article19

§14 Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matt. 14:1–36)

Jesus was not the only prophet who was rejected by his own (cf. 13:53–58). John the Baptist had been treated the same way by Herod, ruler of Galilee and Perea. Matthew tells of Herod’s concern that Jesus might be John the Baptist returned from the dead (v. 2). This in turn caused Jesus to withdraw from a public to a secluded area (v. 13). Verses 3–12 record the death of John the Baptist, which had taken place earlier but is brought into the narrative at this point by Matthew.

It is often pointed out that Matthew has shortened Mark’s account and that this has led to inconsistencies. The main problem seems to be that in Mark it is Herodias who wants to kill John (Mark 6:19), whereas in Matthew, Herod is the one who wishes to put him to death (Matt. 14:5). Yet Herodias’ antagonism is also seen in Matthew’s account (the dancing daughter is prompted by her mother to ask for John’s head on a platter, v. 8), and Herod’s reluctance to carry out the execution is pictured by Matthew as well (v. 9). There is no question that both Herod and Herodias wanted to be rid of the prophet, although Herod is the one who is a bit reluctant. Green’s opinion that Mark’s version (adapted by Matthew) “rests on popular tradition, not to say bazaar gossip” and is therefore “no more reliable in its details than such sources generally are” (p. 139) is unnecessarily harsh.

14:1–5 / Matthew correctly identifies Herod as the tetrarch of Galilee. Before Herod the Great died, he divided his territory into three parts and willed them to his sons Archelaus (Judea and Samaria), Philip (Trachonitis and Iturea), and Antipas (Galilee and Perea). Herod Antipas ruled over Galilee from 4 B.C. until he was banished to Gaul in A.D. 39. Upon hearing about Jesus he was convinced that John the Baptist had risen from the dead. How else could he be performing such miracles? This supposition on the part of Herod reflects the contemporary belief in resurrection.

Earlier, Herod had arrested John and put him in chains in prison. Josephus identifies the place as the fortress of Machaerus on the east side of the Dead Sea and says that John was imprisoned because Herod “feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion” (Ant. 18.116–119). Matthew records that John was imprisoned because he had spoken out against the unlawful marriage of Herod to his brother Philip’s wife. Herod Antipas was married to the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas (cf. 2 Cor. 11:32), when he went to Rome and met and seduced Herodias, the wife of his half-brother, Herod Philip (not to be confused with Philip the tetrarch). He then divorced his first wife (which later led to defeat in war) and married Herodias. Whether or not his divorce was legal, his marriage to Herodias was not. According to Jewish law it was wrong for him to marry the wife of his brother while the brother was still alive (cf. Lev. 18:16; 20:21). Since Matthew does not actually say that Herod married Herodias (Mark does, 6:17), Gundry concludes that John was prohibiting the contemplation of marriage (p. 286). Certainly it is better to allow the two accounts to supplement one another than to invent a discrepancy. The evidence does not force us to conclude (as Gundry suggests) that Matthew “play[s] with the details in a way that transmutes a historical report into a semihistorical short story” in order to “shift the onus of guilt from Herodias to Herod” (p. 287).

John’s rebuke of Herod was not an isolated remark, for John had been saying to (Gk. elegen in v. 4 is imperfect) Herod, It is not lawful for you to have Herodias (v. 5). The present participle thelōn (wanted) in verse 5 indicates Herod’s continuing desire to get rid of John. It is best understood as a concessive participle and reads, “Though he wanted to put him to death, he feared public reaction.”

14:6–12 / It was on the occasion of Herod’s birthday celebration that John the Baptist was put to death. The daughter of Herodias danced before all the guests, and Herod was so delighted that he promised her anything she might want. Although it would have been unusual for a royal princess to perform an “immodest and provocative” dance (Filson, p. 169) in the presence of men, in view of Herodias’ hatred of John and the drunkenness of the occasion, it is not difficult to believe that that is exactly what happened. The name of Herodias’ daughter (Salome) is not supplied by the Gospel account but by Josephus. Salome was the daughter of Herodias by her first marriage to Herod Philip of Rome. She later married her granduncle, Philip the tetrarch.

It was at her mother’s instigation that Salome requested on a platter the head of John the Baptist. Herod was distressed, but because he had made the promise in front of all his dinner guests, he ordered the execution. According to Jewish law it was illegal to put a person to death without a trial, but the pressure of the moment was too much for a weak person like Herod. The grisly act was carried out, and the head of the prophet was delivered on a platter to Salome, who then carried it to her mother. The Greek korasion (“little girl”) in verse 11 may be somewhat ironic, in that it calls attention to the treachery of using a relatively innocent person in perpetrating such a cruel and violent deed. The disciples of John came and took the body for burial and then told Jesus about it.

14:13–17 / When Jesus heard everything that had taken place (cf. v. 12), he withdrew by boat to a secluded spot. Mark and Luke connect the retreat with the return of the Twelve, who needed a period of rest (Mark 6:30–31; Luke 9:10). The place was near the city of Bethsaida (Luke 9:10), on the northeast shore of the lake. This area was governed by the tetrarch Philip and would provide some immunity from Herod Antipas. Galilee at that time was a crowded land. Although its boundaries included only slightly more than a thousand square miles, Josephus tells us that it had more than two hundred towns with populations of fifteen thousand or more.

When the people heard of his departure, they left their villages and followed along the edge of the lake. Upon landing, Jesus looked at the large crowd and was deeply moved with compassion. He put aside for the moment his own need for privacy and healed those who were sick.

As evening came and the time for supper had already passed, the disciples came to Jesus with the request that the people be allowed to go to the villages and buy themselves some food (v. 15). To the disciples’ surprise Jesus answered that there was no need for the crowd to leave. You give them something to eat, said Jesus. Their response, undoubtedly tinged with some skepticism, was, We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish. Bread and fish were basic to the diet of the poor of that day.

14:18–21 / The bread was brought to Jesus, who then told the people to sit down on the grass. It is Mark who adds the colorful note that they sat in prasiai (“garden beds”) of hundreds and fifties (Mark 6:40). He also indicates that the grass was “green,” which suggests springtime (Mark 6:39). Jesus took the loaves and fish and looked up to heaven from whence all good gifts come. He gave thanks (eulogēsen in v. 19 does not mean that he “blessed” the bread in the sense of infusing into it some spiritual quality), broke the bread, and had the disciples distribute the pieces. Everyone had enough to eat, and when they picked up what was left over, there were twelve basketfuls of broken pieces. Matthew adds that there were about five thousand men (Gk. andres) who ate, not counting the women and children.

There is no question that Matthew depicts a miraculous multiplication of loaves. The account is found in all four Gospels (Mark 6:30–44; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:1–13). A somewhat similar feeding of four thousand is found in Matthew 15:32–39 and Mark 8:1–10 (Mark 8:19–20 indicates that we are dealing with two separate events). There are a number of interpreters, however, who are reluctant to take the miracle at face value. Beare, for instance, writes. “It is of course preposterous, if it be taken literally, as an account of an actual event” (p. 236). Barclay is a bit more gentle toward those who have no need to go beyond the simple story itself: he writes, “Let them remain for ever undisturbed in the sweet simplicity of their faith” (vol. 2, p. 102).

Those who resist taking the account as an actual miracle offer various explanations. Perhaps everyone had a lunch, but no one was willing to bring it out lest he or she would have to share it with others. When they were shamed into action, we see “the miracle of the birth of love in grudging hearts” (Barclay, vol. 2, p. 103). Beare rightly calls this particular approach (which was originally suggested by H. E. G. Paulus in 1828) “banal and inept” (p. 327). Others have taken it as a sort of midrash on the story of Elisha, who fed a hundred men with twenty loaves of barley bread and some heads of new grain (2 Kings 4:42–44). Albert Schweitzer sees the event as a token meal in which each person received a minute amount as a promise of the coming messianic banquet. Though the eucharistic interpretation is somewhat closer to John’s presentation, it leaves unexplained the twelve baskets of scraps that remained. Unless a person feels compelled for some reason to disallow miracles in the life and ministry of Jesus, it is preferable to understand the account exactly as it is presented.

14:22–27 / As soon as the five thousand had been fed, Jesus “prevailed upon his disciples” (Knox) to cross over the lake ahead of him while he dismissed the crowds. The Greek ēnankasen is a strong word that means “to compel” (NIV, made). It suggests that the disciples would have liked to stay and share in the excitement of the crowd. In John’s recounting of the story, we learn that “Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself” (John 6:15). A strong popular reaction to the miracle would rouse national sentiment, and Jesus did not want to jeopardize his mission by encouraging a political uprising. Only here and in Gethsemane does Matthew speak of Jesus praying (cf. 26:36–44).

The Greek to oros (“the mountain,” v. 23) refers to the hill country as distinct from the lowlands (especially the hills above the sea of Galilee, Abbott-Smith, p. 324). To the west of the lake these hills rise about 1200 feet above the surface of the water. When evening came Jesus was still there alone, and the boat with the disciples was a long way off shore (lit., “many furlongs,” each furlong being just over two hundred yards) battling a strong head wind and at the mercy of a rough sea.

Sometime during the fourth watch of the night (3:00 to 6:00 a.m.; the Romans divided the period from 6:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. into four equal periods of time) Jesus went out to the disciples, walking on the sea. It is sometimes suggested that since the Greek for on the lake differs in verses 25 and 26 (in v. 25 the preposition epi is followed by the accusative case and in v. 26 by the genitive), we should interpret the first as “toward the sea” and the second as “by the sea” (cf. similar uses in Mark 16:2 and John 21:1). Taken in this way, Jesus, as he came toward the lake, saw the boat that had been driven to the northern shore by the heavy winds and then waded through the surf to be of help. Though such a reconstruction is grammatically possible, it needs to be remembered that the Greek preposition epi is notably imprecise.

When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the lake (Mark adds that he meant to pass them by, Mark 6:48), they were terrified and cried out, It’s a ghost. Jesus responded immediately, saying “It’s all right!” (Phillips), “I AM” (egō eimi), the living God is present. Stendahl notes that the “egō eimi may have a numinous and divine ring” (p. 786), in which case it would be translated “I AM” rather than It is I (cf. Exod. 3:14; Isa. 43:10).

14:28–33 / The story of Peter’s attempt to walk to his Master on the water is recorded only by Matthew (vv. 28–31). It is sometimes taken as an acted parable of Peter’s career (i.e., in his pride he fell and had to be rescued and restored by Jesus). Christian elaborations on the theme would see the boat as the church, the water as the hostile world, and Jesus descending from the mountain as the ascended Lord coming to dispel the fears of the troubled church. Once again we are reminded that presuppositions control exegesis. Our understanding of the text is conditioned by allowing it to speak for itself. Filson reaches for middle ground, writing, “These miracle stories have grown in the telling, but they are nearer the truth than a gospel narrative stripped of miracles and high faith” (p. 174).

Peter asks the Lord that if it is really he, to command him to come to him across the water (note: epi with the accusative; cf. v. 25, where it was suggested by some that epi with the accusative meant “toward the sea”—hardly possible in vv. 28 and 29). In response to Jesus’ word of command, Peter got down out of the boat (v. 29) and started toward Jesus. When he saw how strong the wind was, he lost his courage. Beginning to sink, he called out, Lord, save me. Jesus immediately reached out and caught him, saying, You of little faith, “What made you lose your nerve like that?” (Phillips). When both Peter and Jesus climbed into the boat, the wind died down (v. 32). Matthew records the worshiping response of the disciples, who exclaimed, Truly you are the Son of God. This profession of faith in Jesus anticipates Peter’s great confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:16). It is often pointed out that Mark ends his account noting that the disciples were astounded because they had not gained any insight from the feeding of the five thousand and their minds were closed (Mark 6:51–52). It is incorrect to compare this with Matthew’s account of the disciples who responded by confessing that Jesus was the Son of God. Mark’s words attach directly to the disciples’ terrified response to seeing Jesus walking on the water. Matthew records the disciples’ response to Christ’s rescue of Peter (the account of which is not included in Mark’s narrative).

14:34–36 / The boat with Jesus and the disciples came to shore at Gennesaret on the northwest shore of the lake, a small (four miles long and about two miles wide) and fertile plain lying between Capernaum and Magdala. Josephus described the beauty and lush vegetation of the area (War 3.516–521), and the rabbis spoke of it as “the Garden of God.” Upon landing, Jesus was recognized by the local townspeople, who brought all their sick to him and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were restored to health. The kraspedon (or “hem of a garment,” especially the “tassel,” Deut. 22:12) played an important part in the Pharisees’ outward display of piety (cf. Matt. 23:5). The woman with an issue of blood believed that by touching the kraspedon of Jesus’ garment she would receive his healing power (Matt. 9:20; Luke 8:44). That day in Gennesaret all who touched the fringe of Jesus’ robe were made whole.