This miracle or exorcism narrative reaffirms the power of Jesus over the demonic, as well

as anticipates the Gentile mission. The account is the first that is set outside of Palestine (cf.
7:24–8:9).
5:1 New Testament students are immediately confronted with a textual problem
involving the location of the miracle. The ancient Greek manuscripts, translations, and
quotations of the New Testament vary among “Gerasenes,” “Gadarenes,” and “Gergesenes.”
The same variants appear in the parallels in Matt 8:28; Luke 8:26. “Gerasenes” is probably
the original in Mark and Luke, “Gadarenes” in Matthew. The well-known city of Gerasa,
however, was some thirty-three miles from Lake Galilee, and it is improbable that its territory
extended to the lake. Nor could the herdsmen have traveled to the city and back in one day.
Matthew and copyists of Mark probably recognized this and changed the reading to
“Gadarenes.” Gadara was six miles from the lake, and there is strong evidence that its
territory extended to it. There are, however, no steep hills or caves along the southeast shore
near Gadara, and distance is still a problem.
Origen, who died in A.D. 254 and who was one of the greatest biblical scholars in the
ancient church, argued that both of the above are too difficult and suggested that
“Gergesenes” was original. He associated the Gergesenes with the Old Testament
Girgashites. That the former name is derived from the latter is unlikely, and no town by the
name of Gergesa is known. The most likely solution is that Mark wrote “Gerasenes,”
intending to allude not to the famous city thirty-three miles from the lake but to a village on
the eastern shore that existed until recently with the Arabic name Kersa. Kersa is possibly
related to the Greek name Gerasa, and there are steep hills and cave-tombs about a mile to
the south. If Gerasa is to be identified with Kersa, it was probably in the tetrarchy of Philip
(Luke 3:1) but was only a mile or two north of the area known as the Decapolis (v. 20).
Uncertainty must remain, however, except for the fact that Mark placed the miracle
somewhere on the eastern shore in predominantly Gentile territory.
5:2–5 The demoniac himself probably was a Gentile. “Evil spirit” is literally “unclean
spirit.” The man was unclean because of the demon, living in the tombs, and living in Gentile
territory. The ancients believed that tombs were dwelling places for demons. The description
emphasizes the destruction of his personality to the point of insanity by the demons and the
ostracism and brutal treatment he had received from the people.
5:6 One cannot help noticing the contrast between the man’s wildness in vv. 3–5 and his
composure in the presence of Jesus. The composure, however, did not last.
5:7–8 Here the man seemed to speak for himself; elsewhere the demons spoke through
him. Inasmuch as he was possessed, no distinction should be made. The demons employed
the name and a title of Jesus in a vain attempt to render him ineffective. Just as knowing the
name of a demon was thought to assist in its exorcism (cf. v. 9), likewise using the name of
the exorcist was thought to hinder him (cf. 1:24; 3:11). The title “Most High God” is
sometimes used in the Old Testament by a Gentile to refer to the God of Israel, and that seems
to be the case here. Inasmuch as adjuration formulas were usually used by the exorcist, the
one here by the possessed person and/or his demon parodies an attempt to gain the upper
hand. The word “torture” probably alludes to eternal punishment following the last judgment.
Verse 8 is awkward and may be Mark’s addition to the story he received from the tradition.
5:9 Jesus turned the tables on the demon by demanding to know its name. A Roman
legion consisted of four to six thousand men, but here the word merely refers to a large
number (“mob,” GNB). That the term alludes to the occupation of Palestine by Roman
legions as a few have claimed is very doubtful. Whether the word is a proper name as in the
NIV, an arrogant boast, or an attempt to avoid giving the actual name is uncertain. No such
proper name is elsewhere attested. No significance should be attached to the fluctuation
between the singular and plural; sometimes the demons are looked upon as a whole and
sometimes as individuals.
5:10 This statement reflects the widespread association of demons with particular places.
At this point the demons acknowledged their defeat but attempted to gain some concession,
as also in v. 12.
5:11–13 The presence of the pigs further evidences that the event took place outside of
Jewish Palestine. According to Lev 11:7 and Deut 14:8 swine were “unclean” and were not
to be eaten. The demons thought they had won a concession from Jesus, but the seeming
concession led directly to their destruction because they presumably perished with the swine.
No attempt should be made to equate the number of pigs with the number of demons. Nor
should any attempt be made to rationalize the occurrence, such as claiming that the demoniac
frightened the pigs by his paroxysm or that they were startled by the approach of strangers.
Some have seen an ethical and ecological problem in v. 13. This and the withering of the
fig tree (11:12–14, 20–21) are the only miracles of destruction attributed to Jesus in the
canonical Gospels. Part of the problem is the difference in ancient and modern mentality. No
first-century Jew would have had any concern for the pigs or the loss incurred by their Gentile
owners. Furthermore, Jesus did not command the demons to inhabit them; he permitted them
to do so. The destruction of the pigs also had a definite purpose, to dramatically symbolize
the ability of Jesus to destroy the demonic in human beings. To say the least, the restoration
of the demoniac and the destruction of the demons were more important than the pigs.
5:14–17 No doubt Mark’s description of the man in v. 15 pictures conversion. The man’s
composure doubtless made a more positive impression on Jesus’ disciples than on the local
residents. Because of their superstition they were terrified by anyone who had such enormous
power, and they begged Jesus to go away. Ironically they feared Jesus more than they did the
demoniac and cared more for their pigs than for a fellow human being. As important as
miracles are in Mark’s account, he obviously did not use them to “prove” who Jesus was or
to compel faith.
5:18–19 Quite different from the terror of the local people is the attitude of the cured
demoniac toward Jesus. Even though Jesus did not grant the request, the clause “to go with
him” (literally “that he might be with him,” cf. 3:14) indicates the proper desire of every
disciple. And v. 19 indicates the proper response of every convert: to tell what Jesus has done
for him or her. Arguing over whether the word “Lord” refers to God or Jesus is meaningless.
Jesus probably attributed the miracle to God, but those who told the story between the
resurrection and the writing of the Gospels no doubt thought primarily in terms of Jesus.
5:20 Mark probably saw in the man the first missionary to the Gentiles and a preview of
the Gentile mission that flourished during the quarter century before the writing of his
Gospel. The “Decapolis” was a loosely connected group of ten Gentile cities that had been
set free from Jewish domination by the Roman general Pompey when he occupied Palestine
in 63 B.C.1

1James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman Publishers, 1991), 89–91.