One Would Hardly think preaching the gospel at a mental hospital would be a fruitful enterprise. We would feel even less certain doing so with mentally ill people prone to severe violence. Yet that is exactly what Jesus did on the way to Gergesa.’
As Christadelphians, the pursuit of knowledge is fundamental to our religion. In preaching the word, we expect people to have a certain degree of intellectual ability commensurate with our perception of what we feel is necessary for a correct understanding of the scriptures. The thought of preaching the Gospel to anyone mentally unbalanced, and violent besides, is not something we would normally feel comfortable doing. In fact we often have great difficulty dealing even in our own ecclesial family with brethren and sisters who may develop mental illness. Somehow this form of illness seems to us apart from any other type of disease and we tend to put our heads in the sand, as it were, and wish it would go away.
Fortunately, in recent years, at least in certain areas of the world-wide Christadelphian community, we have begun to deal with mental health problems through various “Care-Group” efforts. The story of Jesus at Gergesa is a powerful lesson of the almost unlimited extent he was willing to perform miracles, even in cases where (at least to us) it seems that only the barest evidence of sound intellect and faithfulness were evident. Mental illness was no barrier to the “two” at Gergesa; the very elementary confession of the man was sufficient: What have we to do with thee Jesus, thou son of God.
In a graveyard
The story commences immediately after the great miracle of calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee. Now we find Jesus is about to calm a storm, not of climate, but of human emotions wrapped up in the mentally ill at Gergesa. The setting is in the graveyard of the city, which was situated on the southern shore of the sea. The story of this miracle is told in all three of the synoptic gospels, but only Matthew mentions that “two” were possessed with demons.’
Perhaps the “two” were husband and wife, or simply two men where only one spoke out, and thus the other gospel writers felt no need for further identification. (This is a minor point, but we want to make it clear that the discrepancy between the gospel of Matthew and the other two accounts should not be thought of as evidence of Bible inconsistency, as some critics have claimed.)
Biblical language for the condition
We are told: And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes there met him two possessed with devils [“demon-possessed,” NI V]. It was not the only time that Jesus reached out to mentally ill people; in fact, in Matthew 4:24, the quaint old-English expression of lunatick is used in the Authorized Version to describe this condition. On that occasion, the context suggests there may have come to Jesus many people so afflicted.
At the time of our Lord Jesus Christ, the popular folk belief was that such a disease resulted from the individual being possessed by evil demons, evil spirits, or devils. (Compare especially, Matt. 9:32-34; 12:22-23). This was never associated in the scriptures with either an immortal creature of any kind, nor especially with a fallen angel of evil who contested the Lord God Almighty for supremacy in the universe. This latter idea came about from variations on popular mythology adopted from Eastern mysticism. In fact, it has been said that Milton invented the “devil” as a real being in his famous poem “Paradise Lost” and ever since it has been (falsely) thought to be a Biblical concept.
The scribes and Pharisees equated devils and Satan to the pagan Philistine god Beelzebub (Matt. 10:25; 12:24; Luke 11:15-19). The name of this pagan god means literally “god of the flies” and in an alternative form this so-called deity was also styled as Beelzebul the “god of dung.”3
Given the disease potential of dung, and the inevitable flies associated with it, in a perverse way the link between Beelzebub and disease was not very far off the mark, but was (and is) a long way off the path of attributing disease to an immortal fallen angel of evil.
Why scripture speaks as it does
Until the nineteenth century man had virtually no notion where disease came from. The idea of germs, bacteria, viruses, chemical imbalances, and genetic flaws were entirely outside the scope of human knowledge at the time of Christ. Yet all of these things possess vital aspects of the human person and destroy the natural body. Speaking of these as “demon-possessed,” and so on, is not nearly so foolish an expression of the concept of illness and inherited disabilities as one would think, at least in terms of the wisdom of the times.
To expect scripture to have used language to describe illness that would have been inexplicable to mankind for almost two thousand years, and has only barely begun to be understood in these last days, would be unreasonable. No doubt there are probably many places in the world today where folk wisdom still considers that disease originates from evil spirits. It is also worth noting that capitalizing the word “devil,” thus denoting it as a proper noun, occurs only twice among the approximately 61 times the word “devil” is used in the New Testament. Hence the word “devil” is used to describe a “state” of evil NOT a “being” of evil.
Calamity and sin not directly related
Having considered the scientific basis of illness for the affliction of these “two” at Gergesa, there still remains an important philosophical question about the “moral” nature of disease and physical handicaps. This moral issue has sometimes been styled as, “why do bad things happen to good people”?
The Jews, as did most ancient people, believed that tragedies, illness, handicaps, and mental disorders were a direct punishment from God for some personal sin. On at least one occasion we have explicit testimony the disciples also believed illness, and physical handicaps, could be equated to sin in either the individual or the parents (John 9:1-3). Jesus of course denies it bluntly when he says “neither” (John 9:3).
I have even heard some express similar ideas today. Such thinking is extremely cruel to the unfortunate victims of tragedy, illness, and physical handicaps. Moreover, such attitudes have no scriptural basis. Jesus answers the question of whether or not illness is a direct punishment from God for specific sin(s): for He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. 5:45). Later in his ministry Jesus exhorts the people about events concerning the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate mingled with pagan sacrifices, and of the horrible tragedy of the tower of Siloam that collapsed and killed eighteen of the construction workers (Luke 13:1-8). Jesus says concerning these events: think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay.. but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish (vs. 4, 5).
When tragedy strikes it is indeed a time for self examination, but certainly not one for finger pointing! We must realize that being a Christadelphian is not a guarantee that we will never have to face painful circumstances in our lives. If this were not true then we would all be brilliant, extremely athletic, all our children would be perfect and we would all be endowed with physical beauty beyond measure. We would all die in our sleep at a hundred plus years old after living without ever contracting anything more serious than a head cold. We would never have auto accidents, or any serious debilitating illness, nor would any other type of unexpected tragedy ever touch us. If such were the case, all our ecclesias would be overflowing with converts and any element of faith as the substance of things hoped for (in the future — not today) would be entirely superfluous. Lest there be any doubt as to “why” tragedies occur the answer is painful, but inescapable.
Tragedies are indeed the result of “sin,” the sin of one man, Adam. As a result of his failure, we are all under the curse: dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return. And nowhere in scripture is any guarantee ever given that the route to carrying out that sentence would be painless.
Demoniacs show humility and faith
Both humility and faith are unmistakably evident in the present story: What have we to do with thee [these men humbled themselves], Jesus, thou Son of God? The fact they recognized his Sonship was not a trivial confession of faith. The Lord Jesus Christ made it plain on another occasion that such a revelation was only possible by the power of the Father (Matt. 16:16,17).
If naked, violent, mentally ill people eking out a living in the graveyard of a backwater town in Galilee were worthy of the Master’s compassion and healing, how much more should we find even the lowliest of men and women deserving of our attention in preaching the gospel message! God is indeed not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).
The tormented man adds a curious phrase in his plea to Jesus: Art thou come hither to torment us before the time? What did he mean by “before the time?” The time for what? It is possible that this was yet a continuation of his witness of faithfulness. By this expression he could have been alluding to the ultimate resurrection and judgement faithful men and women throughout the ages have longed for as the only cure of all that ails mankind physically and morally. See, for example, John 11:24 where Martha testifies of her faith in the eventual redemption of her brother Lazarus when the times of refreshing shall come from the Lord (Acts 3:19).
A dramatic miracle
Jesus chooses a particularly stunning way to carry out the cure for the violent mental state; he transfers the disease to a herd of 2000 swine and they run wild until they plunge headlong over steep banks into the Sea of Galilee.
By the phrase, “the devils besought him,” I would suggest that this was simply the crying plea of the mentally ill person(s). There is no logical reason why devils (if indeed they were real beings) would ever speak in this way. Why would they seek their own destruction? Here was a chance for the mentally ill to redeem further his spirit by cleansing the land of polluted animals, which should not have been there in the first place. Under the law of Moses having anything whatsoever to do with an unclean beast, such as a swine, was strictly forbidden (Lev. 11:7 and Deut. 14:8).
Gergesa was a Jewish city and we might wonder, What were swine doing there in the first place? The probable explanation is that the citizens of this town were raising them to feed the Roman Legions. This was a profitable business and they could assuage their consciences by pretending they were not really disobeying the Law of Moses, because they probably did not indulge in eating pork themselves. The law, however, was plain, a faithful Jew should not have even touched such an animal. That the demise of 2000 swine did not seem to trouble the citizens of Gergesa in terms of their own food supply is implicit in the story. There were no outcries of possible hunger or even famine, nor did they accuse him of any crime.
Incredibly, the whole city came out to meet him neither to acknowledge the miracle, nor to hear the gospel message, but instead to urge his immediate departure lest their lucrative bacon and sausage business go down the drain. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone else in that town responded to our Lord Jesus Christ. How ironic that the mentally ill accepted the Lord and were healed, but the normal upstanding citizens of this town couldn’t get rid of Christ fast enough.
The conclusion of this story reminds us once again that the gospel often prospers in the least expected places and with people who seem totally unsuitable; ultimately it is God who chooses and provides the increase, we are merely laborers in His vineyard.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One