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)