to legitimacy and the right to speak rests on being a Chasidium, a Rabbi who can dispense the mercy of God. As such, Jesus' message and mission depends on his personal revelation of, intimacy with, and favor from God rather than the continuation of existing recognized teaching or the agendas of the current religious authority.  

As members of a Jewish sect that followed Jesus' teaching, this community must have had to answer to other Jews and to themselves why they did not observe the same purity laws and rituals, or to the same degree.  What right did their founder have to give them a different direction?  Stories like this would reinforce their conviction that their teacher's direction came from personal interaction with God.  This story shows Jesus seeking out communication and intimacy with God as the source for his message and the purpose for his mission.  It follows that, after an early morning of isolated prayer, Jesus is presented as announcing his intention and purpose to preach throughout Galilee.

Jesus as Chasidim - Mark 1:29-34

29 As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30 Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her.31 So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33 The whole town gathered at the door, 34 and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Jesus heals a number of people of various ailments throughout the book of Mark. This is not uncommon in writings of the time about other great Rabbis and the assumption is not that the individual themselves performed the healing, but their favor with God meant that God did the healing at their behest.

In fact, the literature of the time, both Jewish and non-Jewish, is filled with healings and other miracles being attributed to important figures. This seems to be a common literary device to affirm the importance and validity of the figure being discussed. For example, Pythagoras, the Greek mathematician and philosopher, was "documented" as having performed a series of miracles that rivals anything found in the Gospels.

Jesus has no recognized right by mainstream Jewish tradition to offer his own teaching, his own Mishnah, or interpretation of Scripture.  Not having been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination, Jesus did not have, s'mikhahto, "authority".  His claim to legitimacy and the right to speak rests on being a Chasidium, a Rabbi who can dispense the mercy of God.  The examples the writer of Mark gives of God dispensing his mercy through Jesus in the form of healing and exorcism are an effort to validate Jesus and his teaching by demonstrating God's willingness to work through him.  

Hasidim/Chasidim (Hebrew: חסידים‎) is the plural of Hasid (חסיד), meaning "pious". The honorific "Hasid" was frequently used as a term of exceptional respect in the Talmudic and early medieval periods.... The literal meaning of "Hasid" derives from Chesed-"kindness", the outward expression of love for God and other people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidim

Bruce Chilton, in his book, "Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography", describes a Chasidium as a Rabbi who was able to dispense the mercy of God by curing sickness or relieving drought through prayer. They were ancient Judaism's shawmans, faith healers, witch doctors and sorcerers. The term was first applied to Jews during the Maccabean revolt following the desecration of the Temple by the Seleucids in 167 B.C.E. who preferred to die rather than do violence on the Shabbath (1 Maccabees 2:29-48). Having known the "chesed", the compassion of God, they refuse to betray him. That Jesus followed in this tradition might also be surmised by his refusal to allow his disciples to defend him using violence when he is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane when his execution was a foregone conclusion.

A famous Chasidium who was a contemporary of Jesus was Chanina ben Dosa. He lived near Nazareth and said healing stemmed from the fluency of his prayer. He was famous for healing the son of Gamaliel, a leader of the Pharisees in Jerusalem.

The stories of Jesus' miracles, healings, and mighty deeds in the Gospel are used to establish his right to offer a Mishnah under an alternate Jewish tradition as well as using the established literary device common to the Mediterranean region of the time to affirm Jesus' importance and validity. 

Impure Spirits? - Mark 1:21-28

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek. 27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

So far in Mark's story, Jesus' right and authority to give his own teaching is based solely on the testimony of supernatural beings and supernatural events.  Occurrences such as the voice from Heaven when he is baptized, and the healings and exorcisms he has performed which demonstrated God's favor are the proof of his legitimacy in representing God. 

 This begs the question of how the writer and his community viewed supernatural beings and events. Living in a wider community where these stories were abundant in the literature of the time, was it just the accepted cultural norm that these beings existed, like everyone knowing that the world is flat? Or, were they metaphorizing the story using the accepted literary devices and mythology of the wider culture to express who Jesus was to them and didn't expect these aspects of the story to be taken literally?

In the introduction to this blog series I stated that I wanted to identify my own bias as I studied the Gospel in an effort to be more authentic to the intention of the Gospel writers and their community.  There are many Christians today who take the description of "impure spirits" in the Gospels literally. I recently read an article on an Evangelist who was asking his followers to send money so that he could build a private airport for his private jet so that he would not be exposed to people inhabited by demons in public airports as he prepared for his journeys to perform his ministry. As well, another famous television Evangelist took the recent occasion of musician David Bowie's death to declare that Bowie's music invoked demons and that Bowie's soul had now been taken by said demons.

I have in the past been part of groups and communities that took demons both literally and seriously, where they were seen as the root cause of illness, or as agents blocking people from their goals, or as the cause of misfortune.  Some of these communities made the group prayer for the removal of these being from individuals among them a regular part of their practise.  Suffering from cyclic depression, the root of my problem was identified as the torment of these beings.  However, my experience is that group prayers for exorcism with the laying on of hands and the authority of the name of Jesus holds less sway over the "demons of depression" then antidepressant medication. 

But, what is important to this study is what the writer and his community's understanding was of, "impure spirits", and how metaphorical or literal they intended their use in their story.  To shed light in this, I will first explore the tradition of, "impure spirits", in the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, and then the influences of other cultures on the mythology referenced in the Gospel.  

There are "unclean", "evil", or "harmful" spirits mentioned in the Tanakh, but no, "demons", or anything similar to what is described in the New Testament or the later Christian mythology of the Middle Ages.  As well, the portrayal of these spirits in the writings of the Tanakh is quite different from the dualistic view as forces in conflict with God common in the wider first century community.  This concept seems to have been taken from other cultures and religions such as Persian Zoroastrianism rather than the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Harmful spirits in the Jewish Scriptures of our Old Testament were described as being from God and under God's direction.  This is in contrast with the popular view of the wider community in Jesus time that saw these beings in opposition to God and part of a power split in the Heavens between beings of good and evil.

For example, in the Book of 1 Samuel in Chapter 16, God sends an evil spirit to torment Saul. In Hebrew the word translated as, "evil", is, רָעָ֖ה , ra': bad, unpleasant, giving pain, unhappiness, misery.

14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil[a] spirit from the Lord tormented him. 15 Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better.” (1 Samuel 16:14-16 NIV)
Footnote a: 1 Samuel 16:14 Or and a harmful; similarly in verses 15, 16 and 23

23 Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him. (1 Samuel 16:23 NIV)

The passage relates that this "unpleasant" spirit was from God and not something in opposition to God or working contrary to his will, or, "evil", in that sense. 

I stated earlier that there are no, "demons", in the Old Testament, or at least in the sense of sentient beings in opposition to God in service to a powerful, "anti-god", out to destroy humanity.  Many English translations use the word, "demon", (for example, Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37, Lev 17:7, Isa 13:21) where the text refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities, often to state that these are not, "gods", that Yahweh is the only God and that these other, "gods" are not real.

Dennis Bratcher with the Christian Resource Institute writes that:

...a closer look at the word שׁד (seed) in Hebrew emphasizes that it refers in a negative way to Canaanite idols and deities. Actually, the term שׁד (seed, "demons") does not even originate in Hebrew. It is a loanword from Assyria, from the Assyrian word šêdu. This word in Assyrian refers to the mythological creatures that were supposed to guard the sphinx-colossus of Asshur, the primary deity of the Assyrians (in Western mythology they are called griffons). The word in Hebrew, then, originally referred to mythological creatures associated with Assyrian deities. The very purpose of using the term, and paralleling them with other terms for pagan idols and deities, seems to be to emphasize that the pagan deities are not something to fear because they are not really gods at all. In Hebrew thought, that is equivalent to saying that they do not exist, or have no power or importance of which to fear. http://www.crivoice.org/demonsot.html

So if the mythology of demons that was common in Jewish Palestine at the time of the Gospels was not formed from the Hebrew Scripture, where did it come from? Some of it was influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism which at that time had begun to view demons as more literal beings. The Prophet Zarathustra (Greek name of Zoroaster) was a religious reformer, priest, visionary and prophet believed to have lived in north eastern Iran sometime in the sixth or fifth century BCE. In the Gathas, seen as the original teaching by Prophet Zoroaster, the concept of angels and demons are abstract figures and ideas, while in earlier texts and later texts they are substantive figures and beings. (http://iranian.com/main/blog/nabarz/persian-angels-and-demons.html)
The word we translate from the original Greek texts of the New Testament as, "demon", is the Greek word, "daimon".  In Greek mythology, a daimon was a powerful supernatural being that existed between gods and humans.  However, they were viewed traditionally as benevolent and only began to be viewed as sinister with the writings of Plato.  Many of the classic Greek daimons, like Pan, were nature spirits.  It was only later under the influence of other Mediterranean mythologies that they began to be associated with the underworld and death like the netherworld guards of Egyptian religion. http://www.mythicalcreaturesguide.com/m/page/Demon

This presents a quandary for Christian literalists.  If one takes the description of demons in the Gospels literally and this characterization comes from pagan religions and mythology which is at odds with that of the earlier Hebrew writings canonised as inspired and inerrant in the Christian Bible, then did God reveal a more accurate knowledge of the nature of these beings to pagan religions than to his Prophets and other writers of the Old Testament?  Do the Gospels show us that the Hebrew Scriptures were wrong and that pagan mythologies had it right?

The writers of the Gospels were extremely knowledgable about the Tanakh as were most Jews of the period to the point of having large sections memorized.  I find it hard to believe that they would be unable to differentiate between the characterization of spirits in their own Scriptures and those from other cultures and religions.  Therefore, I find it difficult to accept that they would be offering portrayals of demons from other cultures as what they believed to be a literal description.

That the writers were offering this as a metaphorical element of the story, a literary device, is also suggested by the teaching style they portray Jesus as having.  Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and wisdom teacher who belonged to post-exilic Rabbinical Judaism. He and his early followers saw themselves as thoroughly part of that religion and tradition. Wisdom teachers in that tradition frequently used the telling of popular stories, parables, and myths with their own twist in order to make a point, or bring a different perspective to light. 

We see this throughout the Gospel accounts of Jesus' teachings.  Jesus is reported as using popular stories, some from other cultures, that his audience would have been familiar with in his parables.  An example of this would be Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the Gospel of Luke. In this parable, the rich man and Lazarus both die and experience an afterlife where they are judged and sent to different planes of existence dependent on how they had lived their life on earth like in the Greek myths of Hades. This is unlike anything in the Hebrew Scriptures and is a reference to Greek myth as a vehicle for the lesson.  This is also obviously a parable and shows up in Luke among a collection of parables. It doesn't make sense to interpret it as Jesus giving a science lesson on the actual workings of what happens when people die especially since it is not representative of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Taking this all into account, I am fairly confident that the writer of Mark and his community meant these accounts of impure spirits as metaphor.  That brings us around to the original question of what these accounts meant to them.  What were these metaphors for?  In the passage from Mark above, the account of the impure spirit was meant to answer the question about Jesus' authority and right to give his own teaching.

The impure spirit testifies to Jesus' right and sanction as coming directly from God.  If the impure spirit is not meant to be literal, then what does it represent?  I would suggest that it represents those who have a closer experience with the spiritual, those who live closer to the will of God and recognize his word.  This is how I believe the community would have viewed themselves.  They see Jesus as being sanctioned and "of God" because his words and actions ring true with them as the word of God.

I believe that the community of Mark held a sentiment on Jesus' legitimacy and the God  inspired nature of his words similar to that later expressed in the Gospel of John.

16 Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. 17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (John 7:16-17)

A New Teaching - Mark 1:27-28

27 The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” 28 News about him spread quickly over the whole region of Galilee.

The previous passage related that the people in the synagogue Jesus was visiting were, "amazed" (In the Greek, exeplēssonto; thunderstruck, astounded) that he was teaching with authority. They were not astounded because he was teaching in a confident or assertive manner, they were "thunderstruck" because he thought he had the right to give his own teaching.  He was giving his own new teaching and interpretation of the Scriptures rather than passing on the teaching of a recognized Rabbi who had been certified by semicha, rabbinic ordination.  As an independent, self appointed teacher, Jesus did not have, s'mikhahto, "authority" to make his own teaching that interpreted Scripture and made legal judgments.

In our society, the right to interpret Scripture and offer one's own teaching about God is not a big deal.  But, in the Jewish society of the time, Scripture was also their civil, business, and family law.  It would be similar to someone today without election or appointment setting themselves up in the local courthouse and claiming to have the authority to settle legal disputes and announce judgments.

Why would anyone listen to this man, or take his self appointed authority seriously?  The answer the Gospel writer gives is that Jesus had been appointed directly by God, bypassing the approvals of the accepted systems of Jewish society.  The proof of this comes in the form of testimony from supernatural beings.  This direct appointment and the authority Jesus holds is portrayed as being recognized by "impure spirits" who it would be presumed would be aware of the order of things in the heavens and who held sway with God. 

In the preceding passage, these beings testify that Jesus is, "the Holy One of God". In the Greek, "Holy One", is ἅγιος (hagios 40), "set apart by (or for) God, holy, sacred". If we look ahead to the identification of Jesus by the writer in the next chapter as the, "Son of Man", of Daniel's vision, then these spirits are identifying Jesus as the one God has chosen or set apart as king and to be, "...given authority, glory and sovereign power" (Daniel 7:13-14).

 

The spirits are portrayed as fearing the position and power given to him by God and ask him if he has come to destroy them.  They then meekly accept his orders to be silent and to leave the man they are possessing.

The people are so amazed at the testimony and deference of these heavenly beings that instead of mobbing Jesus and driving him out of their synagogue, as might be expected with his presumption and threat to their ways, he becomes the talk of the town and they spread his fame.

Given this, it is no wonder that Jesus gets into such conflict with the Religious Authorities in the following chapters.  They would have seen him as a threat to their control and authority.  People were giving credence and respect to someone who had not been certified and vetted by their system.  This undermined their monopoly on dictating social custom and legal decision rights.

 

The "teachers of the law" would have particularly found him galling. These were people who had spent their whole lives striving to be the best at their Beth Sefer and then their Beth Midrash, and may have already spent time as a student of a famous Rabbi in order to work their way to the point where they might someday be considered as a candidate for semicha, Rabbinic ordination, and be granted their own s'mikhahto, "authority", and be able to give their own teaching.  And here was this rural nobody that had done none of that being made much of by the crowds, giving his own teaching, and expecting people to respect him like people as themselves who were working so hard to earn it.

So far in the story his right and authority to give his own teaching is based solely on the testimony of supernatural beings and supernatural events such as the voice from Heaven when he is baptized, and the healings and exorcisms he has performed which demonstrated God's favor.  This begs the question of how the writer and his community viewed supernatural beings and events.  Living in a wider community where these stories were abundant in the literature of the time, was it just the accepted cultural norm that these beings existed, like everyone knowing that the world is flat?  Or, were they metaphorizing the story using the accepted literary devices and mythology of the wider culture to express who Jesus was to them and didn't expect these aspects of the story to be taken literally?

This is an important enough question for any literary investigation of the Gospel that it will be the subject of the next post.  What was the writer and his community's understanding of, "impure spirits", and how metaphorical or literal did they intend their use in their story?