Reflection on the Gospel story of the boy possessed by a mute and deaf spirit:

It might repay the time, however, to take a closer look at this mute spirit. Here are two lines of thought:

First, courtesy of Fr. John Dear, SJ, in his book Transfiguration, note that the spirit "has often thrown him into fire and into water to kill him." In the New Testament, fire and water symbolize the Holy Spirit and baptism, sources of life. The spirit, though, tries to use them as the means of death. Jesus’ word overcomes these "anti-sacraments" (as I say, this is a line of thought; you’ll have to do the shading yourself), since He has come to bring life to the dead.

Second, the father says that, when the spirit seizes his son, "he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid." Do you know anyone in your own life who has a tendency — perhaps when the subject turns to religion or politics or morality — to foam at the mouth, grind his teeth, and become rigid? Perhaps, and this is offered without the implication that there is a demonic spirit at work, perhaps the way forward in truth with this person is only through prayer (and, as a variant, through fasting).

Lots of meat there… and today’s a good day to sink your teeth into it!


Comments

5 responses to “At Disputations:”

  1. yes yes. very nice.
    but why do some people want to find every other interpretation but the one most obvious.
    much of modern biblical exegesis comes from an anti-spiritual perspective. nobody wants to believe that the demonic really does exist. they will look for every other meaning to these accounts but not look at the one that is staring them in the face – Jesus liberates us from the Evil One.
    Says one who has experienced demonic deliverance himself.

    Like

  2. James, the problem with faulty exegesis isn’t the finding of interpretations other than the most obvious.
    What’s faulty is rejecting the most obvious in favor of interpretations that exclude it.
    These are many-layered stories, and many of the layers can be true (though if two possible layers appear to contradict, at least one must be rejected as wrong).
    I think they’re many-layered on purpose. It’s like a broadcast that can contain many messages on different frequencies.
    But the most obvious “top layer” is not made false by the (correct) finding of new under-layers.
    The Parables of the Lord are not just stories about mustard seeds, coins, vineyards, etc. although these are the most obvious interpretations — the Lord Himself (who speaks with authority and not as the scribes) demonstrated this, though sometimes privately to the disciples.

    Like

  3. yes i agree with you.
    I suppose i am extra sensitive to the anti-supernatural view. I did theology as a degree for three years (albeit not strictly catholic) and so spent most of the time defending the view that actually Jesus did walk on water, and actually Jesus could well of fed 5000 miraculously if He wanted to.
    I was so fed up with the way miracles were dismissed because of the ‘other layers’ which became the ‘real’ interpretation of the events.
    One lecturer even stated that Jesus walked on a porpoise, but it looked like he was walking on water. and the reason he walked on a porpoise? So that he could demonstrate the underlying meaning that He was God and could do anything. Like walking on porpoises in a storm.
    wow. and people say miracles are hard to believe (?)
    sigh

    Like

  4. Anything that begins with “courtesy of Fr. John Dear, S.J.” belongs in your round file.

    Like

  5. That bad, huh. Well, I guess I’m guilty of judging the commentary on its merits then.

    Like

Leave a reply to bearing Cancel reply