The Gadarene Demoniac: 3 – Legion, Spirits of the Dead?

Having explored the landscape (in part one) and background (in part two) of the demoniac, we now return to the original hypothesis of this series:

It is proposed that a lens which incorporates an understanding of diamones as human spirits may help a new understanding of the passage, answering some of those questions which are raised, such as:

– What is being exorcised by Jesus?
– Why the large-scale destruction of the swineherd?

This might sound strange, even anathema, for those like myself who were taught these were non-human, evil spirits. This comes from a deeply rooted belief that human spirits cannot come into contact with the living. However, as we have seen elsewhere in this website, our inherited explanations of various Bible verses and passages is often based in an a priori commitment to an unconscious afterlife that is prevalent in certain Christian traditions. For a number of possible reasons, it seems that occasionally interaction with the living may occur. In the case of Legion, may the possession of the Gadarene demoniac be caused by spirits of the dead… warriors who might have a grudge against the occupying forces of Rome?

Note: At this point there will be those who are reaching for verses such as Ecclesiastes 9:5, Luke 16, Hebrews 9:27, to say these couldn’t be the spirits of the dead. To discover how the Bible does not rule out the dead interacting with the living please click on the links for these verses and read the articles there. Perhaps explore further the articles in this website to see how that, whilst Scripture forbids initiating contact with the dead, it implores us to test the spirits which do come to us first. Then come back to this article, having understood the scriptural arguments surrounding these things.

Lemma: Daimones – Spirits of the Dead

Before going further, we might need to remind ourselves of the term diamones. As shown in various other articles on this site, the worldview of Jesus and the original writer / readers of Mark included the Second Temple Period (2TP) Book of the Watchers. Elder states that: ‘There can be no doubt that this tradition was highly influential and held a great deal of cultural and mythic currency in Mark’s context.’ [1] Elder helpfully reminds us of the 2TP literature popular within the culture of this time, which included human spirits within the category of daimon, a term used in Mark’s overall diagnosis of the man’s state (v15). After taking into account the roots of understanding of Watchers, “evil spirits” and “daimones”, one can begin to gain a deeper understanding of this strange passage and its potential input for deliverance ministry today. Remember, daimones in the culture of Mark included spirits of the dead, so this is not beyond cultural interpretation of the text.

Meeting Legion

Let’s begin by reading the text of this encounter:

When he [the demoniac] saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.’ For he had said to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’ He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, ‘Send us into the swine; let us enter them.’ So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the lake, and were drowned in the lake.

Mark 5:6-13 (NRSVACE)

“Son of the Most High God”

A careful reading of the text reveals Jesus addressing the unclean spirit to come out of the man. This elicits the response “Son of the Most High God” as a title of Jesus. Could this be our first clue regarding the nature of the spirits possessing the demoniac?

The possessing spirit who initially addresses Jesus uses the Gentile name for God, “Most High God”. This is used by another spirit, a divinatory Yiddeoni / “Spirit of Python” in the Gentile context of Acts 16:17. It is also used in the Gentile context of Dan. 3-5, and in Heb. 7:1 for the Gentile, Melchizedek, who is a kingly priest of the “Most High God” (El Elyon in Hebrew – Gen. 14:18).

Would a non-human spirit use a Gentile term like this if it knew the identity of Jesus already from a different plane of existence that was from before the foundation of the earth? Hold onto this thought as we proceed.

Unclean Spirits

A comparative linguistic analysis of parallel accounts in the other Synoptics, reveals the possibility that the possessing Legion could include spirits of the dead.

Matthew’s usage of daimonizomai and daimon (Mt. 8:28-34) reveals his understanding of the nature of the possessing spirits as daimones (which includes spirits of the dead). Lk. 8:26-39 follows Matthew’s terminology. However, Mark (Mk. 5:2,8,13) uses the term ‘unclean spirit’ (pneumati akatharto) to describe the spirits, and demon-possessed (daimonizomai) to describe the man’s former affliction. Importantly, neither of the other Synoptic accounts use ‘evil spirit’ (ponera pneumata) in the account. This offers us the potential to understand them not as the ancient evil spirits of the giants in Gen. 6:1-4 or the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36), nor as non-human fallen Watchers, but as unclean, human spirits. Supporting the cultural context of this, Plato speaks of a common understanding that the souls of the wicked would be compelled to wander around unclean burial grounds (in Luck [2]).

Elder [3] suggests that Mark assumes his audience understands the unclean nature of the spirits as linked to the uncleanness of the Watchers who moved from the spirit realm into the human realm.

The DDD entry for ‘Unclean Spirits’ [4] notes: ‘the noun daimonion is used synonymously [with unclean spirits]’ and that: ‘“unclean spirit” is part of the demonological idiom of Judaism … however, it is not very common, probably because “unclean” is a ritual concept.’

With this in mind, is it possible that the label ‘unclean’ for these spirits is because they were spirits of the dead? The association of ‘unclean’ with death and the dead is well attested within Jewish tradition and Scripture. Wright and Hubner [5] state human corpses were the ‘most severe of all the permitted impurities … called the “father of the fathers of uncleanness” in later rabbinic tradition,’ and that dwelling with them would render a person perpetually unclean. In Num. 19:11-13, the state of those who touch a dead body is discussed, where cleansing may take place afterwards, but if not carried out the person is: ‘cut off from Israel.’ Thus death and corpses are considered something to be avoided because of associated uncleanness. The demoniac living within tombs would be rendered unclean by his contemporaries, as too would a person possessed by a spirit of the dead. The very nature of an unclean spirit is akin to those which cause unclean disease in a person [6]; in this case the dis-ease impacted both his body (v5) and his mind, which also received healing through the exorcism (v15).

Therefore, if these were dead human spirits that were not at rest in the underworld, then Mark’s usage of the term ‘unclean spirit’ fits with Matthew and Luke’s use of the broad term daimon which includes the dead.

From the language used, it is perfectly permissible, within the given cultural mindset of the writer of Mark, that the intention was to frame Legion as the spirits of the dead, if not as a whole cohort, then at least as a majority composition. This tantalising suggestion is argued for by both Thiessen [7] and Bolt [8].

Military Clues

If these are human spirits, what could be their origin and purpose? Could they be spirits of human soldiers? If so, what clues exist for to answer this?

To build upon our previous analysis of the blood-soaked landscape and the activities of the demoniac, we need to consider the role of the war dead in this Greco-Roman setting. Luck [9] states: ‘the soldiers who had died for their country were treated like the family dead, because the polis was an extended family and owed a collective duty to those who had sacrificed their lives for the community’. This further helps point to the possibility of ancestor worship being carried out amongst the tombs, especially if they were of soldiers killed in battles in that region. Interestingly, Mark (v5) uses the Greek term mnēma, which can mean a memorial resting place for war dead of the locality, either individually [10] or communally [11].

Another military clue is the self appointed name of the group, or at least its leader: Legion. To the initial reader familiar with the Roman occupation this would have military connotations. We will examine Jesus’ discussion with Legion in the next part, but will now consider Mark’s use of explicit military terminology.

Further clues that point towards a military connection. In the first part of this series, we saw Myers’ work which interpreted this account as a polemic against Rome. Whilst some, including myself, disagree with this frame of reference, his work (derived from work by Duncan and Derrett), has the following merits:

• it takes note of the presence of the pigs, a staple food associated with Greco-Roman culture and their association with the Roman occupation of the region.
• it picks up on specific words that contain useful information which is lost in translation.

Duncan and Derrett [12], together with Myers [13], explain the militaristic words used by Mark in his account:

• Legion as a Roman unit of soldiers (v9),
• Jesus’ military dismissal command, epetrepsin, to the spirits
• the pigs charge, ōrmēsen, into the lake (v13), which is also used to describe groups of soldiers charging into battle.

Whilst many choose to relate the name Legion to the Roman occupying forces, Twelftree [14] observes that the word had lost its military connotation by the time of Mark’s writing of this account, simply meaning ‘a great many’. This itself is another nail in the coffin of the political interpretation of the passage. It may also point to the spirits not being Roman in origin, providing further support to an argument proposed later on regarding the porcine issue.

According to Mark, the spirits plead with Jesus not to let them depart from the area (v10). Why this seemingly odd request? Why do they appear to be attached to this area? Remember this is Gentile territory and that Mark is writing to Gentile readers. An understanding of spirits linked to location is very much in line with Greco-Roman beliefs, particularly regarding the spirits of dead warrior heroes, which were believed to be confined to their native country or the locality of their tombs [15]. These warriors would have an affinity for the land they loved and died for, and perhaps Mt. 6:21: “Where your treasure is, there is your heart” is applicable here? [16]

Rather than a political polemic, could all this textual and contextual evidence be revealing Mark’s own beliefs regarding the origin of the possessing spirits as soldiers, slain in previous battles with occupying forces?

A Porcine Question Answered?

If Legion is indeed comprised of spirits of dead warriors, it would seem highly unlikely they were Jewish for the following reasons:

• this was Gentile territory, though it had been Jewish at one time (but this point on its own is weak),
• the use of the Gentile term “Son of the Most High God” when addressing Jesus,
• the spirits beg to be let into the pigs (Mt. 8:31; Mk. 5:12; Lk. 8:32). Pigs, being “unclean” to Jews, are hardly likely to consider pigs a second best choice for residency of a self-respecting Jew, even if they are dead! Why not birds or other “clean” creatures that would have been nearby? [17]

Jesus’ negotiation with these spirits reveals his compassion on them. Like Blumhardt (when he discovered the human identity of some of Gottliebin’s possessing spirits and sent them to various places such as his church or garden), he gave these spirits a place of residency within the bodies of the pigs. Whilst we cannot for certain know Jesus’ motive for this or why he decided to allow it (apart from that Jesus is known for his compassion upon the afflicted), we may see something of exorcistic practice prevalent at that time, and something we shall explore in the next part. Whatever the reason, the demoniac was sorely afflicted by the spirits residing in his body and thus Jesus required them to leave.

Side note: Notice that the spirits couldn’t enter the pigs without Jesus’ permission. This might suggest the demoniac had somehow invited them in, an activity a pig alone couldn’t do.

What happens next is the strangest bit of this story. Why did the spirits enter the massive herd of pigs and kill them in the sea? We know the Legion of dead spirits was able to occupy the body of a single human, so why disperse into 2000 pigs? Why not just one pig? Obviously this was an act of maximal destruction by these spirits. Theissen [18] makes the following observation:

On violent resistance by demons, ct. T. Hopfner Griechisch-iigyptischer Offenbarungszauber I, 1921, 56, 82ff.

The spirits of the dead which for various reasons have not found rest and exist as demons prove to be particularly vindictive. Spirits of the dead seem to come into Mk 5.1ff. (cf. their staying near the graves. 5.3,5); perhaps it was once known that they had scores to settle with the Gerasenes – certainly the destruction of a herd of pigs is no mean revenge.

We have already said that the presence of such a large number of pigs could be linked to the upkeep of the Roman legion stationed nearby. Pork was the staple food for a Roman soldier. [19] Perhaps this act of seemingly mindless destruction reveals an implicit wish by the spirits for revenge upon the occupying forces by removing an important food source from them? This seems a more satisfactory answer than Jesus, being a Jew, wanting to destroy all the pigs because he saw them as unclean animals.

Maybe these were human spirits, somehow hanging around, possibly waiting to enact justice upon those who took their lives so early, in a similar manner to those martyrs crying out for justice for their untimely deaths (Rev. 9:6)? After this, did they finally find their rest? Though the text doesn’t say, I think it fairly safe to assume that the demonised man was no longer in danger of being tormented or afflicted by them again, given his missional zeal in Mk. 5:20 and Lk. 8:39.

Conclusion

We have examined the clues that may reveal the likely identity of the unclean spirits possessing this poor man. Whilst we will not be able to conclusively prove that this is the case, given all the evidence, the inference to the best explanation suggests Legion was comprised of spirits of dead soldiers who had been killed in battle and were hanging around in the area. Given an opportunity to become enfleshed they entered a vulnerable man. Perhaps this was through a mediumistic memorial ritual. Perhaps, like the spirit of the woman in Gottliebin, they were under the leadership of a non-human spirit as part of a judgement (but not Final Judgement) within the afterlife? Whatever the case, having become enfleshed once more, they caused untold damage to their host as they fought for control of his body.

Could the man himself have been a survivor of warfare, or part of a group wishing to enlist supernatural help as part of an ongoing struggle with occupying forces? These are questions we cannot answer with the text, but when encountering similar situations today, after going through all the necessary mental health checks and treatments with experts, could an investigation of involvement with spiritual ‘opening up’ practices in an area help shine a light that provides help for the haunted? Such research helped in the case of Blumhardt and Dittus, which itself bears striking similarities to stories relayed by deliverance ministers today.

Are we able to see spiritual disturbances as possibly the result of the dead in need of laying to rest, not immediately diagnose them as non-human evil spirits (which need dealing with in a different manner)? This would be in line with the scriptural command in 1 John 4:1 to test the spirits, for not all come from God.

Next Time – we look at the dialogue between Jesus and the Spirits as part fo the exorcistic process.

---

Acronyms & Bibliography

DDD – Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

Arrington, N. T. (2010), Between Victory and Defeat: Framing the Fallen Warrior in Fifth-Century Athenian Art, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Available at: <https://escholarship.org/content/qt7b03d0rv/qt7b03d0rv_noSplash_b4cd74bb886cabc08ff83a3999b60f24.pdf> [Accessed 12 April 2021].

Bolt, P. G. (1996) ‘Jesus, the Daimons and the Dead’, in Lane, A. N. S. (ed.) The Unseen World. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House Books and Paternoster Press, pp. 75-102.

Duncan, J. and Derrett, M. (1979a) ‘Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, May 1, pp. 2-17.

Elder, N. A. (2016) ‘Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Geresene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) with the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36)’, The Catholic Bible Quarterly, 78: 2016, pp. 430-446.

Felton, D. (1998) Haunted Greece and Rome: Ghost Stories from Classical Antiquity. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.

Giacosa, I. G. (1992) A taste of Ancient Rome, Chicago: University of Chicago.

Luck, G. (2006) Arcana Mundi: Magic and Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds, Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.

Myers, C. (2002) Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Petch, A., 2011. Marathon Spearheads. [online] University of Cambridge: Faculty of Classics. Available at: <http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/rpr/index.php/object-biography-index/1-prmcollection/648-marathon-spearheads.html> [Accessed 12 April 2021].

Theissen, G. (1983) Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Twelftree, G. H. (2019), In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Van der Toorn, K., Van der Horst, P. W., et al (1998), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Lieden, Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.

Wright, D. P. and Hübner, H. (1992) ‘Unclean and Clean’ in Freedman, D. (ed.) The Anchor Bible Dictionary – Volume 2, New York, NY: Doubleday, pp. 729-745.

Footnotes

[1] Elder, 432.

[2] Luck, 213-214.

[3] Elder, 434.

[4] DDD, 882.

[5] Wright and Hubner, 731.

[6] DDD, 921.

[7] Theissen, 89 n.21.

[8] Bolt, 98-99.

[9] Luck, 210.

[10] Arrington, 32.

[11] Petch, n38.

[12] Duncan and Derrett, 5-6.

[13] Myers, 190-192,194.

[14] Twelftree, 108-109.

[15] Felton, 27.

[16] Though I would hesitate to strain this verse alone to support haunting phenomena by human spirits, it is worth further exploration at some point.

[17] Granted, if there was no other choice, then this might be considered the worst of all options, being better than a disembodied existence of passing through “dry and arid areas” (Mt. 12:43; Lk. 11:24). Some have suggested that this was a part of magical ritual exorcistic practice in transferring the spirit(s) to an object which is then destroyed. I’m not so sure Jesus woud have engaged in such activity of this nature. Rather than the transfer being the explicit will of exorcist against the will of the spirits, here the spirits request to be transferred to the pigs and cause the destruction themselves.

[18] Theissen, 89 n.21.

[19] Giacosa writes that the Roman army would often eat beef, mutton and lamb, depending upon availability, but preferred pork. With the legion stationed near to where the large pig herd was kept, it makes sense that they would be utilising the farm produce from that area.