The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 335

description (loo.cit.) corresponds: "Gergcs", come hither-had they felt themselv~s safe to which the Oergesencs belong, is an in the.t distant spot e.nd ita gloomy surround- ancient city by what is now called tl10 Lake ings, far a.way from all religious influence? of Tiberias, by which is a steep plo.ce -to torment ns before the time l Their adjacent to the lake, and down this, o.s ia abject terror is still more evideat in tho pointed ont, the swine were caet headlong parallel passages. Observe (1) the words by the demons." Gadara, in eome sense the a.re not given as those of the demons, l,ut as capital of Perrea (Josephus,' Bell. Jud.,' iv. the men's own: (2) a future torment is 7. 3), and one of the towns of the Decapolis assumed; (3) they have no doubt as to confederacy (eh. iv. 25), was some twelve their own share in it. miles distant from Khersa, and six miles Vera. 30, 31.-And there was a good way from the nearest part of the le.ke, to wbich, oil' from them a herd of many swine feed- in fa.et (e.e the stamp of a ship on its coins ing. So (and, P..evised Version) the devils shows), its territory extended (cf. Schurer, besought him, saying, If thou cast us H. i p. 100, Bqq.). St. Matthew describes out (Matthew only), suffer 111 to go e.we.y the locality, not by the little-known village, (send ua away, P..evised Version). This is but by the well-known city of the district, distinguished from ver. 29 as expres~ly the to which (ae we may gather from the utterance of the evil spirits. In the true parallel pe.ssage, Me.rk v. 20) the news of te.xt there is no thought of permission, but the miro.cle e.fterwe.rds spread. But since he only of command (a1rclcrT«/\ov). They recog- leaves the expression," the city,'' in vers. 33, nize his mnstery. Into the herd of swine ; 34 as he found it in his sources, i.e. Khersa, e.nd not into the place of torment~" the the result is e.t first misleading. There abyss" of the parallel passage, Luke viii. met him ({ni-{,,,,,..,,cra.,,; occurrero11t, Vulgnte). 31. If he did not send them there, they St. Matthew (contrast vers. 2, 5, 19) omits might hope for a long respite, and one per- the nearer approach recorded in the parallel haps spent in various tenements. Further i'asse.ges, Me.rk v. 6 and Luke viii. 28. Two notice: (I) The unclean chose the unclean (flide supra). Possessed with dovils (eh. iv. (2) Though we cannot attribute to the evil 24, note), OOIDlllg out of the tombs; Revised spirits e.bsolnte foreknowledge of what would Version, coming forth out. The Greek happen in this caee, their past experience shows that they did not merely come from may have enabled them to feelsure that they 11mong the tombs, but actually out of them would have their love of destroying fully (cf. the experience of Warburton, e.s quoted gratified. (3) It is also not impossible that in Trench on this miracle). Exceeding they may have considered that their entering ilerce, so that no man might (Revised the swine wonld be likely to prejudice the Version, could) pe.as by that way. Matthew Gernsenes against Jesus. only. It deepens the contrast to their Vere. 32, 33.-And he said 11J1to them, Go. present behe.vioor. Perhaps " that way" As tliey asked ; for he was not yet coma to refers to the Roman road by the eide of the send them to their final home. He would lake (cf. Thomson, op. cit., p. 378). not employ his inherent Divine power even Ver. 29.-And, behold. This probably against the kingdom of Satan, or forcibly seemed to the evangelist not the leaet of the disturb tho conditions under whiob evil many strange things that be illtroduccd by existed in the world. Notice further: (l) this phrase. They oried out, ae.ying, What That ns regards the right to destroy the have we to do with thee 1 (TI -f,µ.,v ,cml cro(; swine when they were the property of others, 7S1 ilS no, frequent in the Old Testament, our Lord in uo way destroyed them him,elf, e.g. 2 Sam. xvi. 10). What community either but only did not interfere with the powers of interest or of character? The deepest of the evil spirits in giving them penuission realization of personal sinfulness may co- to work out their own purposes. It is exist with absolute ignorance of the Di vine possible, too, thougil for from certain, that love. J'esus. Omitted by the Revised Version the owners of the swine were acting ille- here, yet genuine in the pare.lie] pasEages. goliy in owning them (though even then Matthew omitted from their utterance the our Lord wo.s not constituted e.s judge, De.me which (ob. i. 21) indicated the bridging Luke xii. 14); but this supposes first that of the chaem betweeu the sinner and God. they were Jews, and secondly that it was Thou Son of God 1 Their sense of sin, their illegul for Jows to keep swine, of wliich belief in a future torment, and their use of suppositions not even the letLer c,10 La this phrase, alike point to their being Jews. clearly proved either by Scripture or Ly Observe how great a contrast is implied by early forrus of tradition. (2) 'l'he destruc- this term on the lips of demoniacs. As in tion of the swine might well be beneiicial I John iii. 8 (of. Bishop Wc:stcott thore), it to the complete recovery of the men. (3) brings out the nature of the conflict (" the It would fully arouse the Gerasencd, and spirituul 11.dvcrsnry of man bns u mightier bring homo to them the holiness of the tpiritual antagonii!t "), so here. Art thou Lord from whom evil spirits !led, uud the  330 THE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [cH. vm. 1-34►