080. Chapter 21 - The Feeding of the Four Thousand
Chapter 21 - The Feeding of the Four Thousand Matthew 15:29-38;Mark 7:31-37;Mark 8:1-10
Phoenicia
Going north twenty miles from Tyre to Sidon and then making an easterly sweep that avoided the centers of population, Jesus came at last into the Decapolis east of the Sea of Galilee. The wide journey enabled Jesus to have much time for instructing His disciples. The trip may have taken several weeks. Wellhausen, Allen, and others who undertake to rewrite the Gospel narratives according to their own fancy, hold that such a long journey was purposeless; they therefore suppose that Jesus came immediately back to the Sea of Galilee. But Mark states emphatically the course of Jesus’ travel. He moved north to Sidon and then across to the Decapolis through a section which contained no large cities and where little-traveled bypaths would offer seclusion.
There is a manuscript difference in Mark 7:31. The a.v. follows manuscripts which do not record the journey north of Sidon, but the a.s.v. follows the best manuscripts and says “came through Sidon.” The records of the collapse of Jesus’ popularity at Capernaum and the ensuing hostility give the background for Jesus’ course in seeking privacy for the instruction of the twelve. The accounts that follow will show the additional reasons: He had to prepare His disciples for the rising tide of unbelief and rejection and the final test of having to witness His condemnation and crucifixion. The Decapolis
Long-range planning is in evidence in this evangelistic campaign in the Decapolis. Jesus had not carried on any ministry in this region. The last months of His evangelistic campaign are now to be spent in this territory east of the Jordan. John the Baptist had campaigned up and down the Jordan valley. He must have reached many people from the Decapolis. We are to find the fruitage of John’s work still manifest here.
Advance Preparation
Jesus had shellshocked this region some months before by healing the Gadarene demoniac and allowing the destruction of the herd of two thousand swine. The people1 infuriated at the loss, had driven Jesus away, but He had left a faithful and uniquely equipped messenger to prepare the way for His return. He had sent the man back to his home and friends to tell how great things the Lord had done for him. In the villages and towns from house to house this brave messenger went with his good news about Jesus. We see by the enthusiastic welcome Jesus now received in this region what great things this humble messenger had done for the Lord. The man could at least tell what Jesus had done for him. And that was enough. If he also reported the conversation the legion of demons had with Jesus before they were cast out, the recognition of His deity was implicit in the narrative. The Campaign
Both Matthew and Mark record a tremendous healing ministry in this region where Jesus was working for the first time. Matthew records that “the lame, dumb, blind, maimed, and many others” were being healed. Preaching services always accompanied such a healing ministry. Mark records in detail a specific miracle in which a deaf and dumb man was healed. The extraordinary independence of the Gospel narratives is again prominent; and yet their wonderful harmony is evident as Matthew mentions the dumb being enabled to speak, and Mark gives a special case. The Deaf Stammerer
Jesus took aside from the multitude the man who “was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech” (a stammerer, or one who was unable to speak clearly). Observe that enthusiastic crowds are in evidence in this new region. The man could have been healed without a word or a gesture, but this was not the method of Jesus Before miraculous assistance was granted, faith was required of those seeking a miraculous blessing. With communication so difficult in this case, to have the man away from the crowd would assist in concentration on the pantomime Jesus would use.
Jesus’ Method
“And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat. and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened” (Mark 7:33-35). McGarvey supposes that Jesus put his fingers into the ears of the man and touched his tongue with either thumb very much as one would bridle a horse, but it seems much more probable that Jesus was simply using sign language to talk to the man in pantomime. Jesus put his fingers to his own ears to say, “You are deaf. You need miraculous aid. I am about to heal you.” When Jesus spat on the ground the gesture may have carried strong revelation of how distressing and disgusting his affliction had been to the man and how wonderful it would be to get rid of it. When Jesus touched His own tongue, it suggested to the man that he needed miraculous help to restore perfect speech. The reverent look toward heaven would communicate to the man that God was the One who had given Him the miraculous power now about to be used for the relief of the man. The sigh would have been manifest to the eye, even though unheard (the word means he groaned), and would make clear the tender sympathy and love of Jesus for the man in his distress. The word Ephphatha is Aramaic and is one of the incidental proofs that Jesus spoke Aramaic in His ministry, at least on ordinary occasions (see “Independence of Matthew’s Gospel” for an analysis of Allen’s absurd attempt to defend the Two-source Theory that Matthew copied from Mark even though they are so different here).
Disobedience
Although Jesus had taken the man from the crowd, some of his relatives and friends were present. To these Jesus gave strict command that they should not publicize the miracle. This was the same procedure Jesus had used in His earlier campaigns about Capernaum, when the excitement over His miracles threatened to prevent sober consideration of His preaching and teaching. The family and friends disobeyed the command of Jesus and announced the miracle far and wide, but Jesus kept pursuing this policy of trying to keep the excitement down, even though many times He was disobeyed.
Impact on the Crowds
Matthew and Mark give very independent reports of the verdicts of the people, but the statements are harmonious. Matthew 15:31 says, “And they glorified the God of Israel”; Mark 7:37 has, “And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.” What a difference between the verdict of the people of this region when they drove Jesus away after the destruction of the two thousand swine and their present testimony, “He hath done all things well.” The people who disobeyed Jesus in reporting this miracle probably did not understand the reason for silence. Like most people they would rather praise Jesus than obey Him. The Greek word amazed (Mark 7:37) means literally, “They were struck out of their senses.” The adverb beyond measure adds to the impression given by the verb. This shows that this was a new region in which Jesus was now working. There is no mention that Jesus is the Christ. There may have been three elements in the crowd: (1) the Gentiles who did not understand about the Christ; (2) Jews who had been in His presence before, but had come to the conclusion that He was not the Christ, even though they could find nothing but praise for His good works; (3) multitudes who had not seen or heard Him before and yet did not associate His kind of humble ministry with the grand expectations of world dominion current in relation to certain Old Testament Messianic predictions. The Desert Setting This campaign in the Decapolis ended in a desert. Why was this? Did the increasing excitement over His miracles compel Him now to rid the crowd of its curiosity mongers as He so frequently had done in the populous region of Galilee west of the Sea? We traced the variety of causes which led Jesus to cross the lake to the uninhabited plain on the northeastern shore of the lake when He fed the five thousand. John tells us that Jesus had arranged a definite plan for this day (John 6:6). Jesus was following a like plan when He led this multitude into the desert of the Decapolis. The controversies had become so furious that we do not find Jesus teaching in the synagogues after this, except on one occasion (Luke 13:10.). The wide-open spaces of the mountain, the lake shore, or the desert always invited Jesus when the crowds were very great. But on the occasions of the two miraculous feedings one of the particular purposes of Jesus was to make the evidence for the miracles unassailable. In fact, the two miracles would have been unnecessary and quite out of place if performed in the vicinity of their homes or a market place. We are apt to think of a desert as a flat stretch or barren wasteland, but this section of the Decapolis is mountainous. The multitudes appear to have been assembled near the Sea of Galilee at its southeastern shore. At least, they were near enough to the sea that Jesus and the apostles could embark in the boat at the close, and the people could see that it would he useless to attempt to follow Him further. The Three-day Assembly
There must have been the same sort of testing of the faith of the people when Jesus withdrew into the desert. Those who were really determined to see and hear Him could follow. If the women and children equaled the men in number, then there would have been about eight thousand persons present. They seem to have been in an isolated place far removed from any city. There is no evidence of any new arrivals being added to the solid group who had followed Him: “They continue with me now three days.” There may have been those who had become exhausted and had left before the third and climactic day, but all those now present had been with Him during the three days.
These people were not city softies, but rugged individuals accustomed to primitive conditions such as sleeping on the ground at night with their cloaks to cover them from the morning dew. Families would naturally have been together and groups of men and women, apart. The main multitude would probably have bivouacked for the night, like an army. After all others were asleep, the wide-open desert would have invited Jesus to go forth for prayer and meditation.
It was midsummer in the dry season. The long days of June and July would have given about sixteen hours a day for services. We naturally think of the thousands of summer camps in America where the word of God is being studied by young people today. In the sixteen hours available each day during these three days Jesus would have preached or taught several sessions of tremendous public assembly. There probably would have been times of freedom when different people could come to Jesus for healing or questions that needed answering or burdens that called for comfort and consolation (Matthew 14:14; Luke 9:11).
Hymns in the Desert
What a fascinating subject for reflection as we consider the close of each of the first two days of this summer camp in the wilderness of the Decapolis. In the most casual manner the Gospel writers inform us of the custom of Jesus and His disciples to sing a hymn together as befitted the occasion. They sang a hymn before they left the upper room after having kept the Passover. This was customary. But it was also the custom to sing the great psalms of the Old Testament on all sorts of occasions of worship. Some of the psalms appear to have been marching songs as the pilgrims went up to the capital for the great feasts. How would it have been to have heard Jesus and the apostles lead eight thousand enthusiastic souls in a vesper service here in the desert with the sun sinking to rest across the Sea of Galilee? “Now the day is over, Night is drawing nigh, Shadows of the evening Steal across the sky.” How would it have been if Jesus led them in singing the twenty-third psalm with its cup running over and its abounding table — this, at the close of a second day with no food to satisfy their growing hunger and no prospect in sight? The test of faith in following Jesus into the wilderness is crowned by the test of remaining in the wilderness without food. They seem to have had a supply of food when they came. At least the Scripture does not state that they had been without food during the three days, but only that on the third day they were without food and in perilous condition. What they could seize in the midst of hurried departure had probably been brought with them as they followed Jesus into the desert. On the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand the sudden news of the murder of John the Baptist together with the excitement of the return of the twelve apostles from their evangelistic campaign had caused the multitude to run madly around the northern end of the lake in pursuit of Jesus. No one had any food except the lad. In this Decapolis crowd only a scant seven loaves and a few small fishes remained amid the entire multitude. The careful investigation throughout the whole throng to find out whether anyone had any food would have produced the same stirring of intense interest and faith as the similar procedure had at the feeding of the five thousand.
Details of the Miracle A mountainside would have enabled all to see and hear. Both Matthew and Mark record that Jesus commanded the multitude to sit down “on the ground.” By midsummer the green grass which Mark mentions at the feeding of the five thousand had been scorched by the heat of the rainless summer. It was not necessary to repeat the details of the arrangement of the crowd, but the Greek verb used means to pass along orders, as a general would to his army. Both Matthew and Mark record Jesus’ prayer of thanksgiving before the miracle-meal. Mark 8:6 has a verb meaning to give thanks; Mark 8:7 has a verb meaning to invoke God’s blessing. The seven baskets used were evidently borrowed from some of the people present, who had been using them for work in the fields. The Greek word spuris means a large hamper, whereas the word used at the feeding of the five thousand was kophinos, a smaller basket, or wallet.
Weiss’ Attack
Weiss attacks this miracle on two grounds: (1) There was nothing to bring the multitude together. (2) It is represented as occurring at a time when Jesus had closed his public ministry in Galilee. But Matthew and Mark state clearly that the crowd had been drawn together by the wonderful miracles of Jesus. Weiss himself admits that Jesus’ reception was different this time in this section because of the cure of the Gadarene demoniac. And where does any Gospel writer declare that Jesus had closed His public ministry in Galilee? We observe the downfall of Jesus’ popularity in Galilee after the debate with the Zealots. We note the change of location in this campaign to more favorable surroundings. This time it is the Decapolis. It evidently represented long-range planning as Jesus carried on this campaign in new territory. Jesus had been seeking quiet for training the twelve, but He had not closed His public ministry in Galilee in the sense that He did not minister to those who came seeking aid. The same definite program of seeking retirement to instruct the apostles was seen just before the feeding of the five thousand, but Jesus yielded to the importunity of the heartbroken, needy crowd.
Gould’s Position Gould refutes the attack of Weiss and holds that the miracle occurred, but affirms that if the miracles of Jesus were intended to reveal Jesus’ power, the repetition of this miracle would seem improbable, and the similarity of the two accounts would point with some probability to their identity. But if the real object of the miracles was to meet some human need, then the recurrence of like conditions would lead to a recurrence of the miracle (I.C.C. on Mark, p. 140).
Gould forgets that an act may have more than one objective. The miracles of Jesus ministered to the mind and soul by producing faith and to the body by restoring health. Gould himself admits that Jesus demanded faith of those seeking miraculous aid. Is faith demanded before miracles, but not afterward? Is lack of faith in the hearts of men not “a human need” to which miracles may minister? The repetition of miracles to bring faith to the hearts of men is as logical as repetition of teaching to bring understanding. Gould also admits that these people had lacked the opportunity of having had Jesus in the midst working such miracles before this time. The Main Attack A main line of attack of critics is to charge that there was just one such miracle of feeding a multitude and that we have here a confused repetition of a former account, making it appear that there were two such miracles. They advance three arguments: (1) The details (Sea of Galilee, multitudes, loaves and fishes, discussion with disciples, baskets, fragments) show that we have two confused accounts of the same miracle. (2) They maintain that the differences are very slight and could easily have been changed to make it appear that there were two miracles. (3) They urge especially the improbability of the doubt of the apostles in the second account. The Evidence This entire attack rests on the presupposition that the Gospels were written at such a late date that no eyewitnesses were available for questioning. But the early date of the writing of the Synoptics cannot be denied in the light of the evidence now in our possession. The two accounts of the two miracles are both in the same Gospel narratives (Matthew and Mark). The writers could not have confused such startling events if they had any intelligence. Matthew was an eyewitness; Mark was the associate of eyewitnesses and had the close association with Peter when he wrote his Gospel account. Nothing short of deliberate falsification can be charged against the writers. The accounts are perfectly clear and distinctly different as to time, place, and the whole background of each occasion. This striking difference in the kind of baskets used for the collection of the fragments is a strong item of proof. We do not know how these baskets happened to be found here in this crowd, except that this shows the hurried, excited manner in which many had followed Jesus into the wilderness. The difference in the number present and the causes that brought them together and their attitude afterward are made clear in the narratives. Jesus Himself referred later to both of these miracles in a speech to His disciples (Matthew 16:9, Matthew 16:10). Thus this radical theory destroys the veracity of the Gospel records and makes Jesus Himself ridiculous. The most emphasis in this attack is placed upon the impossibility that the apostles, after having seen the feeding of the five thousand, should have expressed such helpless doubt: “Whence should we have so many loaves in a desert place as to fill so great a multitude” (Matthew 15:33). But the moment the proper emphasis is placed on the pronoun we, the difficulty disappears. The disciples are protesting now that they are unable to cope with the situation. If He chooses to do so, He can feed this multitude as He fed the five thousand, but they cannot undertake it.
Use of the Baskets In the study of the feeding of the five thousand an attempt was made to visualize the process. If the suggestion that the miracle took place in the hands of Jesus, rather than in the hands of the apostles, has merit, then the seven large hampers used at the close of this meal to collect the fragments may have been used by the apostles to serve the food throughout the meal. Such a large basket filled to the brim with food would have been heavy and unwieldy. Two apostles could have worked effectively together in carrying one of these baskets and in passing along the orderly lines of people to furnish food to all. The seventh basket could have remained filled with bread and fish at the feet of Jesus as a constant reminder of the miracle and an assurance that a further abundance would be produced as needed.
Jesus the Center of the Miracle When the people had arranged themselves in groups for the meal at the command of Jesus, they could have watched these seven large baskets being secured and prepared for use in this amazing feast. If the supply of food in the baskets proved inexhaustible so long as there was need for more, then the continuing miracle would have been continuous in the immediate presence of each person. This is the strong feature of McGarvey’s theory. If the miracle was completely in the hands of Jesus, then the supply in each basket would be exhausted in ordinary fashion, and each couple of the apostles would bring their basket back to Jesus to be refilled. Naturally the twelve would not have eaten until they had finished hurrying to and fro to serve the crowd. They could then eat from the seventh basket or the contents remaining in all the baskets. The Fragments as Evidence The owners of the baskets would have accepted responsibility for seeing that the fragments were put to good use. Friends of each would be glad to assist in taking turns at helping to carry the heavy load. As the people returned into the towns and villages, the seven baskets filled to the brim with bread or fish, or both, would bring forth a constant succession of excited inquiries. The baskets of food would broadcast their powerful testimony to the miracle. Many people would ask to be permitted to eat some of this food of miraculous origin. Culture and the abundance of our possessions have made us quite delicate about eating anything someone else has touched. But comradeship on the battlefield in the Civil War brought forth the adage, “We drank out of the same canteen.” The seven baskets of food would have become the means of multiplying secondary testimony to the miracle.
Close of the Assembly
Mark closes his account with the brief statement, “And he sent them away.” It must have been hard for them to leave such a spiritual, thrilling assembly as this had been. Undoubtedly many would have preferred to remain with Jesus. But the Sea of Galilee continually afforded Jesus the means of changing His locale and congregation when the proper time came. And how does it happen that this boat, always at the command of Jesus, is now awaiting Him on the shore at the farthest point in the lake from headquarters at Capernaum? He had been absent from Galilee for a considerable number of weeks. He approached the lake from the opposite side. Here again we see the second line of support from obscure followers of Jesus always eager to do what they could to serve Him. Some aged relative might now have been helping to care for Peter’s home and to keep this boat ever ready for Jesus whenever He should appear and desire to use it. Too old to go with the Messiah, but how happy to be of some humble service such as this! A messenger could have summoned the boat the day before.
Symbolic Meaning
Some commentators attempt to connect the miracle of the increase of the bread to feed the multitudes with the changing of the water to wine at the wedding feast at Cana and make the miracles symbolic of the Lord’s Supper — bread and fruit of the vine. But we should beware of inferring symbolic meanings for miracles which arose out of plain, historical settings. If the increase of the bread is symbolic of the loaf in the Lord’s Supper, of what is the increase of the fish symbolic? Jesus preached on the Bread of life the day following the feeding of the five thousand, but He did not declare that the miracle had a symbolic meaning. Jesus in no way attempted to connect the turning of the water into wine with the Lord’s Supper. The early Christians who drew the pictures in the catacombs connected the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand with the sermon on the Bread of life as combining in their thoughts to suggest the Lord’s Supper. The fish became a symbol of Christianity, but its presence in any symbolic representation of the Lord’s Supper is bound to be an oddity. Early Christians adopted the fish as a symbol of Christianity when they discovered the following curious little acrostic. There are five Greek letters in the word ichthus (fish). Each of these letters begins an important word: lesous (Jesus); Christos (Christ); theos (God); huios (son); soter (savior).