I will offer some thoughts for the sake of discussion, but my point in writing really wasn’t to make any sort of counter point, I really wondered if there was a subtlety to the text that I was missing.

Theologically, I am probably more inclined to look at Jesus’ intention in his message and ministry as addressing “sin” as opposed to “sinners.” That is to say, as I seek to grasp what God was doing in and through Jesus, I mainly see an impulse to free and liberate people from sin as opposed to convince people of how bad they are, ie sinners.

So, as I read the story of the demoniac(s), I see Jesus’ compassion for a man wracked by evil with no mention of any fault of his own. If there was fault there, Jesus feels no need to make mention of it.

More than this, and I have no idea how far you might have pressed into the various dimensions of the text, I think there is an empirical dimension to the text. The story is just chalk full of words and allusions to the Roman Empire – a political and systemic force that Jesus’ message and ministry was constantly in conflict with.

To your question, yeah, I hope to follow a Jesus who is that powerful – not just strong to save me from myself, but strong enough to save me from a world of evil and injustice that serves to keep me ignorant, or perhaps worse, numb, to the good news of God’s Kingdom.

Thanks for the note; great to hear the blogs have been helpful. You raise a good point, one that I made theologically, not exegetically.

The text does not say “The Gerasene was a sinner”; however, we know from the rest of the Gospel of Mark that this is precisely why Jesus came, to preach a gospel that calls sinners to repentance and faith (Mk 1:15, 38; 2:17). However, a case can be made from the text that the reason that Mark chose the word “clothed” for the rightness of his mind was to call to mind the rich biblical theology of clothing in the Bible, theology that connotes salvation-inheritance. See my online sermon for more “Doubt the Serpent, Trust the Savior.”

This was another good one, I had 1 question though. You mentioned, “The demon-possessed man wasn’t simply an innocent host for misery-hungry demons. He was a sinner, unclean on account of breaking Jewish law, but more importantly, under judgment for his personal sin.”

I was wondering where you got this from. Wondering if I am missing something in the text since I don’t really see it and I think that its presence (or lack thereof) probably augments how we understand the thrust of the story.