Chapter Eight

1–4. Healing of the 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. Account of people who wished to follow Christ. – 23–27. Stilling of the storm on the Sea of Galilee. – 28–34. Healing of the Gadarene demon-possessed men.

Matthew 8:1. When He came down from the mountain, great multitudes followed Him. “Great multitudes” (ὄχλοι πολλοί). Explaining this expression, John Chrysostom says that now those followed Christ, not some of the rulers and scribes, but only those who were free from guile and had sincere disposition. Throughout the Gospel one can see that only these latter clung to Him. So when He was speaking, they listened silently and added nothing to His words, and did not seek opportunity to trap Him like the Pharisees, and after the sermon was finished, with wonder they followed Him. The people in the New Testament is called both πλῆθος, which means “multitude,” sometimes with the addition of πολύ (Mark 3:7), which means “great multitude” or “multitude of people” (πλῆθος τοῦ λαοῦ), or “all the multitude” (πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος), and as in the case considered here ὄχλος. The explanation of this word, see in the commentaries to Matt 5:1.

Matthew 8:2. And behold, a leper came and bowed down to Him, saying: Lord! If You are willing, You can make me clean. (Cf. Mark 1:40; Luke 5:12.) Mark reports of the same healing of the leper (Mark 1:40-45) as Matthew, with considerable deviations and in a somewhat different context. Luke (Luke 5:12-14) says that the leper was healed in a city, not simply on the way from the mountain. Therefore, it is presumed that these events occurred in such order. When Jesus Christ came down from the mountain, He headed toward Capernaum. On the way He went into a city, which is unknown, there met a leper and He healed him. Then He continued His journey and arrived in Capernaum. The leper was probably not on the mountain and did not hear His sermon. This thought 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 push through the gathering, but waited for a convenient time, and approaches when Christ came down from the mountain. And not simply, but with great fervor he fell before Christ on his knees, as Luke reports, and asked Him for healing.” Leprosy was a terrible disease which even now occurs, and not only in hot countries. In antiquity it was considered incurable, although laws were established “concerning the cleansing of lepers,” which of course would have had no reason to be established if all lepers were irreversibly condemned to death. Leprosy in any case belonged to the most serious diseases. Some consider it non-contagious and prove this by the fact that Naaman was a leper and yet served as commander-in-chief of the Syrian king; Gehazi, although a leper, talks with the King of Israel (2 Sam 8:4-5). Priests had to examine lepers carefully, but nowhere is it evident that they themselves became infected with leprosy. They also cite opinions of modern scholars as proof of leprosy’s non-contagiousness. However, the precautions against it taken by both the Jews and inhabitants of other countries show that it cannot be considered completely non-contagious. The disease affected the limbs of the body, they rotted and fell off, teeth loosened and fell out, the palate caved in. During his lifetime every leper was considered a living death, had to conduct himself as the dead, and everyone had to treat him as the dead. Every leper was unclean. Christ, as was customary, treated the leper with love. Some explain the meaning of his request thus: if You wish, then cleanse me; You can do this. This supposedly requires the conditional particle ἐάν, indicating future time or some possible case. According to Zahn, the expression: “if You wish,” indicates the leper’s doubt regarding Jesus Christ’s inclination to accomplish the healing. Doubt was caused by the very nature of his disease. It is difficult of course to judge how it was in reality, the original gives no right to speak either for or against such interpretations. Better and more simply Origen explains the leper’s request: “Lord! Through You all things are done; for if You will, then You will have power to cleanse me. Your will is deed, and all things obey Your will. You have before cleansed Naaman the Syrian of leprosy, and if only You wish, You can cleanse me also.”

Matthew 8:3. Jesus stretched out His hand and touched him, saying: I am willing; be clean. And immediately he was cleansed of leprosy. (Cf. Mark 1:41-43; Luke 5:13.) The last expression literally: “and immediately he was cleansed of leprosy (from) him.” Luke’s expressions are almost literally identical with Matthew’s expressions (in the Greek text); Mark adds: “moved with compassion toward him.” To heal the leper, the Savior stretched out His hand and touched him, which was forbidden by Jewish law. But here Jesus Christ, to prove that He heals “not as a servant, but as Lord, touches him” (Saint John Chrysostom). According to Chrysostom, Elisha did not go out to the leper Naaman, observing the law. But the hand of the Lord through touching leprosy did not become unclean, while the body of the leper from the holy hand became clean. The Lord, speaking in words spoken by the leper himself, answers: “I am willing, be clean.” In the first case the verb “cleanse” was used by the leper himself apparently in the active voice, in the two latter—in the passive. Jerome observes that one cannot read together with “many Latin texts”: “I am willing to cleanse” (volo mundare), but separately; first Christ said: “I am willing,” then speaks commandingly: “be clean.” To the healing of the leper, swift, miraculous, we must look as upon a real historical fact, not as an allegory having symbolic meaning. Christ now passes, according to Matthew, from teaching to miracles. Much has been said about the fact that miracles were performed by Christ to confirm His teaching. But here at least the command to the leper to tell no one about the miracle testifies to the contrary.

Matthew 8:4. Jesus said to him: See, tell no one; 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 man was to go simply in silence to the priest. Not words, but the deed itself, the miracle of healing the leper itself, should testify about Christ both before the people and before the priests. Such was the direct commandment. An indirect one was contained in the requirement that the leper be silent about the miracle. “And indeed, what need was there that the leper would communicate in words about what his body testified to?” (Jerome). The Savior requires the miraculous knowledge to be proclaimed by the deed, not the word—and first of all to the priests, for obtaining access to Israelite society, in accordance with the legal establishments set forth in the book of Leviticus (Lev 14). The leper had to go to Jerusalem, present himself there for examination to the priests and offer the prescribed sacrifices. The expression “as a testimony to them” is not precise, because it is unknown who exactly is understood by “them.” Some say that here is meant generally all people who could see the leper and with whom he could enter into communion. A far greater number of interpreters hold that here is meant only the priests. So hold Saint John Chrysostom and many others, and the testimony of the healed man was to consist either in the fact that Jesus Christ observed the legal establishments, or simply in the announcement of recovery. That the plural “them” refers to the class of priests, Zahn considers natural and grammatically uncontestable (cf. Luke 23:50, hence – βουλευτὴς αὐτῶν; also Luke 2:22; Rom 3:1-2). With Jerome the indefiniteness 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, asking Him, (Cf. Luke 7:1.) In the accounts of Matthew and Luke there is significant disagreement here. The best explanation of this disagreement is given by Augustine and Calvin. The former expressed the view that Matthew’s aim was to put the centurion’s faith in the foreground. Therefore, he did not find it important to preserve historical details and precise transmission of events. Luke, on the other hand, aimed to transmit with precision the very historical fact. Calvin notes that the difference in accounts is simply negligible (nihil), although it of course exists, as seen from his own words, because a negligible difference is still a difference. According to Morison, Matthew did not wish to give a scientific description of the fact. In the eyes of the evangelist the centurion “truly was present near the Lord through his servants.” It appears that the centurion approached the Savior on His way through the streets of Capernaum. It is even possible to think that this was not at the beginning, but at the very end of the journey, when Christ was already near the centurion’s own house. The evangelist omitted the words of those sent and was forced to put them in the mouth of the centurion himself. That this in no way harms the accuracy of historical narrative, is evident from the fact that both in Matthew and Luke the words belong to the centurion himself. About the personality of the latter one can say only a little. Since there is no report that Roman troops were stationed in Capernaum at that time, it must be thought that the centurion served under Herod Antipas, whose forces, according to the testimony of Josephus Flavius, consisted of mercenaries. Centurions are called in the Gospels and Acts ἑκατοντάρχος, χης or κεντυρίων (=centurio, Mark 15:39). Roman legions were divided into 10 cohorts (Acts 10:1), or regiments, each cohort had three maniples, and each maniple consisted of hundreds; if this number decreased, a hundred still remained a hundred. In each legion there were 60 hundreds. The centurion was apparently a pagan. This, according to Zahn, is self-evident and is the essence of the account. It is even thought that Matthew intentionally placed two accounts side by side—of the healing of a leper and of a servant of a pagan, both of whom were ceremonially unclean. A centurion could be unclean even if he were a Jew, because Jews who entered armies composed of foreign soldiers, according to the testimony of Josephus Flavius, were considered like publicans. But he was probably one of the pagans who were inclined toward Judaism and took active part in synagogue worship. The ruins of a synagogue built by the centurion in Capernaum are pointed out even now.

Matthew 8:6. Lord! My servant is lying at home, paralyzed, and suffering greatly. Matthew 8:7. Jesus said to him: I will come and heal him. Literally: “my boy is overcome in the house, paralyzed, terribly suffering.” Regarding the Greek word “boy” (παῖς), it must be said that it is used both in the sense of “son”—so it is translated in other places (John 4:51; Acts 3:13), and “slave” or “servant” in Luke (Luke 12:45). In the passage under consideration the word certainly means “servant,” because it is clarified thus in Luke (Luke 7:2 – δοῦλος). The name of the disease is indefinite. Referring to 1 Macc 9:55-56, Alford says that perhaps this was tetanus, which ancient physicians confused with paralysis. Such a disease is more common in hot countries than with us. According to Luke, the boy was at the point of death. It was thought that this was the reason the centurion himself did not come to Christ with a request for his healing. But Saint John Chrysostom does not agree with such an explanation, believing that the centurion’s non-appearance was a work of his faith as much as his words. This was, according to Jerome, the first paralytic healed by Christ. The description of the disease by Matthew does not contradict Luke’s account (Luke 7:2), but Matthew is somewhat more detailed and exact.

Matthew 8:8. The centurion replied saying: Lord! I am not worthy for You to enter under my roof, but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed; (Cf. Luke 7:6-7.) In Luke, the “unworthiness” of the centurion is presented as the reason not only that he does not ask Christ to come to his house, but also that he did not come to Christ himself.

Matthew 8:9. for I too am a man under authority, but having under myself soldiers, I say to one: Go, and he goes; and to another: Come, and he comes; and to my servant: Do this, and he does it. (Cf. Luke 7:8.) Ancient interpreters have long 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 the translation should be: I am a man, under authority having soldiers under myself, and so forth; if however after “under authority,” then the expression will mean that the centurion himself is under authority (“under authority,” as in Russian), and, being under authority, has “under himself” (in Russian translation—“in submission”), that is, also under his authority, and soldiers. The last opinion is held by Saint John Chrysostom. The meaning of the centurion’s speech will be more clear if relating the beginning of verse 9 to λόγῳ (“word”) of verse 8 and considering verse 9 as a continuation of this expression. The centurion thought that the “word” of Christ is subject to Him. It is under His authority and He commands it authoritatively. Thus the continuation becomes clear. The “word” of Christ is under His authority or in His power, for I also am under authority... The centurion compares himself not to Christ Himself, but to His Word. It is more difficult to explain “because” (γάρ). It has here a very subtle and almost imperceptible meaning. We can set forth the centurion’s speech in such an expanded paraphrase: “Your word is under Your authority, You govern it at Your will. Why? Because (γάρ) I know this from my own experience. You are not under authority, I am under authority. Yet if I say only one word, I am obeyed.”

Matthew 8:10. Hearing this, Jesus was amazed and said to those following Him: Truly I say to you, I have not found such faith even in Israel. (Cf. Luke 7:9.) There is no exaggeration in Christ’s words, because the centurion was one of the first fruits of the gentile harvest, which will be abundant and exceed the harvest of Israel. The explanation of the words can be found in part in Matt 11:11; Luke 7:28. Here “Christ for all makes known that salvation is from faith, not only from works of the law.”

Matthew 8:11. I say to you that many will come from east and west and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven; It is well remarked that the Savior here did not directly mention the gentiles, which would have been offensive to the Jews, but expressed Himself descriptively: “many from east and west” (literally: “from the easts and wests”). This particular case provides occasion to cast a prophetic glance at the future, when gentiles will press into the Church of Christ. This prophecy was and is being fulfilled literally. To its utterance there was cause the faith of only one gentile, living among Israel. Further—depiction of a messianic banquet, of course only metaphorical. This metaphor of a messianic banquet, as Edersheim and others show, was customary among the Jews. The features depicting a messianic banquet are borrowed by Christ from the customs of His time in arranging banquets. It does not say “will sit,” but—“will recline.” Reclining at a banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the highest happiness a Jew could imagine in the days of the Messiah, and it was distinguished not so much by worldly character as by spiritual.

Matthew 8:12. but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 8:13. Jesus said to the centurion: Go; and as you have believed, so let it be done for you. And the servant was healed in that very hour. The proclamation of the kingdom began with the Hebrews, and in this sense they were recognized as sons of the kingdom (ὑιοί), but since they did not wish to enter it, they were rejected. The expression: “outer darkness” is found only in Matthew (cf. Matt 22:13). Under outer darkness one can most nearly understand “darkness outside the house”—this figurative expression points to the dark street of a filthy eastern city and to the position of a person outside the kingdom. The expression: “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” is characteristic of Matthew (cf. Matt 13:42) and is found only once in Luke (Luke 13:28). The article before the words “weeping” and “gnashing,” according to Bengel, is very significant: in the present life sorrow is not yet sorrow. The article stands probably because certain real facts are meant, accessible to general observation in then contemporary Jewish life. It is clear that this expression here has a figurative meaning: in the life to come there will be no weeping and gnashing of teeth, but only torment.

Matthew 8:14. Coming to Peter’s house, Jesus saw his mother-in-law lying down in a fever, Matthew 8:15. and touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she rose up and waited on them. (Cf. Mark 1:29-30; Luke 4:38.) Literally: “he saw his mother-in-law, thrown down and suffering from fever.” The time when this occurred is not indicated precisely by Matthew, and reading his Gospel, anyone might think that this was after Christ came down from the mountain and set out for Capernaum; on the way to it a leper came to Him, then the centurion asked about healing a servant, and finally He arrived in Capernaum and right then entered Peter’s house. The correction made by Mark shows that the healing of the centurion’s servant and the mother-in-law of Peter are events recounted by Matthew not in chronological sequence and not closely connected in time. According to Mark, the miracle in Peter’s house was “immediately” or “soon” (εὐθύς) after Jesus Christ came out of the synagogue, where He taught (Mark 1:21-22) and healed a demon-possessed man (Mark 1:23-28). With this Luke’s account agrees, although the expressions differ (Luke 4:31-39). The last mentioned events occurred, according to Mark, immediately after the calling of certain disciples (Mark 1:17-20; cf. Matt 4:19-22). Saying “soon” (Mark 1:29), Mark wished to indicate time. Matthew, however, only recounted the miracle without indicating time (Saint John Chrysostom). Another difference lies in the fact 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 therefore was married, Theophylact remarks that “marriage does not hinder virtue, for the first of the apostles had a mother-in-law.” In the same house, besides Peter, his wife (of whom the evangelists do not mention) and his mother-in-law, lived his brother, Andrew (Mark 1:29). If John (John 1:44) says that Peter and Andrew were from Bethsaida, there is no contradiction with the present account. There were two Bethsaidas, one (Julia) on the northwestern side of the Sea of Galilee, the other, Galilean, on the western or better, northwestern side. The latter, as Edersheim supposes, was a suburb of Capernaum, and the name means “house of fishing,” that is, a fishing town or fishing village. There will be no contradiction if one identifies Capernaum with Khan-Menie and Bethsaida with the modern settlement of Ain-Tabiga, about two-thirds of a mile (about one verst) to the north of Khan-Menie, because then Bethsaida would comprise almost a suburb of Capernaum (Tell-Huma). The disease from which the mother-in-law of Peter suffered is not specified precisely. 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 connection with the Latin word febris—fever, but this disease was apparently severe, and it is better to translate it as “fever,” generally some inflammatory process that caused the patient to suffer greatly (which explains why she was approached about going to Christ) and to be thrown upon a bed—βεβλημένη.

Matthew 8:16. When evening came, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed, and He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, (Cf. Mark 1:32-34; Luke 4:40-41.) Matthew’s account is abbreviated compared to Mark and Luke. From the accounts of the latter two evangelists one can conclude that this was in the evening of the day when Jesus Christ taught in the synagogue. It was on a Sabbath (Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31). This explains why the sick were brought or carried to Christ only in the evening, as on the Sabbath itself neither treatment nor being treated was permitted. To Matthew’s words: “When evening came,” Mark adds: “when the sun was setting”; also that “the whole city gathered at the doors”; that the sick “suffered from various diseases” and that Christ “did not permit the demons to speak, because they knew that He was the Christ.” Luke also has additions, in part the same as Mark, in part different: Christ laid His hands on the sick people, and demons came out (not from all) but “from many,” and they cried out: “You are the Christ, the Son of God.” This last addition, though indirectly, sheds light on the reason why the Savior forbade the demons to call Himself thus. It apparently lay in the unwillingness to be proclaimed as the Son of God by demons. As to the reason why in Matthew mention is made first of all of the demon-possessed, it is explained by the fact that in the morning of that Sabbath Christ healed a demon-possessed man (Mark 1:23-27), and this stirred up great movement among the people. Thus, from the comparison of the evangelists’ accounts one obtains a more or less complete picture of what is briefly recounted by Matthew about this. It is very important to note that for the true and all-powerful Healer there were, apparently, no restrictions in manifesting His miraculous power. Luke’s expression (Luke 4:41) ἀπὸ πολλῶν (“from many,” but not from all demon-possessed did demons come out) does not in itself serve as testimony to the limitedness of the manifestation of divine power, and it should be interpreted according to the accounts of other evangelists, which affirm that Christ healed “all” (πάντας) sick people, properly “those in bad condition” or those feeling bad. And among ordinary people there are those who heal, but usually far from all who resort to them receive healing, so that in some cases it is quite possible to explain healing by natural causes. But it is different when not only “many” but “all” are healed; such a fact is impossible to explain by any natural causes, and the seemingly unintentional indication of 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, who says: He Himself took our infirmities and bore our diseases. The passage is borrowed from Deutero-Isaiah 53:4, whom the evangelist calls Isaiah, speaking in the language of his time. The circumstance that the passage in the evangelist is borrowed from Deutero-Isaiah 53:4, does not “have no,” but should have significance for scientific exegesis. All exegetes agree that the Isaiah passage is cited here not according to the Septuagint translation, but according to the Hebrew text, and moreover “independently” of any translations and interpretations. In Isaiah the passage reads thus: “truly our diseases He took up and our sufferings (torments) He bore their.” In translating this passage, the Seventy replaced the Hebrew expression “our diseases” (“chalaynu”) with the word “sins” (ἁμαρτίας). Whether this was due to the translators’ misunderstanding of the Hebrew text or whether it is explained by the difficulty of translating Hebrew words (“chalaynu” and “makovnu”), which have almost identical meaning, cannot be said with certainty now. But the evangelist in his translation did not mention “sins” but translated the word “chalaynu” by “infirmities,” while the Hebrew word “nasha,” which means “to take upon oneself,” he translated by ἔλαβεν—took, in distinction from the Hebrew “sabal” having the same meaning as “nasha,” which he translated by the word “bore” (ἐβάστασεν). But however we translate this passage, the difficulty lies not in translation but in applying this passage to the circumstances just described by the evangelist. He has just recounted miracles of healing accomplished by Christ of the demon-possessed and sick, and this gives him occasion to cite the mentioned prophecy of Isaiah. In what sense can one understand that in healing the sick, Christ took upon Himself our infirmities and diseases? Did He Himself suffer and become sick, or did the sight of human suffering cause Him His own suffering? Or is the prophecy cited by the evangelist in the sense that the healing cost Him His own strength and He suffered from exhaustion and fatigue? All these questions have been raised at different times and resolved, as should be expected, variously—in the affirmative. One exegete resolves the difficulty thus: Jesus Christ healed the sick, as the just recounted healings show. In doing so, He “took and bore” diseases in every sense in which this can be said of a physician. The translator chooses two colorless words λαμβάνειν and βαστάζειν to express the Hebrew text. In order to clarify this matter somewhat, let us say that the words of the evangelist are a conclusion and generalization of what was said before by him. If, therefore, he set forth details before, then now expresses a general view, bringing particulars to unity. If the evangelist, which is probable, was an eyewitness of Christ’s works, then this evening in connection with subsequent activity 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” of Isaiah a figure answering for a people before avengers requiring satisfaction for insult by the delivery of one person as respondent for the common guilt, with the threat, if this requirement is not met, to destroy all, as ancient concepts of vengeance required. The evangelist, by citing the prophecy from Deutero-Isaiah, first of all points to the ideal sufferer—the Servant of Jehovah, predicted by the prophet. But the Person 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, that is, in Jesus Christ. The ideal Servant of Jehovah, predicted by Isaiah, is the Savior of His people in the literal sense. By His sufferings He saves, delivers His people from torments and sufferings, who would have perished if there had been no such substitution. The embodiment of the ideal Sufferer predicted by the prophet in the person of Christ has not one or two, but many aspects, and the evangelist wishes to present these aspects prominently before his readers. As we saw, before the Savior’s appearance in the work of public ministry appears before Him a herald, “a voice crying in the wilderness,” exactly corresponding to φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Isa 40:3, see commentaries to Matt 3:3). The bringing together of Christ with the Servant of Jehovah depicted in Isaiah can be observed further, in the circumstances of baptism and temptation. Now before us appears the same Servant of Jehovah, but only from completely new aspects—touching human infirmities, diseases and sufferings, from which He frees people. Since the Servant of Jehovah in the prophet is undoubtedly depicted as such a Person Who takes upon Himself our infirmities and bears our diseases, this gives the evangelist occasion in a new bringing together of the predicted Servant of Jehovah by Isaiah with the real Christ to ascribe to Christ the same traits which were characteristic of the Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah. The meaning of this lay in the fact that if Christ healed diseases, then this meant that He took upon Himself responsibility for them before God, made people innocent and, consequently, not subject to diseases and infirmities, by transferring the people’s guilt upon Himself and thus subjecting Himself to its consequences. From the considered passage of Matthew this is not yet seen entirely clearly. Here is depicted, one might say, only the beginning of the sufferings of the Messiah, which was to be completed by literal fulfillment of the prophecy—in His sufferings and Cross death. Thus in the 3rd, 4th, and 8th chapters of Matthew we can observe very subtly, but clearly carried out the main idea—about the suffering Servant of Jehovah for humanity. This idea is also carried out, but not so clearly in the 1st and 2nd chapters of Matthew, where the origin and sojourn in Egypt of the same Servant of Jehovah are depicted in reality; and perhaps even in the Sermon on the Mount, where the “power of spirit” characteristic of Him is depicted. The Servant of Jehovah is indicated by the entire subsequent evangelical history set forth by Matthew. The bringing together of the Servant of Isaiah with Christ in the considered verse 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 a participation in our infirmities and diseases and in this sense applies to Him the prophecy of Isaiah in view of the great similarity of the ideal sufferer with Christ. With such an interpretation the circumstance becomes clearer why the Seventy replaced the “diseases” of the prophet with “sins.” The Servant of Jehovah as an expiatory Sacrifice properly answers not for diseases but for sins, which bring down upon people God’s wrath on account of the offended “righteousness” (cf. Matt 3:15).

Matthew 8:18. But when Jesus saw great crowds around Him, He gave orders to cross over 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 parables to the people. The very fact is reported by all evangelists in agreement, although each has differences in details. The simple “gave orders” encountered in Matthew is replaced by Mark and Luke with actual speech of the Savior, with the indication that this occurred at the approach of evening.

Matthew 8:19. Then a scribe came and said to Him: Teacher! I will follow You wherever You go. (Cf. Luke 9:57.) 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 according to meaning than according to its actual meaning, because this verb does not mean properly “set sail,” but simply “go away” or “depart.” But if the way is by water, then of course the verb means “set sail.” The scribe who came to Christ used the same Greek verb, and this means that he asked Christ to take him with Himself in the boat when setting out to the other side. In Luke there is an account of the same circumstance, but again in a different context, and it is indicated that this was on “the way,” that is, on the road to the lake. Formal, but not real contradiction, which one cannot eliminate. That there is truly no real contradiction here is well shown by Augustine, when he says: “If, according to Matthew, this (that is, the scribe’s request) was when Christ gave orders to cross the lake, but according to Luke—when they (that is, Christ and the disciples) were going on the road, then there is no contradiction, because in both cases they were going on the road to approach the lake.” In any case, from Matthew’s account one cannot definitively conclude that the request was not on the way, but at the lake itself. But one can also think that verses 19–22 are inserted here by Matthew out of context and that the correct context is in Luke. It could be that the thought about the Savior as the bearer of diseases suggested or reminded Matthew of Christ’s words about the Son of Man’s homelessness, and in order to prove this he presents one case from the life of the Savior, and by connection with it another (verse 21), somewhat different from the first. To what has been said must be added that Luke reports not of two people wishing to accompany the Savior, but of three (Luke 9:61-62—the third). The word “one” has obvious relation to “another” of verse 21 and is simply an enumeration of persons coming to Christ with a request. However, Blass (Gram., p. 140) and Winer-Schmiedel (p. 243) hold that “one” here is used in the sense of an indefinite pronoun “someone” (τις), which is quite understandable, since numerals are often used in this very sense. The scribe calls the Savior Teacher, a Greek word taken from the customary Hebrew (Aramaic), expressing respect for persons who knew how to teach or taught well. The reasons prompting the scribe to turn to Christ with the request to allow him to follow Him are determined variously. Hilary of Poitiers, in whose commentary there is much allegory, gives here an interesting and witty explanation. “This scribe—one of the teachers of the law, he asks whether he should follow; as if in the law there is not an indication that this is Christ, after whom one could follow with benefit. Thus the scribe expressed his disbelief in a skeptical question, because the believer should not ask, but follow.” Such an opinion has its grounds. Scribes, Jewish scholars, devoted themselves to the study of writings. But studying their letter, they lost understanding of their spirit. The subsequent discourse of Christ shows that He did not trust the scribe’s sincerity.

Matthew 8:20. Jesus said to him: Foxes have holes and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. (Cf. Luke 9:58.) In Luke “says” is replaced by the word “said,” and otherwise the verse is literally similar to the one considered in Matthew. From this verse it is clearer than from the previous one why the Savior rejected the scribe. The latter saw the greatness of miracles accomplished by Christ, and wished, as Jerome, Theophylact, and others suppose, to follow Him in order to gain profit from this, wishing precisely what Simon the Magician wanted to gain from Peter. That the scribe really had in mind earthly advantage can be deduced from the very words of Jesus Christ, in which it is correctly found an indication of His poverty—“Son of Man.” This name is found frequently in the New Testament, according to Zahn—in Matthew—30 times (according to others—33 times), in Mark—13 times (according to others—14, where Mark 8:31 does not represent an exception), in Luke—24 times, in John—12 times (according to others—11). Such a name is not found at all in the apostle Paul; in the Acts only once (Acts 7:56). In examining the relevant places one can see that no one but Jesus Christ Himself called Him the Son of Man, with the sole 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 in the form of a predicate, but always either as a subject or as a complement. The meanings in which it is used can be divided into three groups: 1) it indicates generally the earthly life of Jesus Christ (examples: Mark 2:10; Matt 8:20; Luke 19:10); 2) His suffering life and death (examples: Mark 8:31); 3) His glory in the present and future (examples: Matt 24:30). At the present time, after the work of numerous scholars engaged in the study of this subject, it may be considered proved 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 and the like (for example, Ps 8:5 and often in Ezekiel, in whose book this name is applied to the prophet up to eighty times), or greatness (Dan 7:13-14). If, as stated, the expression “Son of Man” was not a name for the Messiah in the days of Christ, it could, however, pass into popular speech and, being popular, could be borrowed by Christ and applied to Himself. In what sense? In answer to this question, many theories were offered. But the most probable and better explaining the matter seems to be that according to which Christ’s work on earth was the establishment and confirmation on earth of the Divine Kingdom; He Himself proclaimed Himself as the King of this Kingdom. The ideal King was represented in Daniel (Dan 7:13-14), but this idea of Christ, to whom were given power, glory, and kingdom, was united with the idea of the Man of Sorrows or the suffering Servant of Jehovah in the prophet Isaiah. Christ applies all these ideas—the Old Testament idea of human weakness, helplessness and dependence on God, the idea filled with glory and power of the King of the prophet Daniel, and the idea of the suffering Servant of Jehovah of Isaiah—expressing all these three ideas in the words “Son of Man.” For immediate listeners of Christ such a name could not seem a name for the Messiah, but was associated with expressions familiar to Jewish hearing. Among Hebrew language idioms belongs the use of the words “son” (“ben,” “bar”) and “daughter” (“bat”), “house” (“bet”) in such cases where in other languages these words are not used at all. Thus the expression “ben-adam” (the same as Son of Man) could seem to outsiders to contain nothing unusual. But in the mouth of Christ it was a veiled name for Himself as the Messiah and a designation of His messianic dignity, and precisely in the three indicated senses of it, as the representative of humanity, the King of the Kingdom and the suffering Servant of Jehovah. The best proof that this was truly so, that Christ, in calling Himself the Son of Man, proclaimed Himself as the Messiah, is that subsequently the expression was truly understood in the messianic sense by His disciples.

Matthew 8:21. Another of His disciples said to Him: Lord! Allow me first to go and bury my father. (Cf. Luke 9:59.) Why such a request was directed to Christ, Matthew does not make clear. From Luke’s addition it becomes clearer. According to Luke, Christ Himself said to one of His disciples (αὐτοῦ is however lacking in some codices): “Follow Me.” In response to this, the disciple spoke the words given almost identically in both Matthew and Luke (instead of ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτα ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι – ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθόντι θάψαι (and so forth). This account is cited by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III), and there it is said that the Lord spoke these words to Philip. But such an addition can hardly be considered accurate. It is thought that it was some person from among Christ’s disciples in the broad sense, not from those who belonged to the Twelve. This disciple did not ask Christ whether he should follow Him, but only asked Him to allow him to delay following by spending some time before the journey and crossing to the eastern shore of the lake. The request was, according to Hilary, very reasonable and respectable, if one omits the word πρῶτον (first).

Matthew 8:22. But Jesus said to him: Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead. (Cf. Luke 9:60.) “Follow (me)—“ the words omitted in verse 21 and found in Luke, Matthew places here. It could be that the disciple followed Christ to the shore of the lake, but when he saw that Christ wished to cross to the other side, he asked Him for permission to return, so that he might bury (θάψαί) his father. To this natural and lawful request the Savior replies with, apparently, harsh refusal. But one must note that in other cases the Savior placed love for Himself higher than love for father, mother, and nearest relatives. This is spoken of also in Matthew (cf. Matt 19:29). If Jesus Christ invited the disciple to follow Him, leaving the deceased (as is clear from the speech itself) father and entrusting his burial to others, then in no way did this remove or weaken filial feelings, but only replaced them with higher ones—love for Christ Himself. Thus the Savior’s invitation gives occasion for no moral difficulties on our part. A far more difficult question is what He understands by “dead” in the first case (“let the dead bury their own dead”). The second word “dead” is not troublesome, it can be understood in the literal sense. But what does the first word mean? The question is resolved variously. Theophylact says that the petitioner’s father was “unbelieving” or “faithless” (ἄπιστος) and that this is clear from the words “let the dead,” that is, explains Theophylact, “unbelievers.” But if the “unbelieving” ones were those burying, how does it follow from this that the father was also “unbelieving”? Somewhat differently Augustine explains the Savior’s answer. The Savior said as if thus: “your father is dead; there are also (autem) other dead ones, who will bury their dead, because they are unbelieving.” Here disbelief is attributed not to the petitioner’s father, but only to those burying. Modern exegetes repeat in various ways this thought of Augustine. So Meyer holds that in the first case νεκρούς means “spiritually dead” (cf. Matt 4:16 with John 5:21 and Luke 15:24) and cites a place from Origen, according to which ψυχὴ ἐν κακίᾳ οὖσα νεκρά ἐστιν—a soul, abiding in evil, is dead. Meyer is agreed with by Alford and others. This interpretation can be considered generally accepted and widespread. But if in both cases, or only in one, one replaces “dead” with “unbelieving,” should one not conclude from this that Christ’s speech was contemptuous and insulting to the disciple whom He had only recently invited to follow Him? Could this disciple understand it in the sense that Christ under “dead” understands “spiritually dead,” “abiding in evil” and “unbelieving”? The way out of this difficulty is hardly possible and even by supposing that Christ’s expression was a “saying,” the meaning of which is this: “turn away from the past, when the present demands your attention.” If one accepts such an interpretation, then it means one can think that Christ did not speak of the dead at all. But this is hardly the case. Furthermore, there are no data to affirm that the considered expression was a saying. It seems to us that the matter is explained if instead of the word “dead” in the first case we put the word “mortal.” The Greeks, it seems, did not distinguish these concepts well. The word, which can be translated as “mortal,” they had θανατόεις and θνητός. Although one cannot prove that νεκρός in the first case here means “mortal,” yet the meaning of Christ’s words will be fully understood only in interpreting this word in the indicated sense. In any case, “spiritually dead”—this concept was more obscure for the ears of then disciples of Christ than simply “mortal,”—concept this is moreover almost identical with “spiritually dead.” According to the usage in the New Testament νεκρός sometimes means not a dead man, but a living one, although having been dead (see Luke 7:15; Acts 20:9; 1 Thess 4:16).

Matthew 8:23. When He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. (Cf. Mark 4:35-36; Luke 8:22.) In this verse the thread of the account is resumed, broken off from verse 19 by the insertion about persons wishing to follow Christ, and this brings the Matthew account closer to the accounts of Mark and Luke. The Savior entered the boat first, that very one that had been prepared by His order (verse 18), which the article before the word “boat” indicates (τὸ πλοῖον), however, omitted in some codices and editions. Judging from the fact that besides Christ, His disciples got in the boat and, as is thought, other persons (ἄνθρωποι—verse 27), it was fairly spacious. Mark: “they took Him into the boat just as He was.” Some hold that the disciples here do not mean the Twelve apostles on the ground that they are called in the Gospel of Matthew οἱ δῶδεκα (Matt 10:1-2). But in the subsequent discourse those who entered the boat are called disciples (cf. Matt 10:1—τοὺς δῶδεκα μαθητάς; Matt 11:1 the same; Matt 12:1—simply οἱ μαθηταί and others). If, according to the account of other evangelists, the journey was after the pronouncing of parables, there is nothing improbable in thinking that the Twelve disciples entered the boat. Theophylact even says that the Savior “retained only the disciples so they might see the miracle.” Origen notes that, having accomplished great and wonderful miracles on land, Jesus Christ crosses to the sea so as to show there even more excellent works—how much more He shows Himself here as Lord of both land and sea.

Matthew 8:24. And behold, a great storm arose on the sea, so that the boat was swamped by waves; but He was sleeping. Matthew 8:25. Then the disciples came and woke Him, saying: Lord! Save us, we are perishing. Matthew 8:26. He said to them: Why are you fearful, you of little faith? Then, rising up, He rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. (Cf. Mark 4:39-40; Luke 8:24-25.) In Matthew the rebuke to the disciples for little faith is stated before the stilling of the storm, in the other two synoptics—after. This difference has no great importance, since in general the evangelists, when recounting events, sometimes string fact after fact with little concern for precise determination of time and chronological sequence.

Matthew 8:27. People, amazed, were saying: Who is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him? (Cf. Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25.) Literally: “people indeed were amazed, saying: whence is He, that the winds and the sea” and so forth. The Greek word translated as “people” (οἱ ἄνθρωποι) is by the article specified as people in the boat. But why are they called here “people” rather than “disciples”? This expression has long caused interpreters difficulty, which is increased by the fact that the other synoptics (Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25), when recounting the event, mention neither disciples nor people. An attempt to resolve the question of who was in the boat is encountered already in Origen, who asks: “But what people were amazed?”—and answers: “Do not think that the apostles are indicated here, because never is there such a name for the disciples of the Lord, not corresponding to their dignity, but they are always called either apostles or disciples. Consequently, people were amazed, those sailing with Him, to whom the boat belonged.” Even more definitely Jerome speaks on this subject, saying that it was not the disciples who were amazed, but the boatmen and those who were in the boat. If someone argues against this and says that the people who were amazed were the disciples, then we answer that here people are called, not yet knowing of the power of the Savior.” Many modern exegetes hold similar views. However, such an explanation should be recognized as not entirely natural. According to it, it comes out that the miracle was in any case a matter of amazement not to the disciples, but only to other people, and this because the disciples were already previously acquainted with the miracles of the Savior and could not now ask: who is this? But why could not the disciples be amazed? Why could they not ask “who is this” of a Person whom they had not yet known as the all-powerful stiller of the storm? That in the boat were together with Christ and disciples and other people, it is possible to suppose. But, not wishing to indicate that it was only or the disciples, or only other people, who were amazed, the evangelist brought them all under one category—οἱ ἄνθρωποι—all men in the boat, and perhaps even those who were in boats sailing nearby (Mark 4:36).

Matthew 8:28. When He came to the other shore in the region of the Gergesenes, He was met by two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one was able to pass by that way. (Cf. Mark 5:1-6; Luke 8:26-27.) The place where the Savior arrived, Matthew calls ἡ χώρα τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, the region of the Gadarenes. In antiquity there were three cities from which the evangelists might have derived the name of this locality. 1. Gerasa—this city was situated far to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, on the border with Arabia, two days’ journey from the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, somewhat to the north of the Jabbok River, a tributary of the Jordan. From the city remained the most significant ruins in that locality. It stood on the site of present-day Jerash. It is supposed, however, that it could not have given its name to a locality near the Sea of Galilee and that the reading γερασηνῶν found in some manuscripts is only a corrupted γεγρεσηνῶν. 2. Closer to the lake was Gadara, in the southern direction from the Yarmuk River, also a tributary of the Jordan. Josephus Flavius says that Gadara was the fortified capital of Perea. The words of Eusebius are not clear; he reports that Gadara was situated opposite (ἀντικρύ) Scythopolis and Tiberias to the east, on a mountain, where hot medicinal springs existed. The unclearness here lies in the fact that Tiberias was somewhat more northerly than Gadara on the other (eastern) side of the Jordan, and Scythopolis (Beisan) much more southerly. Gadara was known for its hot springs far beyond the boundaries of Palestine; Strabo, among others, mentions this. The city was destroyed by the Jews, but later restored by Pompey, and many coins have been left from it. Gadara was populated for the most part by heathens, and Josephus calls it πόλις ἑλληνίς—a Greek city. It was one of ten cities of the so-called Decapolis. Now it is called Um-Qeis. The district of Gadara bordered on the west with the district of Scythopolis, and on the north with Hippos. Gadara owned part of the strip on the eastern side of the lake. What relation this Gadarene strip had to the strip of Hippos, which also owned the lake shore in the middle-eastern part of the lake, is difficult to say, and this difficulty is the main one. 3. According to the testimony both of Origen and Eusebius, there was a Gerasa, of which no trace remained (the locality is now known by the name of Kursi). It is difficult to say whether, and if so, how, Gerasa belonged to Gadara, if only the district of Hippos lay between them, and why this district was not named after the latter city. Zahn, however, confidently supposes that the entire district was called Gadarene, including the place where Gerasa was situated. This explains the differences in the accounts of the evangelists, of which one (Matthew) calls the locality (according to more probable reading) the region of the Gadarenes, and the other two synoptics (also according to more probable reading), Mark—γερασηνῶν (Mark 5:1), and Luke—γεργεσηνῶν (Luke 8:26; in the Russian Bible Matthew has “in the region of the Gergesenes,” while Mark and Luke have “Gadarene”). Thus, the Savior came ashore near Gerasa and wished to head from here toward Gadara, if such a road existed. The further account presents even more difficulties. According to Matthew, two demon-possessed men came out to Christ, but according to Mark and Luke—only one. There is no other way to reconcile the evangelists except by supposing that Matthew paid attention to two persons, while the other synoptics paid attention only to one, comparatively more fierce than the other. This second, less fierce one, in Matthew does not stand out clearly, as if somewhat fades. However, some interpret Mark’s expression (Mark 5:9) “because our number is great” in the sense that in that realm there were many not demons, but demon-possessed people. Whether there was one demon-possessed man, or two, or even more, one cannot decide with precision. It is known only that they lived in tombs. Travelers even now on the road to Gadara meet tombs (cemeteries), hewn in the mountains. The reason why demon-possessed men lived in tombs was explained by saying that it was a Jewish superstition by which demons had preferential dwelling in tombs and cemeteries, and the demon-possessed simply followed this superstition. But it is more natural to explain the dwelling of the demon-possessed in tombs by the fact that they were driven out of cities and villages. What did they eat? To this question it is again difficult to answer precisely. Perhaps plants and grasses, but perhaps food was brought them by some people, although this last is of course doubtful. The evangelist Matthew’s expression: “no one was able to pass by that way” is hardly to be understood only in a conditional sense, namely, that the way was dangerous for one or several persons, not in the sense that all communication between Gadara or Gerasa and the lake ceased due to the presence of demon-possessed people. That they were not dangerous for all is evident from the fact that at least one demon-possessed man was even attempted to be bound (Mark 5:4; Luke 8:29). The danger posed by the demon-possessed lay in the fact that they were χαλεποὶ λίαν, not simply, but exceedingly fierce.

Matthew 8:29. And behold, they cried out, saying: What have we to do with You, Jesus, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the appointed time? (Cf. Mark 5:7-10; Luke 8:28-31.) Literally: “what to us and You” (cf. Judg 11:12; 1 Sam 17:18; 2 Sam 3:13). In the Russian text the meaning of the words is well expressed: “what have You to do with us?”—that is, by this question the demons simply asked Christ not to touch them. According to Augustine, the demons called Christ the Son of God more from suspicion. The words “before the appointed time” can be connected either with the word “came” or with the word “torment.” In either case the demon-possessed wished to say that Jesus Christ came before His messianic glorification, before the final victory over hell and death, to torment them. The word “Jesus” is lacking in many and better codices; it is, as is supposed, inserted here from the margin of the manuscript after the example of Mark and Luke. The speech of the demon-possessed to Jesus Christ shows that they were Jews, not pagans.

Matthew 8:30. Now a herd of many swine was grazing at some distance from them. Matthew 8:31. And the demons entreated Him, saying: If You cast us out, send us into the herd of swine. (Cf. Mark 5:11-12; Luke 8:32.) The expression “from them” is indefinite, that is, it is unknown whether from Christ and His disciples, or from the demon-possessed, or from all of them. But since the discourse in verses 29–31 is predominantly about the demon-possessed, it is more correct to understand “from them” in the sense of “from the demon-possessed.” “At some distance” (μακράν) should be understood in a relative sense: not at too great a distance, so that the herd was visible. With such a supposition there will be no contradiction between Matthew on the one hand, and Mark and Luke on the other, who say that the swine were grazing “there,” that is, where the demon-possessed were found. If the latter were Jews, then the owners of the swine, inhabitants of the Gadarene country, were most likely pagans. It was forbidden by Jewish law to keep swine. And among other peoples swine were also considered unclean and foul animals, for example, among the Egyptians. But the latter had swine herds and herders. Herodotus reports of the Egyptians that they “consider the swine an unclean animal, and to such a degree that, firstly, if anyone, while passing, happens to touch a swine even with his clothing, he immediately goes to the river and bathes in it, and, secondly, the swine herders, although natural Egyptians, are the only inhabitants of Egypt who cannot enter the temple. And no one gives his daughters in marriage to them and does not take their daughters in marriage, so that for the herders of swine marriages occur exclusively within their own class” (“History,” XI, 47). Among Jews, swine-raising was engaged in by only the “lower classes,” and especially those who were in more or less close contact with pagans. Travelers report that there are many swine in the mentioned locality even now; they pasture there freely and eat whatever comes their way, being in a “wild state.” Swine were an object of Jewish commerce.

Matthew 8:32. He said to them: Go! And they, coming out, went into the herd of swine. And behold, the whole herd of swine rushed down the steep bank into the sea and perished in the water. (Cf. Mark 5:13; Luke 8:32-33.) Why did Christ permit demons to enter the pigs when they left the people? In response to this question, Chrysostom points to three reasons for the permission granted by the Savior. He did this not because demons persuaded Him, but first, to show those freed from evil spirits the extent of the harm those spirits caused them; second, to teach all that demons would not dare enter the pigs without His permission; and third, that demons would have acted far worse toward the people they possessed if they had not fortunately been delivered from them through God’s providence. This answer does not settle the question essentially, because Christ could have taught people all this without resorting to the destruction of the entire herd. But it is the only answer that can be given without resorting to any overly subtle reasoning. Theophylact observes that Christ wished to show what bitterness demons inflict upon people, and that if they have power and no one hinders them, they treat people worse than swine. Christ protects the demon-possessed so that the demons do not kill them. It must be noted that some exegetes attempt to resolve the difficulty by asserting that the Greek word ἐπέτρεψεν, occurring in Mark and Luke, does not mean “permitted,” but only “did not prevent.” Such a meaning (concedo, sino) the verb indeed has, and in this case Christ gave no positive command. Matthew uses the word ὑπάγετε, which apparently also does not express a positive command. When reflecting on this event, one cannot overlook the fact that for the sake of recording some moral truth, both in Scripture and in life itself, not only plants and animals, but also people are often sacrificed. The repeated destruction of people in the Old Testament would have no meaning if each time a new idea or moral truth did not emerge afterward, indicating, on one hand, a deviation from the proper order, and on the other, outlining it. Life and death, therefore, probably do not have the significance in God’s eyes that they have for people. He who created life can restore it, and therefore uses death for human instruction. Thus, the question in this case can only concern what moral lessons can be drawn from the fact being examined, not why it took this form rather than another. The first moral lesson lies in the fact that God loves people more than animals, while for demons both have equal worth. They enter people and animals with equal pleasure, if only to remain in the region. The second lesson concerns the power of God, which rules over demons.

Matthew 8:33. And the shepherds fled, and going into the city, reported all things, and concerning those who had been demon-possessed. Matthew 8:34. And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus; and when they saw Him, they begged that He would depart from their borders. (See Mark 5:14-20; Luke 8:34-39.) “Observe,” says Saint John Chrysostom, “the meekness of Jesus Christ united with power. When the inhabitants of that region, who had been so blessed by Him, compelled Him to depart, He departed without resistance and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, giving them as instructors those freed from demons and the swine herds, so that they might learn from them all that had happened.”