Глава 8

1–4. Healing a leper. – 5–13. Healing of the centurion's servant. – 14–17. Healing of Peter's mother-in-law and many other sick people. – 18–22. A story about people who wanted to follow Christ. – 23–27. Taming the storm on Lake Galilee. – 28–34. Healing of the Gadarene demoniacs. Matthew 8:1. When He came down from the mountain, many people followed Him. "Multitude of people" (ὄχλοι πολλοί). Explaining this expression, John Chrysostom says that Christ was now followed not by any of the rulers and scribes, but only by those who were alien to guile and had a sincere disposition. Throughout the Gospel one can see that only these latter cleave to Him. So when He spoke, they listened silently and did not add anything to His words, and did not look for an opportunity to catch Him, like the Pharisees, and at the end of the sermon they followed Him in amazement. The people in the New Testament are also called πλῆθος, which means “multitude”, sometimes with the addition πολύ (Mark 3:7), which means “a great multitude” or “a multitude of people” (πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ), or “the whole multitude” (πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος), and as in the case under consideration, ὄχλος. For an explanation of this word, see the comments on Matthew 5:1. Matthew 8:2. And then the leper came up and, bowing to Him, said: Lord! if you want, you can cleanse me. (Cf. Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12.) Mark tells about the same healing of a leper (Mark 1:40–45), as in Matthew, with significant digressions and in a slightly different connection. Luke (Luke 5:12–14) says that the leper was healed in the city, and not just on the way from the mountain. Therefore, it is assumed that these events took place in this order. When Jesus Christ came down from the mountain, he went to Capernaum. On the way, He entered a city, which is unknown, where a leper met Him and He healed Him. He then continued His journey and arrived at Capernaum. The leper probably was not on the mountain and did not hear His sermon. This idea is actively supported by Chrysostom and other interpreters. According to his “prudence” and “faith,” the leper “did not interrupt the teaching, did not try to force his way through the meeting, but waited for a convenient time, and arrived already when Christ came down from the mountain. And not simply, but with great fervor, he fell on his knees before Christ, as Luke tells about this, and asked Him for healing.” Leprosy was a terrible disease that still occurs today, and not only in hot countries. In ancient times, it was considered incurable, although laws were established “on the cleansing of lepers,” which, of course, there would be no need to establish if all lepers were irrevocably sentenced to death. Leprosy was, in any case, one of the most serious diseases. Some consider it non-contagious and prove this by the fact that Naaman was a leper and, however, served as a military commander for the Syrian king; Gehazi, although a leper, speaks with the king of Israel (2 Kings 8:4–5). The priests had to examine the lepers carefully, but nowhere was it visible that they were infected with leprosy. The opinions of modern scientists are also cited as proof of the non-contagiousness of leprosy. However, the precautions against it taken by both Jews and residents of other countries show that it cannot be considered completely non-contagious. The disease affected the members of the body, they rotted and fell off, the teeth became loose and fell out, the palate collapsed. While alive, every leper was considered a living death, had to behave as if he were dead, and everyone had to treat him as if he were dead. Every leper was unclean. Christ, as usual, treated the leper with love. Some explain the meaning of his request like this: if You want, then cleanse me; You can do it. This is supposedly required by the conditional particle ἐάν, indicating the future tense or some possible event. According to Tsang, the expression: “if you want,” indicates the leper’s doubt in the inclination of Jesus Christ to perform the healing. The doubt stemmed from the very nature of his illness. It is difficult, of course, to judge how it really was; the original does not give any right to speak either for or against such interpretations. Origen explains the leper’s request better and more artlessly: “Lord! Everything is done through You; for if You want, You will have the opportunity to cleanse me. Your will is the work, and everything obeys Your will. You cleansed Naaman the Syrian from leprosy before, and if you want, you can cleanse me too.” Matthew 8:3. Jesus, stretching out his hand, touched him and said: I want you to be clean. And he was immediately cleansed from leprosy. (Cf. Mark 1:41–43; Luke 5:13.) The last expression is literally: “and immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” Luke's expressions are almost literally similar to those of Matthew (in the Greek text); Mark adds: “having mercy on him.” To heal the leper, the Savior reached out His hand and touched him, this was prohibited by Jewish law. But here Jesus Christ, to prove that He “heals not as a slave, but as a Lord, touches” (St. John Chrysostom). Elisha, according to John Chrysostom, did not go out to the leper Naaman, keeping the law. But the hand of the Lord did not become unclean by touching the leper, while the body of the leper became clean from the holy hand. The Lord, speaking in words spoken by the leper himself, answers: “I want to, be cleansed.” In the first case, the verb “to cleanse” was used by the leper himself exactly in the active voice, in the last two – in the passive voice. Jerome notes that one cannot read along with “many Latins”: “I want to purify” (volo mundare), but separately; First Christ said: “I want”, and then he commandingly says: “Cleanse yourself.” We must look at the healing of the leper, quick, miraculous, as an actual historical fact, and not as an allegory that had a symbolic meaning. Christ now moves, according to Matthew, from teaching to miracles. Much has been said about the fact that miracles were performed by Christ in order to confirm His teaching. But here, at least, the command to the leper not to say anything about the miracle indicates the opposite. Matthew 8:4. And Jesus said to him: See that you do not tell anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them. (Cf. Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14.) The healed person should simply go to the priest in silence. Not the words, but the deed itself, the very miracle of healing the leper, should have testified about Christ both before the people and before the priests. This was the direct command. The indirect idea was that the leper should remain silent about the miracle. “And indeed, what necessity was it for the leper to communicate in speech what his body testified to?” (Jerome). The Savior requires the announcement of a miracle by deed, and not by word - and first of all to the priests, in order to gain access to Israeli society, in accordance with the legal regulations set forth in the book of Leviticus (Lev.14). The leper had to go to Jerusalem, present himself to the priests for inspection and make the prescribed sacrifices. The expression “for a witness to them” is not specific, because it is not known who exactly is meant by “them.” Some say that this generally means all the people who could see the leper and with whom he could enter into communication. A much larger number of interpreters accept that only priests are meant here. This is the opinion of St. John Chrysostom and many others, and the testimony of the healed person should have consisted either in the fact that Jesus Christ observed legal regulations, or simply in a statement of recovery. The fact that the plural “im” refers to the class of priests, Tsang considers natural and grammatically indisputable (cf. Luke 23:50, next – βουλευτὴς αὐτῶν; also Luke 2:22; Rom. 3:1–2). In Jerome, the uncertainty of speech is eliminated by introducing into the text and interpretation the word sacerdotibus (priests). Matthew 8:5. When Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him and asked Him: There is a strong discrepancy between the accounts of Matthew and Luke here. The best explanation of this discrepancy is given by Augustine and Calvin. The first suggests that Matthew's purpose was to highlight the centurion's faith. Therefore, historical details and accurate reporting of events were not important to him. Luke, on the contrary, aimed to convey exactly the historical fact itself. Calvin notes that the difference in the stories is simply insignificant (nihil), although it, of course, exists, as can be seen from his own words, because an insignificant difference is still a difference. According to Morison, Matthew did not want to give a scientific account of the fact. For the evangelist's eyes, the centurion “was truly present near the Lord through his subjects.” We will stick here to the story as it is given in Matthew. The centurion, apparently, approached the Savior on His way through the streets of Capernaum. One might even think that this was not at the beginning, but at the very end of the journey, when Christ was already near the centurion’s house. The evangelist missed the words of the messengers and was forced to put them into the mouth of the centurion himself. That this does not in any way harm the accuracy of the historical narrative is evident from the fact that in both Matthew and Luke the words belong to the centurion himself. Only little can be said about the latter’s personality. Since there is no news that Roman troops were stationed in Capernaum at that time, one must think that the centurion served with Herod Antipas, whose troops, according to Josephus, consisted of mercenaries. Centurions are called in the Gospels and Acts ἑκατοντάρχος, χης or κεντυρίων (=centurio, Mark 15:39, 44–45). The Roman legions were divided into 10 cohorts (Acts 10:1), or regiments, each cohort having three maniples, and each maniple consisting of hundreds; if this number decreased, a hundred did not cease to be a hundred. Each legion had 60 hundreds. The centurion was obviously a pagan. This, according to Tsang, is self-explanatory and constitutes the essence of the story. They even think that Matthew deliberately placed two stories side by side - about the healing of a leper and a pagan servant, who were both unclean from a ritual point of view. The centurion could be unclean even if he were a Jew, because the Jews, if they joined armies consisting of foreign soldiers, then, according to the testimony of Josephus, were considered as publicans. But he probably belonged to the pagans who were inclined towards Judaism and took an active part in the worship of the synagogue. The ruins of the synagogue built by the centurion in Capernaum are still pointed out today. Matthew 8:6. God! my servant lies at home in relaxation and suffers cruelly. Matthew 8:7. Jesus says to him: I will come and heal him. Literally: “my boy is stricken in the house, paralyzed, terribly tormented.” Regarding the Greek word “boy” (παῖς), it should be said that it is used both in the sense of “son” - this is how it is translated in other places (John 4:51; Acts 3:13, 26), and “slave” or “servant” in Luke (Luke 12:45, 15:26). In the passage under consideration, this word undoubtedly means “slave”, because it is explained this way in Luke (Luke 7:2 - δοῦλος). The name of the disease is uncertain. Referring to 1 Mac 9:55–56, Alford says it may have been tetanus, which ancient physicians confused with paralysis. This disease is more common in hot countries than here. According to Luke, the boy was dying. They thought that this was the reason why the centurion himself did not appear to Christ asking for his healing. But John Chrysostom does not agree with this explanation, believing that the centurion’s non-arrival was as much a matter of his faith as his words. This was, according to Jerome, the first paralytic healed by Christ. Matthew's description of the disease does not contradict Luke's testimony (Luke 7:2), but Matthew's is somewhat more detailed and accurate. Matthew 8:8. The centurion, answering, said: Lord! I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will recover; In Luke, the centurion’s “unworthiness” is presented as the reason not only for the fact that he does not ask Christ to come to his house, but also for the fact that he himself did not come to Christ. Matthew 8:9. for I am a subordinate man, but having soldiers under my command, I say to one: go, and he goes; and to another: come, and he comes; and to my servant: Do this, and he does. Already the ancient interpreters paid attention to the arrangement of words (in the Greek text). If in the Slavic text a comma is placed after “I am a man” (ἐγὼ ἄνθρωπός εἰμι), then it should be translated as follows: I am a man who has warriors under his authority, etc.; if after the expression “under authority”, then the expression will mean that the centurion himself is under authority (“subordinate”, as in Russian), and, being under authority, has “under him” (in Russian translation - “in submission”), i.e. also under his authority, and warriors. The latter opinion is shared by St. John Chrysostom. The meaning of the centurion's speech will be more understandable if we relate the beginning of verse 9 to λόγῳ ("word") of verse 8 and consider verse 9 as a continuation of this expression. The centurion thought that the “word” of Christ was subject to Him. It is under His authority and He has authority over it. Thus the continuation becomes clear. The “Word” of Christ is under His authority or in His power, for I am also under the authority... The centurion compares himself not with Christ Himself, but with His Word. It is more difficult to explain "because" (γάρ). It has a very subtle and almost imperceptible meaning here. We can present the centurion’s speech in such a common paraphrase: “Your word is under Your authority, You dispose of it according to Your will. Why? Because (γάρ) I know this from my own experience. You are not under power, I am under power. However, if I say only one word, they obey me.” Matthew 8:10. When Jesus heard this, he was surprised and said to those following Him, “Truly I say to you, even in Israel I have not found such faith.” There is no exaggeration in Christ's words, because the centurion was one of the first fruits of the pagan harvest, which would be abundant and surpass the harvest of Israel. The explanation of the words can be partly found in Matthew 11:11; Luke 7:28. Here “Christ already makes it known to everyone that salvation comes from faith, and not only from works of the law.” Matthew 8:11. I tell you that many will come from the east and the west and lie down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; It is rightly noted that the Savior here did not directly mention the pagans, which would be offensive to the Jews, but expressed it descriptively: “many from the east and west” (literally: “from the east and west”). This particular case gives reason to take a prophetic look at the future, when pagans will be crowded into the Church of Christ. This prophecy has been fulfilled and is being fulfilled literally. The faith of only one pagan who lived among Israel gave rise to its utterance. What follows is a depiction of the Messianic feast, of course, only metaphorical. This metaphor about the messianic feast, as Edersheim and others show, was common among the Jews. The features that depict the Messianic feast were borrowed by Christ from contemporary customs when arranging feasts. It does not say “they will sit down,” but “they will lie down.” Reclining at a feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was the highest happiness that a Jew could imagine in the days of the Messiah, and it was not so much worldly as spiritual. Matthew 8:12. and the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness: there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8:13. And Jesus said to the centurion, Go, and as you have believed, so be it done to you. And his servant was healed at that hour. The preaching of the kingdom began among the Jews, and in this sense they were recognized sons of the kingdom (ὑιοί), but since they did not want to enter it, they were rejected. The expression: “outer darkness” is found only in Matthew (cf. Matthew 22:13, 25:30). By external darkness one can most closely understand “darkness outside the house” - this figurative expression indicates the dark street of a dirty eastern city and the position of a person outside the kingdom. The expression: “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” is characteristic of Matthew (cf. Matthew 13:42, 50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30) and is found only once in Luke (Luke 13:28). The article before the words “crying” and “grinding,” according to Bengel, is significant: in real life, grief is not yet grief. The article is used because it probably refers to some real facts accessible to general observation in Jewish life at that time. It is clear that this expression has a figurative meaning here: in the next world there will be no crying and gnashing of teeth, but only torment. Matthew 8:14. Arriving at the house of Peter, Jesus saw his mother-in-law lying in a fever, Matthew 8:15. and he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose and ministered to them. (Cf. Mark 1:29–30; Luke 4:38.) Literally: “I saw his mother-in-law, defeated and suffering from a fever.” The time when this was, Matthew does not indicate precisely, and, reading his Gospel, anyone can think that it was after Christ’s descent from the mountain and departure to Capernaum; On the way, a leper approached him, then the centurion asked for the servant to be healed, and finally He arrived in Capernaum and immediately entered Peter’s house. The amendment made by Mark makes it possible to see that the healing of the centurion's servant and Peter's mother-in-law are events told by Matthew not in chronological order and not closely related in time. According to Mark, the miracle in Peter's house took place "immediately" or "soon" (εὐθύς) after Jesus Christ left the synagogue where he was teaching (Mark 1:21–22) and healed the demoniac (Mark 1:23–28). Luke’s story also agrees with this, although the expressions are different (Luke 4:31–39). The last mentioned events took place, according to Mark, immediately after the calling of some disciples (Mark 1:17–20; cf. Matt. 4:19–22). By saying “soon” (Mark 1:29), Mark also wanted to indicate time. Matthew only spoke about the miracle, without indicating the time (St. John Chrysostom). Another difference is that Christ was asked to come to Simon's house (Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38), but Matthew is silent about this. Regarding the fact that Peter had a mother-in-law and that, therefore, he was married, Theophylact notes that “marriage does not interfere with virtue, for the first of the apostles had a mother-in-law.” In the same house, in addition to Peter, his wife (whom the evangelists do not mention) and mother-in-law, lived his brother, Andrew (Mark 1:29). If John (John 1:44) says that Peter and Andrew were from Bethsaida, then there is no contradiction with the present story. There were two Bethsaidas, one (Julia) - on the northeastern side of Lake Galilee, the other, Galilean, on the western, or, better, northwestern. The latter, as Edersheim believes, was a suburb of Capernaum, and the name means “house of fishing,” i.e. fishing town or fishing settlement. There will be no contradiction even if Capernaum is identified with Khan-Miniya, and Bethsaida with the modern village of AinTabiga, about two-thirds of a mile (about one verst) north of Khan-Miniya, because even then Bethsaida would be almost a suburb of Capernaum (Tell Hum). The illness from which Peter's mother-in-law suffered is not clearly defined. The description of the disease in Matthew is stronger than in Mark (in the latter κατέκειτο lay, instead of βεβλημένη). The word πυρέσσουσα from πύρ - fire, has a connection with the Latin word febris - fever, but this disease, obviously, was severe, and it is better to translate the word “fever”, in general some kind of inflammatory process that forced the patient to suffer greatly (which explains the appeal to Christ) and to be cast down on her bed - βεβλημένη. Matthew 8:16. When evening came, they brought many demon-possessed people to Him, and He cast out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick, (Cf. Mark 1:32–34; Luke 4:40–41.) Matthew's speech is shortened compared to Mark and Luke. From the messages of the last two evangelists it can be deduced that it was in the evening of the day when Jesus Christ taught in the synagogue. It was on Saturday (Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31). This explains why the sick were brought or brought to Christ only in the evening, since on the Sabbath itself neither treatment nor treatment was allowed. To the words of Matthew: “when evening came,” Mark adds: “when the sun went down”; also that all the people gathered to the “doors” (to the door); that the sick suffered from “various diseases” and that Christ “did not allow the demons to say that they knew that He was the Christ.” Luke also has additions, partly the same as in Mark, and partly different: Christ laid hands on the sick, and demons came out (not from all), but “from many,” and exclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of God.” This last addition, although indirectly, throws light on the reason why the Savior forbade the demons to call Himself so. It obviously consisted in the reluctance of demons to proclaim Him the Son of God. As for the reason why Matthew mentions the demon-possessed first of all, this is explained by the fact that on this Saturday morning Christ healed a demon-possessed man (Mark 1:23-27), and this aroused a great movement among the people. Thus, from a comparison of the testimony of the evangelists, a more or less complete picture is obtained of what the evangelist Matthew briefly talks about in the passage in question. It is very important to note that for the true and omnipotent Healer there seemed to be no restrictions in the manifestation of His miraculous power. Luke's expression (Luke 4:41) ἀπὸ πολλῶν ("from many", but not from all those possessed by demons) does not serve in itself as evidence of the limitations of the manifestation of divine power, and it should be interpreted according to the testimony of other evangelists who claim that Christ healed "all" (πάντας) the sick, in fact “having bad things” or feeling bad. And among ordinary people there are healers, but usually not everyone who resorts to them receives healing, so in some cases it is quite possible to explain the healing even by natural causes. But it’s a different matter when not only “many” are healed, but “all”; such a fact cannot be explained by any natural causes, but as if the unintentional pointing out to it by the evangelists can serve for apologetics as one of the strongest proofs of the presence in Christ of extraordinary divine miraculous power. Matthew 8:17. that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, saying: He took upon Himself our infirmities and bore our sicknesses. The passage is borrowed from Deutero- Isaiah 53:4, which the evangelist calls Isaiah, in the language of his time. The circumstance that the passage from the evangelist is borrowed from Deutero-Isaiah 53:4 is not “not important,” but must be significant for scientific exegesis. All exegetes agree that the passage of Isaiah is given here not according to the translation of the Seventy, but according to the Hebrew text, and, moreover, “independently” of any translations and interpretations. In Isaiah this passage reads like this: “Truly He lifted up our illnesses and carried our sufferings (torments). In translating this passage, the Seventy replaced the Hebrew expression "our sicknesses" (halaynu) with the word "sins" (ἁμαρτίας). Whether the reason for this was the translators’ misunderstanding of the Hebrew text or whether it was due to the difficulty of translating the Hebrew words (“halaynu” and “makovna”), which have almost the same meaning, cannot currently be said with certainty. But the evangelist in his translation did not mention “sins”, but translated the word “halainu” through “infirmities”, and translated the Hebrew word “nasha”, which means to lift upon oneself, through ἔλαβεν - took, in contrast to the Hebrew “sabal”, which has the same meaning as “nasha”, which he translated with the word “carried” (ἐβάστασεν). But no matter how we translate this passage, the difficulty lies not in the translation, but in the application of this passage to the circumstances just described by the evangelist. He just spoke about Christ’s healings of the demon-possessed and the sick, and this gives him a reason to cite the said prophecy of Isaiah. In what sense can we understand that, by healing the sick, Christ took upon Himself our infirmities and illnesses? Did He Himself suffer and be sick, or was it only the sight of human suffering that caused His own suffering to occur in Him? Or is the prophecy given by the evangelist in the sense that His own strength was wasted on healings and He suffered from fatigue and exhaustion? All these questions were raised at different times and were resolved, as one would expect, differently - in the affirmative sense. One exegete solves the problem this way: Jesus Christ healed the sick, as the healings just told show. By doing this, He “took and bore” illnesses in every sense in which this can be said of a doctor. The translator chooses two colorless words λαμβάνειν and βαστάζειν to express the Hebrew text. To clarify this matter somewhat, let us say that the words of the evangelist are a conclusion and generalization of what he said earlier. If, therefore, earlier he set out the details, now he expresses a general view, bringing the particulars to unity. If the evangelist, which is likely, was an eyewitness to the works of Christ, then this evening, in connection with the subsequent activities and sufferings of the Savior, reminded him of the words of the prophet Isaiah. The evangelist did not understand them scientifically, like modern critics who see in the “Man of Sorrows” the prophet Isaiah a person responsible for the people before the avengers, who demand for an insult the extradition of one person as a defendant for a common guilt, with the threat, in case of failure to fulfill this demand, to exterminate everyone, as required by ancient concepts of revenge. The evangelist, citing a prophecy from Deutero-Isaiah, first of all points to the ideal sufferer - the Servant of Jehovah, predicted by the prophet. But the Personality predicted by the prophet is not something abstractly ideal for the evangelist; it is fully embodied in the Servant of Jehovah, whom the evangelist saw before him, i.e. in Jesus Christ. The ideal Servant of Jehovah foretold by Isaiah is the literal Savior of His people. By His suffering He saves, delivers from torment and suffering His tribe, His people, who should have perished if there had not been such a replacement. The embodiment of the ideal Sufferer, predicted by the prophet, in the person of Christ has not one or two, but many sides, and the evangelist wants to present these sides clearly to his readers. As we have seen, before the Savior sets out for the work of public service, a messenger appears before Him, “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” exactly corresponding to φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Is. 40:3, see comments on Matt. 3:3). The rapprochement of Christ with the Servant of Jehovah depicted in Isaiah can be observed further, in the circumstances of baptism and temptation. Now the same Servant of Jehovah appears before us, but only from completely new sides - coming into contact with human infirmities, illnesses and suffering, from which He frees people. Since the Servant of Jehovah in the prophet is undoubtedly portrayed as such a Person who takes our weaknesses and bears our illnesses, this gives the evangelist, with a new rapprochement between the Servant of Jehovah predicted by Isaiah and the real Christ, to attribute to Christ the same traits that were characteristic of the Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah. The meaning of this was that if Christ healed illnesses, this meant that He took responsibility for them before God, made people innocent and, therefore, not subject to illnesses and infirmities, transferring the guilt of the people onto Himself and thus exposing Himself to its consequences. This is not yet clear from the passage in Matthew under consideration. Here, one might say, only the beginning of the illnesses of the Messiah is depicted, which should end in the literal fulfillment of the prophecy - in His suffering and death on the Cross. Thus, in the 3rd, 4th and 8th chapters of Matthew we can observe a very subtly but clearly conveyed main idea - about the Servant of Jehovah suffering for humanity. This idea is also carried out, but not so clearly, in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Matthew, where the origin and stay in Egypt of the same Servant of Jehovah is actually depicted; and, perhaps, even in the Sermon on the Mount, where His characteristic “strength of spirit” is depicted. The entire subsequent gospel story outlined in Matthew also points to the Servant of Jehovah. The rapprochement of the Servant Isaiah with Christ in the verse under consideration is not, therefore, mechanical, but has a deep inner and hidden meaning, corresponding to the idea of ​​the Gospel. The evangelist now sees in the activity of Christ participation in our weaknesses and illnesses and in this sense applies the prophecy of Isaiah to Him in view of the great similarity of the ideal sufferer with Christ. With this interpretation, it becomes clearer why the Seventy replaced the prophet’s “sicknesses” with “sins.” The servant of Jehovah, as an atoning Sacrifice, is actually responsible not for illnesses, but for sins that bring revenge on people over the offended “truth” (cf. Matt. 3:15). Matthew 8:18. When Jesus saw a large crowd around Him, He ordered [the disciples] to sail to the other side. (Cf. Mark 4:35–36; Luke 8:22.) According to Mark and Luke, the departure was in the evening of the day when Jesus Christ spoke to the people in parables. The fact itself is reported by all the evangelists in agreement, although each has differences in details. The simple “commanded” found in Matthew is replaced in Mark and Luke by the actual speech of the Savior, indicating that it was at evening. Matthew 8:19. Then one scribe came up and said to Him: Teacher! I will follow You wherever You go. The verbs indicating “departure” in verses 18 and 19 are the same, but in different tenses - ἀπελθεῖν and ἀπέρχῃ. Russian translators rendered the verb in verse 18 ἀπελθεῖν more in meaning than in its actual meaning, because this verb does not actually mean “to sail”, but simply “to depart” or “to depart.” But if the path is by water, then, of course, the verb also means “to sail.” The scribe who approached Christ used the same Greek verb, and this means that he asked Christ to take him with Him into the boat when leaving for the other side. Luke talks about the same circumstance, but again in a different connection, and at the same time it is indicated that it was on the “way,” i.e., on the road to the lake. A formal, but not real, contradiction that cannot be eliminated. That there really is no real contradiction here is clearly shown by Augustine when he says: “If, according to Matthew, this (i.e. the scribe’s request) was when Christ ordered to cross the lake, and according to Luke, when they (i.e. Christ and the disciples) walked along the road, then there is no contradiction here, because in both cases they walked along the road to approach the lake.” In any case, one cannot decisively conclude from Matthew’s testimony that the request was not on the way, but near the lake itself. But one might think that verses 19–22 were inserted here by Matthew out of connection and that the correct connection is in Luke. It could be that the thought of the Savior as a carrier of diseases inspired or reminded Matthew of the words of Christ about the homelessness of the Son of Man, and in order to prove this, he cites one incident from the life of the Savior, and in connection with it another (verse 21), somewhat different from the first. To what has been said, it must be added that Luke reports not about two persons who wanted to accompany the Savior, but about three (Luke 9:61–62 - the third). The word “one” has an obvious relation to the “other” of verse 21 and is a simple enumeration of the persons who approached Christ with a request. However, Blass (Gram., S. 140) and WienerSchmiedel (S. 243) believe that “one” is used here in the sense of the indefinite pronoun “some” (τις), which is quite understandable, since numerals are often used in this sense. The scribe calls the Savior Teacher, the Greek word was taken from the usual Hebrew (Aramaic), expressing respect for persons who knew how to teach or taught well. The reasons that prompted the scribe to turn to Christ with a request for permission to follow Him are defined differently. Hilary of Pictavia, in whose interpretation there is a lot of allegory, gives here, however, an interesting and witty explanation. “This scribe is one of the teachers of the law, he asks whether to follow it; as if there were no indication in the law that it was Christ who could profitably be followed. Thus the scribe expressed his disbelief in an incredulous question, because the believer should not ask, but follow.” This opinion has its reasons. The scribes, Jewish scholars, devoted themselves to the study of the scriptures. But while studying their letter, they lost understanding of their spirit. Christ's further speech shows that He did not believe the scribe's sincerity. Matthew 8:20. And Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head. In Luke, “says” is replaced by the word “said,” but otherwise the verse is literally similar to that considered in Matthew. From this verse it is clearer than from the previous one that one can see why the Savior rejected the scribe. The latter saw the greatness of the miracles performed by Christ, and wanted, as Jerome, Theophylact and others believe, to follow Him in order to receive profit from this, wanting exactly the same thing that the sorcerer wanted to receive from Peter and Simon. The fact that the scribe really had earthly benefits in mind can be deduced from the very words of Jesus Christ, in which they rightly indicate His poverty - “Son of Man.” This name is often found in the New Testament, according to Zahn - in Matthew - 30 times (according to others - 33 times), in Mark - 13 times (according to others - 14, and Mark 8:31 is no exception), in Luke - 24 times, in John - 12 times (according to others - 11). This name is not found at all in the Apostle Paul; in Acts only once (Acts 7:56). When looking at the passages related here, you can see that other people never called Jesus Christ the Son of Man, with the only exception (John 12:34), where the people only repeat the expression of Christ Himself. He calls Himself the Son of Man only Himself. The name is never used as a predicate, but always either as a subject or as an object. The meanings in which it is used can be divided into three groups: 1) it generally points to the earthly life of Jesus Christ (examples: Mark 2:10, 2:28; Matt. 8:20; Luke 19:10); 2) on His suffering life and death (examples: Mark 8:31, 9:31, 14:21); 3) for His glory in the present and future (examples: Matt. 24:30, 25:31). At present, after the work of numerous scholars who have been engaged in the study of this subject, it can be considered proven that the expression “Son of Man” in the days of Christ was not a popular name for the Messiah. But the expression was well known in the Old Testament and was used there either to denote human weakness, imperfection, helplessness, dependence on God, etc. (for example, Ps. 8:5 and often in Ezekiel, in whose book this title is applied to the prophet up to eighty times), or greatness (Dan. 7:13–14). If, as has been said, the expression “Son of Man” was not the name of the Messiah in the days of Christ, then it could, however, pass into popular speech and, being popular, could be borrowed by Christ and applied to Himself. In what sense? Many theories have been proposed in response to this question. But the most probable and best explanation of the matter seems to be the one according to which the work of Christ on earth was the foundation and establishment of the Divine Kingdom on earth; He Himself proclaimed Himself as the King of this Kingdom. The ideal King was presented in Daniel (Dan. 7:13-14), but this idea of ​​Christ, to whom was given power, glory and kingdom, was combined with the idea of ​​the Man of Sorrows or the suffering Servant of Jehovah in the prophet Isaiah. Christ applies to Himself all these ideas - the Old Testament idea of ​​human weakness, helplessness and dependence on God, the idea of ​​​​the prophet Daniel's King filled with glory and power, and the idea of ​​Jehovah's suffering Servant Isaiah, expressing all these three ideas in the words “Son of Man.” For the immediate listeners of Christ, such a name could not seem like the name of the Messiah, but was associated with expressions familiar to Jewish ears. Among the idioms of the Hebrew language is the use of the words “son” (“ben”, “bar”) and “daughter” (“bat”), “house” (“bet”) in cases where these words are not used at all in other languages. Thus, the expression “ben-adam” (the same as the Son of Man) could not contain anything unusual for outsiders. But in the mouth of Christ it was a covert name for Him as the Messiah and a designation of His messianic dignity, and precisely in its three indicated senses, as a representative of humanity, the King of the Kingdom and the suffering Servant of Jehovah. The best proof that this was really the case, that Christ, calling Himself the Son of Man, proclaimed Himself precisely as the Messiah, is that this expression was subsequently truly understood in the messianic sense by His disciples. Matthew 8:21. Another of His disciples said to Him: Lord! let me first go and bury my father. Why such a request was made to Christ is not clear from Matthew. Luke's addition makes it clearer. According to Luke, Christ Himself said to one of His disciples (αὐτοῦ is missing, however, in some codes): “follow Me.” In response to this, the disciple said the words quoted almost identically in both Matthew and Luke (instead of ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθόντι θάψαι (and so on). that this was some person from among the disciples of Christ in the broad sense, and not from those who belonged to the 12. This disciple did not ask Christ whether he should follow Him, but only asked Him to allow him to delay following, because he had no doubt that he should follow (Hilary). His request was, as Alford noted, very reasonable and respectable, if we omit the word πρῶτον (before). Matthew 8:22. But Jesus said to him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.” “Come (follow) me,” Matthew places the words omitted in verse 21 and found in Luke here. It could be that the disciple followed Christ to the shore of the lake, but when he saw that Christ wanted to cross to the other side, he asked Him for permission to return to bury (θάψαί) his father. The Savior responds to this natural and legitimate request, apparently with a callous refusal. But it should be noted that in other cases the Savior placed love for Himself above love for father, mother and closest relatives. Matthew also talks about this (cf. Matthew 19:29, 12:48–50). If Jesus Christ invited the disciple to follow Him, leaving the deceased (as can be seen from the speech itself) father and leaving his burial to other persons, then this did not in any way eliminate or weaken filial feelings, but only replaced them with higher ones - love for Himself. Thus, the invitation of the Savior does not give rise to any moral difficulties on our part. A much more difficult question is what He means by “dead” in the first case (“leave = leave = ἄφες dead to bury their dead”). The second word “dead” is not difficult; it can be understood in the literal sense. But what does the first word mean? This question is resolved in different ways. Theophylact says that the father of the petitioner was an “unbeliever” or “infidel” (ἄπιστος) and that this is clear from the words “leave to the dead,” that is, Theophylact explains, “to the unbelievers.” But if those who buried them were “unbelievers,” then how does it follow that the father was also an “unbeliever”? Augustine explains the Savior’s answer somewhat differently. The Savior said something like this: “Your father is dead; there are also (autem) other dead who will bury their dead, because they are unbelievers.” Here, unbelief is attributed not to the father of the petitioner, but only to the burying ones. The newest exegetes repeat this thought of Augustine in different ways. Thus, Meyer believes that in the first case νεκρούς means “spiritually dead” (cf. Matthew 4:16 with John 5:21, 25 and Luke 15:24) and cites a passage from Origen, according to which the soul that remains in evil is dead. Alford and others agree with Meyer. This interpretation can be considered generally accepted and widespread. But if in both cases, or only in one of them, we replace “dead” with the word “unbelievers,” then should we not infer from this that Christ’s speech was contemptuous and insulting to the disciple whom He had just invited to follow Him? Could this disciple understand it in the sense that Christ by “dead” means “spiritually dead”, “those in evil” and “unbelievers”? A way out of this difficulty is hardly possible even if we assume that Christ’s expression was a “proverb”, the meaning of which is: “turn away from the past when the present demands your attention.” If we accept this interpretation, then we can think that Christ did not speak about the dead at all. But this is hardly true. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the expression in question was a proverb. It seems to us that the matter can be explained if instead of the word “dead” in the first case we put the word “mortal”. The Greeks apparently made little distinction between these concepts. The word that can be translated through “mortal” is θανατόεις and θνητός. Although it cannot be proven that νεκρός in the first case here means “mortal,” the meaning of Christ’s words will be completely understandable only if this word is interpreted in the indicated sense. In any case, “spiritually dead” - this concept was more sophisticated to the ears of the then disciples of Christ than simply “mortal” - this concept is, moreover, almost identical with “spiritually dead”. According to word usage in the New Testament, νεκρός sometimes means not dead, but living, although once dead (see Luke 7:15, 15:24; Acts 20:9; 1 Thess. 4:16). Matthew 8:23. And when He entered the boat, His disciples followed Him. This verse resumes the thread of the story, interrupted from the 19th verse by the insertion about persons who wanted to follow Christ, and this brings the testimony of Matthew closer to the testimony of Mark and Luke. It is necessary to imagine the matter in such a way that the Savior first entered the boat, the same one that was prepared at His command (verse 18), as indicated by the article before the word “boat” (τὸ πλοῖον), however, omitted in some codes and publications. Judging by the fact that, in addition to Christ, His disciples and, as they think, other persons also entered the boat (ἄνθρωποι - verse 27), it was quite spacious. Mark: “They took Him with them as He was in the boat.” By disciples, some do not mean the 12 apostles on the grounds that they are called in the Gospel of Matthew οἱ δῶδεκα (Matthew 10:1–2, 5, 11:1, 20:17, 26:14, 20, 47). But in further speech those who entered the boat are also called disciples (cf. Matthew 10:1 - τοὺς δῶδεκα μαθητάς; Matthew 11:1 the same; Matthew 12:1 - simply οἱ μαθηταί, etc.). If, according to the testimony of other evangelists, the journey took place after the utterance of parables, then it is not incredible that exactly 12 disciples entered the boat. Theophylact even says that the Savior “kept only the disciples so that they could see the miracle.” Origen notes that, having performed great and amazing miracles on land, Jesus Christ goes to the sea to show even more excellent deeds there - to the extent that here He shows Himself as the Lord of earth and sea. Matthew 8:24. And behold, there was a great disturbance on the sea, so that the boat was covered with waves; and He was sleeping. Matthew 8:25. Then His disciples, approaching Him, woke Him up and said: Lord! save us, we are perishing. Matthew 8:26. And he says to them: Why are you so fearful, you of little faith? Then, getting up, he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great silence. (Cf. Mark 4:39–40; Luke 8:24–25.) In Matthew, the reproach to the disciples for their lack of faith is expressed before the storm calms down, in the other two weather forecasters - after. This difference is not of great importance, since in general evangelists, when talking about events, sometimes string together fact after fact in their speech, caring little about the exact determination of time and chronological sequence. Matthew 8:27. The people, amazed, said: Who is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him? (Compare Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25.) Literally: “the people were surprised, saying: where is He from, like the winds and the sea,” etc. The word “people” is translated from the Greek οἱ ἄνθρωποι. The article before this word indicates that these were the people who were in the boat. But why are they called “people” here and not “disciples”? This expression has long caused interpreters difficulties, which are increased by the fact that other weather forecasters (Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25), when talking about the event, do not mention either the disciples or the people. An attempt to resolve the question of who were in the boat is found in Origen, who asks: “But what kind of people were surprised?” - and answers: “Do not think that the apostles are indicated here, because such a name for the disciples of the Lord is never found that does not correspond to their dignity, but they are always called either apostles or disciples. Consequently, the people who sailed with Him, to whom the boat belonged, were amazed.” Jerome expresses himself even more clearly about this subject, saying that it was not the disciples who were surprised, but the boatmen and those who were in the boat. If anyone argues against this and says that the people who were surprised were disciples, then we will answer that here are people named who did not yet know about the power of the Savior.” Many newer exegetes hold similar views. However, such an explanation should be recognized as not entirely natural. According to it, it turns out that the miracle, in any case, was the object of surprise not for the disciples, but only for other people, and this is because the disciples were already familiar with the miracles of the Savior and could not now ask: who is this? But why couldn’t the disciples be surprised? Why couldn’t they ask “who is this” about the Person Whom they did not yet know as the all-powerful tamer of the storm? It is possible to assume that there were other people in the boat along with Christ and the disciples. But, not wanting to indicate that only some disciples were surprised, or only other people, the evangelist brought them all under one category - οἱ ἄνθρωποι - all the men who were in the boat, and even, perhaps, those who were in the boats floating nearby (Mark 4:36). Matthew 8:28. And when He arrived on the other side in the country of Gergesin, He was met by two demoniacs who came out of the graves, very fierce, so that no one dared to pass that way. (Cf. Mark 5:1–6; Luke 8:26–27.) The place where the Savior arrived, Matthew calls ἡ χώρα τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, the country of the Gadarenes. In ancient times there were three cities from which the evangelists could have borrowed their names for this area. 1. Gerasa - this city was located far southeast of Lake Galilee, on the border with Arabia, two days' journey from the southern shore of Lake Galilee, somewhat north of the Jabbok River, a tributary of the Jordan. All that remains of the city are the most significant ruins in the area. It stood on the site of present-day Jerash. It is assumed, however, that he could not provide the name of the area near Lake Galilee and that the name γερασνῶν found in some manuscripts is only a corrupted γεγρεσηνῶν. 2. Closer to the lake was Gadara, south of the Yarmouk River, also a tributary of the Jordan. Josephus says that Gadara was the fortified capital of Perea. The words of Eusebius are not clear; he reports that Gadara was located opposite (ἀντικρύ) Scythopolis and Tiberias to the east, on a mountain where there were hot healing springs. The ambiguity here is that Tiberias was somewhat north of Gadara on the other (eastern) side of the Jordan, and Scythopolis (Beosan) was much further south. Gadara was known for its hot springs far beyond the borders of Palestine, which, by the way, is mentioned by Strabo. This city was destroyed by the Jews, but then rebuilt by Pompey, and many coins remained from it. Gadara was inhabited mostly by pagans, and Josephus calls it πόλις ἑλληνίς - a Greek city. It was one of the ten cities of the so-called Decapolis. Currently called Um-Keys. The district of Gadara bordered on the district of Scythopolis in the west, and on Ippon in the north. Gadara owned part of the strip on the eastern side of the lake. What relation this Gadarian strip had to the strip of Ippon, who also owned the lake shore in the middle eastern part of the lake, is difficult to say, and this difficulty is the main thing. 3. According to the testimony of both Origen and Eusebius, there was Gergesa, of which no trace remains (the area is now known under the name Kersa). It is difficult to say whether, and if so, how, Gergesa belonged to Gadara, if only the Ippon district was located between them, and why this district was not called by the name of the last city. Tsan, however, confidently assumes that this entire district was called Gadarian, including the place where Gergesa was located. This explains the differences in the testimony of the evangelists, one of whom (Matthew) calls the area (according to a more probable reading) the country of the Gadarenes, and the other two weather forecasters (also according to a more probable reading), Mark - γερασηνῶν (Mark 5:1), and Luke - γεργεσηνῶν ( Luke 8:26; in the Russian Bible in Matthew - “to the country of Gergesin”, and in Mark and Luke - “Gadarene”). Thus, it must be assumed that the Savior came ashore near Gergesa and wanted to head from here along the road to Gadara, if only there was such a road. The further communication brings even more difficulties. According to Matthew, two demoniacs came to Christ, but according to Mark and Luke, only one. There is no other way to reconcile the evangelists except by the assumption that Matthew paid attention to two persons, and the other forecasters only to one, comparatively even more ferocious than the other. This second one, less fierce, does not appear clearly in Matthew, as if somewhat obscured. However, some interpret Mark’s expression (Mark 5:9) “because we are many” in the sense that in that world there were many not demons, but those possessed by demons. There was one demoniac, or there were two of them, or even several, this cannot be decided with precision. What is known is that they lived in coffins. Travelers even now, on the way to Gadara, encounter tombs (cemeteries) carved into the mountains. The reason why the possessed lived in tombs was explained by the fact that it was a Jewish superstition, according to which demons primarily lived in tombs and cemeteries, and the possessed only followed this superstition. But the most natural way to explain the life of the possessed in coffins is that they were expelled from cities and villages. What did they eat? This question is again difficult to answer precisely. Perhaps with plants and herbs, or perhaps some people brought them food, although this latter, of course, is doubtful. The expression of the Evangelist Matthew: “no one dared to pass that way” should almost be understood only in a conditional sense, namely, that the path was dangerous for one or more persons, and not that all communication between Gadara or Gergesa and the lake ceased due to the presence of demoniacs. That they were not dangerous for everyone is evident from the fact that they even tried to bind at least one demoniac (Mark 5:4; Luke 8:29). The danger of the possessed was that they were χαλεποὶ λίαν, not just, but too ferocious. Matthew 8:29. And so they cried out: What have you to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? You came here ahead of time to torment us. (Cf. Mark 5:7–10; Luke 8:28–31.) Literally: “what is it for us and for you” (cf. Judges 11:12; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 3:13). In the Russian text, the meaning of the words is well expressed: “What do you care about us?” - i.e., therefore, with their question the demons simply asked Christ not to touch them. According to Augustine, the demons called Christ the Son of God more out of suspicion. The words “before time” can be combined either with the word “came” or with the word “to torment.” In both cases, the demoniacs wanted to say that Jesus Christ came to torment them before His messianic glorification, before His final victory over hell and death. The word "Jesus" is not found in many of the best codices, but is believed to have been inserted here from the margins of the manuscript, after the manner of the expressions of Mark and Luke. The speech of the demoniacs to Jesus Christ shows that they were Jews and not pagans. Matthew 8:30. Far from them, a large herd of pigs was grazing. Matthew 8:31. And the demons asked Him: if you drive us out, then send us into the herd of pigs. (Cf. Mark 5:11–12; Luke 8:32.) The expression “from them” is vague, i.e. it is unknown whether it is from Christ and His disciples, or from the demon-possessed, or from all of them. But since the speech in verses 29–31 is primarily about those possessed by demons, it is more correct to understand “from them” in the sense of “from those possessed by demons.” “In the distance” (μακράν) should be understood in a relative sense: not too far away, so that the herd could be seen. With this assumption, there will be no contradiction between Matthew, on the one hand, and Mark and Luke, on the other, who say that the pigs grazed “there”, i.e. where the demoniacs were located. If the latter were Jews, then the owners of the pigs, the inhabitants of the Gadarene country, were most likely pagans. Keeping pigs was prohibited by Jewish law. And among other peoples, the pig was also considered an unclean and nasty animal, for example, among the Egyptians. But the latter had swine herds and shepherds. Herodotus reports about the Egyptians that they “consider the pig to be an unclean animal, and this to such an extent that, firstly, if someone, while passing, accidentally touches a pig even with his clothes, he immediately goes to the river and bathes in it, and, secondly, pig herders, although natural Egyptians, are the only inhabitants of Egypt who cannot enter the church. And no one gives their daughters in marriage to them or takes their daughters as wives, so among the pig herders, marriages take place exclusively within their own class” (“History”, XI, 47). Among the Jews, only the “lower classes” were engaged in pig breeding, and especially those who were in more or less close communication with the pagans. Travelers report that there are a lot of pigs in the indicated area and at the present time, they graze there in the wild and eat what they can, being in a “wild state.” Pigs were also a subject of Jewish trade. Matthew 8:32. And He said to them: Go. And they went out and went into the swine herd. And so, the entire herd of pigs rushed down a steep slope into the sea and died in the water. (Compare Mark 5:13; Luke 8:32–33.) Why did Christ allow demons to enter the pigs when they left the people? Answering this question, Chrysostom points to three reasons for the permission given by the Savior. He did this not because He was convinced by the demons, but, firstly, to show those freed from evil spirits of people the extent of the harm that they caused them, secondly, so that everyone would learn that the demons would not have dared to enter the pigs without His permission, thirdly, that the demons would have done much worse to the people they were in if, by a happy accident, they had not gotten rid of them as a result of God's providence. This answer does not resolve the issue essentially, because Christ could have taught people all this without resorting to the death of the entire flock. But it is the only one that can be given without going into any too subtle reasoning. Theophylact notes that Christ wanted to show what bitterness (πικρίαν) demons inflict on people, and that if they have power and no one bothers them, then they treat people worse than pigs. Christ protects the possessed so that demons do not kill them. It should be noted that some exegetes are trying to find a way out of the difficulty by arguing that the Greek word ἐπέτρεψεν, found in Mark and Luke, does not mean “allowed,” but only “did not hinder.” This is the meaning (concedo, sino) of the verb, and thus in the present case Christ did not give any positive command. Matthew uses the word ὑπάγετε, which, apparently, also does not express a positive command. When thinking about this event, one must not lose sight of the fact that in order to capture some moral truth both in the Holy Scriptures and in life itself, not only plants and animals, but also people are often sacrificed. The repeated extermination of people in the Old Testament would not make sense if each time some new idea or moral truth did not emerge, indicating, on the one hand, a deviation from the correct order, and on the other, outlining it. Life and death, therefore, probably do not have the same meaning in the eyes of God as they do for people. He who created life can restore it and therefore uses death to admonish people. Thus, the question in the present case can only be about what moral lessons can be drawn from the fact in question, and not about why it had such a form and not another. The first moral lesson is that God loves people more than animals, and for demons both have equal dignity. They enter into people and animals with equal pleasure, just to stay in the country. The second lesson is about the power of God over demons. Matthew 8:33. The shepherds ran and, having come to the city, told about everything, and about what had happened to the possessed. Matthew 8:34. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they asked Him to depart from their borders. (Cf. Mark 5:14–20; Luke 8:34–39.) “Notice,” says Saint John Chrysostom, “the meekness of Jesus Christ, combined with power. When the inhabitants of that country, so favored by Him, forced Him to leave, He withdrew without resistance and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, giving them as mentors those freed from demons and herding pigs, so that they would learn from them about everything that had happened.” You might be interested in: