From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of Luke Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2015
All reproduction of text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is not altered.
WEB: He said
to them, "Doubtless you will tell me this parable, 'Physician, heal
yourself! Whatever we have heard done at
Young’s: And he said unto them, 'Certainly ye will
say to me this simile, Physician, heal thyself; as great things as we heard
done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country;'
Conte (RC): And he said to them: "Certainly, you will recite to me this saying, 'Physician, heal yourself.' The many great things that we have heard were done in
And He said unto them, Ye will surely say unto Me. Some reactions one can anticipate and He could tell that this one was certainly coming His way. [rw]
this proverb. Any common saying which is confessed to be true of all men, and applied to cases of similar kind, as an illustration or argument. 
Physician, heal thyself. A saying which Luke alone records, and which would forcibly appeal to him as a physician. Galen speaks of a physician who should have cured himself before he attempted to attend patients. The same appeal was addressed to Christ on the cross (Matt. xxvii. 40, 42). 
[It was] a trite proverb, sometimes addressed to physicians whose powers in the healing art benefit strangers without proving of any service to themselves or theirs; and generally applied to such, as attending the concerns of others, neglect their own. [In effect they are saying:] "Physician," confine not the advantages of your skill and healing powers to strangers; make yourself and your friends sharers in them. In thus [seeing] the thoughts of their hearts and their [underlying] objections to Him, to which He replies in the following verse, He displays his omniscient Divinity. 
The verbal meaning is
plain, the point of the parable not so plain, though what follows seems to
indicate it distinctly enough = do here, among us, what you have, as we
hear, done in
Due to family childhood roots, these fellow townspeople were, in a sense and especially if the town were relatively small, “his people,” “his extended family.” A physician would just as promptly work to heal his family as he would himself and their next challenge to Him is to do that. [rw]
whatsoever we have heard done in
is only a common day's journey from
[Furthermore,] Jesus had
wrought two miracles at
do also here in thy country. He saw clearly that there was no tendency in miracles as such, mere prodigies, to awaken that heart faith which alone could accept Him. Where such faith existed, miracles of loving kindness could be wrought and only there (Matthew ; Mark 6:5). 
In depth: This
example shows that Luke was quite capable of leaving out facts that he knew
full well—the lessons to be learned from this . Luke has not before mentioned Capernaum, and this is one of the many indications found in
his writings that silence respecting any
event is no proof that he was unaware of it. Nor has any other Evangelist mentioned any
previous miracle at
WEB: He said, "Most certainly I tell you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.
Young’s: and he said, 'Verily I say to you -- No
prophet is accepted in his own country;
Conte (RC): Then he said: "Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country.
And He said, Verily I say unto you. He replies to the one proverb by another, equally familiar, which we express in a rougher form, "Too much familiarity breeds contempt." Our Lord's long residence in Nazareth merely as a townsman had made Him too common, incapacitating them for appreciating Him as others did who were less familiar with His every-day private life. 
No prophet is accepted. Has honor, or is acknowledged as a prophet. 
A proverb to answer the other. They wanted faith, and therefore saw no miracles. Like all proverbs, this must not be forced into an infallible rule. It is often, not always true. 
in his own
country. The Master was evidently looking far beyond
the little prejudices of
This curious psychological fact, which has its analogy in the worldly proverbs that, “No man is a hero to his valet,” or, “Familiarity breeds contempt,” was more than once referred to by our Lord; John 4:44. 
Weymouth: But I tell you in truth that there was many a widow in Israel in the time of Elijah, when there was no rain for three years and six months and there came a severe famine over all the land;
WEB: But truly
I tell you, there were many widows in
Young’s: and of a truth I say to you, Many widows
were in the days of Elijah, in Israel, when the heaven was shut for three years
and six months, when great famine came on all the land,
Conte (RC): In truth, I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elijah in Israel, when the heavens were closed for three years and six months, when a great famine had occurred throughout the entire land.
But I tell you of a truth. Truly, and therefore worthy of your credit. He calls attention to two cases where acknowledged prophets had so little honor in their own nation, that they bestowed their favors on foreigners. 
many windows were in
So far from trying to flatter them, He tells them that His work is not to be for their special benefit or glorification, but that He had now passed far beyond the limitations of earthly relationships. 
Or: Although He is delivering a special warning
and rebuke to those of his home town, the language is also a “shot across the
bow” for the entire nation: God has gone
beyond the narrow boundaries of geographic
when the heaven was shut up three years and six months. Such was the Jewish tradition, as we see also in James (compare Daniel 12:7; Revelation 11:2, 3; 13:5). The book of Kings only mentions three years (1 Kings 17:1, 8, 9; 18:1, 2), but in the “many days” it seems to imply more. 
Or: Though rain was sent in the third year of the drought (1 Kings 18:1), yet, as the early rain falls in April or May and the latter rain in October or November, the six months of natural drought must be added to the three years of miraculous drought. This will give the whole period during which there fell no rain. James 5:17. 
when great famine. The drought was the cause of the famine. 
was throughout all the land. Famine was always a danger wherever it happened, but in this case it wasn’t just a crop failure in part of the country, but in the entire thing. The chance of getting relief supplies in from any reasonable distance simply did not exist. [rw]
was sent to none of them, except to Zarephath, in the
Young’s: and unto none of them was Elijah sent,
but -- to Sarepta of Sidon,
unto a woman, a widow;
Conte (RC): And to none of these was Elijah sent, except to Zarephath of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
But unto none of them was Elias sent. Note the “sent.” This was not a decision the prophet came up with on His own. The implication would seem to be that neither was Jesus’ decision where to heal. [rw]
save unto Sarepta, a city of
unto a woman that was a widow. Widows always were among the most economically exposed elements of society. Hence by definition—and even more so in a time of drought and famine—a woman who stood in potential need. A fact verified by the Old Testament account of the incident. [rw]
Weymouth: And there was also many a leper in Israel in the time of the Prophet Elisha, and yet not one of them was cleansed, but Naaman the Syrian was."
were many lepers in
Young’s: and many lepers were in the time of Elisha the prophet, in
Conte (RC): And there were many lepers in
And many lepers
in the time of Eliseus the prophet. Elisha, the successor of Elijah. 
and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian. See 2 Kings, v. 14. Other lepers did not believe, and go to the prophet. Naaman did. His faith was remarkable, and brought him from afar, and made him very humble, and wrought his cure. If others had felt the same faith, there would have been mercy shown to them. 
Thus both Elijah and Elisha had carried God’s mercies to Gentiles. 
WEB: They were all filled with wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things.
Young’s: And all in the synagogue were filled with
wrath, hearing these things,
Conte (RC): And all those in the synagogue, upon hearing these things, were filled with anger.
And all they in
the synagogue. We might certainly have supposed that some
would have exhibited a better mind. We
are not perhaps obliged to understand it as [literally] without any
qualification. Could possibly any of the
family of Jesus—parents, brothers, sisters—have been in that congregation? It is remarkable how little we see of any of
them afterward in plainly friendly relations, till
when they heard these things. That the presence of a miracle worker still did not guarantee that everyone would be healed who could be benefited by those powers. In light of this, where do people possibly get the idea that physical healing was promised to all who benefit by Christ’s atonement for sins? Not even Jesus’ personal presence guaranteed it during His ministry—much to these folks’ anger. [rw]
were filled with wrath. Truth provokes those whom it does not enlighten and convert. 
As Elijah brought deliverance only to the widow in Phoenician Sarepta in the time of a continued famine (cf. i. Kings xvii. 1-19); and as Elisha healed only the Syrian Naaman of his leprosy (2 Kings v. 9sqq.), in the same way God had assigned to Him the cities along the sea as the scene for His ministry. This aroused the anger of His fellow-citizens to the highest pitch, because they thought that by these examples they were put on the same level with the heathen. 
Or: They were enraged because their townsman judged for Himself when and where His miracles should be performed, claiming thus an equality with the ancient prophets. 
WEB: They rose up, threw him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill that their city was built on, that they might throw him off the cliff.
Young’s: and having risen, they put him forth
without the city, and brought him unto the brow of the hill on which their city
had been built -- to cast him down headlong,
Conte (RC): And they rose up and drove him beyond the city. And they brought him all the way to the edge of the mount, upon which their city had been built, so that they might thrown him down violently.
And rose up. Broke up the service irreverently and rushed forth. 
thrust Him out of the city. With violence, as a prisoner in their hands. 
and led him unto the brow of the hill. The nearer geography:
that they might cast him down headlong. This was regarded as a form of “stoning,” the legal punishment for blasphemy. 
This was the
effect of a popular tumult. They had no
legal right to take life on any occasion and least of all in this furious and
irregular manner. The whole transaction
shows that the character given of the[se
WEB: But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way.
Young’s: and he, having gone through the midst of
them, went away.
Conte (RC): But passing through their midst, he went away.
But He passing through the midst of them went His way. The question is raised whether this escape and other similar instances (John ; 18:6) were miraculous. Whether this was miraculous or not may be a question of degree, not of kind. Who can tell at what point the natural awe-inspiring character of great or sacred character rises to a supernatural amount? 
Reasons given for rejecting a miraculous interpretation of the event: It has been maintained that Christ escaped by a miracle, either in rendering Himself entirely invisible, or putting on some other form, or affecting their eyes or minds in such a manner that they should not know Him. But Christ and His Apostles seem never to have wrought miracles in the way of self-preservation. The probability is that Jesus beheld His enemies with a look of His hitherto unrestrained majesty, reserved for this last need, and they, receiving yet another sign of His spiritual might, as a parting token, were compelled on the right and left to make place reverently for His going forth. 
There is nothing hinted
here that our Lord rendered himself invisible, or that he smote his enemies
with a temporary blindness. He probably
quietly overawed these angry men with his calm self-possession, so that they
forbore their cruel purpose, and thus he passed through their midst, and left
A non-Biblical example of escape from a hostile mob by non-miraculous means: An assertion: The deliverance of Jesus was neither a miracle nor an escape; He passed through the group of these infuriated people with a majesty which overawed them. We cannot say, as one critic does, "In the absence of any other miracle, He left them this." 
An example: The parallels of others are adduced, where the awe of the person assailed has defeated the assailants. But perhaps the clearest parallel to this present escape may be found in Stevens's History of Methodism, volume 1, page 195. Wesley, assailed by a Cornish mob, is nearly thrown to the ground, whence he would never have risen alive. Struck with a blow upon the chest, so that the blood gushes out of his mouth, yet maintains a composure superior to pain, and perfect as if in the quiet of his study.
Amid his utterance of prayer and their clamours for his life, a strange and sudden reaction takes place. A call is made for a fair hearing; and the very leader of the mob, awe-struck, becomes all at once his defender. And then, in language strongly reminding us (though it did not the historian himself) of the present scene, it is added, "The people fell back, as if by common consent, and led on through their open ranks by the champion of the rabble, he safely escaped to his lodgings." 
went His way. Probably never to return
Weymouth: So He came down to Capernaum, a town in Galilee, where He frequently taught the people on the Sabbath days.
WEB: He came
Young’s: And he came down to Capernaum, a city of
Galilee, and was teaching them on the sabbaths,
Conte (RC): And he descended to
And came down to
speaks of "coming down" to the shore of the lake, in contrast with
(4:13-16) sees in this the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:1, 2, omitting the first
part which should be rendered “At the former time he brought contempt on the
Land of Zebulun and on the Land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he brought honor.” It was perhaps on His way to
These things, as Paul graphically says, were “not done in a corner,” Acts 26:26. Besides the memorable events of the day here recorded, it was here that Christ healed the paralytic (verse 18) and the centurion’s servant (7:2), and called Levi (Matthew 9:9), rebuked the disciples for their ambition (Mark ), and delivered the memorable discourse about the bread of life (John 6). 
a city of
them on the Sabbath days. The Sabbath day at
1. Extent: It contained about 1,600 square miles of
territory, and was bounded by the River
2. Population: This country had originally belonged to the
Jews. They had not, however, been very
numerous here, from the time of the taking into captivity of the
3. Business: It was not only an agricultural land, but had
numerous manufactures. A large commerce
was carried on with the outer world.
4. Government: It was an independent state, with its own
army, tax collectors, etc., under the
of Galilee on the shores of which Christ spent so much time this year is a
beautiful sheet of water, harp-shaped, about thirteen miles long by eight
wide. It is 682 feet below the sea
level, and subject to sudden and severe storms.
It abounds in fish. In Christ's
time it was the center of a large population.
There were as many as nine populous cities on its banks. "The lake was surrounded by an almost
unbroken line of buildings--city walls, houses, synagogues, wharves and
factories, castles, theaters, hippodromes, amphitheaters, Greek villas. It was like the
WEB: and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.
Young’s: and they were astonished at his teaching,
because his word was with authority.
Conte (RC): And they were astonished at his doctrine, for his word was spoken with authority.
And they were astonished. The word expresses more sudden and vehement astonishment than the more deeply seated “amaze” of verse 6. 
Astonishment is one thing, believing is another. Men may be some ways and to some degrees affected at the word of God, that yet are far enough from believing, as the most of these Capernaites were; else Christ had never upbraided them as He did, Matthew 11:23. 
at His doctrine. It was not “doctrine” in our modern sense, but His teaching as to its manner and spirit, as well as its matter. 
for His word was with power. [This was] what surprised them. They were used to hearing professedly religious truth given out with a careful and ever-repeated reference to the previous Rabbis as the authority. But now they listened to a man who uttered the truth of His own judgment, and with such reasonableness and consistency with the simple words of Scripture and with the testimony of their own consciences, that they were amazed. 
Or, in more detail: Matthew gives one main secret of their astonishment when he says that “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes,” . The religious teaching of the Scribes in our Lord’s day had already begun to be the second-hand repetition of minute precedents supported by endless authorities: “Rabbi Zeira says on the authority of Rabbi Jose bar Rabbi Chanina, and Rabbi Ba or Rabbi Chiya on the authority of Rabbi Jochanan, etc. etc.” (Schwab, Jer. Berachoth, page 159.) We see the final outcome of this servile secondhandness in the dreary minutiae of the Talmud. But Christ referred to no precedents; quoted no “authorities;” dealt with fresher and nobler topics than fantastic hagadoth (“legends”) and weary traditional halcahoth (“rules”). He spoke straight from the heart to the heart, appealing for confirmation solely to truth and conscience—the inner witness of the Spirit. 
WEB: In the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice,
Young’s: And in the synagogue was a man, having a
spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a great voice,
Conte (RC): And in the synagogue, there was a man who had an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice,
And in the synagogue there was a man. The fact that he was in the synagogue argues that—regardless of his “haunted/unstable” nature—he did not normally act in a manner that was disruptive. Can anyone imagine permitting his presence under any other set of circumstances? [rw]
which had a spirit of an unclean devil. The word “unclean” is peculiar [= unique] to Luke, who writes for Gentiles. The word for devil is not diabolos, which is confirmed to Satan, or human beings like him (John 6:70); but daimonion, which in Greek was also capable of a good sense. The Jews believed diamonia to be the spirits of the wicked (Josephus, B.J., vii. 6.3). Here begins that description of one complete Sabbath-day in the life of Jesus, from morning till night, which is also preserved for us in Matthew 8:14-17; Mark -31. It is the best illustration of the life of “the Good Physician” of which the rarest originality was that “He went about doing good” (Acts ). Into the question of the reality or unreality of “demoniac possession, about which theologians have held different opinions, we cannot enter. On the one hand, it is argued that the Jews attributed nearly all diseases, to the immediate action of evil spirits, and that those “possessions” are ranged with cases of ordinary madness, and that the common belief would lead those thus afflicted to speak as if possessed; on the other hand, the literal interpretation of the Gospels points the other way, and in unenlightened ages, as still in dark and heathen countries, the powers of evil seem to have an exceptional range of influence over the mind of man.  Also see the “in depth” discussion of this on verse 41.
For thought: In an age when the miraculous was universally acknowledged, demons openly revealing themselves would tend to build a greater and wider spread fear among the people. Indeed, the attribution of their presence erroneously to other situations would simply increase the popular dread and enhance their supposed “power.” In today’s secularistic world —assuming [a major one indeed!] that Christ’s triumph over death did not include the crushing of earthside demons and their operation—it would be in the demons’ self-interest to disguise their presence by hiding behind whatever attributions unbelievers would prefer to diagnose as “actually” going on. In the first century, the exaggeration of their presence made it easier for them to have a maximum impact; in today’s century the minimization would provide them covert hiding room for the same thing. You don’t try to protect yourself against what you deny is there. [rw]
and cried out with a loud voice. For the reasons noted above, this man could hardly have been permitted in if he had a reputation for being disruptive. So this outburst must have been a major shock to those present. [rw]
"Ah! what have we to do with you, Jesus of
Young’s: saying, 'Away, what -- to us and to thee,
Jesus, O Nazarene? thou didst come to destroy us; I
have known thee who thou art -- the Holy One of God.'
Conte (RC): saying: "Let us alone. What are we to you, Jesus of
Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee. In essence they are claiming that His mission need not involve them. It was optional. In a sense they were, of course, absolutely correct: There were surely many demons He never encountered. But these ones, He had encountered. Telling Jesus, in effect, to “just go away” was a plea of desperation and which the residing demons could hardly expect to work. But when you “have no card to play,” you play whatever weak one you do have. 
we. The demon speaks in the plural, merging his individuality in that of all evil powers. (Matthew 8:29; Mark 5:9.) For the phrase see ; 2 Samuel ; ; 1 Kings 17:18; John 2:4). 
thou Jesus of
art thou come to destroy us? “The devils also believe and tremble,” James . ]
The question implies that the demon isn’t fully sure just what Jesus plans to do so he gives voice to its worst fear. [rw]
I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God. Might not this public confession of the demon, especially as expressed in the language of adulation, have favored, if not suggested, the subsequent calumnious accusation of the Pharisees, "He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the Prince of the devils?" Did the Lord for this rebuke him? —J. Ford. 
WEB: Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" When the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.
Young’s: And Jesus did rebuke him, saying, 'Be
silenced, and come forth out of him;' and the demon having cast him into the
midst, came forth from him, having hurt him nought;
Conte (RC): And Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent and depart from him." And when the demon had thrown him into their midst, he departed from him, and he no longer harmed him.
And Jesus rebuked him. Every expression that our Lord makes use of with respect to these demoniacs plainly supposes them to be really possessed. He treated them as such. Everywhere a plain distinction is made between common diseases and demoniacal possessions, which shows that they were totally different things. (Matt. 4:24; Mark 1:32; Luke 6:17-18 , 8:2, .) 
saying, Hold thy peace. Literally, “Be muzzled,” as in 1 Corinthians 9:9. See Matthew 22:34; Mark 1:25, etc. 
and come out of him. Silence is not enough; this person has suffered from you long enough. In colloquial English: “Shut up and get out!” [rw]
And when the devil had thrown him. Mark uses the stronger word “tearing him.” It was the convulsion which became a spasm of visible deliverance. It is most instructive to contrast the simple sobriety of the narratives of the Evangelists with the credulous absurdities of even so able, polished and cosmopolitan a historian as Josephus, who describes an exorcism wrought in the presence of Vespasian by a certain Eleazar. It was achieved by a ring and the “root of Solomon,” and the demons in proof of his exit was ordered to upset a basin of water! (Josephus, B.J., vii. 6.3; Antiquities, viii. 2.5.) As this is the earliest of our Lord’s miracles recorded by Luke, we may notice that the terms used for miracles in the Gospels are teras “prodigy,” and thaumasion “Wonderful” (Matthew 21:15 only), from the effect on men’s minds; paradoxon (verse 26 only), from their strangeness; semeia “signs,” and dunameis “powers,” from their being indications of God’s power; endoxa “glorious deeds” (13:17 only), as showing His glory; and in John erga “works,” as the natural actions of One who was divine. “Miracles, it should be observed, are not contrary to nature, but beyond and above it.” Mozley. 
in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not. The demon tossed the sufferer about but no longer had the power to make him go where it wanted. Jesus crippled and destroyed its ability to hurt the person any further than this one last transitory pain. [rw]
WEB: Amazement came on all, and they spoke together, one with another, saying, "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!"
Young’s: and amazement came upon all, and they
were speaking together, with one another, saying, 'What is this word, that with
authority and power he doth command the unclean spirits, and they come forth?'
Conte (RC): And fear fell over them all. And they discussed this among themselves, saying: "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they depart."
And they were all amazed. The cure of demoniacs was sometimes attempted by Jewish exorcists, and, as would appear, with a kind of success (Matthew ). Probably, however, few people had seen even pretended successes of this kind; and, if they had, there were features of this case—the entire absence of every shade of [fakery], the intense earnestness, the religious solemnity, and the single efficacy of the Savior’s simple word of commands—for which they were not prepared. 
and spake among themselves. The event had just happened and it had been unexpected. Anything other than a startled reaction such as this would have been unnatural. [rw]
saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. To say words of exorcism was easy enough; to make them work something else entirely. Furthermore, no lengthy ritual—as if it was something magical or supernatural in the ritual that made it all possible—but the simple words to shut up and to “come out of him.” And it happens—immediately and without delay. With a short delay it would have still been impressive. If it had been after extended prayer it would have remained impressive. But this astounding Jesus need only order it—and it was. This might or might not lead them to the deduction that Jesus Himself was supernatural, but it surely required them to concede that He was exercising major supernatural powers, without drama and without melodrama but by a simple spoken word. The very simplicity had to be astounding in its own right. [rw]
WEB: News about him went out into every place of the surrounding region.
Young’s: and there was going forth a fame
concerning him to every place of the region round about.
Conte (RC): And his fame spread to every place in the region.
And the fame [report, NKJV] of Him went out into every place of the country round about. They did not have newspapers, but they did have people traveling to one place or another virtually year round. The word of this astounding action would carry as fast as excited feet could move it. And if loved ones and friends who trusted their word heard it and they had sick ones—or, in most cases, even if they didn’t--they would surely have been ready to act immediately if Jesus came to or close to their community. Anyone who could do this surely needed to be told even if one did not have personal need. [rw]
WEB: He rose up from the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. Simon's mother-in-law was afflicted with a great fever, and they begged him for her.
Young’s: And having risen out of the synagogue, he
entered into the house of Simon, and the mother-in-law of Simon was pressed
with a great fever, and they did ask him about her,
Conte (RC): Then Jesus, rising up from the synagogue, entered into the house of Simon. Now Simon's mother-in-law was in the grip of a severe fever. And they petitioned him on her behalf.
And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered. Indicating the close proximity in time between the two events. To “go home” was the most obvious thing to do at the conclusion of a worship service. [rw]
into Simon's house. Mark, nearly
connected with Peter, says more accurately “the house of Simon and Andrew” ().
This is the first mention of Peter in Luke, but the name was too well
known in the Christian Church to need further explanation. Peter and Andrew were of
And Simon’s wife. It is true we have not the name of Peter's wife, but we find her shadow, as well as that of her husband, thrown across the pages of the New Testament; cleaving to her mother even while she follows another; ministering to Jesus, and for a time finding Him a home, while later we see her sharing the privations and the perils of her husband's wandering life (1 Cor. ix. 5). 
Her (most improbable) traditional name was Concordia or Perpetua. 
Simon's wife's mother. Whether his mother-in-law lived with him, or whether he received her into his house that she might be affectionately attended to during her sickness, is not known, but either shows the kindness of his heart. "Despise not thy mother when she is old" (Prov. xxiii. 22). 
was taken. The word is used nine times by Luke, and only three times elsewhere. Paul uses it of the constraining of Christ's love (2 Cor. v. 14), and of being in a strait (Philip. i. 23). In Acts xxxviii. 8, it is joined with fever, as here, and is a common medical term in the same sense. 
with a great fever. Luke's desire to magnify the power comes clearly out here. "The analytic imperfect implies that the fever was chronic, and the verb that it was severe," Farrar (C.G.T.). Then he calls it a great fever: whether using a technical term (fevers classed by physicians as great and small), as many think, or otherwise, as some incline to believe (Hahn, Godet, etc.), in either case taking pains to exclude the idea of a minor feverish attach. 
and they besought Him. Not as elsewhere, the imperfect (John ), but the aorist, implying that they only had to ask Him once. Mark confirms this when he says (), “immediately they speak to Him about her.” 
for her. Most probably she was too ill to ask His help herself. Doubtless Jesus loved Peter, and therefore could not be indifferent to the sufferings of his mother-in-law, yet He waited until He was besought. 
WEB: He stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her. Immediately she rose up and served them.
Young’s: and having stood over her, he rebuked the
fever, and it left her, and presently, having risen, she was ministering to
Conte (RC): And standing over her, he commanded the fever, and it left her. And promptly rising up, she ministered to them.
And He stood over her. As a physician kindly examining her case. 
A graphic touch, found here only. The other Evangelists say that He took her by the hand. 
rebuked the fever. Criticized, condemned, demanded it leave—personifying the problem as if it were a physical being. [rw]
and it left her: immediately she arose. Literally, “arising at once she began to wait on them.” 
Thus proving the miraculous suddenness of the cure. 
and ministered unto [served, NKJV] them. Probably by preparing the Sabbath evening meal for Jesus, Peter, and their companions. 
WEB: When the sun was setting, all those who had any sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.
Young’s: And at the setting of
the sun, all, as many as had any ailing with manifold sicknesses, brought them
unto him, and he on each one of them his hands having put, did heal them.
Conte (RC): Then, when the sun had set, all those who had anyone afflicted with various diseases brought them to him. Then, laying his hands on each one of them, he cured them.
Now when the sun was setting. The people brought their sick at that hour, not only because of the coolness, but because it was the end of the Sabbath, and carrying a sick person was regarded as work. See John v. 10. 
all they that had any sick with divers diseases brought them unto Him. What they had seen or heard was precedent enough: If He could heal one of them, who knew how many others He might? Even if it turned out the answer was “only some,” what had they possibly lost except a little time? [rw]
and He laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them. Matthew quotes it as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4. `
WEB: Demons also came out from many, crying out, and saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Rebuking them, he didn't allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.
Young’s: And demons also were coming forth from
many, crying out and saying -- 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of God;' and
rebuking, he did not suffer them to speak, because they knew him to be the
Conte (RC): Now demons departed from many of them, crying out and saying, "You are the son of God." And rebuking them, he would not permit them to speak. For they knew him to be the Christ.
And devils also came out of many. However many natural diseases confronted that day, there were also a goodly number that were burdened with non-natural oppression as well. [rw]
crying out. The word implies the harsh screams of the demoniacs. 
and saying, Thou
art Christ the Son of God. And He
rebuking them suffered them not to speak. “His hour was not yet come” (John ), nor in any case would He accept such
testimony: so Paul with the Pythoness at
He already had enough people looking for an excuse to criticize Him. He certainly did not need this “endorsement” to add to the flames! Since they had no alternative but to leave the possessed, might the words be the one tool they did have that might undermine His mission? If so, then the words were not given out of respect, but out of a desperate effort to damage public respect for Him and His teaching. [rw]
for they knew that He was Christ. Better rendered, that he was the Christ, or Messiah. After the Crucifixion, but not till then, "Christ" became a proper name. It was before simply a title, signifying "the Messiah," "the Anointed One." These words of the evil spirits do not seem to have been prompted by any design, as some have supposed, to excite the people either for or against the fresh Teacher; they are simply a cry of involuntary adoration. They knew who that poor Carpenter-Rabbi was; they had seen him in his Divine glory! 
In depth: The reality of Biblical era demon possession—An overview of the competing approaches . This class of miracles deserves detailed statement.
(1) Record of the N.T. Connected with the ministry of Jesus there are recorded ten references to cases of demoniac possession; six are described in detail (Mark 1:23; 5:2; 7:25; 9:25; Matt. 9:32; 12:22); in one case the name is given--Mary Magdalene (Lu. 8:2), and three general references (Mark 1:34; 1:39, and 3:11). It is also recorded that the Twelve cast out many demons (Mark ), and of the seventy it is reported that the demons had been subject to them (Luke ). Mark speaks of an unknown man whom the disciples found casting out demons.
(2) The terms used for the evil power which was said to possess the man are: demon (Mark ; Matt. ); spirit (Mark ); unclean spirit (Mark ), and evil spirit (Luke ). A man is never said to have the devil or a devil or Satan. Also Jesus is charged with having a demon (Jno. ; ; ; and ).
Interpretation of the Phenomena:
Arguments against the reality of demonical possession: (1) all the New Testament cases were due to natural causes; (2) the New Testament writers shared the common belief of their age; (3) this belief, like that in witchcraft, disappears before the growth of better knowledge; (4) the symptoms mentioned in the New Testament can be paralleled in the insanity and epilepsy of the present day; (5) insanity constantly tends to take forms suggested by popular beliefs; and (6) either Jesus shared the superstition of His time, or as to-day sinful physicians for the insane, humor their fancies, so Christ by addressing these unfortunates from their point of view adopted the most effective way of stimulating their faith in His own power to heal.
Arguments in favor of their reality: (1) The words and deeds of Christ in connection with miracles of this class clearly imply the real existence of the demons whom He claimed to cast out; in many cases, indeed, they would otherwise be meaningless (see Mk. 3:23-27; 5:8-13);
(2) an actual demoniacal possession in these instances cannot be denied without assuming that Christ either shared the ignorance of His time or accommodated Himself to it, either of which supposition is held to be inconsistent with His divine character. If Jesus knew better, why did He not tell the disciples the truth in private?
(3) The words of the demoniacs indicate a knowledge of Jesus as the Son of God, and a moral recoil from Him, that cannot be explained on the theory of mere disease;
(4) the Gospels clearly distinguish between diseases which were demoniacal and those which were not, showing that the writers did not blindly attribute all kinds of evil to demons (Matt. -24; Mk. , etc.).
(5) It is no more difficult to understand how an evil spirit can enter into a man and control him than to understand how the Holy Spirit can enter into a man, though both are not exactly the same.
(6) It is probable that some extraordinary manifestation of Satan should accompany the extraordinary manifestation of God in Christ. Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan and it was natural that Satan should make special efforts to counteract the influence of Jesus.
(7) To ignore the difference between Gospel demonology and popular superstition in spite of similarity, is most unscientific. There is the contrast between folly and seriousness; the Gospel demonology is in close connection with the subject of sin. The Gospels ascribe the cause to sin, and we to "natural causes." But may not the principle of evil be the deeper cause and explain both theories. Much that was formerly ascribed to the first cause (good or evil) is now ascribed to second causes, the forces in nature. No one may positively and safely assert what even now is, or is not, the connection of supernatural beings with those mental and physical diseases, whose seat is in moral obliquity of will (Robinson, Christian Theology, p. 115).
(8) Modern psychology has revealed to us how extremely little we know "of secondary personality, the "subliminal self," "change of control," etc.--in a word, how hidden still are the secrets of the region of the supersensuous, and how careful science should be in dogmatizing (Hastings D. of C. II, p. 443).
WEB: When it was day, he departed and went into an uninhabited place, and the multitudes looked for him, and came to him, and held on to him, so that he wouldn't go away from them.
Young’s: And day having come, having gone forth,
he went on to a desert place, and the multitudes were seeking him, and they
came unto him, and were staying him -- not to go on from them,
Conte (RC): Then, when it was daytime, going out, he went to a deserted place. And the crowds sought him, and they went all the way to him. And they detained him, so that he would not depart from them.
And when it was day. Mark () uses the expression “rising up exceedingly early in the morning, while it was yet dark.” It was His object to escape into silence, and solitude, and prayer, without being observed by the multitudes. 
He departed and went into a desert [deserted, NKJV] place. Densely as the district was populated, such a place might be found in such hill ravines as the Vale of Doves at no great distance. 
and the people sought Him, and came unto Him. Implies in the Greek that there was some pains required to reach Him, and that they did not stop until they found Him; or, possibly, that they found Him in prayer and should have remained aloof, but in their urgency came up to Him. 
and stayed Him, that He should not depart from them. Rather,
“tried or wished to detain Him.” 
What useful purpose did they think this would secure? The sick were, apparently already healed; the demon possessed freed of their bondage. Did they view Him as an “illness resource” that should be expropriated to their exclusive use? Was He to ever be permitted to wander far from their town? [rw]
WEB: But he
said to them, "I must preach the good news of the
Young’s: and he said unto them -- 'Also to the
other cities it behoveth me to proclaim good news of
the reign of God, because for this I have been sent;'
Conte (RC): And he said to them, "I must also preach the
And He said unto them. However frustrating their action might be, they deserved an explanation. And that explanation came down to: “I was sent to preach; the healings are purely secondary.” What seems to have grasped their mind as the most important thing actually had far lower priority.
They might not feel guilty at trying to restrain a healer among themselves, but a man who defined himself in terms of teaching? The first anyone could see the immediate value in; the other, nowhere near as many would. The reason: The teacher role implied they individually had learning and change to embrace—work lay ahead of them; the healer role only that they would receive blessings to immediately and long term rejoice over. “Something for nothing.” [rw]
I must preach the
For therefore I am sent. Equivalent to "For that I have come out." In Mark i. 38, "for therefore came I forth." (Isa. lxi. 1; John xvi. 28; xvii. 4; John x. 36.) Preaching was Christ's great work. Hence those who regard preaching as a thing of less importance than some other religious observances, are in error. 
WEB: He was
preaching in the synagogues of
Young’s: and he was preaching in the synagogues of
Conte (RC): And he was preaching in the synagogues of
And He preached
in the synagogues of
This is a general description of the nature of His work, and of the usual seats of it, during the period of indefinite duration, occupied by chapters 5-7. Some might not unreasonably prefer to connect it with the two preceding verses, as denoting, in a summary and provisional way, the issue of that preparation, which these chapters go on to describe in detail. 
the synagogues. The synagogues offered everywhere the most
convenient and appropriate place, as at
(with number code)
1 = Adam Clarke. The New Testament . . . with a Commentary and
Volume I: Matthew to the Acts. Reprint,
2 = Marvin R. Vincent. Word Studies in the New Testament. Volume I:
The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles of Peter, James,
and Jude. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; 1911 printing.
3 = J. S. Lamar. Luke. [Eugene S. Smith, Publisher; reprint, 1977 (?)]
4 = Charles H. Hall. Notes, Practical and Expository on the Gospels;
volume two: Luke-John.
5 = John Kitto. Daily Bible Illustrations. Volume II: Evening Series:
The Life and Death of Our Lord.
6 = Thomas M. Lindsay. The Gospel According to St. Luke. Two
7 = W. H. van Doren. A Suggestive Commentary on the New Testament:
Saint Luke. Two volumes.
8 = Melancthon W. Jacobus. Notes on the Gospels, Critical and
Explanatory: Luke and John.
Brothers, 1856; 1872 reprint.
9 = Alfred Nevin. Popular Expositor of the Gospels and Acts: Luke.
10 = Alfred Nevin.
The Parables of Jesus.
Board of Publication, 1881.
11 = Albert Barnes. "Luke." In Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Reprint, Kregel Publications, 1980.
12 = Alexander B. Bruce. The Synoptic Gospels. In The Expositor's
Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Reprint, Grand
13 = F. Godet. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Translated
from the Second French Edition by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin.
15 = Henry Alford. The Greek Testament. Volume I: The Four Gospels.
16 = David Brown. "Luke" in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and
David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the
Old and New Testaments.
Volume II: New Testament.
S. S. Scranton Company, no date.
17 = Dr. [no first name provided] MacEvilly. An Exposition of the Gospel
of St. Luke.
18 = H. D. M. Spence. “Luke.” In the Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D.
M. Spence. Reprinted by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
19 = John Calvin. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Reprint,
20 = Thomas Scott. The Holy Bible . . . with Explanatory Notes (and)
21 = Henry T. Sell. Bible Studies in the Life of Christ: Historical and
22 = Philip Vollmer. The Modern Student's Life of Christ.
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912.
23 = Heinrich A. W. Meyer. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Gospels of Mark and Luke. Translated from the Fifth German
Edition by Robert Ernest Wallis. N. Y.: Funk and Wagnalls,
1884; 1893 printing.
24 = John Albert Bengel. Gnomon of the New Testament. A New
Translation by Charlton T. Lewis and Marvin R. Vincent.
25 = John Cummings. Sabbath Evening Readers on the New Testa-
26 = Walter F. Adeney, editor. The Century Bible: A Modern
missing from copy.
27 = Pasquier Quesnel. The Gospels with Reflections on Each Verse.
Volumes I and II. (Luke
is in part of both).
D. F. Randolph, 1855; 1867 reprint.
28 = Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel of Luke: An Exposition.
29 = Elvira J. Slack. Jesus: The Man of
Board of the Young Womens Christian Associations, 1911.
30 = Arthur Ritchie. Spiritual Studies in St. Luke's Gospel.
The Young Churchman Company, 1906.
31 = Bernhard Weiss. A Commentary on the New Testament. Volume
Two: Luke-The Acts.
32 = Matthew Henry. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Volume V:
Matthew to John. 17--. Reprint,
Company, no date.
33 = C. G. Barth. The Bible Manual: An Expository and Practical
Commentary on the Books of Scripture. Second Edition.
34 = Nathaniel S. Folsom. The Four Gospels: Translated . . . and with
Critical and Expository Notes. Third Edition.
Upham, and Company, 1871; 1885 reprint.
35 = Henry Burton. The Gospel according to Luke. In the Expositor's
36 = [Anonymous]. Choice Notes on the Gospel of S. Luke, Drawn from
Old and New Sources.
37 = Marcus Dods.
The Parables of Our Lord.
Revell Company, 18--.
38 = Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
39 = A. T. Robertson. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research.
New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920; 1930 reprint.
40 = James R. Gray. Christian Workers' Commentary on the Old and
ion/Fleming H. Revell Company, 1915.
41 = W.
Sanday. Outlines of the Life of Christ.
Scribner's Sons, 1905.
42 = Halford E. Luccock. Studies in the Parables
Methodist Book Concern, 1917.
43 = George H. Hubbard. The Teaching of Jesus in Parables. New
44 = Charles S. Robinson. Studies in Luke's Gospel. Second Series.
45 = John
Laidlaw. The Miracles of Our Lord.
Wagnalls Company, 1892.
46 = William M. Taylor. The Miracles of Our Saviour. Fifth Edition.
New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1890; 1903 reprint.
47 = Alexander Maclaren. Expositions of Holy Scripture: St. Luke.
New York: George H. Doran Company, [no date].
48 = George
Miracles of Our Lord.
George Routledge & Sons, 1878.
49 = Joseph Parker. The People's Bibles: Discourses upon Holy Scrip-
50 = Daniel Whitby and Moses Lowman. A Critical Commentary and
Paraphrase on the New Testament: The Four Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles.
51 = Matthew Poole. Annotations on the Holy Bible. 1600s.
52 = George R. Bliss. Luke. In An American Commentary on the New
53 = J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton. The Fourfold Gospel.
54 = John Trapp. Commentary on the Old and New Testaments. 1654.
55 = Ernest D. Burton and Shailer Matthews. The Life of Christ.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1900; 5th reprint,
56 = Frederic W. Farrar. The Gospel According to St. Luke. In “The
the University Press, 1882.