Matthew 8:33

And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Benson Commentary

Matthew 8:33-34. They that kept them — went into the city, and told every thing — And also in the country, Luke 8:34. They circumstantially related what had happened to the two demoniacs, and how the demons had been ejected from them. And the whole city came out to meet Jesus — Their curiosity was excited, and they went out in crowds to see what was done, and to satisfy themselves, on the testimony of their own senses, as to the truth of so unparalleled a fact. And when they saw him — And observed the demoniacs sitting at his feet, clothed, and in their right minds: (the disciples having, it seems, charitably supplied them with such upper garments as they could spare,) they perceived how great Christ’s power was, and were exceedingly afraid, having trespassed in the matter of the swine, which was an unclean food; or, if the herd belonged to the Syrian inhabitants of the town, they might know the law, and consequently, taking the destruction of their cattle as a rebuke, they could not but dread further punishment from this prophet of the Jews, who was come to vindicate the neglected institutions of Moses; and therefore besought him that he would depart out of their coasts — For they loved their swine better than their souls! And are not many of the same mind? And Jesus, who never forced his company on those who were so insensible of its value as not to desire it, nor wrought miracles of healing without being asked, went into the ship and returned back again, Luke 8:37. Thus the destruction of the swine had the effect which the devils proposed. The men, however, who had been possessed by the demons, but were now delivered, and in their right minds, and, no doubt, full of the praises of Jesus, remained in the country, by his direction, to be living witnesses of his power and goodness, and of the stupidity and ingratitude of these Gadarenes. Mark 5:19.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

8:28-34 The devils have nothing to do with Christ as a Saviour; they neither have, nor hope for any benefit from him. Oh the depth of this mystery of Divine love; that fallen man has so much to do with Christ, when fallen angels have nothing to do with him! Heb 2:16. Surely here was torment, to be forced to own the excellence that is in Christ, and yet they had no part in him. The devils desire not to have any thing to do with Christ as a Ruler. See whose language those speak, who will have nothing to do with the gospel of Christ. But it is not true that the devils have nothing to do with Christ as a Judge; for they have, and they know it, and thus it is with all the children of men. Satan and his instruments can go no further than he permits; they must quit possession when he commands. They cannot break his hedge of protection about his people; they cannot enter even a swine without his leave. They had leave. God often, for wise and holy ends, permits the efforts of Satan's rage. Thus the devil hurries people to sin; hurries them to what they have resolved against, which they know will be shame and grief to them: miserable is the condition of those who are led captive by him at his will. There are a great many who prefer their swine before the Saviour, and so come short of Christ and salvation by him. They desire Christ to depart out of their hearts, and will not suffer his word to have place in them, because he and his word would destroy their brutish lusts, those swine which they give themselves up to feed. And justly will Christ forsake all that are weary of him; and say hereafter, Depart, ye cursed, to those who now say to the Almighty, Depart from us.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

They that kept them fled - These swine were doubtless owned by the inhabitants of the country.

Whether they were Jews or Gentiles is not certainly known. It was not properly in the territory of Judea; but, as it was on its borders, it is probable that the inhabitants were a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. Swine were to Jews unclean animals, and it was unlawful for Jews to eat them, Leviticus 11:7. They were forbidden by their own laws to keep them, even for the purpose of traffic. Either, therefore, they had expressly violated the law, or these swine were owned by the Gentiles.

The keepers fled in consternation. They were amazed at the power of Jesus. Perhaps they feared a further destruction of property; or, more likely they were acquainted with the laws of the Jews, and regarded this as a judgment of heaven for keeping forbidden animals, and for tempting the Jews to violate the commands of God.

This is the only one of our Saviour's miracles, except the case of the fig-tree that he cursed Matthew 21:18-20, in which he caused any destruction of property. It is a striking proof of his benevolence, that his miracles tended directly to the comfort of mankind. It was a proof of goodness added to the direct purpose for which his miracles were performed. That purpose was to confirm his divine mission; and it might have been as fully done by splitting rocks, or removing mountains, or causing water to run up steep hills, as by any other display of power. He chose to exhibit the proof of his divine power, however, in such a way as to benefit mankind.

Infidels have objected to this whole narrative. They have said that this was a wanton and unauthorized violation of private rights in the destruction of property. They have said, also, that the account of devils going into swine, and destroying them, was ridiculous. In regard to these objections the narrative is easily vindicated.

1. If Christ, as the Bible declares, is divine as well as human - God as well as man - then he had an original right to that and all other property, and might dispose of it as he pleased, Psalm 50:10-12. If God had destroyed the herd of swine by pestilence or by lightning, by an inundation or by an earthquake, neither the owners or anyone else would have had reason to complain. No one now feels that he has a right to complain if God destroys a thousand times the amount of this property by overturning a city by an earthquake. Why, then, should complaints be brought against him if he should do the same thing in another way?

2. If this property was held "by the Jews," it was a violation of their law, and it was right that they should suffer the loss; if "by the Gentiles," it was known also to be a violation of the law of the people among whom they lived; a temptation and a snare to them; an abomination in their sight; and it was proper that the nuisance should be removed.

3. The cure of two men, one of whom was probably a man of distinction and property, was of far more consequence than the amount of property destroyed. To restore a "deranged" man now would be an act for which "property" could not compensate, and which could not be measured in value by any pecuniary consideration. But,

4. Jesus was not at all answerable for this destruction of property. He did not "command," he only "suffered" or "permitted" the devils to go into the swine. He commanded them merely to "come out of the magi." They originated the purpose of destroying the property, doubtless for the sake of doing as much mischief as possible, and of destroying the effect of the miracle of Christ. In this they seem to have had most disastrous success, and they only are responsible.

5. If it should be said that Christ permitted this, when he might have prevented it, it may be replied that the difficulty does not stop there. He permits all the evil that exists, when he might prevent it. He permits men to do much evil, when he might prevent it. He permits one bad man to injure the person and property of another bad man. He permits the bad to injure the good. He often permits a wicked man to fire a city, or to plunder a dwelling, or to rob a traveler, destroying property of many times the amount that was lost on this occasion. Why is it any more absurd to suffer a wicked spirit to do injury than a wicked man? or to suffer a "legion of devils" to destroy a herd of swine, than for "legions of men" to desolate nations, and cover fields and towns with ruin and slaughter.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Mt 8:28-34. Jesus Heals the Gergesene Demoniacs. ( = Mr 5:1-20; Lu 8:26-39).

For the exposition, see on [1238]Mr 5:1-20.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Mark and Luke in this differ not from Matthew, only they add, that they told it in the city and country. Those that most serve the devil are afraid of him when he cometh to show himself in his true colours. These men go and publish abroad the miracle, what had happened to the man that was so famous an object of the devil’s malice, and what had happened to the swine.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And they that kept them fled,.... The hog herds, men of very low life, and whose employment was very infamous and reproachful, as has been observed. These, amazed at what they had seen, distressed with the loss of the swine, and so of their employment, and frightened also lest they should incur the blame and displeasure of their masters, ran away in great haste, fear, and astonishment;

and went their way into the city; either of Gergesa, or Gadara. Mark and Luke say, they "went and told it in the city, and in the country": in their fright and distress, some ran one way, and some another; some went into the city, others into the country, and so spread the affair far and near, and the fame of Christ, which was designed by this miracle;

and told everything they saw and heard; how the devils entered into the swine, and they ran headlong into the sea, and were drowned: this they told first, as being done last, and with which they were most affected, and what chiefly concerned their employers; and after they had told every circumstance of the affair, next they gave a narrative of

what was befallen to the possessed of the devils, and which was the occasion of the loss of their swine; how subject the devils, that were in them, were to Christ; how easily he dispossessed them by a word of command; how they entreated they might have leave to go into the herd of swine, which was granted; and how perfectly whole, and in health, both in body and mind, the men were.

Geneva Study Bible

And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Matthew 8:33-34. Πάντα καὶ, κ.τ.λ.] They reported everything, and especially how it had fared from first to last with the two demoniacs (Matthew 21:21).

πᾶσα ἡ πόλις] the Gadarenes. See Matthew 8:28.

παρεκάλεσαν, ὅπως μεταβῇ, κ.τ.λ.] The subject of the request is conceived as the aim in asking (Matthew 14:36; Mark 5:10).

The motive for the request was fear lest a greater disaster should follow.

REMARK.

Seeing that all the attempts that have been made to evade the force of this narrative—such as saying that the demoniacs themselves had rushed in among the swine, or that the herd perished through some accidental and unknown circumstance (Neander), or that in the εἰσέρχεσθαι we have merely to think of an operating in some way or other upon the animals as a whole (Olshausen)—run counter to what is clearly recorded, nothing remains but either to take the whole account as real history, and just as it stands (Krabbe, Ebrard, Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 296 ff.; Klostermann, Markusevang. p. 101 ff.; Steinmeyer, apolog. Beitr. I. p. 144 ff.), in which case it will be necessary to dispose of objections in the best way possible,[435] or else to admit the existence of legendary elements, and then eliminate them. The latter course is imperative and inevitable if we are not to look upon the condition of the demoniacs as a case of possession at all (see on Matthew 4:24, note). According to this view of the matter, Jesus is supposed to have cured the two maniacs by means of His wonderful power, transmitting its influence through a humouring of their capricious fancies, and that this yielding to their request to be allowed to enter the swine may have led in a subsequent form of the tradition—a tradition, at the same time, which did not require to be assisted by the supposed recollection of some disaster to a herd of swine that happened about the same time on that side of the lake—to the statement being added about the drowning of the whole herd, which addition might take place all the more readily from the fact that swine were unclean and forbidden animals, and considering also how much is often due to the play of popular wit (Ewald), which, in the death of the swine, would pretend to see the demons going down at length to the hell they feared so much. Strangely enough, Lange, L. J. II. p. 661, inserts in the text that the hideous yell of the demoniac in his last paroxysm has acted like an electric shock upon the herd. Ewald likewise supposes that the last fearful convulsions of the sufferer just before he was quieted may have occasioned such a terror as might readily communicate itself to a whole herd. But in this affair of the demons, not one of the three accounts says anything whatever about last convulsions and such like. Yet Schenkel, too, boldly asserts that, just before the cure took place, there were violent outbursts of the malady, which threw a herd of swine into a panic, and sent them rushing into the water. Keim, on the other hand, favours the view that “the introduction of the four-footed beasts owes its origin to legend, inasmuch as it sought to expound the healing from the life, and with bitter mockery of the Jews to explain and avenge the banishing of Jesus from the district.” If this is to ascribe too much to legend,—too much to invention and wit, had not, indeed, the presence of a herd offered a handle for it,—then, to say the least of it, Weizsäcker followed the more cautious course when he abandoned the idea of finding out the fact on which the obscure reminiscence may probably have been founded,—although, when we consider the essential uniformity of the three evangelic narratives in other respects, the obscurity, if we keep out of view the difference in the naming of the locality, may not appear sufficiently great to warrant such entire abandonment.

[435] Paulus and Strauss object that the demons would have acted the part of very silly devils, if they had gone so far as immediately to destroy again their new abodes. It is observed by Ebrard, on the other hand, that they were unable to control their wicked desires, or (on Olshausen, p. 306) that the shock to the nervous system of the animals was so much greater than was expected. Theophylact and Euth. Zigabenus suppose that their intention was to do damage to the owners, that they might not be disposed to welcome Jesus. Some explain one way and others another. In reply to the objection founded on the morality of the thing, Ebrard (comp. Wetstein) pleads the absolute right of the Son of God, and that the object was to punish the Gadarenes for their avarice. Similarly Luther. Comp. Bengel: “rei erant Gergeseni amittendi gregis; jus et potestatem Jesu res ipsa ostendit;” so Olshausen, coupling with his own the opinion of Theophylact. Schegg contents himself with supposing that what happened was by way of testing the Gadarenes to see whether, to them, the possession of eternal was of more consequence than the loss of temporal things, therefore a matter of discipline and to awaken faith; comp. Arnoldi and Ullmann, Sündlosigk. p. 176. Bleek thinks the whole question of the morality is one with which he is not called upon to deal, inasmuch as the destruction was not the doing of Jesus, but of the lunatic. According to Steinmeyer, it was not the doing of the demons, but of the animals. The only way of deciding this question is to reply that, according to the text, it was not the demoniacs but the demons that caused the destruction of the swine—a result which Jesus did not anticipate. Otherwise it is vain to try further to help matters by the view that it was the Redeemer offering Himself to deliver from the power of Satan and calling for the feeling that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for the sake of this deliverance (Klostermann), in violation of that principle of justice which forbids the use of means so flagrantly unrighteous to attain a holy end.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Matthew 8:33-34. The sequel. ἔφυγον: the swineherds fled. No wonder, in view of such a disaster. If the demoniacs, in the final paroxysm before return to sanity, had anything to do with bringing it about, the superstitious terror with which they were regarded would add to the panic.—ἀπήγγειλαν: they reported what had happened to their masters and to everybody they met in the town.—πάντα, what had befallen the swine.—καὶ τὰ τ. δαιμονιζομένων: they could not know the whole truth about the demoniacs. The reference must be to some visible connection between the behaviour of the madmen and the destruction of the herd. They told the story from their own point of view, not after interviewing Jesus and His company.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

33. they that kept them] It does not appear whether these were Jews or Gentiles, more probably the latter; if the former, they were transgressing the law.

(1) This narrative may be regarded as a signal instance of Metanoia, or change from the old evil state to the new life. (2) It recalls the connection between sin and disease. The majority of cases of mania may be traced to sins of impurity; the impurity expelled, the man becomes sound in body as well as in mind. (3) The destruction of the swine should present no difficulty. The same God, who, for purposes often hidden, allows men to die by thousands in war or by pestilence, here, by the destruction of a herd of swine, enforces a moral lesson which the world has never forgotten.

Bengel's Gnomen

Matthew 8:33. Οί βόσκοντες, they who fed) Although they were not professedly herdsmen by occupation.—ἔφυγον, fled) The devils could not overtake them.

Matthew 8:33