him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. 33 And all the city was gathered together at the door. 34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases,

when kept in the guidance of love and reason, instead of being committed to the leading strings of superstition. (See Danz's Curatio Sabbathica.)

They brought to Him all the diseased and the demoniac. The term diseased, in its current modern acceptation, is perhaps a trifle too strong to represent the import of the original expression (kakŵs exovтas); but when looked at etymologically, dis-eased, that is, sundered from ease or ill at ease, and thus unwell, it is all that could be desired. The demoniacs referred to are described, in our English version, as they that were possessed with devils. It is no doubt a correct enough description; but the word devil or devils is never used in the original, when demoniacs are spoken of. It is always the word demon or demons, or the generic term spirit or spirits. In Greek mythology the word demon had a rather peculiar history or development of meaning. As Homer used the term, it was almost, if not altogether, equivalent to the word god o deity. Hesiod however distinguished between gods and demons; according to his representation in his Works and Days, "the latter are invisible tenants "of earth, remnants of the once happy golden race' whom the Olympic gods "first made. . . They are generically different from the gods, but essentially good, and forming the intermediate agents and police between gods and men." (Grote's History of Greece, vol. i., part i., 2, pp. 58, 60.) By and by, however, Empedocles and Xenocrates represented the ghosts of the 'silver race' as demons too; and, as the silver race were "reckless and mischievous toward "each other, and disdainful of the immortal gods," they made bad demons. This representation grew in the public mind, and at length overlapped the other, so that the word demon" came insensibly to convey with it a bad sense, the idea of an evil being as contrasted with the goodness of a god." (Grote's History, vol. i. part i., 2, 16, pp. 61, 348, 349.) It was at this ultimate stage of the word's history that it got into use among the Greek-speaking Jews; and hence, in New Testament usage, it denotes an evil spirit, of an order of beings superior in knowledge and power to men. In short, it was regarded as a fitting Greek designation for a fallen angel. As to the possibility and probability of possession, see on ver. 23. When the evangelist says that the people brought 'all' the diseased and the demoniac, the all is to be interpreted in accordance with the way in which it is often freely used in popular parlance. Comp. ver. 5, 33, 37.

VER. 33. And the whole city was gathered together at the door. They came to the door (pòs тǹv Oúpav), and were thus at the door, crowding around it. The whole city thus came, that is, the whole body of the citizens. The evangelist is speaking popularly in his use of the word whole; and Capernaum, we must bear in mind, would be but a small city or town. (Compare the use of Tols and κúμŋ in Luke ii. 4 and John vii. 42.) Dr. Samuel Clarke's paraphrase of the verse is, "and such a vast multitude gathered together about the house, "to see what was done, that almost the whole city seemed to be there."

VER. 34. And He healed many that were sick with divers diseases; and many

and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed

demons He cast out. The evangelist distinguishes between natural diseases and demoniacal possessions; though, not unlikely, the line that separated them was not intended to be very rigidly drawn.

And He suffered not the demons to speak, for they knew Him. Beza, overlooking the proper import of the word rendered speak (Maλcîv), renders the clause thus, and He suffered not the demons to say that they knew Him. The demons knew Him to be the Messiah, and were ready, in their anguish and anger, to address Him as such. (See ver. 24; comp. Matt. viii. 29.) But Jesus did not wish to be borne onward in His career by the aid of their testimony; see on ver. 24, 25.

VER. 35. And in the morning, while it was yet very dark, He rose up and went out. Namely, from the house where He was lodging. The expression in the Authorized and Revised translations, a great while before day, brings into view a length of time which is not indicated in the original phraseology (пρwt ěvvvxo Mar), and which might with difficulty be harmonized with the expression in Luke iv. 42. Coverdale, following Luther, errs on the other hand in omitting to translate the adverb which intensifies the idea of the nocturnal darkness. His translation is, in the mornynge before daye. Before daylight would be better (Luke iv. 42). The original expression is a plural adverb, in the accusative form, meaning literally, when combined with the intensive adverb, while the darkness of the departing night was still very great; that is, while it was yet very dark. (See ěvvvxov in 3 Macc. v. 5, which Kypke translates exeunte nocte.) The morning is not a mere point, but a line of time, an elongated progress or procession. At the one extremity it is in the night; at the other it is in the day. Wycliffe's version is admirable, in the morewynge ful erly.

than solitary, Indeed, Mat

some remote

And departed into a desert place, and there prayed. Instead of desert place,' King James's version has solitary place,' the only instance in which the evangelist's adjective is so rendered. It means, however, more for a garden might be solitary, especially in the early morning. thew Henry actually supposes that the reference here might be to garden or outbuilding.' It is a mistake however. Our Saviour went to one of the bare and barren spots stretching away north or west from Capernaum. He was there engaged in praying, lifting up His spirit communingly to His Heavenly Father. The word rendered prayed (τpoσnúxeтo) does not simply denote asking. Prayer," says Petter, "is a holy conference with God."

VER. 36. And Simon and they that were with him went in pursuit of Him. When they awoke in the morning and found Him gone, they seem to have got alarmed lest He should have left them, betaking Himself to some other sphere of labour. So too the inhabitants of the little city in general seem to have felt. Hence the haste and eagerness of Simon and his companions (Andrew, James and John), as indicated by the strong verb employed (karediwğev); they pursued

after him. 37 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. 38 And he said unto them, Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also: for

Him, as if He were fleeing from them. The Syriac Peshito version softens the evangelist's phrase, using a verb which simply means sought. They went in quest of Him. But the Philoxenian Syriac adheres to the literal idea, using a verb and preposition which mean pursued after. Peter was the leader of the pursuing party, thus giving early indication of the impulsive ardour of his

nature.

VER. 37. And they found Him, and say to Him, All are seeking Thee. That is, though indefinitely, all the people (in Capernaum). The people in general had no sooner risen in the morning than they thought of the wonderful preacher and healer and demon expeller. They wanted still to hear more, and to see more; and hence they came, one after another, to the house where He had been lodging, in quest of Him; His popularity had leaped up instantaneously to the superlative degree.

VER. 38. And He says to them, Let us go elsewhere. "Behold," says Sarcerius, "the philanthropy of Christ." The word elsewhere (¿λλaxoû) is inserted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Candy. It is found in the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Ephraemi manuscripts, and 33 ( the queen of the cursives'), and in the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions. It brings out generically what is specifically expressed in the following clause.

Into the next towns. The smaller places round about, the adjoining towns and villages. The compound word (кwμoróλeis), translated in our English version towns, means village-cities as it were, or village-towns as Petter renders it, country-towns as Cajetan explains it. It is a word that occurs only here, in the New Testament. Strabo however uses it; and it is common in the Byzantine medieval writers. It would include, as employed by the evangelist, imperfectly enclosed towns, and unenclosed villages or hamlets (Thucyd. i. 5), where however there would be some synagogue or place of social worship. (See next verse, and compare Lightfoot in loc.) There were many such towns and villages in Galilee. Josephus says, concerning the two Galilees upper and lower: The cities (wóλes) lie thick, and the multitudes of villages (kwuŵv) are "everywhere so full of people, in consequence of the richness of the soil, that the very least of them contains above fifteen thousand inhabitants." (War, iii. 3: 2.) But this surely is exaggeration.

The Saviour came forth from Not indeed to this end only; was one of the aims which

That I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth. To this end, that is, that I may preach the good news, not in one place only, but far and wide amongst the lost sheep of the house of Israel. His invisible condition into the world, to this end. He had other ends in view, higher still. But this actuated Him. The expression came I forth, or came I out, was probably used by our Saviour with intentional indefiniteness. He does not specify whence or from whom He came. The truth was left to dawn gradually upon the disciples' minds. He came into the world; He came out into it, out from beyond or from above. He came out from the Father. (See John viii. 42; xiii. 3; xvi. 27, 28,

therefore came I forth. 39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils.

30;

40 And there came a leper to him, beseeching him, and

Compare also Matt. xiii. 49, where we

shall come out), and sever the wicked

Meyer insists on the same So Fritzsche, for to this end Such an interpretation how

and compare Hegendorphinus in loc.) read that "the angels shall come forth (or "from among the just." (See Luke iv. 43.) De Wette thinks that the expression means for to this end came I out (from Capernaum). view, for to this end came I out (of the house). came I out (into this desert place). Godwin too. ever amazes us. It involves a sudden, arbitrary, and most unpleasant descent into bathos. It is to assume moreover that our Lord had resolved, as if in caprice, to go off elsewhere without His newly called disciples, and without so much as even informing them of His intended movement! It is to assume, besides, that it is not likely that our Saviour would wish to quicken thought by occasionally using two-edged expressions, which would lead His hearers to think at one and the same time of a lower and a higher relationship of things,—a most improbable assumption.

VER. 39. And He went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons. A simple and easily understood historical statement, but, in the original, thrown very inartificially together, as in a heap of phrases. If the correct reading were literally rendered, it would run thus: And He came preaching into their synagogues, into the whole of Galilee, and casting out the demons (καὶ ἦλθεν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν εἰς ὅλην τὴν Γαλιλαίαν καὶ τὰ daiμóvia éxßádλwv). The reading into' their synagogues is overwhelmingly supported by the manuscripts of importance. And the introductory expression He came, supported by the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, as well as by the Coptic and Ethiopic versions, is received into the text by Tischendorf (in his eighth edition) and by Tregelles. The Received Text has apparently been touched into harmony with the text of Luke (iv. 44).

Throughout all Galilee. Josephus says, but surely with a touch of exaggera tion, that in his day there were "two hundred and forty towns and villages in "Galilee." (Life, § 45.)

in what place. Matthew too

VER. 40. And there cometh to Him a leper. We know not Luke says it was in one of the cities' (see chap. v. 12-16). records the miracle (viii. 1-4), but does not specify the place. To this day lepers' quarters are found outside the walls of many of the towns of Palestine. (Tristram's Land of Israel, p. 417.) A leper: one infected with what Mead calls the most dreadful of all the diseases to which the Jews were subject' (atrocissimus erat, qui Judæorum corpora frequenter fædabat, morbus: MEDICA SACRA, cap. 2). Many diseases have their peculiar haunts or habitats; and leprosy seems to have been emphatically, and as existing under some peculiarly aggravated type or phase, a Syrian, Arabian, and Egyptian disease. (See Smith's Bible Dictionary, sub voce.) Perhaps the Jews brought it from Egypt, which Lucretius (Rerum Nat., vi. 1112-3) and other ancient writers (see J. Mason Good's note on Lucretius) assert to be the birthplace and the favourite abode of elephantiasis. It is disputed indeed among nosologists whether or not elephantiasis be

kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto

64

really leprosy. The dispute is, to a great degree, a matter of terminology. (See J. Mason Good's Study of Medicine, vol. ii., pp. 851-862, and vol. iv., p. 578.) But it seems to be certain that what is, at the present day, regarded as leprosy in Jerusalem, and throughout Palestine and Syria, is not so much the disease which the old Greek and Latin physicians called leprosy, as the still more loathsome malady called elephantiasis. Diseases indeed sometimes vary in their development, in the course of ages; they culminate and wane; they run out their course, or pass into new varieties. (See Hecker's Epidemics of the Middle Ages.) Whether or not this may have been the case with the old Jewish leprosy we need not at present inquire. Dr. Robinson says: "Within the Zion gate of Jerusalem, a little towards the right, are some miserable hovels, inhabited by persons called leprous. Whether their disease is or is not the leprosy of Scripture I am unable to affirm; the symptoms described to us were similar "to those of elephantiasis. At any rate they are pitiable objects, and miserable "outcasts from society. They all live here together, and intermarry only with each other." (Biblical Researches, vol. i., 359.) We ourselves saw the poor creatures, and noted the erosive and dismembering nature of their malady. The disease riots tubercularly and ulceratingly, attacking and destroying feature after feature of the face, and the fingers and the toes, and other parts, till the patient becomes a hideous spectacle, and falls in pieces.' (See Michaelis's Mosaisches-Recht, §§ 208, 209.)

46

Beseeching Him, and kneeling down to Him, and saying unto Him, If Thou willest, Thou art able to cleanse me. The disease was correctly regarded, not only as constituting a ceremonial uncleanness, but also as embodying a real physical impurity. Hence when the leper applied to the Saviour for cleansing, he did not refer to ceremonial purification, which a priest alone could confer. He made exclusive reference to physical purification, which would consist in restoration to such a normal state of health as, when acknowledged by the priest, would be his passport into the privilege of living in communion with the population at large, as an admitted member of society. When he said to our Lord, Thou art able to cleanse me, he manifested, as Alexander remarks, a very high degree of faith in our Lord's Divine or Messianic power. Leprosy stood apart by itself from all other diseases, as a malady that signally manifested the judicial displeasure of God (see 2 Kings v. 27; 2 Chron. xxvi. 19-21). It was admitted to be in general incurable. When the afflicted man said, If Thou willest, he admitted that he did not know whether it might be within the range of our Lord's mission, or within the scope of His aim and intent, to grant relief to such a humiliated and outcast class of sufferers as that to which he belonged. We know; but he did not.

VER. 41. And being moved with compassion. An exceedingly fine translation (oλayxviodels), far exceeding the renderings of all the older English versions.

He put forth His hand, and touched him. The evangelist pictures the act, and you see it. The Saviour did not fear contamination from contact with the leper;