Sermon Tone Analysis

Question

“What is the Abyss, and why did the demons beg Jesus not to send them there?”

“How is this different than drowning in the Sea?”

Complex Story with Several Difficulties

What is the name of this place?

Region of the Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes?

How many demon-possessed men where there?

One or Two?

Why did demons request to be sent into pigs?

Why did the demons not want Jesus to command them to go into the Abyss?

What is the name of the place?

Matthew 8:28 (NIV)

28 When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,

R. T. France:

In all three Synoptic Gospels there is a variety of readings here, but most scholars agree that Mark and Luke originally read “Gerasenes,” while Matthew had “Gadarenes.”

Both Gerasa and Gadara were important and well-known cities of the Decapolis, but neither was itself by the lake, Gadara being some six miles south-east of the lake, and Gerasa some 30 miles further away.

According to Josephus, Life 42, however, Gadara controlled territory reaching to the shore.

D. A. Carson:

In Mark and Luke the textual evidence is strongest for Gerasa, probably in reference to a little village (modern Kersa or Koursi) on the eastern shore.

However, there was a city of the Decapolis named Gerasa (modern Jerash) some thirty miles southeast of Galilee.

Clearly that is geographically incompatible with v. 32, so early copyists made emendations.

Gadara (modern Um Qeis), also a Decapolis city, was five miles southeast.

Origen (Comm.

Jo 6.41) objected to both Gerasa (as commonly understood to refer to the city thirty miles off) and Gadara for similar reasons of distance.

But Josephus (Life 42.9) says Gadara had territory and villages on the border of the lake, and probably this included the little village of Gerasa.

Indeed, coins of Gadara sometimes display a ship (cf.

Schürer, History of the Jewish people, 2:132–36).

Gadara was thus the regional or toparchic capital (cf.

Sherwin-White, Roman Society, 128 n. 3).

The external evidence in Matthew favors Gadara.

For some reason, the name of the toparchic capital was preferred to Gerasa (which in Matthew enjoys only versional support).

How Many Demon-Possessed Men Were There?

R.T. France:

The most striking peculiarity of Matthew’s account is that what is in Mark and Luke a single individual (though possessed by multiple demons) has become in Matthew “two demon-possessed men.”

If this case stood alone it might be possible to explain this duplication as a rather clumsy way to alleviate the idea of many demons in a single individual—though 12:45 shows that multiple possession was not an unfamiliar concept; cf. also Luke 8:2.

But the same thing occurs in 20:30–34, where one blind man in the other gospels becomes two blind men in Matthew, and in that case the duplication is further compounded by Matthew’s telling of a similar story of two blind men in 9:27–31, so that Mark’s single blind man has become four altogether!

An arguably similar case is 12:22, where a deaf demoniac in Luke 11:14 is parallel to a blind and deaf demoniac in Matthew; in that case the person remains single, but the complaint is doubled.

I do not know of any really satisfactory explanation of Matthew’s tendency to see double (Davies & Allison, 2.80, list nine, none of which satisfy them).

Among the most popular are (1) that he thus seeks to magnify the scale of Jesus’ healing and exorcistic ministry; (2) that he doubles up in order to compensate for other stories of exorcism and the healing of the blind which he has omitted from the tradition as we know it from Mark (Mark 1:21–28 and Mark 8:22–26 have no parallels in Matthew); (3) that he is influenced by the OT legal principle that “two or three witnesses” are needed for valid testimony (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15), and since both incidents give rise to important testimony to Jesus as Son of God (8:29) and as Son of David (20:30, 31; cf.

9:27) this is his way of ensuring that that testimony is heeded.

Of these the first two seem extraordinarily mechanical, and the second is also put in doubt by Matthew’s addition of a further story of two blind men—far from merely compensating for the omission of the blind man of Bethsaida, he has finished up with four blind men (five if we include 12:22) to Mark’s two!

The third does at least provide a theologically credible motive, and may be further supported by Matthew’s specification of two witnesses in 26:60, where Mark speaks of an unspecified number of false witnesses (see on 26:60).

But it remains speculative, and it accounts only with difficulty for 8:29, where the “testimony” is that of the multiple demons rather than of the two men.

No less speculative is the traditional harmonistic view that both here and in the Jericho story there were in fact two men involved, and that Mark and Luke have mentioned only one of them (the same has been suggested also of the two donkeys, in that case with better reason since presumably Jesus rode on only one of them); such harmonizations can seldom be proved impossible, but most interpreters prefer to look for a literary explanation of what seems to be a tendency of this one author.

The reason for Matthew’s “seeing double” remains a matter of speculation.

Why did demons request to be sent into pigs?

Darrell Bock:

The motive for the request is not clear.

It seems likely that the spirits hoped by their request to avoid confinement.

If Jesus would not permit them to indwell a man, an animal would do.

Anything was better than the abyss.

It was too foreboding a place.

Of course, the transfer of the demons raises questions that the text does not attempt to answer: “How can animals be possessed?”

“Why would Jesus allow such a use of animals?” “What happened to the demons?”

“Why did the spirits feel compelled to dwell somewhere rather than roaming the earth?”

None of these issues are answered here.

The text does suggest that demons can possess animals.

The pigs serve as a visual demonstration of the man’s healing (along with the later evidence of his changed demeanor).

In addition, it seems that the man’s welfare is more important than that of the beasts.

The swine will also bring into play the region’s response, but none of these observations answers the questions raised.

One must be content to treat the account at the level it is offered and not try to answer questions it does not address (Hendriksen 1978: 447–48; Arndt 1956: 242; Plummer 1896: 232).

Why did the demons not want Jesus to command them to go into the Abyss?

Darrell Bock:

The demons know they are in a bad situation.

Despite their numbers and power, they know who has authority.

As in 8:28, the demons beg Jesus not to exercise his authority over them and relegate them to the abyss (Schmitz, TDNT 5:794 n. 163).

Luke alone mentions the abyss, as Mark 5:10 speaks only of their asking not to be cast out of the country and Matt.

8:29 refers to their not being tormented before the time.

Mark’s less apocalyptic request is not necessarily in conflict with Matthew or Luke here, since Mark is stating positively where the demons would prefer to stay, while Matthew and Luke recount what they wish to avoid.

The abyss (ἄβυσσος, abyssos) refers to the abode of the dead in the OT (Ps.

107:26 [106:26 LXX]; also Rom. 10:7).

In Luke it is seen as a place where demons or disobedient spirits are kept, and it may well be associated with their being cast into the depths of the sea.

This is its only use in the Gospels and could be rendered “Underworld” (“abyss” is a transliteration of the Greek term).

Other terms such as Hades (ᾄδης; Luke 10:15; 16:23), Gehenna (γέεννα; Luke 12:5), and Tartarus (ταρταρόω; only 2 Pet.

2:4) may represent parallel concepts (Arndt 1956: 241).

In the OT, the abyss originally referred to the depths (תְּהוֹם, tĕhôm) of the earth and could be associated with the sea (Gen.

1:2; 7:11; Job 41:32 [41:24 MT]; Ps. 71:20).

Judaism also saw the deep as a repository for hostile spirits (Jub.

5.6–7; 1 Enoch 10.4–6; 18.11–16).

The spirits fear confinement, as illustrated in the restlessness of such beings in Luke 11:24–26 (Fitzmyer 1981: 739).

Of course, the point is the extent of Jesus’ authority and sovereignty.

Ultimately, messianic power is eschatological power over evil, some of which is still to be manifested according to the NT (Luke 7:22–23; Rom.

8:18–25; 1 Pet.

1:3–6; 2 Pet.

2:9–10; Rev. 20:1–14).

A cosmic sneak preview takes place in this event.