v. 1-20. The Gerasene Demoniac: cf. Matt. viii. 28-32; Luke viii. 26-33. The three Synoptists agree in bringing the incidents of the Gerasene or Gadarenne demoniac, the woman with the issue, and the daughter of Jairus together in their narratives. Mark and Luke do this more completely than Matthew. These incidents are placed by Matthew, however, in a different relation to other events from that which they have in Mark and Luke. In the First Gospel the healing of this demoniac and the stilling of the storm which it follows are introduced after the restoration of Peter’s mother-in-law and the incidents of the scribe and the disciple.

1. the other side of the sea: that is, the eastern side.

the country of the Gerasenes. The question of the locality is one of great difficulty, in respect both of topography and of variation in the text. The ancient MSS. differ greatly in all the three Synoptical Gospels, and they differ in such a way as to point to a different designation of the place in each of the three. The evidence is in favour of ‘the country of the Gadarenes’ as the reading of Matthew; ‘the country of the Gerasenes’ as that of Mark; ‘the country of the Gergesenes’ as that of Luke, though the R.V. prefers ‘Gerasenes’ in Luke as well as in Mark. It is possible that Gerasenes and Gergesenes are different pronunciations of the same word or a copyist’s confusion of one with the other. What then is the place in view? It cannot be the Gerasa in Gilead, which is identified with Jerash; for that is some twenty miles east of the Jordan. Nor can it well be the Gadara which Matthew’s reading might suggest, and which is identified with Um-Keiss; for that was at least six miles south of the lake, and was separated by a deep gorge from the plain sloping down to the lake. The conditions of the narrative are best fulfilled by a certain Khersa or Gersa, the ruins of which remain, occupying a site sufficiently near the sea, shewing traces of tombs, and standing about a mile of the point at which the hills descend by a steep, even slope to within forty feet of the water’s edge. The district known as ‘the country of the Gadarenes’ may have extended to the lake, and so have included this Khersa. [Salmond, 1906]

straightway there met him: not even in this remote locality was there rest for him. No sooner is he on shore than there is a call upon his grace. Matthew speaks of ‘two possessed with devils.’ Mark and Luke notice only one. [Salmond, 1906]

tombs. The man had his dwelling in these, and now came from them. They were sometimes built above ground, often perhaps they were caves in the rocks, natural or excavated. To touch a dead body or a grave was to become unclean, according to the Jewish Law (Num. xix. 11, 16).

no man could any more bind him. To such a pass had it come with him that he was now beyond all restraint. Not even fetters could hold him. [Salmond, 1906]

because he had been often bound. Trial had been made both with fetters and with manacles, but to no purpose.

rent asunder . . . broken in pieces. A vivid description of untamable, frenzied strength, tearing chains in bits and ‘crushing fetters’ like so much pottery. [Salmond, 1906]

crying out, and cutting himself. Each of the Evangelists adds something to the picture of the terror of the man’s condition. Matthew notes that he made the way impassable; Mark that he cried and cut himself in his fury; Luke that ‘for a long time he had worn no clothes.’ [Salmond, 1906]

from afar. A touch peculiar to Mark.

ran and worshipped him. From a distance catching sight of Jesus, he comes bounding in his fierce madness, but when he draws near him his mood changes and he prostrates himself in awe. [Salmond, 1906]

what have I to do with thee? There is here the same repudiation of anything in common with Jesus as in the previous case in i. 23.

Son of the Most High God. In the former case Jesus was addressed as ‘the Holy One of God.’ Here his Messiahship is confessed as a Divine Sonship, and the God to whom he is said to be in that relation of Sonship is designated by a peculiar O.T. name. It is a name that goes back to the oldest stages of Hebrew faith and worship, while it is used also in the Poetic and Prophetic books. See such passages as Gen. xiv. 18, &c.; Num. xxiv. 16 (Balaam’s prophecy); Deut. xxxii. 8; Ps. xviii. 13, xxi. 7, xlvi. 4, l. 14, lxxvii. 10, lxxviii. 17, xci. 1, 9, &c.; Isa. xiv. 14. It is a note of the supremacy of God. In the N.T. it is most frequent in Luke.

torment me not. Matthew puts it in the form of a question and as if the torment were a thing anticipated, but a penalty of the future fulfilling itself too soon if it came now—‘Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?’ Mark alone gives the adjuration. [Salmond, 1906]

What is thy name? The question is put perhaps to clear the man’s mind and bring matters to the point. The confusion of consciousness is seen in the mixed, contradictory utterances, now human and now demoniac.

Legion: the name of a division of the Roman army, numbering 4,000, 5,000, or 6,000 men, and making one of the most tremendous instruments ever handled by the captains of war. In applying this name to himself the possessed man appealed to Christ’s pity. It meant that he was miserable and helpless in the grasp of the most terrible, resistless, and harassing of evil forces—a sufferer from a demoniac power which was not one indeed, but the aggregate of many. [Salmond, 1906]

out of the country. This no doubt means out of this Gerasene territory with which they were familiar. But in Luke the request is that Jesus should not command them to ‘depart into the abyss’; which may mean the deep waters there before them, or rather the place of torment in the nether world. [Salmond, 1906]

a great herd of swine. Mark alone gives the number, ‘about two thousand.’ It is not stated whether the herd was the property of Gentiles or of Jews. It is not clear to what extent, if to any, the keeping of swine prevailed among the Jews of our Lord’s time; but through most of their history they seem to have avoided it. The eating of swine’s flesh was forbidden by the Law (Lev. xi. 7; Deut. xiv. 8). The flesh and blood of swine are regarded by the O.T. as heathen offerings, offerings of abomination (Isa. lxv. 4, lxvi. 3, 17; cf. 1 Macc. i. 47). [Salmond, 1906]

gave them leave. With reference to the loss that ensued and the difficulty supposed to be created by the destruction of property, it is to be noticed that Christ’s word did not go beyond permission. ‘Those who measure rightly the value of a human spirit thus restored to itself, to its fellow men, and to God,’ says Dr. Plumptre, ‘will not think that the destruction of brute-life was too dear a price to pay for its restoration.’ It may be, too, that in the sufferer’s mental condition, and in order to his perfect recovery of the calm and clearness of the normal, undivided consciousness, it was necessary that he should have some unmistakable, visible evidence of his deliverance from the malign powers enthralling him.

the herd rushed down the steep into the sea. ‘We are told,’ says the author of The Rob Roy on the Jordan (p. 411), ‘that the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place. Literally it is “down the steep” in all three reports. It does not say that it was a high place, but steep, and that they ran (not fell) down this into the sea. There are several steeps near the sea here, but only one so close to the water as to make it sure that if a herd ran violently down they would go into the sea. Here, for a full half-mile, the beach is of a form different from any other round the lake, and from any that I have noticed in any lake or sea before. It is flat until close to the edge. There a hedge of oleanders fringes the end of the plain, and immediately below these is a gravel beach inclined so steep that when my boat was at the shore I could not see over the top even by standing up; while the water alongside is so deep that it covered my paddle (seven feet long) when dipped vertically a few feet from the shore. Now if the swine rushed along this short plain toward this hedge of underwood (and in the delta of Semakh their usual feeding-place would be often among thick brushwood of this kind) they would instantly pass through the shrubs and then down the steep gravel beyond into the deep water, where they would surely be drowned.’ [Salmond, 1906]

they came to see. These would be the people of the town and the countryside, largely heathen. ‘The presence of these unclean animals, so abhorrent to the Jews, indicates, what we know from other sources, that the region was inhabited by a mixed population, in which Gentiles predominated’ (Gould). [Salmond, 1906]

clothed and in his right mind: so complete a transformation. Luke states explicitly (which Mark does not do) that in his demonised condition the man ‘for a long time … had worn no clothes’ (viii. 27). [Salmond, 1906]

they began to beseech him to depart. The first impression produced upon the people by the sight of the restored demoniac was that of fear (verse 15). When the whole story was told them their sense of awe passed into anxiety to get the Healer out of their neighbourhood. Perhaps they dreaded further loss. In no other case did a miracle wrought by Christ have an effect like this, adverse to himself. [Salmond, 1906]

that he might be with him. The sense of indebtedness and gratitude would naturally make him anxious to cling to Jesus—perhaps also the vague fear of what might happen if he were separated from the Fount of healing power. [Salmond, 1906]

suffered him not. Jesus had a higher mission for him. He was to return to the home which he had exchanged for the tombs, and be a witness there for the Healer. Cf. the case of Æneas, Acts ix. 35.

tell them. In the case of the leper (i. 44), and again in that of the witnesses of the raising of Jairus’s daughter (v. 43), he commanded silence. In this instance he enjoins the publication of the miracle. The reason for the difference in this matter is not stated. It may have lain in the character of the man, or it may have its explanation in the nature of the region. For this was Peraea, and in that remoter district, where also he would be less known, there might be less risk from publicity.

the Lord: the O.T. name for God. So the works done by Jesus are declared by him to be works done by God through him. Cf. Peter’s address, Acts ii. 22. [Salmond, 1906]

in Decapolis. Only Mark mentions the locality by name. The term occurs only three times in the N.T.—here, and in Matt. iv. 25; Mark vii. 31. It means the region or confederation of the ‘ten cities.’ The district cannot be very exactly defined. Probably its limits varied somewhat from time to time, as the names of the cities also varied. Pliny gives them as follows:—Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion, Canatha, Damascus, Raphana. With the exception of Scythopolis (the ancient Bethshan, modern Beisan) they seem, therefore, to have been all east of the Jordan and to the south-east of Galilee, within Gilead and Bashan. After the Roman conquest of these territories in B.C. 65, the cities were rebuilt and had certain privileges bestowed on them.

all men did marvel. The population of these parts was made up probably of natives, Greek-speaking colonists who had settled before the Roman conquest, and later Roman colonists. While it is said that “all men did marvel,” it is not said that any became disciples of Jesus, nor is it likely that this would be the case with men who were so wishful that he should quit their district. [Salmond, 1906]

v. 21–24. The case of Jairus and his daughter: cf. Matt. ix. 18, 19; Luke viii. 41, 42. Three instances of the exercise of the miraculous power of Jesus in raising the dead to life are recorded in the Gospels—one where life had little more than fled, another where burial was impending, a third where the tomb had held its tenant for days. There were reasons for the selection of these three for record, in the nature of the case, if not in evidential value. For one was the case of a ruler’s only child, another that of a widow’s only son, and the third that of the Lord’s friend, the brother of the sisters whom he loved. But of the three only the case of Jairus is reported by all the Synoptists, while the miracle at Nain is told only by Luke, and that of Bethany only by John. Mark’s narrative here is the most vivid and circumstantial. He enables us to follow the event in all its touching and impressive details from beginning to end. Matthew’s account is brief, Luke’s is fuller. There are also certain differences in the connexion of this event and in the particulars.

21. the other side: the western side again, and, as we may judge, the neighbourhood of Capernaum.

a great multitude was gathered. The Gerasenes on the eastern side had been eager to see him depart. The people of the western side were eager to have him back. They “were all waiting for him,” as Luke tells us, in a crowd upon the shore. The incident that follows is introduced by Luke as well as by Mark immediately after that of the Gerasene demoniac. But Matthew attaches it to the visit of the disciples of John who questioned Jesus on the subject of fasting, and speaks of Jäirus coming to Jesus, not by the sea, but in the house. Matthew’s words are precise—”while he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a ruler.’ Though it is his habit to group things, whether words or events, and that not according to their actual order, but according to subject, his words may indicate in this case the real historical order. [Salmond, 1906]

one of the rulers of the synagogue. Luke calls him ‘a ruler of the synagogue,’ Matthew says simply ‘a ruler.’ Usually there was only one such ‘president’ for each synagogue, though there might also be more than one. Paul and Barnabas were invited to give their word of exhortation in the Pisidian Antioch by ‘the rulers of the synagogue’ (Acts xiii. 15). The duties of such a ‘ruler,’ who was usually one of the elders of the congregation, had to do specially with the conduct of public worship, in its various parts of prayer, reading of Scripture, and exhortation.

Jairus. A name corresponding to the Jair of the O. T. A Jair is mentioned as a son of Manasseh in the time of Moses (Num. xxxii. 41; Deut. iii. 14, &c.), as one of the Judges (Judges x. 3, &c.), as the father of Mordecai (Esther ii. 5), and as the father of Elhanan (1 Chron. xx. 5). Nothing further is told us of this Jairus. It is supposed with some probability, however, that he belonged to Capernaum, and that thus he may have been one of those sent by the centurion who ‘built a synagogue’ to plead with Jesus on behalf of his sick servant (Luke vii. 3). If so, he might have had such previous knowledge of Jesus as would explain the earnestness and the confidence with which he approached him now, falling at his feet before all the crowd in a passion of entreaty. [Salmond, 1906]

My little daughter: a fond diminutive, a term of endearment used only by Mark. It is from Luke (viii. 42) we learn she was his only daughter.

at the point of death: lit. ‘is in extremity.’ Luke says ‘she lay a dying.’ Matthew, who says nothing of the message from the house, but gives a very concise statement in which the ruler’s position is described in its final stage, represents him as saying, ‘My daughter is even now dead.’

lay thy hands on her. Luke omits this, but Matthew gives it. The laying on of hands in cases of healing is mentioned again in vi. 5, vii. 32, viii. 23, 25, xvi. 18. So, too, in Acts ix. 17, xxviii. 8. [Salmond, 1906]

he went with him. Jesus at once left the seaside and set out with the father to the house of anxiety and sorrow, followed not only by his disciples (cf. Matt. ix. 19), but by a surging crowd pressing about him. [Salmond, 1906]

a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years. Her malady had lasted as long as the other sufferer now soliciting the compassion of Jesus had lived. The length of time points perhaps to the hemorrhage being of a periodical kind. Maladies of this kind were regarded as peculiarly afflictive; ceremonial uncleanness attached to them (Lev. xv. 19). [Salmond, 1906]

suffered many things of many physicians. How senseless, useless, and costly the remedies were that used to be prescribed for such cases we learn from the Jewish books. Here is one of the simplest mentioned in the Talmud, the great store- house of Rabbinical lore:—’Take of the gum of Alexandria the weight of a zuzee (a small silver coin); of alum the same; of crocus the same. Let them be bruised together, and given in wine to the woman that has an issue of blood. If this does not benefit take of Persian onions three logs; boil them in wine, and give her to drink, and say, “Arise from thy flux.” If this does not cure her, set her in a place where two ways meet, and let her hold a cup of wine in her right hand, and let some one come behind and frighten her, and say, “Arise from thy flux.” But if that do not do, take a handful of cummin, a handful of crocus, and a handful of fenugreek. Let these be boiled in wine, and give them to her to drink, and say, “Arise from thy flux.” And so on through a succession of further prescriptions, embracing the digging of seven ditches, the burning of vine-cuttings, the seating of the patient over one ditch and then over another, and the like. See Geikie’s The Life and Words of Christ, ii. 167, 168, and Lightfoot’s Horae Heb. et Talm. on the passage. [Salmond, 1906]

having heard the things concerning Jesus. Her faith, which was strong, ready, and resolved, came by hearing. She belonged probably to some place at a distance, where she had had no opportunity of seeing Jesus, but to which the report of his works had penetrated. She had come expectant; she had had to wait her opportunity, and when it presented itself, she at once seized it.

touched his garment. Mark and Luke state that it was ‘the border’ of his garment. She touched, that is, the edge or corner of the robe or one of the fringes or tassels fastened to it. The Jew was required by the Law to have tassels on the corners of his square outer robe. They were made of twisted threads of white wool attached to the garment by a cord of blue (Num. xv. 38, &c.). The woman made her way through the crowd till she got near Jesus, and put her light touch on one of the corners of his garment or on the tassel of it hanging behind him. [Salmond, 1906]

she said, If I touch but his garments. It was not merely that she thought, but that she said it, kept saying it indeed to herself, if not audibly to others. There was this weakness in her faith, that she thought her touch necessary, imagining, as it would seem, that the healing power was attached to the person of Jesus, to his garment, and indeed to that part of it of which strict Jews made so much. But he recognized the sincerity and the strength of her trust. [Salmond, 1906]

felt in her body. The new physical sensations which at once thrilled her made her certain not only that the hemorrhage was stopped, but that she was completely cured. [Salmond, 1906]

perceiving in himself. If the sufferer had the sense of health, the Healer had the consciousness of power gone forth from him. It was only by this, as Mark’s narrative implies, that he became aware of the touch, and he turned about’ to find out about it. [Salmond, 1906]

sayest thou, Who touched me? A question answering a question. To the disciples it seemed out of place to think of identifying any one individual’s touch when there was about him a crowd so great that it was like to crush him. [Salmond, 1906]

And he looked round about to see. Another of those details which lead us to conclude that Mark’s narrative was based on first-hand acquaintance with the facts. Jesus did not know who had been benefited by the power that had gone forth from him, and he cast his eyes around in search of anything that might indicate the person. [Salmond, 1906]

told him all the truth. Luke puts it even more strongly—’declared in the presence of all the people for what cause she touched him.’ A trial it must have been to her womanly feeling, yet timid and trembling as she was, she came forward and kept nothing back from the Healer or from the people. [Salmond, 1906]

Daughter: a name given by our Lord to no other woman but this. She had made a great venture in faith, and it was for her faith’s sake that Jesus confirmed the healing and gave her the word of peace.

In the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus (v. 26) the woman is said to have been called Veronica. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vii. 18) mentions the tradition that she was a native of Caesarea Philippi or Paneas. He adds that her house was shown there, and that there stood at its gates on an elevated stone a brazen image of the woman in the attitude of a suppliant stretching out her hands to another figure supposed to represent our Lord. Eusebius tells us that this statue of our Lord remained till his own day, and was seen by him. [Salmond, 1906]

v. 35–43. Continuation of the story of Jairus and his daughter: cf. Matt. ix. 23–26; Luke viii. 49–56.

35. While he yet spake. The interruption which had brought health and grace to one sufferer meant something sadly different to another. What a burden it must have been to the ruler’s faith! It had arrested Jesus on his way to one who seemed to need his help even more urgently than the woman. It had delayed him indeed till there appeared to be no more need of his compassionate service. Messengers came from the ruler’s house announcing the damsel’s death. They came with these sad tidings, too, just at the moment when the Lord was speaking his word of blessing to the woman and became again free to pass on.

why troublest thou the Master (i.e. the Teacher or Rabbi) any further? The word meant originally to flay, and in later Greek to harass or inconvenience. It did not seem to occur to them that he who could heal might also recall the vanished life. So far as the Gospels shew, only on one occasion up to this time had Jesus raised the dead to life, and that had been in another part of Galilee (Luke vii. 11, &c.). [Salmond, 1906]

not heeding. The A.V. makes it ‘heard the word,’ and the margin of the R.V. gives ‘overhearing.’ But it is rather as in the R.V. text. Jesus did hear what was said by the messengers, but he took no notice of it. Instead of saying anything of it, he spoke a word of assurance and also of counsel to the ruler. [Salmond, 1906]

suffered no man to follow. Up to this critical point he had done nothing to check the crowd. Now he separates himself from all, even from his disciples, with the exception of Peter, and James, and John. This is the first appearance of the select circle of three within the chosen circle of the Twelve. [Salmond, 1906]

a tumult … weeping and wailing greatly. Matthew mentions also ‘the flute-players.’ The noisy lamentations indulged in at Jewish funerals, the professional performers, the ‘mourning women,’ the doleful music of the minstrels, &c., are often referred to in the O.T. (Eccles. xii. 5; Jer. ix. 17; Amos v. 16; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25). Of these unrestrained Oriental ways of shewing grief Van Lennep says—‘As soon as death takes place the female members of the household and the professional mourning-women announce it to the neighbourhood by setting up their shrill and piercing cry—called the tahlil—which is heard at a great distance and above every other noise, even the din of battle, and is quite characteristic of the East’ (Bible Lands, p. 586; cf. Clarke’s Mark and Luke, p. 80). [Salmond, 1906]

not dead, but sleepeth. He had not yet seen the damsel. But by these words he does not mean that she was not really dead. That life was gone was clear to all. But he puts a new meaning upon her death. [Salmond, 1906]

they laughed him to scorn. So it is, in the same terms, in all three Synoptists. These excitable mourners could turn quickly from wailing to derision, and from derision again to wailing.

put them all forth: better, ejected them all. The word is the same as is used of the expulsion of the traffickers in the Temple (xi. 15), and suggests stern, authoritative command. It was incongruous to have the noisy jeering crowd of mourners and others about him on an occasion so solemn and so pathetic. It was appropriate to have a few chosen companions as witnesses of his action. Elijah was alone when he raised the widow’s son (1 Kings xvii. 17–24), and Elisha when he restored the Shunammite’s child (2 Kings iv. 32–37). Jesus has the stricken parents and the select three with him in the chamber of death. [Salmond, 1906]

taking the child by the hand. The one thing done in the way of visible instrumentality; recorded by all three Synoptists.

Talitha cumi: the original Aramaic words, treasured doubtless in the heart of Peter, one of the hearers, and carefully preserved by Mark his ‘interpreter.’

damsel. A word found repeatedly in the Greek version of the O.T., but in the N.T. used only here and in the case of the daughter of Herodias.

Arise. That is, ‘waken out of thy sleep!’ [Salmond, 1906]

straightway. The single word Arise! was enough. On the instant life returned to the dead child; and not only life but strength—she ‘rose up,’ and she ‘walked.’

for she was twelve years old. An explanation of her walking. Though a child, she was old enough to be capable of that. [Salmond, 1906]

charged them much. There were witnesses enough of the miracle; but they were enjoined not to publish it abroad. To do so then might have no better result than to kindle popular excitement and mistaken, premature expectations which, instead of helping his real work, would hinder and confuse it.

given her to eat. A second charge, revealing his considerate attention to details. The child’s immediate need was not overlooked. That she should have food shewed also how complete her recovery was, and how natural her condition. [Salmond, 1906]