The Unknown Exorcist in Mark 9:38–40: A Study of Diversity and Inclusiveness in Early Christianity

1. God’s Dominion vs. Satan’s Dominion: Mark’s Dichotomous World View

Exorcism is an outstanding characteristic of Jesus’s ministry in Mark. The first eight chapters are heavily occupied with miracle stories. Exorcism is placed in the first stage of Jesus’s public activities. His ministry begins with the proclamation that the kingdom of God is at hand (1:15). Then, he performs his first wonder by casting out an unclean spirit in Capernaum (1:21–28). This exorcism serves to reveal Jesus’s identity: the holy one of God (v. 25). This successful exorcism gains Jesus fame throughout all of the surrounding regions of Galilee (v. 28). People are amazed at Jesus’s work and recognize his authority. Mark presents Jesus as God’s agent with divine authority to fight Satan’s dominion by casting out demons. The evangelist utilizes Jesus’s exorcism for his theological purpose.

In Mark, Jesus commits himself and his disciples to the practice of exorcism. After the Capernaum incident, Jesus continues his mission, teaching (or preaching) and driving out demons (1:39). Mark 1:39 is a Marcan redaction to emphasize the characteristic of Jesus’s ministry. Exorcisms support Jesus’s teaching, and this synergism proves Jesus’s messianic status. Moreover, Jesus selects the Twelve and sends them to preach and cast out demons (3:14–15), and this purpose is realized by their mission (6:7–13, 30). Exorcism is one of the significant features not merely of Jesus’s ministry but also of his disciples’. By implication, true disciples of Jesus are those who serve God’s kingdom by teaching and exorcism.

Jesus’s exorcisms bring him strong opposition, not only fame and respect. Many Jewish leaders (e.g., chief priests, scribes, the Pharisees and Sadducees) question the origin of Jesus’s authority (11:27–33). The scribes in Jerusalem accuse Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul (3:20–27). They attempt to discount Jesus’s entire ministry by proving that his power is demonically sourced. ¹ This accusation was likely strong in Mark’s or even in Jesus’s own time. Jesus’s family tried to seize him because of this accusation by the scribes (3:21).

Through Jesus’s response to John, Mark articulates his dichotomous world view of two exclusive dominions in the cosmos: God’s and Satan’s dominion. In each reign no internal conflict can exist: “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (3:23–24). Jesus is like the one who enters a strong man’s house to bind him and plunder his house (3:27). Furthermore, he regards the false accusation as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (3:28–30). Such blasphemy is also against God; the Holy Spirit is God’s agent, if it is not equal with God, as in the doctrine of Trinity. Whoever accuses Jesus of being possessed by Beelzebul is against, not merely Jesus but also the Holy Spirit in him, and God (cf. 1:9–11). In Mark’s view, it is absolutely impossible that Jesus belongs to Satan’s dominion. He is a contender against the prince of demons. They ask Jesus, “Have you come to destroy us?” (1:24). Mark’s world view necessitates the understanding that the unknown exorcist is in God’s dominion, not Satan’s.

2. The Secret but Remarkable Growth of God’s Kingdom

God’s dominion secretly prevails over Satan’s, but its triumph is remarkable. That is, God’s kingdom grows secretly but remarkably. The parable of the Earth Producing of Itself (4:26–29) ² shows the secret and mysterious growth of God’s kingdom and that of the Mustard Seed (4:30–32), the remarkable expansion.

The growth of God’s kingdom is observed, but how it grows is unknown just as the seeds scattered by a farmer sprout and grow until the harvest without the sower’s understanding; the earth produces of itself (…ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτός. αὐτομάτη ἡ γῆ καρποφορεῖ, vv. 27–8). This secrecy involves the mystery of the divine power, which is concealed, but simultaneously, continues working. The Greek word αὐτομάτη is used in various texts to signify mysterious divine work. For instance, in Acts 12:10, the only place in the New Testament except Mark 4:28 where αὐτομάτη is found, the door of the prison where Peter is confined opens of its own accord to Peter and the angel with him (τὴν πύλην τὴν σιδηρᾶν τὴν φέρουσαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, ἥτις αὐτομάτη ἠνοίγη αὐτοῖς [emphasis added]). This usage of αὐτομάτη has a long tradition in both the Jewish and the Hellenistic culture. In the Septuagint and later Jewish texts, this Greek word refers to what is done by God alone (e.g., Lev 25:5, 11; 4 Kings 19:29; Philo, On Creation 40–3, 80–1, and 167). ³ In Greek literature, the golden race of mortals lived like gods dwelling in ease and peace upon their lands; the earth bore fruit in abundance of its own accord (ἄρουρα αὐτομάτη). ⁴ In Hellenica VI. iv. 7, the heavenly door opened to Athene of its own accord when she was prepared for battle. God’s kingdom is similar to the fruit-bearing of the αὐτομάτη ἡ γῆ; the growth of God’s dominion is divinely energized and continues in a mysterious manner. ⁵

Mark’s present time is between the sowing and the harvest. Jesus sowed seeds by his teaching and miracles. In Mark’s time, those seeds are growing and will bear fruit in the future. However, their growth is possible not by human power but by divine power. Because of God’s sovereignty, the growth of God’s kingdom is certain, but humans do not know how it happens.

God’s kingdom is compared to a grain of mustard seed which is the smallest of all the seeds on the earth (4:31). The growth of the seed, nevertheless, is striking; it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs (4:32). It puts forth large branches and accommodates the birds of the air in its shade. The contrast between the tiny size of the mustard seed and the large size of the mustard plant accentuates the striking aftermath of the sowing. If God’s kingdom is like mustard seed, it will grow remarkably and will provide the birds of heaven with resting places. Although God’s kingdom might still be tiny in Mark’s time, its growth would be wonderful just like that of mustard seeds.

The kingdom of God will accommodate all nations, not just a special one. Its striking growth crosses the boundary between the Jew and the Gentile; the birds of heaven can make nests in the shade of the mustard plant. In Ezekiel (LXX) and Theodotion’s Greek translation of Daniel, the birds, in spite of minor variations between the texts, symbolize all the multitudes of the nations. ⁶ Ezekiel 3:16 reads, “In his [i.e., Pharaoh’s] boughs all the birds of heaven made nests, and under his branches all the beasts of the plain bred, and in his shade all the multitude of the nations dwelt [italics added]”. In Theodotion’s Daniel 4:18 (21), the birds of heaven dwelt in the branches of the great tree [i.e., King Nebuchadnezzar]. Just as the mustard plant accommodates the birds of heaven, God’s kingdom is large enough for people in the world to make their dwellings in its shade. ⁷ The extraordinary growth of God’s dominion refers to its inclusiveness.

Those who are in God’s kingdom should be active. They are invited to participate in the growth of God’s dominion. Mary Ann Tolbert, arguing that God’s kingdom in the parable is the earth, suggests that “[the ones who] hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit are the human manifestations of God’s kingdom”. ⁸ Tolbert’s notion that the kingdom is manifested in humans provides insight for our understanding of the parable. God’s rule is announced to the world through human work. Those who work for God’s dominion are like the earth. ⁹ Jesus’s and his disciples’ ministry reveals the kingdom. Is God’s kingdom, however, manifested only through Jesus’s and the disciples’ works?

The kingdom of God is neither fully manifested nor completely concealed. The remarkable growth of the kingdom, nevertheless, progresses in a mysterious way. Some will witness the presence and the growth of the kingdom, but others will not; “For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.” (4:22). The good soil is necessary for the seed to grow, but the kingdom of God is still the seed, not the ground. The mysterious fruit-bearing of the earth parallels the kingdom that grows without human knowledge but under God’s sovereignty. God is imminent among humans because God’s dominion is manifested; whereas God is still transcendent and the kingdom resists being fully understood by humans. In Mark, Jesus, the agent of God’s kingdom, is not fully understood by humans. ¹⁰ This partial understanding is somehow related to the elusiveness of God’s kingdom. The agent and his work are partially understood because what he works for is elusive.

1. The Meaning of Exorcism in Mark’s Gospel

Mark presents Jesus’s miracles as testimony to Jesus’s role as God’s agent as well as examples of the struggle between God’s and Satan’s rule. ¹¹ Exorcism exemplifies that struggle and testifies to God’s triumph. ¹² The kingdom of God asserts its presence in human history through exorcism (and other miracles) whenever and wherever the conflict between God’s and Satan’s dominion occurs. God’s rule is a reality and imminent among humans. God’s intervention is continuously displayed in the human world. Jesus’s exorcisms bring his authority into play and support his teaching. The intrinsic purpose of exorcism is to fight against Satan’s destructive power on behalf of God’s kingdom. ¹³

The cosmic struggle between God’s and Satan’s rule is a historical occurrence. Satan’s power is a reality in the world just as much as God’s kingdom is. Mark moves the solitary encounter of Jesus and Satan at the temptation into the historical setting of the exorcism narratives. ¹⁴ Therefore, the fight of the two cosmic powers is deeply related to human life, and the victory of God’s power has a direct effect upon humankind. God’s triumph means human freedom from destructive demonic powers and the restoration of wholesome life. It is neither a merely spiritual, political nor economic matter. Jesus’s (and his followers’) exorcisms, as Adela Y. Collins notes, involve the wellbeing of each individual and of the whole individual as well as the manifestation of God’s rule in all creation, including human society. ¹⁵ The times of Jesus and those of his followers are related to each other through their fights on behalf of God’s kingdom against demonic powers.

2. The Unknown Exorcist: A Demonic Connection?

Someone might consider the given exorcist to have a demonic or pagan connection, because the distinction between Christian and pagan or demonic was not clearly established in the first few centuries. The incidents of Simon Magus and of Sceva’s seven sons in Acts are of particular interest. First, Simon, a former pagan magician, wanted to purchase the power to control the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18–19). He was not disconnected from his tradition of magic. This incident indicates that some magicians were participating in the movement of early Christianity. They might have continued their pagan magical practices at least for a considerable period of time; they may not have been able to turn away from their former way of life. Secondly, the episode of Sceva’s sons was likely an occasion when Jesus’s name was invoked by those who were regarded as outsiders. ¹⁶ Although the historicity of this event is strongly doubted, it is likely that Jesus’s name was invoked by non-believers. The author of Acts apparently considers Sceva’s sons to be outsiders; they have no genuine relationship to the Christian movement. These two incidents in Acts show that, in early Christian times, there was no clear separation between Christian miracles and pagan magic. In fact, the author of Acts was attempting to make that distinction. The unknown exorcist in Mark, however, does not show any indication of a pagan or demonic connection. The language Mark employed to describe Jesus’s and the given exorcist’s work indicates that the evangelist considers the latter to be an insider of his Christian movement.

In Mark, the common formula for exorcism, namely, ὁρκίζω + (double) accusative is employed only by the Gerasene demoniac. ¹⁷ Jesus merely cast out (ἐκβαλλεῖν) unclean spirits, ¹⁸ and his disciples were supposed to do so as well (3:15; 6:13). The unknown exorcist is the one who casts out demons (ἐκβάλλοντα, 9:38). One might argue that, linguistically, casting out demons in Jesus’s name is equivalent to adjuring demons by Jesus. Casting out demons is apparently to exorcise demons and the formula of ὁρκίζω might be employed while performing exorcism. Nevertheless, this difference of language between ὁρκίζω and ἐκβαλλεῖν is by no means accidental. We should consider Mark’s intention behind this choice of verbs. A demonic connection to ὁρκίζειν seems to have prevented Mark from using it for the given exorcist and the disciples. Garrett’s comments on the incident of Sceva’s sons are helpful for our discussion. Having the seven instead use ὁρκίζειν, Luke tells that their attempted exorcism was of an entirely different character from Jesus’s (and his disciples’). ¹⁹ By the same token, the unknown exorcist is distinguished from exorcists like Sceva’s sons.

It seems that the one who performs exorcism in Jesus’s name (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ) has a genuine relationship with Jesus. ²⁰ Jesus is the one who comes in the name of the Lord (ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, 11:9). His office of God’s messianic agent is possible because he has come in the name of the Lord. A relationship such as this one between God and Jesus can be found between Jesus and the ones who fulfil the apostolic mission (cf. 3:15; 6:13). Those who cast out demons in Jesus’s name most certainly have a genuine relationship with him. By implication, the exorcist is also in genuine connection with God. Exorcism itself is the evidence of the conflict between God and Satan and of God’s triumph. If the disciples consider the unknown exorcist as an outsider, it is not because his exorcism is essentially different from Jesus’s and the disciples’. What is at stake is the disciples’ response to the unknown exorcist.

3. Legitimacy vs. Illegitimacy: The Twelve Disciples’ Response to the Exorcist

Studies of social deviance provide an insight for our understanding of what is at stake in the disciples’ response to the exorcist. Concerning social deviance, Howard Becker comments that “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders”. ²¹ According to Becker’s study, what defines outsiders is not qualitative difference between the outsider and the insider. Rather, determining whether a given act is deviant or not is an interactional enterprise. It is the product of a process which involves responses of other people to the given behaviour. In Mark 9:38, the disciples’ response, not the exorcist himself or his exorcism itself, is the issue, and their response is a social action. ²²

Becker’s analysis of social deviance can be employed for our discussion of legitimacy and illegitimacy. To determine what is legitimate is also a processional matter, and in the process, people’s response is a very significant factor in the determination. Moreover, legitimacy involves the issue of power, which has strong implication about power struggle and social survival. The disciples’ prohibition is the denial of the exorcist’s legitimacy, that is, the exorcist’s social survival. They set up their own rules (i.e., following them) and apply it to the exorcist. When anyone appears not to fit the rules, she or he is illegitimated. If we change rules, however, different people will become illegitimate. Whatever the rules are, nevertheless, the failure to gain legitimacy can result in serious, sometimes fatal, social damage to the ones who fail.

Is the exorcist an outsider? Or is he made an outsider? The exorcist is defined as an outsider by the disciples. As discussed above, we do not see any qualitative difference between Jesus’s (and his disciples’) and the exorcist’s exorcism. The disciples unjustly regard the exorcist as an outsider of God’s kingdom. ²³ Their own false criterion, that is, whether he follows them or not, is what Mark intends to correct through the given episode.

1. Structure of Mark 9:30–50

Three discipleship discourses are located in the middle of Mark’s Gospel: 8:27–9:1, 9:30–50 and 10:32–45. If we divide the Gospel into two parts, the second part starts with the first discipleship discourse. ²⁴ Mark’s author begins a new section with his message of discipleship. This compositional structure has a specific purpose to inform the readership who the true disciple is. All three discourses are structured in a similar way. Predictions of the Passion are given to the disciples first (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34), and then the identification of Jesus (8:31; 9:31; 10:33) is followed by the disciples’ misunderstandings (8:32b; 9:32, also 9:33–34; 10:32, 35–38). After this, Jesus gives corrective teaching (8:33–9:1; 9:35-50; 10:38–40, 42–45). ²⁵ These similarities indicate that the immediate context of Mark 9:38–40 is 9:30–50, which includes the second Passion prediction. The short narratives and sayings in Mark 9:33–50 are joined together by catchwords, such as “in my name” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μοῦ, vv. 37, 38, 39, 41), “to cause to sin” (σκανδαλίζειν, vv. 42, 43, 45, 47), “fire” (πῦρ, vv. 43, 48, 49), and ‘salt’ (ἅλας, v. 50; ἁλίζειν, v. 49). ²⁶

The structural parallelism characterized by the indefinite relative ὅς ἄν followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood is an outstanding feature of the first half of the discourse. In the second half ἐάν, which features a verb in the subjunctive, is likewise conspicuous. The major structural overlap is placed in verse 42. This verse connects the first half, which is positive in its orientation and recommends actions to be performed (vv. 6–7, 38–40, 41), and the second half, which is negative in orientation and also comprises three warnings about conduct to be avoided (vv. 42, 43–48, 49). With this structural parallelism, Mark composed a closely organized unit. The literary components in this pericope, which seem to lack unity at first glance, actually appear to be well structured to serve the authorial intention. The unknown exorcist episode is to work for that intention, cooperating with the other components in the passage.

2. Mark 9:38–40

Mark 9:33–50 starts with the controversy among the disciples about who is the greatest among them (v. 34). This controversy exposes the disciples’ lack of understanding of Jesus’s impending Passion, the paradoxical humiliation of the Son of man. Jesus tries to correct this wrong concern of his disciples: “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all” (v. 35). This motif of reversal of standard is already given in the Passion prediction. The Son of man will be delivered to humans, and they will kill him. Because of their misunderstanding of Jesus’s messiahship, the disciples cannot understand the necessary reversal of standard, which they may find paradoxical.

This reversal motif also applies to discipleship itself. Who is a disciple? Mark 9:38–40 answers that a disciple is one who works in Jesus’s name and triumphs over Satan’s power but is not necessarily one who is with Jesus in a physical sense. ²⁷ John and the other disciples who were elected by Jesus to conduct special commissions forbade the unknown exorcist on their own. They probably thought that they had enough authority or superiority because they were commissioned disciples. Such arrogance and self-pride of the disciples cannot be justified, however. Their master forbade them to forbid the exorcist. The contrast between the exorcist’s successful exorcism and the disciples’ failed one (vv. 14–19) requires the paradoxical reversal of standard. The disciples’ authority to cast out demons did not work through them (at least in vv. 14–19). The unknown person appearing from nowhere, nevertheless, performs successful exorcisms in Jesus’s name. It is certainly a privilege, in Mark’s view, to be chosen disciples, but this privilege allows no arrogance or superiority. Rather it requires the disciples to be last of all and to serve others.

Mark’s choice of John as the reporter in 9:38 is not accidental. John appears as a major character in only Mark 9:38 and 10:35. In the latter, he makes a request to sit with James at Jesus’s right and left hand in Jesus’s glory. This request exposes his total lack of understanding of Jesus’s Passion. John as a character in the Marcan narrative is portrayed as pursuing glory rather than servanthood. The other disciples also want positions of honour and become indignant at John and James (10:41). The disciples do not understand that even the Son of man came to serve, not to be served. John makes the improper request. In 9:38, John represents the disciples (v. 38) and tells Jesus that they forbade the exorcist. Their prohibition turns out to be wrong. Their status of Jesus’s immediate disciples does not grant a special position and authority.

The disciples want the unknown exorcist to follow them. The Greek verb ἀκολουθεῖν frequently means to follow someone as a disciple. This usage is found in many passages in the New Testament and classical Greek texts. ²⁸ In Mark 1:17–18, for instance, Jesus tells Simon and Andrew to follow him and they immediately follow him, and later Levi follows Jesus, responding to his call (2:13–14). Mark 9:38 is another such example. If this is the case, it means that the disciples forbade the exorcist because he refused to be their disciple. It is the disciples, not the master, whom the exorcist was not following; “John says, Teacher, we saw a man…we forbade him because he was not following us [italics added]”. John and the other disciples are concerned with the relationship between themselves and the exorcist, not between Jesus and the exorcist.

One may argue that Jesus’s saying in verse 39 indicates that the exorcist’s relationship to God’s kingdom is rather superficial because he can speak evil of Jesus at any time, despite his present exorcism in Jesus’s name. ²⁹ One might argue that Jesus recognizes this possibility but tolerates the exorcist just because he is not doing any harm to God’s kingdom. ³⁰ However, this is not the case. The possible future reviling of Jesus does not necessarily mean that the present relationship is inauthentic. For instance, Peter, who accompanied Jesus throughout his ministerial journey and must have performed many wonders with the authority given by Jesus (cf. 6:30), denies his master three times, and the other disciples simply run away from Jesus when he goes through the most difficult and painful situations. Peter’s denial and the disciples’ abandonment of Jesus are not vindicated in Mark. ³¹ Therefore, verse 39b should not be viewed as support for the idea that the exorcist’s relationship with God’s dominion is superficial. If he has a superficial connection to God’s kingdom, then so do the disciples.

Some may understand verse 40, “For he that is not against us is for us [italics added]”, to bind Jesus and the disciples as one group and place the exorcist outside the group. If Horvath’s suggestion is right, however, “us” in verse 40 is the result of a later transcriber’s change. He suggests that the more probable reading of Mark 9:40 is its parallel in Luke 9:50 (“Do not forbid him; for he that is not against you is for you”) and the present “us” is added to combine the “you” of κωλύετε with the implicit ‘I’ of ὀνόματί μου and κακολογῆσαι in Mark 9:39. ³² If this is the case, Jesus separates himself from the disciples and the disciples’ arrogance and misunderstanding of their discipleship (v. 38) are accentuated. Even if Horvath’s suggestion was not tenable, it is necessary that Jesus’s “us” means that Jesus defines his group as that of the Twelve. ³³ The mission of God’s kingdom cannot be monopolized by the twelve disciples. In “us”, Jesus likely refers to himself and the disciples in a plain sense, not bestowing any special privilege upon the Twelve. In Mark, many others participate in the mission of God’s kingdom. To advance this point, we now need to examine and discuss the literary function and importance of minor characters in the Gospel.

3. Members of God’s Kingdom: Minor Characters ³⁴ in Mark’s Gospel

Jesus’s mission of God’s kingdom is prepared by John the Baptizer. In response to his preaching of repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins, “there went out to him [the Baptizer] all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (1:4–5, italics added). All the people in Judea and Jerusalem were prepared for Jesus’s mission of God’s kingdom before he even started it. Jesus’s ministry, however, is not limited to the Jews, but also embraces the Gentiles. The healing of the Syrophoenician woman’s daughter (7:24–30) indicates that Jesus’s mission is directed also to the Gentiles. Jesus’s work draws both Jews and Gentiles into God’s kingdom.

Let us see some examples of minor characters who belong in God’s dominion. First, the former demoniac in the country of the Gerasenes becomes a proclaimer of God’s kingdom. After being set free from demons, he begs Jesus to stay with him. Jesus, although refusing this request, commissions him to “go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you” (5:19, italics added). Following this command, “he went away and began to proclaim [κηρύσσειν] in the Decapolis” (5:20, italics added). In Mark, proclamation is a commission given to the disciples (cf. ἵνα ἀποστἐλλῃ αὐτοὺς [i.e., the disciples] κηρύσσειν, 3:14). The former demoniac, who was not of the disciples’ group, nonetheless, successfully performs what Jesus commands the disciples to do. ³⁵

Second, Bartimaeus, the blind beggar, after being healed, follows Jesus on the way (10:52; cf. vv. 46–51). His newly-gained sight and act of following are in contrast to the disciples’ misunderstanding or lack of understanding of their master. Whereas the disciples do not see who Jesus is, Bartimaeus calls Jesus Son of David, even before gaining sight and, after obtaining physical sight, follows Jesus on the way. “Follow” here likely has a figurative meaning (see above).

Third, Joseph of Arimathea, who requested Jesus’s corpse from Pilate, was looking for the kingdom of God (15:43). Although appearing only once in Mark, Joseph plays an important role by retrieving and burying Jesus’s dead body. None of the disciples but Joseph, who suddenly appears from nowhere, summoned the courage to request Jesus’s corpse. Joseph’s only connection to Jesus is his search for God’s kingdom. From Mark’s point of view, his belonging in the kingdom is enough to play such a significant role.

Fourth, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome all witnessed the empty tomb of Jesus (15:40; cf. 16:1). They accompanied Jesus throughout his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem and were present in Jesus’s death. Mark, nevertheless, does not mention them before the last period of Jesus’s ministry. He intentionally makes those women minor characters in the Gospel, but bestows upon them the significant role of witnessing Jesus’s empty tomb.

These examples are Mark’s literary device used to emphasize that God’s kingdom is beyond the boundary of a certain group of people. People here and there are in God’s dominion. Sometimes humans do not understand where and how the kingdom is working and who belongs to it. As a part of the Discipleship Discourse, Mark 9:38–40 tells the reader of the inclusiveness of God’s kingdom. The incident of the unknown exorcist shows that the kingdom of God enlarges its territory, permeating among humans. In this sense, we can consider the exorcist an exemplar of discipleship together with the aforementioned minor characters. ³⁶