HOW MANY PIGS IS A HUMAN WORTH?

THE GADARENE PIGS

PART II

“The moral problem can be safely dismissed: one man is of greater value than many swine.”

                                      ~ I. Howard Marshall[1]

Last week I began a discussion about the troubling story told in all three synoptic gospels in which Jesus heals a man (or two men) possessed by demons by allowing the demons to enter a nearby herd of swine, who then rush into the sea and drown.  In that post, I took a careful look at the context and details of the story, with particular emphasis on the Gospel of Matthew.  I argued that the context of the story, Jesus’ escalating demonstrations of power, and the setting, in the tombs of the city, point to an apocalyptic message.  The purpose of the story is to demonstrate that Jesus has power not only over sickness, as various healings had shown, and not only over the natural elements, commanding the wind and water, but also over the powers of darkness.  With “one little word,” he conquers demons who had terrorized the population of the city. 

This week, I’d like to examine some of the interpretations that have been made of the story, and of the significance of the pigs, and to offer my own.  As I noted at the close of last week’s post, most commentaries addressing this story do not focus on the pigs, but have nevertheless considered a variety of interpretations of their meaning and role.  The pigs have been regarded as ironic, comic, symbolic, evidentiary, disposable, and fictional.  They have rarely been considered as sentient being with inherent value to God.

Miracle of the Gadarene Swine, Briton Riviere, 1883, Tate Gallery

          Pigs, of course, are unclean animals under Jewish law, and so to Matthew’s largely Jewish audience, it would be fitting to allow the demons to enter the pigs and the fate of the pigs would not be troubling to them.  John Nolland, one of the few commentators even to recognize the issue, has observed,

The kinds of animal welfare issues to which modern Western peoples have been sensitized are not issues for ancient Mediterranean peoples.  As far as Jews were concerned, pigs should not have been raised in the first place.  As far as others were concerned, the pigs were destined for slaughter (for food or religious sacrifice).  As the ongoing story hints, the people involved are concerned about their own loss, not the experience of the pigs.[2]

This underscores the fact that this story is not intended to illustrate appropriate human relations to animals.  This very disregard, however, is an important aspect of the story that modern readers concerned about human treatment of animals must address.  In his exegesis of this story, Nolland concludes that the focus is on the exorcism - the first in Matthew, but not the last.  These exorcisms, he explains, are intended to emphasize Jesus’ authority.[3]  As for the pigs, he notes that the story may make pigs the destination for the demons because of the use of pigs in pagan ritual slaughter, making a connection between pagan worship and the worship of demons, as suggested by 1 Corinthians 10:20.  Or, it may simply have been considered appropriate because the animals were unclean.[4]  He concludes, in keeping with his focus on Jesus’ authority, “The fate of the pigs illustrates the sheer destructiveness of demons to their hosts.”[5]

            J. Andrew Overman, in notes to the New Oxford Annotated Bible, regards the pigs merely as something akin to Shakespearean comic relief: “The irony and humor of the scene with the pigs would not have been lost on Matthew’s Jewish audience.”[6] 

            For Warren Carter, “With demoniacs, tombs, and pigs charging into the sea, the scene is like a political satire or cartoon, which mocks the empire’s pretensions with visions of demise.”[7]  Warren discusses in detail potential symbolic understandings of the pigs.  Referencing a strong Roman presence in Gadara, Warren explains that the Romans often mocked the Jewish aversion to pigs and that pigs were used by Romans both as food and for various religious rites.  Moreover, a pig was the symbol of Tenth Fretensis Legion stationed in Syria, which fought against Jerusalem in the 66-70 war.  For Warren, the story has nothing to do with actual pigs.  Instead,

God’s empire destroys the pigs, symbols of Roman commercial, religious, and military power . . . possessed by demons, agents of the devil’s reign. . . . The representatives of Roman power end up in the same place as Pharaoh’s armies (Exod. 14:23-15:5).  The story celebrates Jesus’ liberating reign, which subverts claims made by religious and imperial powers and point to God’s sovereignty over Rome.[8]

            For Tom Wright, the point of this story is that Jesus has control over “the shadowy forces of evil, however we think about them or describe them.”[9]  Jesus is not just a good teacher, but one with authority, worthy of our complete trust.  As for the pigs, Wright mentions them only indirectly, “what happens to these demons -- entering pigs and driving them into the lake -- is a sign of what Jesus will do, in his death and resurrection, with evil of whatever sort.”[10]  For Wright, they are a vehicle or an illustration.

Christ heals a possessed man at Gerasa, Alexander Master circa 1430

            In contrast to these interpretations, which see the pigs as standing in for something else or fulfilling only a literary role, the New Bible Commentary asserts that the swine running into the sea “provided the man with convincing proof that his affliction had been cured.  It also showed that human life is of more value than that of animals.”[11]  While the idea that the man would need proof that he was no longer possessed is startling, the idea that this story can be used to assert that humans are of more value is, for those who care about animals, even more startling, and requires careful evaluation.  It is, unfortunately, the traditional view.  It stems from St. Augustine himself, who, as explained by Peter Singer, reasoned that “Jesus caused the Gadarene swine to drown in order to demonstrate that we have no duties to animals.”[12]^,[13]  Spalde and Stindlund point to both I. Howard Marshall, a biblical scholar, and Marc Driscoll, pastor of the megachurch Mars Hill in Seattle, as echoing this sentiment in the modern day.  Marshall’s view is represented in the opening quote for this post.   Driscoll, with remarkable callousness, joked in a recent book about a “bacon famine” resulting from the loss of the pigs.[14]

Since Augustine’s day, this reasoning has been used to justify great deal of animal abuse, in particular vivisection (scientific or medical experiments on live animals).[15]  The issue was particularly hotly debated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the ethics of animal experimentation were being closely examined.  In our day, unfortunately, the mistreatment of animals, including painful and debilitating medical experiments and tests for almost any human purpose, is taken as a given, even for such vanity items as cosmetics.

            Two references to the Gadarene swine in early public debates stand out.  In a 1904 President’s Address to the British Medical Association, William Collier recalled various episodes in the development of Oxford’s medical school, including debates on vivisection.  He told in particular of “the most fantastic argument ever put forward in favour of vivisection, namely, that the Gadarene -miracle sanctioned it, inasmuch as it was a well-known fact that swine in swimming crossed their forelegs, and in so doing cut their own throats.”[16]  By contrast, a letter in the December 1907 issue of The Animal Defender and Zoophilist, in response to an earlier writer who relied on the Gadarene pigs story to justify vivisection, observed, “while it is quite like a vivisector to put himself in the place of the Deity, he is obviously wrong in doing so this time.  In the analogy, if there is any analogy at all in these cases, the licensed vivisectors obviously fill the place of the devils, who, by their own request, are allowed to torment the poor swine.”  The writer concludes that why this is allowed in either case is a mystery.[17]

            Norman Phelps and Spalde and Strindlund are among the very few modern authors to attempt to come to grips with what this story, on its own terms, means for animals.[18]  Spalde and Strindlund, in their essay, "Doesn't Jesus Treat Animals As Property?" in A Faith Embracing All Creatures, favor a political reading and conclude that “no moral lesson regarding our relationship with animals can be derived from this text since it is really about Jesus’ interaction with a powerful military regime” and to “have a callous attitude toward sentient creatures based on this passage would certainly go against the trajectory of the gospel, which is about expanding love and mercy.”[19]

Phelps, in his book The Dominion of Love, considers this story in order to respond to “defenders of vivisection [who] sometimes remind us that this story shows Jesus killing two thousand animals for the health of one human being.”[20]  Phelps also takes a political perspective, beginning with textual analysis of the story, noting that it “existed in several versions and underwent changes over time, after the fashion of folk legends.”[21]  Next he examines the social context of the story and what the repercussions for Jesus would likely have been had he really taken an action that would have cost “a man of great wealth and influence” such “a sizable fortune.”  He concludes it would have been viewed as “a political act of aggression, a Jewish nationalist protest against Roman rule over the land of Israel.”  This would surely have set off “a legal and political firestorm,” leading inevitably to Jesus’ arrest.  However, because this does not happen, indeed, “Jesus goes on his way undisturbed,” Phelps can only conclude that the incident never occurred.[22]  Therefore, he asserts, the story shows not that Jesus approved of killing animals for human benefit, but only that some early Christians took this view, and those early Christians were gentiles, “as we can see from their failure to appreciate the political subtext of the story.”[23]

            While I appreciate the fact that Phelps has at least tackled the issue, I find this to be a largely unsatisfactory analysis.  Whatever the historical merits of his theory, the fact that the story is in the canon means that we need to address what it says for us a Christian community.  Whether it reflects actions by Jesus or the view of early Christians, it is still deemed to be authoritative by the Christian church and must be examined accordingly.  For me, Spalde and Strindlund come closer to the mark by stating that the story is about something other than our relationship with animals and so we cannot draw a lesson about animals here.  I part ways with them, however, in their understanding of the story from a political angle, calling it a story about “a person possessed by a military spirit, whom Jesus freed.”[24] Jesus did not preach about overthrowing Rome or political change, and these kinds of interpretations, while appealing, seem to me to be out of place. 

            If the story is not about politics, it is also clear from the biblical context that it is also not about human relationships with pigs.  It’s not even a story about curing demoniacs.  It is a story about a confrontation between Jesus and overwhelmingly powerful and numerous demons.  It is a story about Jesus’ authority over those - and all - demons, pointing to Jesus as the one who will judge all at the end of time.  Here Jesus does not “kill[] two thousand animals for the health of one human being,” as Phelps describes the pro-vivisection position.  Rather, as Eugene Boring explains, “For Matthew, the exorcism story is not an isolated incident, not merely the sensational account of Jesus’ power to help an individual or two, but represents the cosmic conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan.”[25]  Indeed, if this were a simple story of a healing or exorcism, it would be difficult to explain the extreme reaction of the townspeople, who were terrified by this display of Jesus’ power.  Instead, this is a story with a much bigger point; a point so important, it is made in all three synoptic gospels. 

Jesus healing the possessed

(CAROLSFELD, Julius Schnorr von)

With this understanding, and assuming that Jesus did, as a matter of historical fact, allow the demons to enter the pigs, they were allowed to do so not for the benefit of one or two human beings; they were allowed to do so for the sake of the created order and for the triumph of good over evil.  The Book of Revelation tells us, as do other places in scripture, that in the days leading up to the time of judgment, it will not only be pigs who suffer.[26]  Pigs, then, are not singled out as disposable commodities whose suffering does not matter.

            This is not to suggest that no difficulties remain.  In this story, animals are sacrificed and humans are saved.  The biblical witness regarding the place of animals and human relationships to them is complex and sometimes seemingly contradictory.  The scriptures in general do not address many of the issues confronting animals today, such as factory farming, animal experimentation, fur farms, and puppy mills, just as they do not directly condemn slavery or the oppression of women.  They do address, however, power used without mercy to exploit the helpless.  They do address the blessedness of the compassionate.  And they do state that “The righteous man cares for the needs of his animal.”[27]  No one episode can be taken out of context to develop a theology for our relationships with animals - whether that theology says that animals have been provided solely for human benefit or that humans have a responsibility to care for animals as God does. What is clear is that the story of Gadarene pigs is not a means to calculate the relative worth of animals and humans.  Nor is it an appropriate justification for the claim that human needs always come first, regardless of the cost to animals. 

We must not reach too far to justify our own cruelty by appealing to one story in Scripture.  Instead, our lessons about animals must be drawn from the scriptures as a whole, which instruct us to imitate Christ, the perfect image of God, who, although He is worth more than all humans, died for human benefit.

Shutterstock.com

---

[1] The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1978, p. 336, quoted in York, Tripp and Alexis-Baker, Andy, eds., A Faith Embracing All Creatures: Addressing Commonly Asked Questions About Christian Care For Animals. Eugene:Cascade Books, 2012, p. 102.

[2] Nolland, John.  The Gospel of Matthew:  A Commentary on the Greek Text.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005, p. 377, n. 132.

[3] Nolland, p. 374.

[4] Nolland, p. 376.

[5] Nolland., p. 377.

[6] Overman, J. Andrew, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. New Testament 19, footnote regarding Matthew 8:31-33.

[7] Carter, Warren. Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005, p. 211.

[8] Carter, p. 213.  In their essay, “Doesn’t Jesus Treat Animals As Property?” in A Faith Embracing All Creatures, at pages 103-107, Annika Spalde and Pelle Strindlund also discuss this political interpretation of the story.

[9] Wright, Tom. Matthew for Everyone: Part One Chapters 1-15. Louisille: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004, pp. 93-94. 

[10] Wright, p. 94.

[11] Nixon, R.E., note to Matthew 8:32, in Guthrie, D. and Motyer, J.A., eds., The New Bible Commentary, Revised.  Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, p. 827. 

[12] Singer, Peter.  Animals, from Ted Honderich (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford, 1995, pp. 35-36. See also, Saint Augustine. "The Catholic and Manichaean Ways of Life". Gallagher, D.A. and Gallagher, I.J. (trans.) Boston University Press, 1966, p. 120, cited in Singer, Peter. "Animal Liberation".  Random House, 1990, p. 192.

[13] Spalde and Strindlund also recognize Augustine’s interpretation of this story, as well as Aquinas’ interpretation, which was that Christ “allowed the demons he chased out to do men some harm, either in his body or in his property, for the salvation of man’s soul – namely, for man’s instruction.” A Faith Embracing All Creatures, p. 102, quoting Aquinas, Summa Theologiciae, III-II 44, ad.4.   

[14] A Faith Embracing All Creatures, p. 102, citing Driscoll and Breshears, Vintage Jesus, p. 43.

[15] Augustine’s position that we have no duty toward animals (taken largely from Aristotle), was taken up and advanced by Aquinas and has thoroughly permeated the Christian tradition, although there has always been a minority voice for the animals.  The episode of the Gadarene pigs is only one aspect of this larger issue, noted here for its particular impact on the issue of vivisection.

[16] Collier, William.  President’s Address Delivered AtThe Seventy-Second Annual Meeting of the British Medical Association, reprinted in the British Journal of Medicine, July 30, 1904, p. 221. 

[17] Hall, Earnest.  The Zoophilist and Animals’ Defender, December 1907, p. 139 (emphasis original).  

[18] Andrew Linzey is the leading theological scholar of animal welfare and animal rights.  It seems inconceivable that he has not specifically addressed the issue, but if he has, I have not been able to find it.  He makes a passing reference, as part of a list of other issues, in his book Animal Theology, refuting what he calls “the Predator view of Jesus.”  There, he merely asks, “Did Jesus really send the demons into the Gadarene swine?  . . . I do not deny the difficulty and ambiguity in these stories . . .” Linzey, Andrew.  Animal Theology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994, p.121. 

[19] Spalde and Strindlund, in A Faith Embracing All Creatures, p. 107.

[20] Phelps, Norm.  The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According To The Bible.  New York: Lantern Books, 2002, pp. 139-140.  Note that Phelps is addressing the story in general, not the story as it is told in exclusively Matthew , Mark, or Luke.

[21] Phelps, p. 140.

[22] Phelps, pp. 140-41.

[23] Phelps, p. 142.

[24] Spalde and Strindlund, A Faith Embracing All Creatures, p. 107.

[25] Boring, Eugene M. “The Gospel of Matthew.”  In the New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VIII, pp. 89-505.  Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, p. 232.

[26] See, e.g., Lk. 23:28-31, “Jesus turned and said to them, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ Then “‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ’ For if men do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is

dry?”

[27] Proverbs 12:10, NIV.