the Third Week after Easter
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Epilepsy
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or EPILEPSY.—There is but one specific instance of this awful malady recorded for us in the Gospels.† [Note: ‘Epileptic’ is substituted by RV for ‘lunatick’ of AV in Matthew 4:24; Matthew 17:15 as tr. of σεληνιαζεσθαι.] This case is, however, common to all three Synoptists (cf. Matthew 17:15, Mark 9:17 f., Luke 9:39); and the three accounts, while not in verbal agreement, are sufficiently harmonious to leave no doubt in the mind of the reader as to the nature and malignant character of the disease. It is noteworthy that the writers all attribute it to the active agency of demons; and this is the more remarkable as St. Matthew, in another place, appears to differentiate between demon possession and epilepsy (Matthew 4:24 δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους). Not only do the Evangelists record their own and the popular belief in the connexion of evil spirits with epilepsy; they also lead us to believe that Jesus exercised His power on the presupposition of the truth of this contemporary idea (cf. Matthew 17:18, Mark 9:25, Luke 9:42).
It is well to remember in this connexion that medical thought at this time and, indeed, for a long period subsequent to this, was distinctly on the side of the Synoptists. Aretaeus (circa (about) 70 a.d.) in writing of it (Sign. Morb. Diuturn. 37) attempts to explain the reason why epilepsy was called ‘the sacred illness’ (ἰερὴν κικλήσκουσι την ταθην). The remedy, according to this writer, belonged not to human but to Divine agency. Hippocrates, on the other hand, writing some five centuries earlier, refuses to accept the belief that there was anything supernatural about this disease. In his opinion it is to be explained in the same way as any other disease to which people are liable (ὡστε μηὀὲν διακρίνοντα τὸ νόσημα θειὀτερον τῶν λοιτῶν νοσημάτων, κ.τ.λ., Morb. Sac. 303 [see Hobart’s The Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 20]). The important place held by the belief in the malevolent influence of demons and in the powers of the exorcist will be recognized if we turn, e.g., to Tertullian, Apol. 23; Origen, c. Cels. vii. 334; Apost. Constit. viii. 26, amongst the written products of early Christian thought.
The word employed by St. Matthew in his description of the epileptic boy (σεληνιάζεται), as well as in his catalogue of ailments (Matthew 4:24), shows that in the opinion of the ancients the moon had a preponderating influence in bringing on this disease (cf. Psalms 121:6 for a reference to the baleful effect which the brilliant rays of the moon were supposed to exert, and which from the context seems to have been thought as deadly as sunstroke). This belief, too, descended far down into the Middle Ages; and, indeed, it can hardly be said to have altogether vanished from the popular mind, though it is probably now confined to the remoter quarters of human habitation.
A comparative study of the particular case described by each of the Synoptists reveals the fact that St. Mark gives a much more graphic and detailed account of the symptoms than either of the other two. According to this writer, the boy was deaf and dumb, he was liable to be seized with convulsions at any time or place (ὅπου ἐάν, Mark 9:18), to fall violently to the ground, foaming at his mouth, gnashing with and grinding his teeth. Finally, he is said to be gradually wasting away as a result of the frequency of the seizures. He was, moreover, afflicted from his childhood with this awful malady, a by no means uncommon feature of such cases (see art. ‘Medicine,’ by A. Macalister, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible iii. 327b). St. Mark also gives a vivid account of a fit which seems to have been brought on by the presence of Jesus, or by the excitement consequent on his introduction to that presence Mark 9:20). No sooner did he come before Jesus than a seizure with terrible convulsions took place, and falling on the ground he rolled about (ἑκυλίετο does not seem to be adequately treated in Authorized and Revised Versions) foaming.
Perhaps the most peculiar part of the Markan narrative is the account of the healing process. According to the Matthaean and Lukan versions, the cure was not only perfect, it was instantaneous (Matthew 17:18 = Luke 9:42). St. Mark, on the other hand, says it was gradual and difficult of accomplishment. Jesus, adopting a tone of peremptory authority (ἑγὼ ἑτιτάσσω σοι, Mark 9:25), addressed the spirit as a person, and was answered by the latter, who caused his victim to utter loud cries and to writhe with violent convulsions before he obeyed the command. Nor was the completion of the cure yet reached, for an unconsciousness supervened so profound (ἑγενετο ὡσεὶ νεκρός, Mark 9:26) as to deceive many of the bystanders into the belief that death had claimed the victim. It was not until Jesus took the boy by the hand to raise him from the ground that the miracle took its final shape, and the people were enabled to witness and to marvel at ‘the majesty of God’ (Luke 9:43).
It is to be noted that this feature in the healing acts of Jesus does not stand alone in this place. It is revealed in another case also recorded by St. Mark. In a preceding section he tells of the healing by Jesus of a blind man at Bethsaida. The cure in this case, too, was effected gradually, and was completed only by the contact of His hands with the afflicted patient (see Mark 8:22-25).
That ‘the scribes’ seized the opportunity afforded by this case to carry on their controversy with Jesus and His disciples is implied in St. Mark, where the element of hostility is referred to (see Mark 9:14 ‘and scribes disputing against them’ [πρὸς αὐτούς]). The method of healing adopted by Jesus was in striking contrast to that to which they were accustomed to lend themselves (cf. Shabbath 61 and Tosefta Shabbath, in loc., where we learn of the employment of charms, such as amulets and winged insects of a certain kind, in the cure of epileptics). With Jesus it is the assertion of personal superiority. His words carry with them the weight of indisputable authority. The command is that of One who claims the lordship over disease and death. At the same time directness and simplicity are the essential characteristics of His attitude and bearing. Nor did Jesus permit this contrast to pass unnoticed (see Matthew 12:27, where He refers to a practice recognized as legitimate by the religionists of His day).
Exorcism was practised in public by men who professed to wield authority over the demon world (cf. Acts 19:13, which is the only place where the word ‘exorcist’ occurs in the NT). These exorcists seem to have relied upon the repetition of certain names to effect their purpose, and along with this the recitation of special incantations, of which Solomon particularly was considered to be the author (see Josephus Ant. viii. ii. 5; Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] ii. iii. 151–155, and also To 6–8 for the lengths to which belief in the efficacy of charms and incantations had made its way among the Jews). We must not forget, moreover, that the followers of Jesus framed their methods of healing the sick upon this contemporary model. The utterance of the name of Jesus found its place in their cures (Acts 3:6; Acts 16:18, Mark 9:38-39; Mark 16:17 etc., where ἐν τᾷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ seems to be an essential part of the formula employed). See also Demon, Lunatic.
J. R. Willis.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Epilepsy'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/e/epilepsy.html. 1906-1918.
