075. Chapter 16 - The Feeding of the Five Thousand

Chapter 16 - The Feeding of the Five Thousand Matthew 14:13-21;Mark 6:30-44;Luke 9:10-17;John 6:1-15 The Crisis The tragic news of John’s death must have filled all Judaea and Galilee with wailing and mourning. The crowds about Jesus would have been particularly excited to learn what Jesus had to say about this sad event. Fanatical Zealots would have been critical of Jesus for not intervening to save John. All would have been brokenhearted over the tragedy. The return of the twelve apostles from their mission just at this time (whether by summons, by previous arrangement, or their own identical decisions), increased the excitement. Jesus found this one of the times when he needed solitude and communion with God. The disciples also needed to be given careful instruction. They were eager to report to Jesus all they had accomplished and experienced. They would have many unanswered questions, especially in regard to the murder of John. Those among the multitude who desired spiritual instruction and consolation needed to be separated from the hostile and fanatical elements. There would be no private session in which admission would be only by invitation, but a test of faith and desire would be given to sift the crowd.

Privacy

Using His oft-repeated method of sifting the crowd, Jesus in the sight and hearing of all commanded the disciples to prepare the boat for departure to the other side of the lake. If Jesus had actually desired to be rid of the multitude, He might have turned the prow of the boat to the southeast at an angle which would have made it impossible for any to follow, except in boats. But as it was, Jesus had the apostles guide the boat straight across the northern end of the lake. A slow voyage across gave Jesus and the apostles the only opportunity for rest and spiritual communion together which this hectic day afforded. “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while” was the gracious invitation to the disciples exhausted after their strenuous campaign. The word desert in the New Testament does not mean waterless, but uninhabited. Here is an excellent place to prove it. The scene of the feeding of the five thousand was an uninhabited section on the shore of the lake; it is called a desert place. The Greek word eremos means empty. The Crowd The crowd was quick to see that while Jesus was leaving, He was traveling in a direction and at a rate of speed which furnished an invitation to those who desired to follow. It is a fascinating picture which the crowd made strung out along the lake front for miles, with every person exerting himself to the utmost, running or at least hurrying as best he could. The strong and youthful would be far ahead; the infirm and aged would be far behind. From other towns and villages others would join in the race. The race from Capernaum would lead alongside Bethsaida and Chorazin; Bethsaida Julias on the eastern side of Jordan would not be too far off the course. The Jordan River, after its rapid descent from Lake Huleh, spreads out in a wide, shallow stream as it enters the Sea of Galilee. It would not have been much of an obstacle to the hurrying crowd.

We are continually moved to speculate as to how large the crowds around Jesus were. They are called multitudes, but how large is a multitude? Here is a selected crowd, one that had the faith and determination to go to great lengths to be in this assembly. Both Matthew and Mark estimate the crowd at five thousand men. Matthew specifically mentions that women and children were present but not included in the count. It was customary to count only the men. Some surmise that there would be few women and children present, but this is a strange supposition. The lake is six miles wide at this point and the trip around the end of the lake would not have been more than eight to ten miles at most. “The Bridge of Jacob’s Daughters” is eight miles up the Jordan from the northern end of the lake, but a ford would have given the multitude immediate crossing near the lake. The interest of the women and the young people would certainly have been as intense as that of the men. Women were freely permitted to share these preaching sessions. There may have been more women and children present than men. The Scripture does not exclude this possibility. When we calculate the number of people in the towns and cities about the northern end of the lake, the problem still remains as to what percentage of the total population was sufficiently interested to make this trip into the desert on the chance of being able to overtake and be with Jesus. Josephus specifies 25,000 inhabitants as a sort of average for these towns in Galilee. If this figure even approaches an accurate estimate, then it is plain that wicked lives, greedy pursuits, and indifference took its toll even of the crowds about Jesus. We must remember, however, that this was a selected crowd who had endured great hardship to be present. The same seems to he true of the four thousand at a later time. Crowds on the mountainside or the lake shore in the suburbs of a large city might well have been larger. The Scripture certainly does not indicate that it was extraordinary for so many people to be in attendance at a preaching service held by Jesus. Instead, the number is cited to emphasize the magnitude of the miracle. The Arrival

Critics undertake to establish a contradiction between the Synoptics and John as to the time the multitude arrived. Matthew and Luke, and especially Mark, declare that the crowd arrived first, while John is said to declare that Jesus arrived first. Gould represents John as saying “that Jesus spent some time in the mountain with His disciples before the multitude came to Him.” But this is not true (John 6:3-6). Plummer says helplessly, “No evangelist tells us how long Jesus and the disciples enjoyed their privacy before the multitudes arrived.” But Mark explicitly affirms that the crowd outran the boat; and, when Jesus and the apostles disembarked, they found the crowd (Mark 6:33). John declares, “Jesus therefore lifting up his eyes, and seeing that a great multitude cometh unto him...” (John 6:5). It is plain that the strong and youthful in the crowd outran both the boat and the greater part of the multitude. These were on the shore when the boat landed. But stretched along the lake shore in plain view were thousands of others, not able to keep up with the speedy, but hurrying as fast as they were able. Jesus saw the multitude coming and selected an amphitheater where all would be able to hear and see. By the time the weak stragglers had arrived, Jesus was seated with His disciples prepared to teach and to heal. The accounts are wonderfully independent and harmonious.

Christ’s Plan

John is very clear in his affirmation that Jesus was following a definite plan: “….for he himself knew what he would do” (John 6:6). The move from the environs of bustling Capernaum had blocked for the moment any move by the Zealots to start a violent revolution in protest against John’s death. This element is in the crowd and undertakes to seize control of the work of Jesus after the miracle. But the desert site placed them at a great disadvantage. The test of faith that was applied to all who endured the hardship of the journey in order to be with Jesus produced an atmosphere of faith. The strong proof of the reality of the miracle which was afforded by the location is an important element in the plan of Jesus. The crowd is suddenly assembled in such great excitement that no one is quite sure where the destination is, and no one has time to secure any food before he starts. If the miracle had taken place in the outskirts of a city such as Capernaum, it would have given hostile critics the chance to insist that the food was procured from a nearby market.

Christ’s Mercy

Jesus had also been moved to leave Capernaum because of His deep concern for His disciples and desire for privacy. The disciples needed both rest and instruction, but compassion for the multitudes had caused Jesus to send the apostles forth on their first missionary campaign; this same pity fills His heart as He looks upon them now. The temptation would have been great for many leaders to become angry at the persistence of the crowd, but divine mercy ruled the heart of Jesus. Luke says, “He welcomed them” (Luke 9:11). This Greek verb, when applied to persons, means to welcome to hospitality and home. In the quiet and beauty of mountain and lake shore Jesus welcomed them; “This is my Father’s world.”

Burton says that Jesus as the divine Host made the desert “a room of the Father’s house, carpeted with grass and ablaze with flowers; and Jesus, by His welcome, transforms the desert into a guest-chamber, where in a new way He keeps the Passover with His disciples” (Com. on Luke, p. 272). One must question whether Jesus is keeping in any way the Passover here in the desert. The new dispensation is rising up independent of the old.

Gould remarks with an air of cynicism concerning this reception of the multitude from whom He had just attempted to escape, “It is a distinctly human change of purpose, such as foreknowledge would have prevented.” But John declares that Jesus was following a definite plan; “He himself knew what he would do” (John 6:6). The crossing of the lake had given some most important time for Jesus to be with His disciples. The long season of prayer on the mountaintop during the night that followed afforded Jesus the private communion He had desired to have with the Father. His compassion on the multitude had been shown in the wonderful day of ministration. The Zealots were balked in their attempt to turn His movement into a military revolt. His disciples were separated from the Zealots during the hours of His prayer on the mountain. The two miracles of the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water, enabled Him to accomplish these objectives and rejoin His disciples. Verily, “He himself knew what he would do.”

Luke informs us of the sermon topic for this exciting occasion. It is the same subject Jesus continually discussed during His ministry: “He...spake to them of the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:11). But what overtones this sermon must have carried as an in memoriam to John the Baptist and to the Old Testament prophets who had endured martyrdom before him. The people desired above all else to hear Jesus now in light of the sudden news of John’s death. But the message Jesus preached must have been of one pattern with all that He had already declared to them concerning the spiritual nature of the kingdom and the necessity of enduring suffering in this wicked world as a good soldier of Christ. The suffering of Christ Himself for the sins of men was ever a cardinal theme in the preaching of Jesus. The reason for the urgent need for prayer in the life of Jesus at this time is that the death of John lifted high His own cross before Him. We would expect this to have been reflected in the sermon Jesus preached. Miracles of healing also took place during this exciting service. Occasional conferences with His disciples seem to indicate that sessions of teaching, preaching, and healing were intermingled. The New Crisis The trip around the end of the lake had afforded one test of faith. Jesus now began to apply other tests to stimulate the faith of the disciples and finally the multitude. Mark specifically informs us that Jesus and His apostles had not had leisure to eat while on the western shore because of the pressure of the multitude: “Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat” (Mark 6:31). Even though the need for food must have been great even at the start of the great service on the mountainside, Jesus ministered first to the needs of the sick and infirm by miracles of healing and second to the spiritual needs of all by His preaching. But as the day wore on, the need for food became critical. John says that Jesus first broached this subject to the apostles. When Jesus approached Philip with the problem, John assures us that He was not seeking advice from Philip, but that He knew what he would do: “Whence are we to buy bread, that these may eat? And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do” (John 6:5, John 6:6). Proving Philip — testing his faith — immediately involved testing the faith of all the apostles. One can see Philip urgently seeking consultation with Peter and the other apostles. What a dilemna! Philip had answered that two hundred shillings of bread would not have afforded even a morsel for so many people. No money in any such amount; no market place in which to buy, if they had the money; and Jesus seemed to lay the responsibility on their shoulders: “Are we to buy bread?” The apostles are left to struggle with this new crisis for what was probably some hours. Then the responsibility becomes too great. They come to Jesus entreating Him to send the people home before it is too late and tragedy results. They urge that the people be dismissed to go to ‘the villages and country round about, and lodge, and get provisions: for we are here in a desert place” (Luke 9:12). But Jesus calmly puts further pressure upon the apostles by saying, “Give ye them to eat (Luke 9:13). He then commands the apostles to investigate and see how much food is available among the multitude. John tells us that it was a young lad who had five loaves and two fishes and that Andrew was the apostle who discovered this fact.

There is a considerable lapse of time indicated between John 6:7 and John 6:8 in John 6:1-71. How long a time would it take the apostles to go among a crowd of some ten thousand people and find out whether anyone in the crowd had any food? The crowd was still assembled at will, listening to the teaching and preaching of Jesus. The apostles would have divided up the throng and have gone through the midst asking, “Does anyone here have any food?” Now the pressure is being applied to the crowd. What sense of calamity must have swept the crowd as they realized their predicament. They had been so intent on the marvelous service that they had forgotten all about physical food. But when it was deliberately mentioned at Jesus’ command, every person must have suddenly become conscious of his exhausted condition and his dire need of food. The test of faith is about to be applied this time to the multitude. The Lad The question as to why only this lad should have had food immediately suggests that he did not start with them. He must have been going to a different destination and have been attracted to the crowd in their desperate race around the end of the lake. It is thus that boys today respond to the exciting impulse of fire engines roaring down the city streets. But when we consider the fact that this boy still had his lunch after all these hours of the service, then we find a most interesting basis for estimating his character. What temptations to nibble had been resisted! Moreover, when Jesus peremptorily commanded that this pitiful handful of food be brought to Him, it is clearly implied that the boy gladly gave the food to Jesus. The lunch was not enough to satisfy his own ravenous hunger now. But in the hands of Jesus it became enough to feed a vast multitude. The Banquet Assembly The crowd had been stirred to a deep sense of need by the period of investigation to determine whether any food was in the midst. Next they had seen Jesus ask that the little lunch of this lad be brought to Him. Finally they were challenged to believe that Jesus would be able to satisfy the hunger of everyone from this infinitesimal supply. They were commanded to sit in carefully arranged groups for the meal Jesus was about to provide.

Matthew and John record that Jesus had the apostles go among the crowd and command them to sit down in preparation to eat. Mark and Luke specify that the apostles were to divide them into small groups. The accounts are strikingly independent. Luke says, “Make them sit down in companies about fifty each” (Luke 9:14). Mark says, “...all should sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds and by fifties” (Mark 6:39, Mark 6:40). The Greek word translated ranks means fundamentally “garden beds” and can only be translated ranks or divisions by a metaphor. This term is a particularly vivid and poetic touch in Mark. The lanes of green grass and the solid groups of people dressed in gay colors of the East looked just like a flower garden. “And they sat down in garden beds, by hundreds and by fifties.” The whole mountainside must have been alive with the beautiful wild flowers that abound in Palestine in early spring. This must have made the scene even more attractive. “Law and order” was always the first principle in Jesus’ handling the vast multitudes that thronged His ministry. All would now be able to hear and see. All could be readily served with aisles for the apostles to use in going from one group to another. It would be easily ascertained whether all had been served and whether anyone desired more food. An estimate of the number in the crowd was more readily made by reason of this orderly arrangement. The people probably were permitted to follow their own inclinations as families and friends grouped together or people who happened to be near together now changed to orderly formation. There seems to have been no effort at mathematical exactness in the arrangement. And the estimate of the number present is general — about five thousand; furthermore, no estimate is given of the number of women and children, who usually sat apart from the men in the regular assembly of the synagogue. The Time The writers do not specify the exact time of day. Matthew says, “The time is already past” ; Mark affirms, “The day was now far spent” ; Luke records, “The day began to wear away.” These statements make it clear it was well past noon when Jesus took up the task of feeding the multitude. The trip across the lake, the preaching, teaching, and healing consumed the early part of the afternoon. The preparations for feeding so great a crowd must have taken some time, and the meal itself was eaten at leisure. John indicates that when He had fed the multitude and dismissed them, “even was come.” The disciples evidently lingered in their boat close enough to shore to see whether lie would return to them in spite of His strange command for them to cross the lake. By the time they really started to make their voyage, John says, “It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them” (John 6:17). The Miracle The Gospel writers record the miracle with amazing brevity. They do not undertake to describe the exact manner in which the increase took place. It seems that the miracle took place in the hands of Jesus. As He broke off the loaves and fishes, they were increased. McGarvey in his early commentary on Matthew and Mark says, “The increase had occurred by the instantaneous restoration of the size of the loaf, as each man broke off a piece more than sufficient for himself. Thus the miracle was witnessed by each one of the five thousand, and it was really resolved into five thousand repetitions of the same miracle” (p. 131). But if this were the process, then the miracle was really performed in the hands of the apostles and the people, more than in the hands of Christ.

Jesus obviously was the center of interest as the One working the miracle. Moreover, these were small loaves such as would be appropriate for a boy. They were probably more like our buns than our large loaves of bread. And would the apostles undertake to carry just what their hands would hold in serving so many thousands of people? This is possible since the crowd has been arranged in orderly groups so that the apostles could approach each person. But would a person hold in his hands sufficient food for himself in his present starved condition? Is there any reason that there was not a second and a third serving until all were satisfied? The incidental manner in which the “baskets” are introduced as the means for collecting the fragments suggests that they had been in use in distributing the food as well. Baskets could be passed readily from one person to another down a row. It may be added in favor of McGarvey’s view that the increase of the meal and the oil in the home of the widow of Sarepta took place in the hands of the widow rather than in the prophet’s hands and was continuous from day to day. If baskets were used and the supply of food in each basket was not exhausted so long as there was further demand, then there would have been no need for the apostles to return to Jesus for additional supply. There is a possibility, however, that the miracle remained continuous in the hands of Jesus as the apostles came back and forth for added supply of food. At any rate, the original miracle in the hands of Jesus as He filled the twelve baskets would have been visible to all, for this was the sort of location Jesus had chosen for the service. The miracle was first performed in the hands of Jesus, regardless of how the continuous action of the miracle followed. Luke indicates this clearly when he says,“…..and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.”

Before Jesus broke the loaves and the fishes for distribution, He looked up to heaven as He gave thanks to God for the meal they were about to share. There was something about the look of Jesus which the disciples never forgot. As in giving the Lord’s Supper, Jesus first blessed and then broke the loaf. When we pause to give thanks before our meals, we are following the example Jesus gave us in the two miraculous feedings and in the home at Emmaus, where He revealed at last His identity to the two disciples. The Baskets The Greek word for basket is the same in all four accounts. It means the wallet that Jews usually carried with them on long journeys, such as to the Passover. In the feeding of the four thousand the Greek word is different and means a big hamper such as might be used to carry a large amount of grain. The wallets used on this occasion may have belonged to the apostles. They had been forbidden to take a wallet with them on their recent missionary campaign, but these knapsacks may have been a permanent part of the equipment of the boat, since they often went into desert places where it would have been appropriate for them to take food. Their purchase of bread at Sychar (John 4:8) and their conscience-stricken remembrance that they had forgotten to buy bread before crossing the lake on a later occasion ( Matthew 16:7), lead us to expect that they ordinarily had such equipment at hand in case Jesus suddenly ordered them to a long journey in uncertain terrain. There probably would have been a number of such wallets in the possession of some in the crowd, people who were getting ready to travel and did not have time to bestow their wallet before the race around the lake was started. The apostles may have borrowed the baskets from some in the crowd. This line of investigation leads us to wonder how the boy carried his lunch, and after all these hours, had it still in edible condition. He probably had carried it in a small wallet. The Fragments The gathering up of the fragments taught a wonderful lesson on conservation for those present and for all time. It also furnishes clinching evidence as to the miracle. Here is proof that every person in the immense crowd had completely satisfied his hunger. It immediately raises the question as to whether some of the people kept in their hands all the food they wished to take home to friends and relatives to whom they would bear witness of the miracle. There is no statement here, as in the case of turning the water to wine, that the food which was miraculously increased was of extraordinary quality. The great amount of wine left to the bridegroom at the close of the wedding feast in Cana undoubtedly enabled many to come from the surrounding country on hearing of the miracle and taste some of the extraordinary wine which Jesus had made. We are caused to wonder whether from the feeding of the five thousand such evidence was not carried to other thousands. The indication of the text is that whatever the people did not care to use was collected in baskets. And what was done with this supply of excess food? Mark’s account reads as if the bread was collected in separate containers from the fishes: “And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also of the fishes” (Mark 6:43). The bread would keep longer and would be more usable.

We conclude that this food, although so simple, was beyond comparison in excellence. Needy persons may have been glad to receive it. Upon hearing of the nature of the miracle, the desire to taste some of this leftover bread and fish may have been great. The scraps could have been fed to animals. If the baskets were borrowed from some of the people in the crowd, we can assume that the owner took care of the basket and its contents at the close of the day. If the baskets belonged to the apostles, some of the other disciples may have volunteered to see that good use was made of the contents and to return the basket in due time.

Radical Attack on the Miracle

Hostile critics, such as Paulus, Holzmann, and Bacon, attempt to deny the miracle and affirm that this was a purely ordinary meal which was inflated into a miracle by the monstrous lying of the Gospel writers. The popular novel The Robe, by Lloyd Douglas, undertakes to present this skeptical attack as to what actually happened. He holds that since everyone was going on such a long journey each one took his own lunch. This flatly declares that the Gospel narratives falsify the facts in their representations of the manner in which the race began around the lake, the conditions prevailing before the start, the explicit testimony that a thorough search was made to find any food in the people’s possession, and that they found no one who had anything to eat except the lad. The radicals hold that Jesus taught until dinner time, took out His lunch, and began to eat, advising everybody else to do likewise. Thus, as He caused everybody to eat their lunch by setting the example, the story got started that He had fed the multitude! The Defense In reply to this attack the following facts are to be considered: This theory contradicts at every point the Gospel writers, two of whom were eyewitnesses; it vilifies the authors. At the time the Gospel narratives were written many of the great multitude were still alive. These eyewitnesses could verify the account of the Gospel writers or else denounce them as liars trying to invent a miracle out of a natural event. It must be remembered that not all these witnesses were friendly to the spiritual ministry of Jesus, as is manifest in the debate the next day in the synagogue in Capernaum. They argued against Jesus the next day, but they did not attempt to deny the reality of the miracle. The extraordinary restraint shown in the narration bears the seal of historic reality. The food was of the simplest variety. An inventor would have pictured “little table come and little table go away,” with all the luxurious food of the region. There was no food brought down from heaven, but the little lunch of a lad was increased to feed the multitude. Fiction writers would have made the creation of food a commonplace in the ministry of Jesus. There are just two occasions when Jesus performed this kind of miracle. The element of conservation seen in the gathering of the fragments carries a remarkable element of authenticity. If each person had his own lunch, why should there have been twelve baskets of food left over? What right would the apostles have had to take away from the individuals what was their own property? The radicals have searched the literature of the world in vain to find any sort of story similar enough to have suggested this account. They have failed completely. Whence this record, if no miracle occurred? The restrained fashion in which the testimony is given has a peculiarly powerful element in Jesus’ refusal of the crown at the last. The extreme brevity and simplicity of the account and the inclusion of so many vivid and unintentional details are most convincing. The manner in which the miracle fits into the sweep of events in the ministry of Jesus makes invention impossible. The fact should not be overlooked that this scene represents the climax of the Galilean ministry. Popular enthusiasm grew steadily until this event, but His campaign collapsed with His refusal to become a worldly messiah. His sermon the next day on the bread of life and the ensuing debate with the Zealots drove many others away. Even though the disciples were puzzled and disheartened at the tragic turn of events, they still clung to Him. From this time Jesus spent more time in seclusion training His disciples. The time of His death was now approaching.

Evidences of Faith The evidence for faith being required before this miracle was performed immediately raises the question as to whether anyone was seeking miraculous aid. Jesus did not perform the miracle suddenly and unexpectedly, but only after careful preparation. He was at great pains to bring the apostles and the crowd into the state of mind where they were seeking help and to stir their expectancy and faith before He fed them.

He deliberately caused the multitude to follow Him into a desert place, where they had no food and where none was available.

He first placed the problem of the exhausted, famished multitude before the apostles to make them think it over and to feel the responsibility in the matter (John 6:5, John 6:6).

Later in the day when the disciples begged Him to send the crowd away before it was too late, He laid the responsibility upon them again (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:35, Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12). They were staggered by the command that they should feed the multitude, and they could only repeat the suggestion made by Philip earlier in the day (Matthew 14:16; Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13; John 6:7).

He then demanded that they go through the thousands of people and inquire whether anyone had any food. This search served two purposes: (a) It made them give proof of their faith by seeking out a handful of food to enable Jesus to feed thousands of people. (b) It suddenly stirred the sense of critical need and the expectancy of the crowd (Mark 6:38).

Andrew, evidently searching through the section of the multitude which had been assigned to him for questioning, found a lad with five loaves and two fishes. Though doubtful of the importance of his discovery, he reported it to Jesus (John 6:9; Matthew 14:17; Mark 6:38; Luke 9:13.)

Jesus told the apostles to go and tell the boy that He desired to have his lunch. This command required faith on their part and on that of the boy (John 6:9).

After the crowd was stirred by the inquiries of the apostles and the procedure of securing the little lunch from this boy, they were commanded to sit down in regular formations for orderly serving of the meal. It required faith for the apostles to deliver and the crowd to obey such instruction when only five loaves and two fishes were in sight.

John’s narrative makes plain that some of those who shared the miracle had defective faith in the sense that they did not understand or endorse the spiritual campaign of Jesus. These persons were the fanatical Zealots eager to start a rebellion against Rome. We are not told about the impact of the miracle upon the apostles, but we can judge how great it was from their amazed protests earlier in the day when faced with the prospect of having to feed so great a crowd. But the tremendous effect of the miracle upon the Zealots is made manifest by their rash plot to seize Jesus and make Him king — their kind of messiah. They had enough faith to obey the commands of Jesus to prepare for the meal when food was not yet in evidence, but they did not have enough faith to accept His spiritual program. They can be likened to the nine lepers, who had enough faith to obey and go on their way to show themselves to the priest, but not enough gratitude to return and give thanks to Jesus. They were like the people who had faith to ask to be healed and to obey the tests of faith, but who failed to obey His command to maintain silence concerning the miracle. The Independence of the Accounts The independence of the four accounts is most impressive. This miracle is the only one Jesus worked during His ministry which is recorded by all four writers. This testifies both to the mighty character of the miracle and the critical importance of the event in the entire movement of Jesus’ ministry. Radical scholars attempt to spin out fanciful dreams about their Two-source Theory and Form Criticism, by which they endeavor to show that the writers of our Gospel narratives copied from one another or from common sources. But see what difficulties they meet in the accounts of this miracle. It is inevitable that persons sharing the same church service, or the same picnic, or a thrilling experience of any kind would report some of the same details. They could not report the entire experience and not report some of the same things. The all-important details appear in each of the narratives, but the differences in details are impressive.

    Since John wrote his Gospel in the next to last, or last decade of the first century, whereas the Synoptic writers published their works at the middle of the century, we should expect that John would show clearly that he was copying from the others if this were the procedure. Of course, the entire basis of this radical attack is the assumption that these narratives were written late and not by eyewitnesses or those in immediate contact with eyewitnesses. John wrote this narrative a generation after the Synoptics, yet observe the new elements in his account and the vivid narration, which testifies to the fact that here is the work of an eyewitness.

    John tells us that Jesus first laid the responsibility of feeding the multitude upon the hearts of the apostles by His question to Philip (John 6:5-7).

    All four reports tell that the apostles found but five loaves and two fishes, but only John records that Andrew found and reported to Jesus that there was a lad in the crowd who had five loaves and two fishes.

    John alone tells of the effect that the miracle produced on the crowd and the effort of the Zealots to seize Jesus and compel Him to be their kind of messiah.

    John is the only one who reports that the Passover was near(John 6:4).

    John reports that these were barley loaves which the boy had (John 6:13).

Equally impressive is the evidence for independent writing when we examine the new details in the other three narratives. Matthew is the only writer who tells us that women and children were present (Matthew 14:21). Matthew gives us the emphatic declaration that the news of John’s death had a strong part in the departure of Jesus to be alone with His disciples (Matthew 14:13). Only Matthew and Mark report the season of prayer on the mountain after the miracle and the dismissal of the crowd (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46).

Mark is the only one who relates for us the important detail that they had no time to eat amid the hectic ministry in Capernaum (Mark 6:31). This picture of excitement prevailing before the start of the race is important in showing why no one in the crowd had any food with him. They had not even had time to eat when the market place was at hand. Mark alone tells us that the crowd outran the boat and arrived first (Mark 6:33). The efforts to show a contradiction between Mark and John at this point is in itself a deadly blow at the Two-source Theory. Mark is the one who tells specifically that Jesus commanded the apostles to make a systematic search of the crowd to find out whether any food was available. We should have to imply this from the other accounts, but Mark states it (Mark 6:38). Mark gives us the vivid touch that the crowd sat down in “garden beds” (Mark 6:40). He tells us specifically of the collection of fragments of the fishes (Mark 6:43).

Luke informs us of the subject of Jesus’ sermon on this critical occasion (Luke 9:11). Mark indicates also a general teaching period and a wide range of discussion: “He began to teach them many things” (Mark 6:34). Matthew and Luke tell of the miracles of healing that took place during the day (Matthew 14:14; Luke 9:11). In all this presentation there is the vividness of eyewitnesses or reporters who were in immediate touch with eyewitnesses. There is also the unique miraculous guidance of the Holy Spirit which Jesus had promised to them. Who of us could ever have achieved the brevity of these narratives in reporting so astounding a miracle?

Power of the Evidence When challenged to cite miracles of Jesus most indubitable in their nature, we are accustomed to referring to these two miracles that followed in quick succession: the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water. The feeding of the five thousand had so many witnesses that there was no possibility of fraud. A magician can fool a great crowd because his hands can move faster than the eyes of the people who watch. But here was a miracle in which everyone of the thousands present had a part. They all shared the feast. After all, there is a closely restricted limit to the amount of paraphernalia that a magician can hide up his sleeves or on his person. When a full meal is furnished to five or ten thousand people, the very enormous extent of the miracle becomes clinching proof.

Those who imagine and then charge that the Gospel writers falsified the accounts and made into a miracle a normal meal, face again the overwhelming pressure of the many thousands of witnesses. Was there no person of truth in all these thousands? Just as the great number excludes magical fraud so it excludes lying about what happened. Even the Zealots, who were least in sympathy with the objectives of Jesus, did not undertake to deny the reality of the miracle. As we follow the course of the debate the following day in the synagogue at Capernaum, we shall see the full force of this evidence. These who were so determined to follow their worldly pattern for a messiah, were themselves most impressed by the miracle. The death of John the Baptist had thrust a question mark over the ministry of Jesus. John had with dynamic vehemence predicted that the Messiah would destroy the wicked and bring about the reign of the kingdom of God. How could this be when Jesus had quietly permitted John to be murdered by the wicked rulers? Did not Jesus have the power to save John? There was imperative need for this prodigious miracle at just this juncture in the ministry of Jesus. There was physical need to rescue the people in their famished condition in the desert. Jesus had brought this critical need about by His sudden and unexpected departure by boat and by the direction and speed of the boat. However, the need for presentation of evidence for the incredible miraculous power of Jesus was a situation which had arisen from the death of John the Baptist. Comfort and consolation were offered to the grieving multitude in Jesus’ teaching and preaching on this day. The majesty of His divine Person and the wisdom of His program were demonstrated by this stupendous miracle.