Matthew 4:25

25. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis--a region lying to the east of the Jordan, so called as containing ten cities, founded and chiefly inhabited by Greek settlers. and from Jerusalem, and from beyond Jordan--meaning from Perea. Thus not only was all Palestine upheaved, but all the adjacent regions. But the more immediate object for which this is here mentioned is, to give the reader some idea both of the vast concourse and of the varied complexion of eager attendants upon the great Preacher, to whom the astonishing discourse of the next three chapters was addressed. On the importance which our Lord Himself attached to this first preaching circuit, and the preparation which He made for it, see on Mr 1:35-39. CHAPTERS 5-8 Sermon on the Mount. That this is the same Discourse as that in Lu 6:17-49--only reported more fully by Matthew, and less fully, as well as with considerable variation, by Luke--is the opinion of many very able critics (of the Greek commentators; of Calvin, Grotius, Maldonatus--Who stands almost alone among Romish commentators; and of most moderns, as Tholuck, Meyer, De Wette, Tischendorf, Stier, Wieseler, Robinson). The prevailing opinion of these critics is that Luke's is the original form of the discourse, to which Matthew has added a number of sayings, uttered on other occasions, in order to give at one view the great outlines of our Lord's ethical teaching. But that they are two distinct discourses--the one delivered about the close of His first missionary tour, and the other after a second such tour and the solemn choice of the Twelve--is the judgment of others who have given much attention to such matters (of most Romish commentators, including Erasmus; and among the moderns, of Lange, Greswell, Birks, Webster and Wilkinson. The question is left undecided by Alford). Augustine's opinion--that they were both delivered on one occasion, Matthew's on the mountain, and to the disciples; Luke's in the plain, and to the promiscuous multitude--is so clumsy and artificial as hardly to deserve notice. To us the weight of argument appears to lie with those who think them two separate discourses. It seems hard to conceive that Matthew should have put this discourse before his own calling, if it was not uttered till long after, and was spoken in his own hearing as one of the newly chosen Twelve. Add to this, that Matthew introduces his discourse amidst very definite markings of time, which fix it to our Lord's first preaching tour; while that of Luke, which is expressly said to have been delivered immediately after the choice of the Twelve, could not have been spoken till long after the time noted by Matthew. It is hard, too, to see how either discourse can well be regarded as the expansion or contraction of the other. And as it is beyond dispute that our Lord repeated some of His weightier sayings in different forms, and with varied applications, it ought not to surprise us that, after the lapse of perhaps a year--when, having spent a whole night on the hill in prayer to God, and set the Twelve apart, He found Himself surrounded by crowds of people, few of whom probably had heard the Sermon on the Mount, and fewer still remembered much of it--He should go over its principal points again, with just as much sameness as to show their enduring gravity, but at the same time with that difference which shows His exhaustless fertility as the great Prophet of the Church.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown, 1871 · public domain

Verse 25. From Decapolis. Decapolis was the name of a region of country in the bounds of the half tribe of Manasseh, mainly on the east of Jordan. It was so called because it included ten cities--the meaning of the word Decapolis in Greek. Geographers generally agree that Scythopolis was the chief of these cities and was the only one of them west of the Jordan; that Hippo, (Hippos,) Gedara, Dion, (or Dios,) Pelea, (or Pella,) Gerasa, (or Gergesa,) Philadelphia and Raphana, (or Raphanae,) were seven of the remaining nine, and the other two were either Kanatha and Capitolias, or Damascus and Otopos. These cities were inhabited chiefly by foreigners (Greeks) in the days of our Saviour, and not by Jews. Hence the keeping of swine by the Gergesenes, (Mt 8:30-33,) which was forbidden by the Jewish law.

(u) "great multitudes" Lk 6:17,19

Albert Barnes, 1834 · public domain

Verse 25 This verse is immediately connected with the fifth chapter, and should not be separated from it. Great multitudes - This, even according to the Jews, was one proof of the days of the Messiah: for they acknowledged that in his time there should be a great famine of the word of God; and thus they understood Amos, Amo 8:11. Behold, the days come - that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread - but of hearing the words of the Lord. And as the Messiah was to dispense this word, the bread of life, hence they believed that vast multitudes from all parts should be gathered together to him. See Schoettgenius on this place. Decapolis - A small country, situated between Syria and Galilee of the nations. It was called Decapolis, Δεκαπολις, from δεκα, ten, and πολις, a city, because it contained only ten cities; the metropolis, and most ancient of which, was Damascus. From beyond Jordan - Or, from the side of Jordan. Probably this was the country which was occupied anciently by the two tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh; for the country of Decapolis lay on both sides of the river Jordan. See Num 32:5, Num 32:33. The account of our Lord's temptation, as given by the evangelist, is acknowledged on all hands to be extremely difficult. Two modes of interpretation have been generally resorted to, in order to make the whole plain and intelligible: viz. the literal and allegorical. In all cases, where it can possibly apply, I prefer the first: the latter should never be used, unless obviously indicated in the text itself; or so imperiously necessary that no other mode of interpretation can possibly apply. In the preceding observations, I have taken up the subject in a literal point of view; and it is hoped that most of the difficulties in the relation have been removed, or obviated, by this plan. An ingenious correspondent has favored me with some observations on the subject, which have much more than the merit of novelty to recommend them. I shall give an abstract of some of the most striking; and leave the whole to the reader's farther consideration. The thoughts in this communication proceed on this ground: "These temptations were addressed to Christ as a public person, and respected his conduct in the execution of his ministry; and are reported to his Church as a forcible and practical instruction, concerning the proper method of promoting the kingdom of God upon earth. They are warnings against those Satanic illusions, by which the servants of Christ are liable to be hindered in their great work, and even stopped in the prosecution of it. 1. "As our Lord had, at his baptism, been declared to be the Son of God, i.e. the promised Messiah, this was probably well known to Satan, who did not mean to insinuate any thing to the contrary, when he endeavored to engage him to put forth an act of that power which he possessed as the Messiah. The mysterious union of the Divine with the human nature, in our Lord's state of humiliation, Satan might think possible to be broken; and therefore endeavored, in the first temptation, Command these stones to be made bread, to induce our Lord to put forth a separate, independent act of power; which our Lord repelled, by showing his intimate union with the Divine will, which he was come to fulfill - Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Thus showing, as he did on another occasion, that it was his meat and drink to do the will of his Father. "2. The ground of the temptation was then changed; and the fulfillment of the Divine will, in the completion of a prophetic promise, was made the ostensible object of the next attack. Cast thyself down - for it is Written, He will give his angels charge concerning thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, etc. This our Lord repelled with - Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God - as Satan had designed to induce him to seek this public miraculous confirmation of God's peculiar care over him, as the promised Messiah, of his being which, according to the hypothesis above, Satan had no doubt. Moses, being appointed to a great and important work, needed miraculous signs to strengthen his faith; but the sacred humanity of our blessed Lord needed them not; nor did his wisdom judge that such a sign from heaven was essential to the instruction of the people. "3. The last temptation was the most subtle and the most powerful - All these will I give unto thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. To inherit all nations, had been repeatedly declared to be the birthright of the Messiah. His right to universal empire could not be controverted; nor could Satan presume to make the investiture. What, then, was his purpose? Satan had hitherto opposed, and that with considerable success, the kingdom of God upon earth; and what he appears to propose here, were terms of peace, and an honorable retreat. The worship which he exacted was an act of homage, in return for his cession of that ascendancy which, through the sin of man, he had obtained in the world. Having long established his rule among men, it was not at first to be expected that he would resign it without a combat: but the purpose of this last temptation appears to be an offer to decline any farther contest; and, yet more, if his terms were accepted, apparently to engage his influence to promote the kingdom of the Messiah. And as the condition of this proposed alliance, he required, not Divine worship, but such an act of homage as implied amity and obligation; and if this construction be allowed, he may be supposed to have enforced the necessity of the measure, by every suggestion of the consequences of a refusal. The sufferings which would inevitably result from a provoked opposition, which would render the victory, though certain to Christ himself, dearly bought; added to which, the conflict he was prepared to carry on through succeeding ages, in which all his subtlety and powers should be employed to hinder the progress of Christ's cause in the earth, and that with a considerable degree of anticipated success. Here the devil seems to propose to make over to Christ the power and influence he possessed in this world, on condition that he would enter into terms of peace with him; and the inducement offered was, that thereby our Lord should escape those sufferings, both in his own person, and in that of his adherents, which a provoked contest would ensure. And we may suppose that a similar temptation lies hid in the desires excited even in some of the servants of Christ, who may feel themselves often induced to employ worldly influence and power for the promotion of his kingdom, even though, in so doing, an apparent communion of Christ and Belial is the result: for it will be found that neither worldly riches, nor power, can be employed in the service of Christ, till, like the spoils taken in war, Deu 31:21-23, they have passed through the fire and water, as, without a Divine purification, they are not fit to be employed in the service of God and his Church. "Hence we may conclude, that the first temptation had for its professed object, 1st, our Lord's personal relief and comfort, through the inducement of performing a separate and independent act of power. - The second temptation professed to have in view his public acknowledgment by the people, as the Messiah: for, should they see him work such a miracle as throwing himself down from the pinnacle of the temple without receiving any hurt, they would be led instantly to acknowledge his Divine mission; and the evil of this temptation may be explained, as seeking to secure the success of his mission by other means than those which, as the Messiah, he had received from the Father. Compare Joh 14:31. The third temptation was a subtle attempt to induce Christ to acknowledge Satan as an ally, in the establishment of his kingdom." E. M. B. The above is the substance of the ingenious theory of my correspondent, which may be considered as a third mode of interpretation, partaking equally of the allegoric and literal. I still, however, think, that the nearer we keep to the letter in all such difficult cases, the more tenable is our ground, especially where the subject itself does not obviously require the allegorical mode of interpretation. Among many things worthy of remark in the preceding theory the following deserves most attention: That Satan is ever ready to tempt the governors and ministers of the Christian Church to suppose that worldly means, human policy, secular interest and influence, are all essentially necessary for the support and extension of that kingdom which is not of this world! Such persons can never long preserve hallowed hands: they bring the world into the Church; endeavor to sanctify the bad means they use, by the good end they aim at; and often, in the prosecution of their object, by means which are not of God's devising, are driven into straits and difficulties, and to extricate themselves, tell lies for God's sake. This human policy is from beneath - God will neither sanction nor bless it. It has been the bane of true religion in all ages of the world; and, in every country where the cause of Christianity has been established, such schemers and plotters in the Church of God are as dangerous to its interests as a plague is to the health of society. The governors and ministers of the Christian Church should keep themselves pure, and ever do God's work in his own way. If the slothful servant should be cast out of the vineyard, he that corrupts the good seed of the Divine field, or sows tares among the wheat, should be considered as an enemy to righteousness, and be expelled from the sacred pale as one who closes in with the temptation - "All these things (the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them) will I give unto Thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship Me." However necessary the Church may be to the state, and the state to the Church, as some people argue, yet the latter is never in so much danger as when the former smiles upon it.

Adam Clarke, 1831 · public domain