Jesus and the epileptic boy

[JaredR]

Someone brought up an interesting point today, and I didn’t know how to answer. Most people today recognize the boy in Matthew 17 as an epileptic, but at the time everyone assumed he was demon possessed. In verse 18, Jesus casts out the alleged demon. My first thought was that perhaps he was demon-possessed and had epilepsy as a side effect, but that seems like a stretch. Why didn’t Jesus recognize it as an illness?

 

[Eucharisted]

It wasn’t an illness, it was demonic possession. It’s funny, because skeptics, in claiming Jesus didn’t recognize an illness, themselves don’t recognize the difference between demonic possession and illness, a difference which Jesus recognized in His ministry as we read in the gospels that He both drove out demons and cured many people.

 

[LilyM]

Clearly because it ain’t so, as much as ‘most people’ want to think it is. ‘Most people’ are as likely to be wrong (and contradict Our Lord) as not.

Jesus, of course, could very well tell the difference between genuine illness which needed healing (blindness, paralysis, leprosy, a discharge of blood) and cases of demonic possession (such as the Gadarene demon which went into the swine) where there were evil spirits involved.

Very clearly this was a case of the latter and not a genuine illness as epilepsy would be. Why people will not listen to the utterly plain words of Our Lord is really beyond me.

 

[Brickmaker]

Clearly because it ain’t so, as much as ‘most people’ want to think it is. ‘Most people’ are as likely to be wrong (and contradict Our Lord) as not.

Jesus, of course, could very well tell the difference between genuine illness which needed healing (blindness, paralysis, leprosy, a discharge of blood) and cases of demonic possession (such as the Gadarene demon which went into the swine) where there were evil spirits involved.

Very clearly this was a case of the latter and not a genuine illness as epilepsy would be. Why people will not listen to the utterly plain words of Our Lord is really beyond me.

This is how the USCCB-NAB glosses this passage:

[15] A lunatic: this description of the boy is peculiar to Matthew. The word occurs in the New Testament only here and in Matthew 4:24 and means one affected or struck by the moon. The symptoms of the boy’s illness point to epilepsy, and attacks of this were thought to be caused by phases of the moon.

 

[LilyM]

This is how the USCCB-NAB glosses this passage:

Is the writer of the NAB’s footnotes inerrant or inspired? If he/she/they are, then surely the compiilers of the ‘adulterer’s bible’, the one which left the word ‘not’ out of the commandment ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ , are equally so!

What information or authority does this writer or writers have that we should take their word for anything? To do so means we would rather believe that Our Lord was ignorant - and He certainly was not - than that this fallible human writer or writers are wrong?

The NAB footnotes have been criticised too many times to mentions, in many places on these fora.

 

[Brickmaker]

Is the writer of the NAB’s footnotes inerrant or inspired? If he/she/they are, then surely the compiilers of the ‘adulterer’s bible’, the one which left the word ‘not’ out of the commandment ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ , are equally so!

What information or authority does this writer or writers have that we should take their word for anything? To do so means we would rather believe that Our Lord was ignorant - and He certainly was not - than that this fallible human writer or writers are wrong?

The NAB footnotes have been criticised too many times to mentions, in many places on these fora.

Hey, I’m no biblical scholar but if the NAB is good enough for the Vatican, it’s good enough for me vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM and I’ll accept its scholarship anyday over the opinions of an anonymous poster on a website.

 

[LilyM]

Hey, I’m no biblical scholar but if the NAB is good enough for the Vatican, it’s good enough for me vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM and I’ll accept its scholarship anyday over the opinions of an anonymous poster on a website.

So you choose to believe that Our Lord and saviour - God - is a total ignoramus and doesn’t know the difference between epilepsy and demonic possession? :bigyikes:

So how DO you explain that passage in a way that makes sense? Why would HE say that a sufferer from epilepsy was in fact demonically possessed when such was not the case? Was He lying even? That’s about the only other possible explanation I can think of at the moment.

So you believe the NAB footnotes are correct. On the say-so of who? Not like anyone at the Vatican wrote those footnotes even if they ARE on its website. The Vatican did not give the Imprimatur.

The fact that it’s called the New AMERICAN Bible should be enough to clue you in to these two facts. By the way, you DO know that Imprimaturs and suchlike aren’t evidence of infallibility, don’t you?

 

[Brickmaker]

So you choose to believe that Our Lord and saviour - God - is a total ignoramus and doesn’t know the difference between epilepsy and demonic possession? :bigyikes:

So how DO you explain that passage in a way that makes sense? Why would HE say that a sufferer from epilepsy was in fact demonically possessed when such was not the case? Was He lying even? That’s about the only other possible explanation I can think of at the moment.

 

[LilyM]

Just because YOU cannot imagine another explanation doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. What I choose to believe is that Matthew uses a particular word here for the boy, ‘lunatic’, which is sometimes translated as ‘epileptic’. And that that must be important since it occurs only twice in his gospel. I also believe that in Jesus’ time folks couldn’t often tell the difference between epilepsy and demonic possession (and if you’ve ever seen someone in the grip of an epileptic episode, you’ll see where they were coming from) I believe that Jesus knew what was wrong with the boy but chose not to challenge their misconceptions because they weren’t relevant to the point he was making, which is that some healing, some driving out of the demon of illness, can only be achieved thru prayer and fasting.

 

[Luke65]

Hey, I’m no biblical scholar but if the NAB is good enough for the Vatican, it’s good enough for me vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM and I’ll accept its scholarship anyday over the opinions of an anonymous poster on a website.

The “opinions of an anonymous poster on a website”? Its called the infallible Word of God. The boy was possessed by a demon. But of course, you can believe what you want - its your free will.

“I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3)

 

[Brickmaker]

Brickmaker;5456811:

Ok so our Lord wasn’t ignorant Himself, He just left others to wallow in ignorance instead, when the ignorance served no purpose. When there was no reason to do so.

People in Jesus’ time were made WELL aware, through Greek medical scholarship, of distinctions between epilepsy - and lunacy for that matter - and demonic possession. There was no reason not to tell them the truth.

So much for Jesus being the Truth and the devil the father of the opposite, I guess …

Hey, I’m not gonna second guess the Lord. You asked me for a reasonable explanation and I gave you one. Jesus frequently kept knowledge from people, even said why he was doing so and thanked his Father for keeping truth hidden from the wise and revealing it to children. The evengelists who wrote the gospels chose their words with care: if Matthew chose to have the boy described as a lunatic (i.e. one suffering a mental disorder) and not one demonically possessed, who am I to question his choice of description? The point that I get from this passage is not that Jesus could cure epilepsy or drive out demons (both abilities made abundantly clear throughout the gospels) but that he was teaching his disciples the importance of prayer and fasting in healing difficult conditions.

 

[Brickmaker]

QUOTE=Luke65;5456850]The “opinions of an anonymous poster on a website”? Its called the infallible Word of God.QUOTE]

What? LilyM’s opinions have now achieved the status of the infallible Word of God?

Reading for comprehension is a skill well worth acquiring

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;5456830:

Hey, I’m not gonna second guess the Lord. You asked me for a reasonable explanation and I gave you one. Jesus frequently kept knowledge from people, even said why he was doing so and thanked his Father for keeping truth hidden from the wise and revealing it to children. The evengelists who wrote the gospels chose their words with care: if Matthew chose to have the boy described as a lunatic (i.e. one suffering a mental disorder) and not one demonically possessed, who am I to question his choice of description? The point that I get from this passage is not that Jesus could cure epilepsy or drive out demons (both abilities made abundantly clear throughout the gospels) but that he was teaching his disciples the importance of prayer and fasting in healing difficult conditions.

But it’s not a reasonable explanation at all. See, the important point is that OUR LORD described him as demon-possessed, which description Matthew repeats. He never indicated at any other time that He had in fact deliberately ‘hidden the truth’ from anyone, nor explained why as He did on other occasions, nor had any obvious reason as He did to hide His messiahship when people were seeking His life

In saying the boy was demon-possessed, if it was not in fact the case, Jesus wouldn’t just be ‘hiding knowledge’ or choosing words with care or anything, He would in fact be outright lying and deceiving people - telling them complete untruth.

It would be the equivalent of Him actually saying ‘hey guys, leave me alone, I’m not the Messiah’ or ‘hey, I’m no-one special, I don’t know the Father any better than the rest of you’ or suchlike.

Can you see the difference between those sorts of lies (and calling the boy demonically posesssed when he was not would be that sort of lie), which are totally antithetical for one who is Truth incarnate, and the ‘concealing’ that Jesus ACTUALLY did?

 

[Luke65]

Hey, I’m not gonna second guess the Lord. You asked me for a reasonable explanation and I gave you one. Jesus frequently kept knowledge from people, even said why he was doing so and thanked his Father for keeping truth hidden from the wise and revealing it to children. The evengelists who wrote the gospels chose their words with care: if Matthew chose to have the boy described as a lunatic (i.e. one suffering a mental disorder) and not one demonically possessed, who am I to question his choice of description? The point that I get from this passage is not that Jesus could cure epilepsy or drive out demons (both abilities made abundantly clear throughout the gospels) but that he was teaching his disciples the importance of prayer and fasting in healing difficult conditions.

Did you even read the passage? Jesus didn’t even mention the word “demon”. It was St. Matthew, the inspired author who told us it was a demon. Read carefully:

“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment. (Matthew 17:17-18)

 

[Brickmaker]

Brickmaker;5456890:

But it’s not a reasonable explanation at all. See, the important point is that OUR LORD described him as demon-possessed, which description Matthew repeats. He never indicated at any other time that He had in fact deliberately ‘hidden the truth’ from anyone, nor explained why as He did on other occasions, nor had any obvious reason as He did to hide His messiahship when people were seeking His life

In saying the boy was demon-possessed, if it was not in fact the case, Jesus wouldn’t just be ‘hiding knowledge’ or choosing words with care or anything, He would in fact be outright lying and deceiving people - telling them complete untruth.

It would be the equivalent of Him actually saying ‘hey guys, leave me alone, I’m not the Messiah’ or ‘hey, I’m no-one special, I don’t know the Father any better than the rest of you’ or suchlike.

Can you see the difference between those sorts of lies (and calling the boy demonically posesssed when he was not would be that sort of lie), which are totally antithetical for one who is Truth incarnate, and the ‘concealing’ that Jesus ACTUALLY did?

But Jesus doesn’t describe the boy as demonically possessed and neither does Matthew so there is no lie involved here.

Jesus said in reply, “O faithless and perverse 15 generation, how long will I be with you? How long will I endure you? Bring him here to me.”
18
Jesus rebuked him and the demon came out of him, 16 and from that hour the boy was cured.
19
Then the disciples approached Jesus in private and said, “Why could we not drive it out?”
20
17 He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

True, Jesus heals him by compelling the demon to come out of him but this could just as easily be interpreted as the demon of the boy’s illness. But, again, the point is NOT that Jesus can drive out demons. If we got to Chapter 17 of Matthew without discovering that, there would be something seriously wrong with our reading comprehension.To me, Jesus is almost testy here, certainly exasperated that the disciples are so slow to learn the importance of faith and prayer and fasting. And THAT’S the important point not whether he should have diagnosed the boy’s condition for all and sundry before proceeding to heal him.

 

[po18guy]

Hey, I’m no biblical scholar but if the NAB is good enough for the Vatican, it’s good enough for me vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_INDEX.HTM and I’ll accept its scholarship anyday over the opinions of an anonymous poster on a website.

First, footnotes are opinion. If we look into the history of the epilepsy claim, we will find that it is quite recent. No one is bound to believe the footnotes, which can be quite divergent from orthodoxy. As to the USCCB, they cannot even agree that it is wrong to honor someone who materially supports abortion. It is an organization which is separate from the Vatican. I pray for them, as they have wandered far adrift in certain areas since the 1960s.

Jesus did not lie, correct? If it had been an illness or birth defect, He would have forgiven the boy’s sins and healed him. Instead, scripture says He cast out a demon. Since when does epilepsy cause the sufferer to often throw himself into fire? A demon’s actions are always destructive to the host. Witness the Gerasene demoniac, who hurt himself with stones (Mark 5:5) . Since none of us was there, and no physicians were present, I choose to go with scripture. In our modern age, the age in which the spirit world is almost dismissed out of hand, organic illnesses have crept into Christian thought to explain everything spiritual.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;5456928:

But Jesus doesn’t describe the boy as demonically possessed and neither does Matthew so there is no lie involved here.

Pretending to rebuke a demon when no demon exists? Absolutely that’s a lie - like a child blaming its mess on an imaginary friend.

True, Jesus heals him by compelling the demon to come out of him but this could just as easily be interpreted as the demon of the boy’s illness.

No it couldn’t. Take it in context with the rest of scripture as we are meant to.

He rebuked a demon. In no other case of genuine illness did He do so, only in cases where there was REAL demonic possession.

He didn’t ‘rebuke the demon’ of the paralytic’s paralysis, of Bartimaeus’ blindness, of the leprosy of the lepers He cured. He didn’t pretend that there was any demonic possession involved in anyone else’s illness who WAS genuinely ill and was NOT demonically possessed - why would He do things differently in this case? It doesn’t stand to reason.

But, again, the point is NOT that Jesus can drive out demons. To me, Jesus is almost testy here, certainly exasperated that the disciples are so slow to learn the importance of faith and prayer and fasting

. And THAT’S the important point.

But he said so in many other places as well - was not Peter’s walking on the water and then sinking about faith and the importance of it? How about the episode of the calming of the storm? Or His delay in going to Lazarus when he was ill? Did He pretend to drive the demon of the storm away, or drive the demon of Peter’s lack of faith out of him so that he could walk on the water with Him?

Did He lie or pretend something that didn’t exist - in any other case where He was making a point about the importance of faith or any other point?

 

[Brickmaker]

First, footnotes are opinion. If we look into the history of the epilepsy claim, we will find that it is quite recent. No one is bound to believe the footnotes, which can be quite divergent from orthodoxy. I’ll still take biblical scholarship into consideration long before I’ll take on the inexpert opinions of anonymous posters here.

As to the USCCB, they cannot even agree that it is wrong to honor someone who materially supports abortion. It is an organization which is separate from the Vatican. I pray for them, as they have wandered far adrift in certain areas since the 1960s. Your issues with USCCB are neither here nor there. The Vatican website uses the NAB and that’s good enough for me.

Jesus did not lie, correct? If had been an illness, he would have forgiven the boy’s sins and healed him. So Jesus had a particular formula for healing and never departed from it? Instead, he cast out a demon. Since none of us was there, and no physicians were present, I choose to go with scripture. **Me, too. ** In our modern age, the age in which the spirit world is almost dismissed out of hand, organic illnesses have crept into Christian thought to explain everything spiritual.

 

[LilyM]

I’ll still take biblical scholarship into consideration long before I’ll take on the inexpert opinions of anonymous posters here.

How about taking the ACTUAL words of scripture into consideration,= above and beyond either? That’s what I am doing, or attempting to.

So Jesus had a particular formula for healing and never departed from it?

There are no indications that He ever did depart so far from His ‘formula’ (aka telling the truth) as to encourage His followers to believe in non-existent demons that cause physical illnesses!

Instead, he cast out a demon. Since none of us was there, and no physicians were present, I choose to go with scripture. **Me, too. **

Except when the footnotes dont’ really jibe with the actual text of course, then you prefer the footnotes.

 

[Brickmaker]

Brickmaker;5456986:

Pretending to rebuke a demon when no demon exists? Absolutely that’s a lie - like a child blaming its mess on an imaginary friend.

No it couldn’t. Take it in context with the rest of scripture as we are meant to.

He rebuked a demon. In no other case of genuine illness did He do so, only in cases where there was REAL demonic possession.

He didn’t ‘rebuke the demon’ of the paralytic’s paralysis, of Bartimaeus’ blindness, of the leprosy of the lepers He cured. He didn’t pretend that there was any demonic possession involved in anyone else’s illness who WAS genuinely ill and was NOT demonically possessed - why would He do things differently in this case? It doesn’t stand to reason.

But he said so in many other places as well - was not Peter’s walking on the water and then sinking about faith and the importance of it? How about the episode of the calming of the storm? Or His delay in going to Lazarus when he was ill? Did He pretend to drive the demon of the storm away, or drive the demon of Peter’s lack of faith out of him so that he could walk on the water with Him?

Did He lie or pretend something that didn’t exist - in any other case where He was making a point about the importance of faith or any other point?

You seem to have a stake in this episode being about demonic possession. I have a stake in it being about the importance of faith, and prayer and fasting in healing of whatever kind.

Just because the gospels don’t say that Jesus cured in this way on other occasions doesn’t mean he didn’t. The gospels themselves say that there were many other works that Jesus did and many other things he said that were not included. And, I repeat, if biblical scholarship can throw light on these episodes in Jesus’ life then I’m always gonna take that into consideration when reading the gospels and NOT the opinions of someone hung up on a particular literal reading.

And as we’ve now gone all around the park and still not agreed on anything, I’m no longer gonna waste my time arguing over something that neither of us knows enough about to give anything other than an opinion.