Matthew 8

CHAPTER VIII

VI

Christ Works Many Miracles, Chapters 8 and 9

In accord with 4:23 Matthew presents the teaching of Jesus, using for this the great Sermon on the Mount, and then the miracles of Jesus, choosing the ones that followed the sermon. As the sermon is not a compilation of utterances made at various times but a discourse spoken at one time, so the miracles recorded in chapters 8 and 9 are not a collection taken from various periods of the Lord’s ministry but a series of mighty acts that followed each other in the order given after the Sermon on the Mount had been delivered. The first group, 8:1–17, fills out the remainder of the Sabbath on which the sermon was preached (see below on v. 14). Then Matthew selects another day on which Jesus crossed the Lake in the evening and returned the next morning (8:18–9:8).

Then follows a third day (9:10–34) which is distinguished by great miracles. The ἐξουσία, “authoritative power,” at which the multitudes were amazed in regard to the preaching of Jesus (7:29) is thus exhibited in a new way, namely in the most wonderful and blessed deeds of power.

Incidentally we also see how Jesus constantly moved about. Even in Capernaum he does not remain in one place although this city was his home. He crosses and recrosses the Lake, thus reaching out from this center. This illustrates the remark made in 4:23 that Jesus “went about in all Galilee.” At the end of chapter 9, in v. 35–38, the summary statement of 4:23 is repeated. We thus see that chapters 5–9 form a unit of two halves, the preaching of Jesus (5–7) and the miracles (8 and 9). When recounting the latter, Matthew wants us to keep in mind the other activity of Jesus.

The first three miracles follow the Sermon on the Mount (8:1–17). The day next described opens with the account of two men who would attach themselves to Jesus (v. 18–22), after which follow more miracles. Then comes the call of Matthew and, most likely on the day following, the scene in Matthew’s house and the great answer regarding fasting, once more followed by miracles. Then in 9:35 Matthew concludes as he began in 4:23, telling us that this is the manner in which Jesus preached and wrought “in all the cities and villages,” adding the great motive of compassion that moved him in all of it (9:36, etc.).

Matthew 8:1

1 And there followed him, after he came down from the mountain, great multitudes. The attested reading is αὐτῷ with the dative participle and not a genitive absolute. Both readings have been termed awkward but without reason. The fact that the multitudes who heard the Sermon on the Mount followed Jesus when he came down does not need to be stated; they naturally came down, too. Luke 7:1, informs us that Jesus traveled to Capernaum from the mount, and Luke 5:12 adds the fact that the healing of the leper took place “in a certain city” on the road to Capernaum. Then, after entering Capernaum, the second miracle occurred, and after reaching Peter’s house in Capernaum the third.

Thus these first three miracles are connected, all following the Sermon on the Mount and all being performed on that very day. Matthew does not say οἱὄχλοι, “the multitudes,” who heard the Sermon but only “great multitudes.” What he intends to say is only that a great mass of people witnessed the healing of the leper. Whether these people were the same as those who heard the sermon is not indicated. Perhaps some of them accompanied Jesus until he reached the town where he met the leper. Other people may have joined the crowd along the way. The publicity of this first miracle recorded by Matthew is an important point in the narrative.

This healing was witnessed by “great multitudes.”

Matthew 8:2

2 And lo, a leper, having come forward, was prostrating himself before him saying, Lord, if thou wilt thou canst cleanse me. The fact that a leper should do such a thing as this is truly astonishing; hence the exclamation “lo.” Luke 5:12 records that when he saw Jesus he fell upon his face, and Matthew adds that he came to Jesus and prostrated himself. The question is raised whether this act of prostration and the address, Κύριε, “Lord,” denote more than reverence before a great human helper. Orientals were very free with prostrations, and κύριε often means little more than our “sir.” Here, however, the leper’s petition reveals his true attitude toward Jesus. It is less what he asks that reveals his thought; it is more the way in which he asks. He fully believes in the power of Jesus to heal his leprosy with a single word: “thou canst cleanse me.” When he adds, “if thou shalt will,” he is not voicing doubt in regard to the will of Jesus but his own humble submission to Jesus, regarding whom he has no doubt that Jesus will, indeed, heal him if in his counsel and will that is best.

This humble submission, placing his own sad case completely into the hands of Jesus just as a true child of God must always place himself into God’s hands, marks this leper’s faith in Jesus as being of the highest type. A petition such as this can properly be addressed only to a divine helper, to one whose will is the very will of the all-loving and all-wise God.

This leper is willing, if Jesus shall so will, to remain in his living death. Submissive faith can go no farther. This leper distinguishes divine temporal from divine spiritual and eternal gifts. He knows that he is asking only for the former which God’s wisdom and love may and often does withhold from us; but gifts such as pardon, peace, spiritual consolation and strength are always freely granted since it is without question God’s will that we have them. How this leper came to such faith we are unable to say; but his case is one that shows clearly how the teaching of Jesus produced the most blessed spiritual effects.

On leprosy see the Bible Dictionaries and Trench, Miracles. Luke states that the man was “full of leprosy”; the disease had progressed very far. The leper was accounted as one dead and thus as unclean. It was a bold act on the part of this leper to work his way through the crowd to the feet of Jesus.

Matthew 8:3

3 And having stretched out the hand, he touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean! Mark 1:41 adds the remark that Jesus “was filled with compassion.” The middle of ἅπτω means “to take hold of” and hence “to touch.” As a rule, Jesus touched those whom he healed (Luke 4:40). The act, when used, and the omnipotent word accompanying it form a unit, both expressing the will of Jesus. The miracle is always wrought by the volition of the will. The view that here the touch was intended to strengthen the leper’s faith, combined with the further idea that his healing depended on his faith, is untenable. All the miracles depended on the will of Jesus alone.

They intended to create and then to encourage faith in the witnesses as well as in the beneficiary. In a number of cases faith did not precede the miracle. Did the centurion’s servant believe (v. 5, etc)? Did the possessed believe (v. 28, etc.)? Did Jairus’ daughter believe (9:18, etc.), or the widow’s son at Nain?

Two words, majestic and almighty, suffice. This is the only case in which Jesus says θέλω, “I will,” revealing the fact that his own will and power do the deed and not a power that has been delegated to him. Others work miracles in the name of and by the power of Jesus; Jesus, God’s own Son, has this power in himself. In all miracles his deity shines out through the veil of his flesh, John 1:14.

And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. Full of leprosy the man lay prostrate, free of leprosy he arose. The remarkable thing is the brevity with which the writer records the tremendous fact; this is the case throughout the Gospel records of the miracles. This is one of the plain evidences of Inspiration. No ordinary writer of any age would be satisfied with such brevity. God guided the minds and the hands of the Gospel writers.

The flesh that had been eaten away, the fingers and the toes that had dropped off, the raw sores that were spreading over the body were instantly restored to perfect soundness. All modern “healing” fades into nothing in comparison with this omnipotent deed of Jesus.

Matthew 8:4

4 And Jesus says to him, See to it, tell no one! but go, show thyself to the priest and offer the gift which Moses ordered, for a testimony unto them. As Mark 1:41 notes the emotion of pity aroused in Jesus when he saw the wretched leper, so v. 43 notes the sternness with which Jesus ordered the healed leper to keep his mouth shut. And, indeed, the order is peremptory, using the aorist subjunctive on this account (the command being negative): “Do not tell a single person!” To give this fact still further emphasis ὅρα, “see to it!” is added asyndetically,“almost like a particle,” R. 854. The reason that Jesus wants the man’s lips to remain sealed can be gathered only from what follows. Mark again helps us: Jesus “immediately rushed him off” with the order to go and to show himself to the priest, etc. We may not introduce the man’s moral condition as the reason that Jesus tried to seal his lips.

The miracle had been performed in the presence of great crowds and was thus public in the highest degree. The haste and the stern orders with which Jesus sends the man away have only one explanation: the news of how this man was healed is not to reach the priests in Jerusalem until in all due legal form they have pronounced him clean of leprosy. The priest to whom he will present himself is not to know the man’s story until afterward.

It cannot be proven that a healed leper might anywhere present himself to a priest for examination, in this case at Nazareth where a colony of priests is thought to have resided at this time. The procedure as described in Lev. 14:1, etc., required that the examining priest receive the man’s offerings, which consumed an entire week. What a priest in Nazareth might determine as to the man’s physical condition would not be recognized by the priest officiating in the Temple at Jerusalem. “Show thyself to the priest!” means in Jerusalem.

The first act of the priest on the day the man presents himself consists of the physical examination plus the offering of two live birds, etc., and the ceremonies connected with them, Lev. 14:2–8. The second act follows on the seventh and the eighth days when two lambs, etc., or in case of poverty one was offered, plus the ceremonies stated in v. 9–32. The first act restored the healed leper to the people, the second to his religious prerogatives in the Temple worship. The word δῶρον, “and offer the gift,” etc., does not refer to a thank offering, for the offerings prescribed in Lev. 14 are first symbolic of physical cleansing (the birds, etc.), and secondly sacrificial for the purpose of spiritual cleansing (the lambs, etc.) as a trespass and sin offering.

Jesus thus orders this man in all due form to carry out the ceremonial requirements “which Moses ordered” and thus to have himself officially reinstated as being clean of leprosy. Jesus has not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (5:17), and by his order to the leper he had healed fulfills what the Law of Moses required in the present case. This helps to explain that final phrase, “for a testimony unto them.” The final αὐτοῖς must be construed ad sensum, R. 683. It cannot refer to the multitude who witnessed the miracle, for they are mentioned as far back as v. 1. The antecedent cannot be found in “no one,” for this is negative and means nobody at all. It must be found in “the priest” who represents the class in the capital city that is hostile to Jesus.

To them Jesus sends this healed leper as a living testimony. Jesus, who has been away from Jerusalem for a long time, sends them this man, who for eight days is to be a silent preacher to them, a living witness of his gracious will and power and of his reverence for the Law of Moses while it is still in force. When they finally learn this man’s story after they themselves have officially pronounced him clean they will have another testimony regarding the Messiah whom they reject, a testimony backed by their own finding.

Mark reports that despite the stringency of the Lord’s command this leper failed to keep silent and even caused his divine Helper great inconvenience. Instead of hurrying off to Jerusalem, he lingered in the vicinity where he was healed and advertised the miracle far and wide, so that Jesus had to keep away from the cities. Mistaken thanks are not thanks. Let us hope that the man did better when he got to Jerusalem.

Matthew 8:5

5 Luke 7:2, etc., but not John 4:46, etc., records the miracle Matthew now reports. And having entered into Capernaum, a centurion came to him, beseeching him and saying, Lord, my servant is lying in the house a paralytic, terribly tormented. After stopping at a town on his return from the mountain where the sermon had been preached, Jesus came to his own city Capernaum. Here he received this message from the centurion who, according to v. 10–12, was a Gentile. In times of peace the Romans had no troops in Capernaum. The officer was in the pay of Herod Antipas, whose troops were foreigners (Josephus, Antiquities, 17, 8, 3) of various nationalities.

From Luke we learn that the centurion did not come to Jesus in person but sent his message through several of the Jewish elders. He lets these prominent Jews intercede for him, who as a Gentile felt that he had no claim upon the great Jewish Master. Matthew’s omission of this detail is not a disagreement with Luke but only an abbreviation since, after all, Jesus dealt with the centurion whose spokesmen in Luke, too, are merely incidental. This holds true also regarding the friends who brought the second word from the centurion.

As in v. 2, the degree of faith expressed in the address “Lord” must be gathered from the following context, and in this case that faith is, indeed, great (v. 10). The addition of παρακαλῶν brings out the thought that the simple statement of the trouble in the centurion’s home is intended as a request for help. Luke adds δοῦλος to παῖς, even as the latter is also regularly used in the sense of “servant.” It is like the German Bursche and the English “boy,” but in this case δοῦλος marks him as being a slave. The perfect middle βέβληται == “has been and thus is lying.” The adjective παραλυτικός is here used as a predicative noun, “a paralytic.” The addition “terribly tormented,” suffering excessive pain, shows that this was not a case of palsy (our versions) which is painless but of paralysis which was possibly induced by acute indigestion, rendering him absolutely helpless and causing the severest pain. That, too, is why the man could not, like other paralytics, be brought to Jesus. Luke adds that he was “at the point of death,” and that the request to Jesus meant “to save” the man’s life. He also adds the personal touch that this servant was “dear” to the centurion.

It is a remarkable fact that all of the centurions mentioned in the New Testament act in an honorable manner. This man must have been a proselyte of the gate (Luke 7:4, 5). Beside the unclean leper Matthew places the unclean Gentile, for although he was a proselyte, his home would still be accounted unfit for a Jew to enter. This explains Matthew’s version of the request. The centurion merely lays his grave trouble before Jesus and refrains from indicating what Jesus is to do. He says that the servant is lying “in the house” and because of his pain cannot be moved, letting us feel the difficulty that, as a strict Jew, Jesus would deem it improper to enter a Gentile’s house.

When Luke writes, “that he would come and save his servant,” this is only the general import of the request; for presently Luke, too, lets the centurion say, “I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof.” Army officers are always proud of their position, yet this commander bows humbly before Jesus. He drops not only every presumption of his military rank but likewise every presumption of personal merit—he having built no less than a synagogue for the Jews at Capernaum.

Matthew 8:7

7 And he says unto him, I, having gone myself, will cure him. Some fail to note the emphatic force of ἐγώ. It does not mean, “The sick man need not be brought to me, I will go to him”; for this takes into account only the condition of the patient and not the centurion’s difficulty, the Levitical uncleanness of his house. To meet this situation the reply of Jesus is regarded as a question: “Am I, a Jew, who is already being accused of violating the law, to go into this Gentile’s unclean house?” Then the elders of the Jews are regarded as urging the centurion’s personal worthiness for having built the Jews their synagogue, Luke 7:4, 5, thus persuading Jesus to go. But the Jewish elders urged this point in the centurion’s favor in the very first place. Luke 7:6 indicates this when after the urging of the elders Jesus is on his way to the centurion’s house. He thus must have expressed his willingness to go just before he started on his way.

Matthew 8:8

8 So Jesus is in person going to this Gentile’s house. Luke 7:6 informs us that he was already near the house when the centurion sent some of his friends with a second word to Jesus. And the centurion responding said, Lord, I am not sufficient that thou shouldst enter under my roof; but only say a word, and my servant shall be healed. The situation is misunderstood when it is stated that this expression of the centurion’s modesty is superfluous and out of place since Jesus had consented to come to the house. Quite the contrary. The centurion had only placed his trouble before Jesus and had left it to Jesus as to how he would extend his help.

Now someone reports to him that Jesus is coming in person and is already quite near his house. This the centurion had not expected. He knew that a Gentile’s house was not fit for a Jew to enter, especially not such a great and holy Jew as Jesus was. The elders he had sent had been told to beg Jesus to come, but only to come near enough to extend his help. How Jesus was to do this, if he would, indeed, help a Gentile, the centurion had left to Jesus’ judgment. That Jesus would actually enter under his roof he had thought quite impossible.

What he had thought we now see, namely that Jesus would just say a word and thus heal his servant. This he would not think of telling Jesus through the elders; it would have appeared as though he were dictating to Jesus. But now that Jesus is coming to his house, the thought flashes into the centurion’s mind that perhaps the elders urged Jesus to come, or that in some way Jesus is under a misapprehension in regard to the kind of house he is about to enter. So the centurion hurries a few of his friends out to halt Jesus.

Note that ἀποκριθείς is quite generally used with reference to statements which respond to a situation and not merely with reference to replies to questions. Here the centurion sees Jesus’ approach, and to this he makes response by rushing his friends out to Jesus. “I am not sufficient,” etc., means: “I am nothing but a Gentile.” The ἵνα clause takes the place of an infinitive, R. 992, 1076; and “for you to enter under my roof” refers to the Levitical uncleanness of the house sheltered by that roof. But what, then, did this officer mean by his appeal to Jesus? What he would not have said when sending the appeal he feels he must say now when to his astonishment Jesus is coming actually to enter his house. According to Luke 7:7 he adds the statement that because of his Gentile unworthiness he had not himself come to Jesus but had sent the worthy Jewish elders. And this is what he had thought Jesus might do in his unworthy case, just say a word and thus heal the dying servant.

And now that in some unaccountable way Jesus is about to enter his house, he feels forced in all humility to reveal this to Jesus. Even for him to trouble to come seems like too much, Luke 7:6.

Matthew 8:9

9 Lest the suggestion that Jesus merely say a word seem like presuming too much, the centurion adds an explanation as to how he comes to this idea regarding Jesus. For I myself, too, am a man under authority, having soldiers under myself. And I say to this one, Go! and he goes; and to another, Come! and he comes; and to my slave, Do this! and he does it. In the king’s service he is under the king’s authority, probably as the ranking officer in Capernaum, and as a matter of course has soldiers under him to whom he needs to say but a word in order to secure instant execution of his order, the same thing applying to his slave. The thought is: “If I, a subaltern, am able to have my will done by a mere word spoken by me, how much more thou, Jesus, who art the ruler himself.” The καί should not be stressed to mean that Jesus, too, is “a man under authority.” It brings out the argument from the less to the greater. If even a man under authority, in service to the king, and thus with soldiers under him is able to have his mere command executed at will, how much more Jesus in whom all authority resides, who has all powers and agencies at his command!

The illustration is not a double one, namely that the centurion knows about obedience both by himself obeying the authority over him and by having his own authority obeyed by those under him. If that were the sense, he would illustrate his own obedience in the way in which he illustrates the obedience of his soldiers and of his slave. “A man under authority” humbly stresses the inferior position of the centurion over against the eminence of Jesus.

The request to save the servant from death and to do that by merely uttering a word implies divine omnipotence on the part of Jesus. The centurion thus reveals his conception of Jesus and of any word of command that may come from his lips. This answers the question as to the agencies which would execute the divine will of Jesus. A number of suggestions have been offered. Yet a man who thinks as this centurion does regarding Jesus, a man who is so devoted to Judaism as to build a synagogue for the Jews at Capernaum, could have in mind only the angels of God. And this the more since the Old Testament represents them as an army, 2 Kings 6:17; Ps. 103:20; 68:17; 34:7; compare Matt. 26:53.

Matthew 8:10

10 Now when Jesus heard this he was astonished and said to those following, Amen, I say to you, Not even in Israel so great faith did I find. We see that Matthew has in mind the friends whom the centurion sent to Jesus with his message (Luke 7:6): for the centurion is not present, and Jesus turns to those following him when he praises the man’s faith. The importance of what Jesus says is evidenced by the preamble: “Amen, I say to you,” on which see 5:18. The implication is that Jesus had again and again found great faith “in Israel,” among the Jews who had been prepared for his coming by their Old Testament religion. But this Gentile’s faith was greater still; εὗρον, “did find,” whereas we should use the perfect “have found,” R. 844.

The greatness of the centurion’s faith is evident in its humility. The man, although he is a high military officer and a great benefactor of the Jews, deems himself utterly unworthy. In the second place this man’s faith centers in the word of Jesus, the very experience Jesus had so much difficulty in attaining among the Jews. On his own accord, merely from what this man had heard about Jesus, without further experience and teaching he shows absolute trust in Jesus’ word; compare the court officer mentioned in John 4:50 for an example of a man who slowly arrives at faith in Jesus’ word. A word is sufficient, Jesus does not need to come in person. Thirdly, and as the basis of this humble confidence in the mere word, the centurion has a proper conception of the exalted person of Jesus.

His word, spoken at a distance, works with omnipotence to save from death. It is an ill comment on Jesus’ estimate of the centurion’s faith to suggest that he had some pagan conception as to how the power of Jesus would work the healing, yet that this did not affect the nature and the value of his faith. Any pagan conception would vastly reduce, if it did not make void, this Gentile’s faith. The remarkable feature of the man’s faith was that it accorded so fully with the truest Israelite teaching and was wholly free from pagan conceptions.

Matthew 8:11

11 This Gentile’s wonderful faith leads Jesus to utter a prophecy concerning the hosts of future Gentile believers who will come to his kingdom. Moreover, I say to you, that many shall come from the eastern and the western parts and shall recline in company with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens; but the children of the kingdom shall be thrown out into the outer darkness. There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth. With δέ Jesus adds this further statement. The parts of the rising and of the setting sun include the entire world, looking in the two opposite directions from where Jesus stands. The “many” are, therefore, a vast host of Gentile believers.

Two thousand years of history have verified this great prophecy in a tremendous way. The blessedness of the kingdom is frequently pictured as an Oriental feast, the guests reclining in Oriental fashion, Ps. 32:5; Prov. 9:1, etc.; Isa. 25:6; Luke 14:15, etc.; Matt. 22:1, etc.; Rev. 19:9, 17. Because Abraham, etc., are mentioned as the most prominent guests, some conclude that the kingdom is here pictured in its eschatological consummation and not in its progress of grace. But this reason is insufficient; for all except the last two passages just referred to have in mind the church on earth. Jesus views “the kingdom of the heavens” (on which see 3:2) as being one. Every believer at once becomes “a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9; 13:16) and is thus united with the patriarchs in the enjoyment of blessedness.

Especially Abraham is “the father of all them that believe,” Rom. 4:11, 16, and as such he is mentioned here. The three patriarchs are mentioned together because the covenant in Christ was made with them. For this reason the believers of all ages assemble with these patriarchs. Jesus’ Jewish hearers at once understand this. The point emphasized, however, is that this host of believers will include vast numbers outside of Judaism. This the prophets had plainly foretold, in fact, when the covenant was originally made with Abraham it was one that promised blessedness for all nations.

The Jewish followers of Jesus needed this reminder for they had lost this Old Testament vision of the kingdom. It is a kindly touch when Jesus does not use τὰἔθνη, “the Gentiles,” a term that was tinged with contempt in Jewish minds, but the inoffensive equivalent, “many from the eastern and the western parts.”

Matthew 8:12

12 “The sons of the kingdom” and the verb “shall be thrown out” do not necessarily imply that these persons were actually in the kingdom. One may be “thrown out” when he attempts to enter a place without ever getting into it. And that is the situation here. For these are “the sons of the kingdom” who imagined that they had the fullest right to the kingdom. For υἱοί, “sons,” as distinct from τέκνα, “children,” conveys the idea of legal standing. As the physical descendants of Abraham the Jews were, indeed, the first heirs of the Messianic covenant and kingdom.

The only trouble was that they failed to inherit. John 8:37–41 states why. Although they were beyond question “the sons of the kingdom” because they were “Abraham’s seed” and thus the potential heirs, they forfeited their inheritance of the kingdom by unbelief; they disavowed their father Abraham, annulled their birthright, and lost their place in the kingdom. When, in spite of all this, they proudly demanded entrance they compelled God “to throw them out.” The Gentiles were never thrown out because they never presumed to have the right to come in.

The image of the kingdom is that of a vast hall for feasting and joy, all blazing with light. The opposite of this picture is “the darkness, that farthest out.” The adjective, being added by a separate article, has the same emphasis as the noun, in fact, is an appositional climax, R. 776. Moreover, ἐξώτερος, comparative in form, is used as a superlative, B.-P. aeusserst; B.-D. 62, “only superlative.” At least two darknesses are indicated. The one would be the spiritual darkness which is simply ἔξω, “outside” of the kingdom in the ignorant, deluded, lying world. From this darkness men can be saved. The other is the darkness that is “utterly outside,” from which none can escape.

But the expression is not eschatological, for each unbelieving Jew is thrown into this darkness when, at death, he would enter heaven. Note that “darkness,” σκότος, σκοτία, denotes not merely the absence of light, life, and joy but also the dread power that drags men away from the light and holds them forever in its grasp.

This “outer darkness” is conceived as a place, ἐκεῖ, “there,” even as heaven is also pictured as a place. Already to τὸσκότος is very definite, just as is ἡβασιλεία. The awfulness and the terror of the utter darkness produce “the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth,” the definite articles pointing to the specific effects that accompany this specific darkness. There is no other weeping, etc., that is like this weeping. All are agreed that the weeping is the effect of the complete loss of happiness. But many think of rage or of helpless despair as causing “the gnashing of the teeth.” We prefer to think of the excruciating torment of the outer darkness.

Compare 13:42, 50: “the furnace of fire: there shall be the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth.” These two passages, together with 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28, make the words a standard description of the place of torment. The damned shall not be annihilated. To the Jews who were following Jesus his words served as a terrible warning against unbelief. When the kingdom invited them to take their place as “the sons of the kingdom,” would they choose the outer darkness? When Luke 13:28–30 reports that Jesus used what Matthew here records in a different connection and also changed the order of the sentences, it is obvious that Jesus repeated this mighty warning, which certainly also deserved repetition. Neither Matthew nor Luke makes a combination of his own, nor can one be played against the other.

Matthew 8:13

13 And Jesus said to the centurion, Go thy way. As thou didst believe be it unto thee. And the servant was healed in that very hour. From the Jews who were following him and whom he had addressed in v. 10–12, Jesus turns to the centurion as represented, according to Luke, by the friends he had sent. Throughout his narrative Matthew wants us to understand that Jesus is dealing with the centurion as such irrespective of his representatives. “As thou didst believe” must be understood in the light of v. 8: without coming to the house, by merely uttering a word in the place where Jesus was. The centurion’s trust was in perfect accord with the realities inherent in Jesus, and that is the reason that Jesus met that trust as he did.

Any trust that rests on imaginations regarding Jesus is not met by him. The royal officer mentioned in John 4:46, etc., who thought Jesus could save his son only by coming to that son, found that Jesus would not come.

We should not generalize this word of Jesus so as to make it mean: whatever we believe he will grant us he will grant, or that the degree of our faith insures the gift we desire. A wrong faith may be ever so strong in expecting a wrong gift; Jesus will not meet that faith and expectation, he will first correct it. And often he will do wondrous things where there is no faith present in order to produce faith. The word ὥρα does not always mean sixty minutes or the specific hour of the day but quite often “time,” whether a moment or a longer period is referred to. So here the servant was perfectly restored the instant Jesus spoke the mighty word.

Matthew 8:14

14 And Jesus, having come into the house of Peter, saw his mother-in-law lying down and suffering with fever. And he took hold of her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and went to ministering to him. The connecting participles: v. 1, “having come down from the mount”; v. 5, “having entered into Capernaum”; and now v. 14, “having come into the house of Peter,” bind these miracles together and make them successive. Even the style indicates this: a dative, a genitive absolute, a simple nominative participle. And in v. 18 the participles are no longer employed. Taking Mark 1:21–34 and Luke 4:31–41 in connection with Matthew, we arrive at the following succession: the Sermon on the Mount on the morning of the Sabbath; the leper healed on the return from the mount; the centurion’s servant healed when entering Capernaum; Jesus preaching in the synagogue in the afternoon with the same ἐξουσία as on the mount and again not “as the scribes” (Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32); also freeing a demoniac in the synagogue; toward the close of this Sabbath going to Peter’s house and healing his mother-in-law; after the Sabbath is over all the additional miracles reported in Matthew 8:16; Mark 1:32–34; Luke 4:40, 41.

The objection that Jesus would not walk so far on the Sabbath does not hold, for a Sabbath day’s journey was 2, 000 paces from the city wall, ample for the distance here indicated. The view that the Sermon on the Mount was preached at the height of Jesus’ ministry (which is correct) while the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law took place at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, is untenable. For Mark 1:21 and the following, and Luke 4:31 and the following reveal that Jesus was at the full tide of his preaching and his miracles.

We do not have the impression that Jesus was asked to come to Peter’s house in order to heal the mother-in-law’s fever—not after v. 8. Since Jesus himself had a home in Capernaum, it is more likely that he was asked to dine at the home of Peter and Andrew. Mark adds the detail that James and John were also present, from which we may conclude that these two and Jesus were to be the guests. Matthew states only that when Jesus reached the house “he saw” the patient, but Mark adds that they told him of her, and Luke that they besought him for her. Perhaps, when Jesus did not see the woman he asked where she was and then heard about her ailment with an added request. We here learn that Peter was married, and that his mother-in-law lived at his home.

From 1 Cor. 9:5 it is certain that Peter’s wife was living at this time, afterward accompanying him on his journeys. Her mother, who would gladly have helped with the meal was prostrate with “a great fever” (Luke 4:38), an unfortunate situation when guests were to be served.

Matthew 8:15

15 Luke’s narrative is the most graphic of the three: “he stood over her and rebuked the fever.” Mark adds that Jesus “raised her up by grasping her hand.” Matthew is content with “he took hold of her hand.” Immediately “the fever left her.” Nor did any weakness remain as is always the case when a fever subsides; for she not only “arose” but with her daughter “went to ministering to him,” διηκόνει, the durative imperfect. This verb suggests that Jesus had been invited to the house to dine there.

Matthew 8:16

16 Great and wonderful as the three miracles are which have been described with some detail, these are really only a part of the great story. Moreover, when evening was come, they brought to him many demoniacs, and he expelled the spirits with a word; and he healed all that were ill. All three synoptists mention the coming of the evening and the sunset, because then the Sabbath ended, and the sick could be carried to Jesus. Matthew here repeats and abbreviates 4:24, in connection with which the demoniacs were fully discussed, also κακῶςἔχων. Both Mark and Luke describe the healing of a demoniac in the synagogue just before Jesus went to Peter’s house. Their accounts make plain just what possession is, for the evil spirit in the sufferer utters things which the sufferer himself could not utter, and Jesus clearly distinguishes the demon from the man.

So here Matthew: Jesus expelled τὰπνεύματα, the devils that held the sufferers in possession. This he did λόγῳ, “by a word,” as in Mark 1:26, and in Luke 4:35. The other sufferers are summarized in the expression “all that were ill.” Not a single case of the great number that were brought during those evening hours was left without being instantaneously and perfectly restored.

The three aorists intend only to add these many miracles to the three reported in detail. Hence it is not advisable to make a major division at v. 17. In 9:35 Matthew indicates that he is closing the account begun with 4:23–25. This appears from the imperfect περιῆγεν followed by two durative present participles; Jesus “continued to go about busy with preaching and healing” as described in chapters 5 to 9.

Matthew 8:17

17 In all this work of healing Jesus was fulfilling the prophecies recorded regarding him as the Messiah: in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah, the prophet (see 1:22), saying, He himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases. Disregarding the LXX, Matthew himself translates Isa. 53:4 with exactness: Jesus “took” (nasa’, λαμβάνειν) and “bore” (sabal, βαστάζειν, carried as a load) all the ailments that came upon men as the result of sin. The thought is not merely that he took hold of these ailments and rid the sufferers of them. Isa. 53:4–7 describes the Messiah as our substitute. Loaded down with our terrible burden, he appears as the suffering and dying Messiah. From this grand prophetic portrait Matthew quotes one line, which, however, he regards as a part of the whole.

He sees Jesus in his entire ministry as our substitute, as the burden-bearer who loaded on himself all our sins and all their penalties. At the close of that ministry, by the atoning death, the whole load would be borne away. But throughout the course of that ministry Jesus took up and treated as his own burden men’s sins and the terrible ravages of these sins. By means of all his preaching and teaching he was freeing men from the grip of their sins, and by means of his constant healings he was freeing them also from the disease and the pains brought on them through sin.

Like the prophet, Matthew does not separate the two. For only he who would die for our sin on the cross and work an eternal redemption from sin could work a ministry of healing from disease. It is an untenable, mechanical view to think of a transfer of these diseases to the body of Jesus. The old Jewish view even imagined that the Messiah would be a leper. Just as the sins Jesus expiated did not become sins that he had himself committed, for he was and had to be holy and sinless in order to be our expiation, so the diseases did not become the diseases of his own body, which was and had to be untainted by any results of sin in order to be fit for his vicarious work. Any difficulty in this regard is thus wholly without cause. “He himself took and bore” implies a vicarious, ethical assumption of this burden.

It was vastly more than typical, i.e., by what he did with the diseases portraying what he would do with the sin by which they were caused. “He himself took and bore” was actual removal, and this as a part of his removal of the entire sin burden that was destroying us. It was done by his “word” (λόγῳ) just as he forgave sins by his word (9:5: “whether is easier to say,” etc.) But both the pardonings and the healings rested on his atoning death (Isa. 53:11). And his word was always an expression of his will, that wondrous will of mighty grace which stooped to the whole vast burden in a ministry that worked our relief.

“He himself took and bore” cannot refer only to the drain put upon the heart of Jesus because of the sympathy he spent upon sufferers; nor to the mental and the physical strain of healing so many, for the first ones to be healed would not tire Jesus. All his compassion and all his strain of prolonged labor were only incidental to this part of the burden and not at all comparable to the final ordeal of the passio magna. Matthew introduces Isa. 53:4 at this point, not as closing the section on the miracles, but as applying to the healings just recorded. The next miracle (v. 23–27) is of a different nature, as is also another recorded in 9:23–25.

Matthew 8:18

18 It is now the evening of another day at another time (Mark 4:35), hence the transitional δέ. Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him he gave orders to go to the other side. It was evening, the Lord was tired (v. 25, sleeping), and now wished to be relieved of the crowds by sailing across the lake to its eastern side.

Matthew 8:19

19 And a scribe, having come forward, said to him, Teacher, I will follow thee wherever thou wilt go away. On εἶς as a substitute for the indefinite article, like the German ein and the French un, see R. 282 and 674, etc. As “a scribe” this man would himself be a “teacher,” one who had graduated in the law and had been qualified to teach by the Jewish authorities. Moreover, the scribes as a class joined with the Pharisees in opposing Jesus. Yet here is one scribe whose association with Jesus has brought him to the point of offering himself as a permanent pupil to Jesus as his permanent “Teacher” or Master. What better offer could Jesus wish? It is without if or but, “wherever thou wilt go away” (R. 969, the futuristic subjunctive), whatever the destination, whatever the length, difficulty, or hardship of the way, “I will follow thee.” This scribe cannot be identified.

From the reply of Jesus we see that this man is too ready, his offer too complete. It is like that of Peter, John 13:36, 37; Luke 22:33. He is like the seed on stony ground which grew quickly but lacked root to withstand the hot sun. He is an idealist, enthusiastic, of sanguine temperament. He is superficial and does not count the cost. He sees the soldiers on parade, the fine uniforms and the glittering arms, and is eager to join, forgetting the exhausting marches, the bloody battles, the graves, perhaps unmarked. It is less cruel to disillusion such a man than to let him rush in and go down to disappointment.

Matthew 8:20

20 And Jesus says to him, The foxes have dens, and the birds of the heaven abodes; but the Son of man has not where to lay his head. Jesus neither accepts nor declines the offer. His reply strikes the heart of the matter: the man must see, not in idealism, but in sober, sane realism, what his offer involves. Jesus illuminates the way upon which he leads his disciples, and this way is not bordered with roses. Though he is not merely a man, a human being, but the great Son of man who is both man and yet more than man he actually has less of creature comforts than the wild animals and the wild birds (“birds of the heaven,” not confined). The foxes, for instance, using a specific example, have their dens; the birds, taking another class, have shelters.

But Jesus, constantly on the move, has no fixed home where he can lie down and take his rest (v. 23, asleep in the boat). Even when he was in his home city, we do not read that he rested at his mother’s house; the ministrations recorded in Luke 8:2, 3 were called out by the hardships he endured. Yet Jesus was no pauper; he did not live in the squalor of poverty; he was no mendicant monk, no ragged and emaciated beggar. His company had a purse and a treasurer who handled enough money to give to the poor at times, enough for Judas to steal from. What Jesus impresses upon this scribe is the fact that his whole calling and work are engaged in not for mere earthly interests but for the kingdom and for that alone.

It would be too narrow a view to think that Jesus wanted this scribe merely to forsake his easy life for a hard one. Jesus refers to his homelessness merely as an illustration of the path his followers must walk, choosing the spiritual instead of the carnal, the life with eternal purposes instead of the temporal, heavenly treasures instead of earthly. That does not imply that one must become a monk or a nun, although it may imply that one must lead a life such as the apostles, Paul for instance, led and it always means placing the kingdom first, last, and all the time, letting God attend to the rest (6:33). It is well to build the tower but first to count the cost. Did this scribe follow Jesus? We are not told, for Matthew’s real interest is concerned with Jesus. If you had been in that scribe’s position, what would you have done?

Many monographs have been written on “the Son of man” without unanimity as to the meaning and the derivation of this title which was used exclusively by Jesus, save in John 12:34, and in Acts 7:56 which reflects Matt. 26:64. It is clear that the title was coined by Jesus himself, was unknown before his time, and was not used in the church until at a later date. Jesus always used it as a subject or as an object, always in the third person, never as a predicate. He speaks in the full consciousness that he is “the Son of man” yet he never says, “I am the Son of man.” The title is always ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου, with two Greek articles, which is quite distinct from “a son of man,” i.e., a human being. There is a mystery in the title which is still felt as we read the record of its use by Jesus and is clearly evident also in the questions which Jesus asks in 16:13, etc.

“Of man,” never the plural, “of men,” is generic; not descended from some man but having the nature of man, a son of mankind. The fact that the human nature of Christ is thus indicated is beyond question. But “the Son of man” lifts this one man out from among all men as being one who has this human nature in a way in which no other man has it, who, while he is, indeed, true man is more than man, is also ὁυἱὸςτοῦΘεοῦτοῦζῶντος, “the Son of the living God.” This, too, is very clear from the mighty acts attributed to “the Son of man,” acts that are infinitely greater than any that are possible to man. Hence “the Son of man” is not merely “the ideal man,” homo κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the flower of our race, toward whom all creation tended; but “the Word made flesh,” the Son ἄσαρκος who became ἄνσαρκος, who joined our human nature to his divine nature, the Son of God who assumed our human flesh and blood. In the use Jesus makes of this title two lines of thought converge: the one is lowliness, suffering, etc.; the other greatness, power, exaltation beyond men. We see at once how eminently the title fits Jesus during his earthly sojourn (used first when speaking to Nathanael, John 1:51). To give it an exclusively eschatological sense because it is used also in connection with the consummation is to generalize from a fraction of the facts instead of from all of them.

Whence does Jesus derive this title? The answer is from Daniel 7:13, 14 (which read). Efforts are made by von Hofmann, C.-K., Zahn, and others to regard “one like the Son of man” in Daniel as a symbolical figure (like the “beasts” in the preceding verses), picturing Israel. But the words of Daniel do not support this sense. The Hebrew ki, ὡς, “like,” is taken to mean that this image resembled a man but was not a man. But in Rev. 1:13; 14:14, this “like” is carefully retained when this passage is utilized.

Again, in Matthew 24:30 and 26:64 the Son of man comes in the clouds exactly as in Daniel’s description. God alone uses the clouds as his vehicle, hence “one like the Son of man” is divine. Yet when Daniel sees him “like the Son of man,” this, without saying in so many words that “he is man,” clearly intimates that the grand person described is also man. See the thorough exegesis of Keil in Bibl. Com. ueber d. Propheten Daniel, 197, etc., 288, etc.

Unsatisfactory is the explanation that Jesus drew the title from the general reference of the Old Testament to the bene adam, or ben adam, Aramaic bar enasch, “children of men,” “child of man,” and that only in this general sense are Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 8:5 a source. But from such terms which denote men as men a title could not be derived which denotes the one unique man who is the very Son of God. A late view goes back to Iran and the Persian sources and the eschatological view that the first man, deified, will return at the end and bring the divine kingdom. But a pagan legend could not have been the source whence Jesus derived this term.

Dan. 7:13, 14 pictures the Messiah. Yet the Jews had derived no title for the Messiah from this passage. This Jesus himself did. Hence, when he kept using this title, it seemed strange, and he was asked, “Who is this Son of man?” John 12:34. Hence also no political ideas could be attached to this title. That was the trouble with the title “Messiah” which Jesus avoided for this very reason, using it only in John 4:26.

In Daniel’s description the idea of universality is prominent: he who is like the Son of man rules all people, nations, etc., in an everlasting kingdom and judges all the world. By this new title Jesus denationalized his Messiahship and his Kingship and lifted it above all narrow Jewish conceptions—he was the Redeemer of all men. In Daniel the term is eschatological; Jesus uses it in the same way in 24:30 and in 26:64, and this is done also in the Revelation passages. But this Judge at the time of the great consummation cannot be the judge only then, his work must reach back through the entire process of redemption, the consummation of which is the final judgment. Very properly Jesus thus expands the title and uses it with reference to his person during the days of his humiliation.

What Aramaic expression Jesus used for “the Son of man” no one can determine. The references in the book of Enoch, even if the sections concerned are genuine, are inadequate. The suggestion that, since Jesus also spoke Greek, as for instance, to Pilate, he may have himself employed the Greek expression ὁυἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου, may be correct although the Gospels, Revelation, and Acts are wholly sufficient.

Matthew 8:21

21 Now another of the disciples said to him, Lord, permit me first to go away and to bury my father. Like the scribe, this man is already a disciple of Jesus. The Lord is now leaving this vicinity (v. 18), and so in the case of both men the question arises whether they should follow him. In v. 23 he leaves in a boat, and Mark 4:36 informs us that other boats went along with him. The scribe is overready and needs to be cautioned, this man would later join Jesus. For he has just received word about his father’s death.

The Jews generally buried without delay; if there was time enough, on the same day, otherwise at least on the next day. Both natural affection and the obligation enjoined toward parents by God prompt the man’s desire to hurry home for the last service he could render his father. Yet he is a disciple of Jesus, one who has made the Master’s word the law of his life. He, therefore, asks the Lord for permission to hasten to the funeral. The idea is not that he has any doubt as to whether he should go or not, and far less that he has a bad conscience in regard to leaving. “Permit me first to go away” also does not mean “to take care of my father until he dies,” a thought that is foreign to the situation.

Matthew 8:22

22 The answer of Jesus is direct and decisive. But Jesus says to him, Keep following me, and let the dead bury their dead. Here ἄφες is followed by the accusative with the infinitive. The sentimentality connected with dead relatives is still so strong today that this word of Jesus sounds harsh to our ears. What Jesus says is that the man is to let the spiritually dead bury their own physically dead. When one who is spiritually dead, though he be a close relative, reaches his end, the matter of putting his body into the grave is something that need not exercise us unduly.

Jesus does not imply that the disciples are forbidden to attend funerals of this kind. But they are really only secular affairs which people whose lives are wholly devoted to such affairs can attend to without our presence when supreme spiritual affairs claim our attention; compare 12:48, etc. Christless associations make it one of their objects “to bury their own dead,” and they might thus fittingly take this word of Jesus as their motto. Our great concern is with the heavenly life and with him who bestows it. Where there is no opportunity to work in the interest of this higher life, our spiritual obligation ends. The soul of this man’s father was beyond his son’s reach; let him attend to his own soul by following Jesus.

Luke adds to the word of Jesus, “but go and publish abroad the kingdom of God.” A double spiritual duty beckons this man, one regarding his own soul, and the other regarding the souls of others whom he could reach by the call Jesus would soon extend to him, to go out with other disciples to proclaim the kingdom.

The harshness of this word is removed except in the case of the sentimentality of the worldly-minded who pay a good deal of attention to fragrant flowers and flowery tributes to the dead while they blink at the harsh reality of death itself and of that which is worse, spiritual death and eternal damnation. The manly, bracing words of Jesus are better. The best balm for this son was to follow Jesus and to prepare for the work Jesus would assign to him. Did he remain with Jesus? The answer is withheld for the same reason that was stated in connection with the other case. Luke 9:61, 62 records still another case which Matthew omits.

Matthew 8:23

23 Now Jesus embarks. And when he had entered a boat, there followed him his disciples. Luke 8:22 combines Matt. 8:18 and 23. Mark 4:36 adds the detail that the multitude was sent away, and that the disciples took Jesus “as he was,” tired by his labors of the day. The questions regarding the chronology that enter here are treated at length in the author’s comments on Mark 4:35. The verb ἀκολουθεῖν repeats v. 19 and 22; “his disciples” includes others besides the future apostles, and these used the other boats, Mark 4:36. The storm on the lake brought all these boats into distress.

Matthew 8:24

24 And lo, a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the boat was covered by the waves; he, however, was sleeping. The exclamation refers to the entire situation: the sudden tempest, the swamped boat, and the Lord sleeping peacefully.

A comparison of the narratives of the three synoptists is highly interesting for showing the independence of each account. Matthew alone has σεισμός, the word for earthquake, here used with reference to the tossing water; the other accounts speak of the storm of wind. The result is described by ὥστε with the infinitive: “so that the boat was covered by the waves,” “filling” as the others state it, Luke adding the jeopardy. Matthew is especially dramatic. The reader wonders about Jesus. Luke tells us that he went to sleep before he records the coming of the storm; Mark, after he tells about the storm but he adds the details: “in the stern,” and “on the cushion” which was provided for such a purpose.

Matthew states it all with three Greek words: “he, however, was sleeping,” αὐτός emphatic: “he” over against the others, ἐκάθευδε, the descriptive imperfect, R. 679. The roaring winds and the waves, the commotion of the disciples trying to save the boat and themselves never disturbed Jesus in the least—he continued sleeping. Astounding indeed!

The lake lies between high hills and is thus subject to sudden tempests which develop excessive fury as they roar through the great trough in which the lake lies. Some commentators think that more than natural causes were involved in this storm. We see no necessity for making the devil or the presence of Judas in the boat responsible for this storm, and we cannot accept the allegories which some commentators propose, such as that where Jesus is present upheavals must occur. We likewise consider out of place the discussion about the two natures of Jesus and such questions as: did his deity sleep? did he foreknow the coming of the storm? and similar questions. The storm was brought about in the providence of God in whose hand are all the forces of nature. The peaceful sleep of Jesus is due to the total absence of fear in his heart and to his absolute trust in his Father’s care.

Matthew 8:25

25 And having come to him, they aroused him, saying, Lord, save! We are perishing! Matthew is still the most dramatic evangelist, only Luke approaches him in this respect. The fact that these disciples should come to Jesus for help is astounding. A number of them were expert sailors who knew all about handling a boat and who had been in many a violent storm on this lake. They appeal to Jesus who had never handled boats but had worked as a carpenter with his father in Nazareth.

How could a former carpenter help these expert sailors when all their skill was at an end, and death in the roaring waves was their certain fate? In the providence of God this storm brought to view such faith as they really had. Completely at the end of their own resources in which they had always had great pride and confidence, they now cast themselves upon Jesus as their only hope. They forget that he had never sailed a boat; they think not of human but of divine ability in him. They abandon all human help, the best of which they possessed in their own skill; they cast themselves completely into the divine hands of Jesus.

That was faith. But their terror, their resort to Jesus only in their extremity, their fear of death in the waves are not faith but littleness of faith, which is in glaring contrast with the calmness of Jesus. This littleness of faith God’s providence also revealed. They aroused Jesus, broke in on his sleep. Their cries are differently reported, for one man cried this, another that. Matthew records two of their cries; that recorded by Mark is poignant to a degree, voicing, as it does, a question. Κύριε matches σῶσον, the omnipotent “Lord” alone could “rescue.” The strong aorist which expresses one mighty act of deliverance is the more effective because it has no object, thus placing all the emphasis on the act as such.

Then note the present tense ἀπολλύμεθα, just the one word, “we are perishing,” admitting the disciples’ abject helplessness, the imminent catastrophe. The picture could not be more dramatic.

Matthew 8:26

26 And he says to them, How frightened you are, men of little faith! Then, having arisen, he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there came a great calm. Not a trace of fear or even of startled surprise because of the terrible danger! The absolute serenity of Jesus is astounding. Matthew records the rebuke to the disciples before the stilling of the tempest; but Mark and Luke seem to have the true order of these acts. Jesus stills both the storm in the hearts and the storm in nature.

The observation is correct that τίδειλοί belong together, that τί is not “why,” introducing a question, but “how,” marking an exclamation (compare the explanation of the correct reading τί in 7:14): “How frightened you are!” If Jesus were asking why they are frightened, this question would be superfluous because he himself indicates why, namely because their faith is so small. What he does is to express surprise that they are so terribly frightened, that they reveal themselves as “men of little faith.” The rebuke lies in this exclamation which implies that Jesus felt that he had the right to expect more of them.

Two points, however, deserve attention. There is nothing in the text which would indicate that, because Jesus was in the boat, the disciples had no right to be afraid. They had no right to be afraid even if Jesus had not been in the boat. As disciples of Jesus they were ever in their Father’s care like Jesus himself, and that was the case whether Jesus was physically present with them or not. The fact that Jesus is now always invisibly present with us (28:20), and that we are thus in his keeping and care just as we are in our Father’s care should not confuse us in regard to the necessity for his physical presence.

The other point is that the disciples had no right to fear even if they perished in the waves. We have no promise that danger shall never plunge us into death just because we are Christ’s own. In the counsel of God it may be his will that we die; then we should die with the mighty assurance that God’s will sends us what is best. We should die in confidence, without fear. The reason these points are sometimes overlooked is that this historical narrative is often allegorized, and even when the effort is made to avoid allegory, allegorical ideas often are in the preacher’s mind.

Jesus rose to his feet as the waves splashed into the boat and with two mighty words of rebuke (Mark 4:39, literally: “Be silent! Put the muzzle on and keep it on!” perfect tense, R. 908) stilled the tempest. Both Mark and Luke mention the wind and the raging water. All three synoptists record the great calm. They use the significant aorist ἐγένετο, “there came,” i.e., at once, in obedience to the double command. The brevity of Matthew is even more effective than the fuller wording of Mark and of Luke.

It was God’s will when letting this tempest occur at this time that Jesus should reveal his omnipotent power over the vast forces of nature by calming wind and waters with a word. Why should disciples be terrified by the threatening violence of natural forces when the hand of omnipotent power is over them? Mark and Luke transpose the order of the rebuke to the tempest and that to the disciples. The rationalistic efforts to eliminate the miracle from the narrative are unconvincing.

Matthew 8:27

27 Now the men marvelled, saying, What kind of person is this that even the winds and the sea obey him? All commentators note that Matthew writes οἱἄνθρωποι, die Menschen, whereas Mark and Luke continue their accounts with verbs that refer to the disciples. As far as the facts are concerned, these two evangelists certify that the disciples marvelled and exclaimed thus. It is also quite correct that generally “the men” is used in distinction from “the disciples.” But the conclusion would be hasty, that Matthew here refers to people who heard about the miracle after the disciples landed and spread the report. Mark 4:36 says that “other boats” were with that of Jesus. Matthew uses οἱἄνθρωποι to designate all the men in all the boats.

At once, on witnessing the miracle, they asked each other this question of astonishment. “The men,” however, is not in contrast to οὗτος as one might conclude from our versions, for “this” merely indicates the person of Jesus. All that we can say is that οἱἄνθρωποι connotes human limitations and weakness which cause men to exclaim when they note the works of Jesus.

All the synoptists have the significant οὗτος, “this person,” but Matthew alone has ποταπός, “what kind of.” The point of asking thus lies in the consecutive ὅτι (R. 1001): “seeing that,” or simply “that.” The great single occurrence is generalized: “even the winds and the sea obey him,” present tense, ὑπακούουσιν, do so as a matter of course. These men recognized that the winds and the sea were wholly and always subject to the will and the command of Jesus. Their experience was too tremendous to permit any rationalizing explanation, such as men sitting at their desks have offered. All the evangelists stop with the great question and append none of the answers that were given. When, however, we are told that the thought is in no way indicated that by stilling the tempest Jesus revealed himself as God, we at once disagree. Who save God can make the raging winds and the sea obey at a word?

Matthew 8:28

28 And when he had come to the other side, into the country of the Gadarenes, there met him two demoniacs coming forth out of the tombs, very fierce, so that no one was able to pass along through that road. The maps and the comments usually place the locality where Jesus landed too far north; it was on the lower eastern shore of the lake, named “the country of the Gadarenes” after the main city of that territory, Gadara, lying a little south of the Yarmuk, a confluent of the Jordan. Josephus calls this country “the Gadaritis”; it was a section of the Decapolis. On demoniacs see the discussion in 4:24, also Trench, Miracles, 160, etc. The cases here described are the most interesting of all. We need lose no time on an explanation of Matthew’s mention of two demoniacs whereas Mark and Luke speak of only one.

The latter do not say that there was only one, hence contradiction is shut out. Evidently, one of the two was the leader and spokesman, the other only his companion.

Matthew’s description is brief; Mark 5:2–6 is much fuller, yet he leaves out Luke’s remark that the men were naked. The tombs were chambers hewn into the rock walls of the cliffs and were some little distance from the lake and from the road that ran back from the shore. Some of these old tombs may have been abandoned and thus afforded dens in which these demoniacs established themselves. Among the unclean places of the dead these men, possessed by unclean spirits, made their habitation. Their ferocity was so great that they rendered the road along this way unsafe by rushing out with wild cries and horrible threats upon any who tried to pass that way.

Matthew 8:29

29 And lo, they yelled, saying, What have we to do with thee, Son of God? Didst thou come ahead of time to torment us? The question τίἡμῖνκαὶσοί; is idiomatic, literally translated, “What is there for us and for thee?” Here it has the sense, “Do thou leave us alone!” The plural identifies this spirit with others of his kind, and he speaks for all of them. In John 2:4 this formula is used for putting off an implied request while here it is used to ward off hostile action, B.-P., 335, under ἐγώ. The astounding thing is that the demoniacs, here as elsewhere, recognize and address Jesus as “Son of God.” And with this is combined the supernatural knowledge of his coming to oust them from dominion.

Those who deny that evil spirits actually took possession of human beings resort to rather arbitrary and radical means to deny these facts. In the present case the words yelled at Jesus are not the words of these two men but of the vicious spirits that had possessed them. Jesus had come to deliver not to torment these men. In Mark 5:7, etc., the conversation of the demons with Jesus is fully detailed and it cannot be attributed to the men.

From Mark and from Luke we gather that the yell of the devils was preceded by the command of Jesus to come out of the men. The reply of the devils is a complaint that they are to leave their human victims “ahead of time,” καιρός, an appointed or fixed season. To be ousted thus implies torment for them, i.e., to be sent back into the fiery abyss, Luke 8:31 (Rev. 20:10). The implication is that the devils know that they are doomed to torment in the abyss of hell. Satan’s temptation of Jesus (4:1–11) was not an effort to escape the abyss but rather an attempt, by drawing Jesus into sin, to drag him, too, into the abyss. The καιρός is best referred to the final judgment when all the destructive powers of Satan and of the devils shall end; others think of the time of the death and the resurrection of Jesus when Satan was bound, Rev. 20:1.

Matthew 8:30

30 Now there was far from them a herd of many swine, feeding, “Mark 5:13: “about two thousand.” We need not assume that the country was altogether Gentile, and that, therefore, the owners of these hogs were pagan. The eastern shore of the lake belonged to the tetrarchy of Philip and was part of the Jewish land; for Jesus, who confined himself to his own people, travelled as far north as Cæsarea Philippi in this tetrarchy. He was thus on Jewish territory. And, indeed, it would have been strange if the Jews, who at this time spread themselves over all the Roman empire, should not have migrated into Philip’s tetrarchy, especially to the shore of the lake opposite the populous Jewish cities.

Matthew 8:31

31 And the demons were beseeching him, saying, If thou throwest us out, send us away into the swine. The imperfect παρεκάλουν is descriptive and holds our attention until the aorist εἶπεν brings the answer of Jesus. Note how the demons speak about themselves. Beyond the fact that swine were unclean according to God’s law as given to the Jews and thus in affinity with the unclean spirits, we have no further explanation for this strange request of the demons. They are already under orders to quit their present abode as they themselves indicate by the condition of reality, “if thou throwest us out.”

Matthew 8:32

32 And he said to them, Be going! And when they had come out they went off into the swine. And lo, all the herd rushed down the bank into the sea and died in the water. The present imperative ὑπάγετε, “be off,” “away with you,” can be understood only as granting permission to the demons to enter the herd of swine. Mark and Luke tell us this in so many words; and from them we learn that a host of demons had taken possession of these two sufferers. This, too, is beyond our comprehension although we know that seven devils had taken possession of Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9).

It was illegal for Jews to possess swine; their destruction was, therefore, the execution of God’s law. The fact that devils were used for this purpose is the constant practice of God who uses the devil to punish the wicked and sin and crime to execute judgment upon sinners. The fact that these devils destroyed the swine is only in harmony with their nature; nor can we think that they would be content to make their abode in mere brutes.

If these swine were owned by Gentiles, we should be left without a real explanation for their destruction. To say that the devils were ordered merely to leave the men, and that their entering the swine was their own act, contradicts their request to Jesus and the plain statements of Mark and of Luke that Jesus gave them permission. Equally untenable is the idea that when the swine felt the touch of the demons they reacted by rushing into the sea of their own volition. The demons drove them down the bank and into the water. We may agree that Jesus desired this action on the part of the demons and this fate of the swine as affording an ocular demonstration of the deliverance of the two men and at the same time a further exhibition of his divine power. The view that the demons went out of the men in a violent paroxysm is not indicated in the records.

Matthew 8:33

33 Now those feeding them fled and, having come into the city, reported everything, also the things concerning the demoniacs. The reason for the flight of the swineherds is their fright at seeing the swine rush into the sea. To speak of terror because of the magic power of Jesus is unwarranted. Jesus never acted like a sorcerer, and no man ever thought him to be a magician. These swineherds were responsible for the swine, and this fact lent added speed to their feet. The city here referred to is a small place that was only a short distance from the lake. While we may take it that the swineherds ran to make report to the owners of the swine, what they did was to tell everybody “everything,” καί adding especially “the things concerning the demoniacs,” how Jesus had driven the devils out of them.

Matthew 8:34

34 And lo, all the city came out to meet Jesus; and, having seen him, they besought him that he would depart from their borders. Everybody in the small place (and neighborhood, Mark and Luke) started out to the place where Jesus was with the disciples who had come in the boats and with the two men he had delivered. There they saw Jesus (and the two men, Mark and Luke) and heard the account of all that had happened. Matthew records only the main points. After they had been fully informed they ask Jesus to leave their neighborhood. Mark and Luke name their motive, which was fear.

The aorist παρεκάλεσαν implies that Jesus did as he was asked. These people feared, not the sorcerer Jesus, but further loss to themselves. They cared nothing for the wonderful deliverance of the two demoniacs but only for their swine. Any further deliverance of poor human sufferers at such a cost of material values, even though these were owned in contravention of the divine law, seemed to require too great a price for them to pay. So Jesus departed, yet, as Mark and Luke report, he ordered the men he had healed to remain behind and to tell what the Lord had done for them. This they did faithfully in all the country (Mark 5:20), and not without good results.

To some men hogs are more valuable than men.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.