Matthew 14

OGC

‹ Chapter 13 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 15 ›

CHAPTER FOURTEEN OUTLINES

Section 33: Jesus Hears of the Assassination of John (Matthew 14:1-13 a)

Section 34. Jesus Feeds 5000, Walks the Waves, Stills Storm (Matthew 14:13 b - Matthew 14:33)

Section 35. Jesus Heals the Sick of Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34-36)

STUDY OUTLINE

JESUS HEARS OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9)

A. Herod’s opinion of Jesus (Matthew 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9)

Herod hears about Jesus.

His interpretation of the rumors

Others-’ views of the matter

Herod desires to see Jesus.

B. (Historical Flash Back) The death and burial of John (Matthew 14:3-13 a; Mark 6:17-29)

John imprisoned by Herod to appease Herodias for John’s accusations.

Herodias tries to avenge herself against John.

Herod’s mixed motives blocked any effective action.

At his public birthday celebration Herod rashly vowed anything to Herodias-’ daughter.

Herodias requires John’s murder which Herod reluctantly orders.

John’s body is buried by his disciples and Jesus is informed.

II.

JESUS FEEDS 5000, WALKS THE WAVES, STILLS STORM (Matthew 14:13-33; Mark 6:31-52; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:1-21)

Jesus-’ Problem: need for privacy amid great excitement

Jesus-’ Plan: withdrawal from population centers

Jesus-’ Provision: feeds 5000-plus crowd

Jesus-’ Prayers: almost all night with the Father

Jesus-’ Powers: sees disciples-’ struggles in the storm, walks on the water and calms the storm, after empowering Peter also to walk on sea

Jesus-’ People: Peter and the others

III. JESUS HEALS THE SICK OF GENNESARET (Matthew 14:34-36; Mark 6:53-56)

The depth of the need

The trusting humility of approach

The simplicity of His method

The completeness of His results

Matthew 14:1-13

**Section 33

JESUS HEARS OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST (Parallels: Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9)**

TEXT: 14:1-13a

1 At that season Herod the tetrarch heard the report concerning Jesus, 2 and said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore do these powers work in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. 5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. 6 But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst, and pleased Herod. 7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she should ask. 8 And she, being put forward by her mother, saith, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. 9 And the king was grieved; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat with him, he commanded it to be given; 10 and he sent and beheaded John in the prison. 11 And his head was brought on a platter, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother. 12 And his disciples came, and took up the corpse, and buried him; and they went and told Jesus.

13 Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from thence in a boat, to a desert place apart:.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

How do you explain this apparent presence of conscience in a man who had, apparently without conscience, been willing to follow the demands of his lust in order to marry his brother’s wife after divorcing his own (if, in fact, he actually succeeded in divorcing her!)?

Why do you suppose Herod linked the activity of Jesus with the person and ministry of John the Baptist? Had John worked any miracles? Had Jesus thundered great judgments upon Herod? From news about Jesus, then, how could the king logically be drawn to suppose that John had arisen from the dead?

With so many personal spies at his service, how could Herod be so ignorant about Jesus as to confuse Him with John the Baptist?

How do you explain the two apparently contradictory reports about Herod’s attitude regarding John the Baptist:

(1)

And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people.

(2)

Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. (Mark 6:20)

How could both statements be true?

Why should Herod, the powerful ruler of Galilee and Perea, fear the multitude of common people so much that he dared not put John to death?

How would you analyze the difference in attitude toward John shown by Herod and by Herodias? Why did their attitudes differ?

Do you think Herodias plotted the death of John, caused Salome to dance before Herod, thus luring him into the rash oath that would make possible the demand for John’s death? Or did Herodias merely seize an unexpected opportunity suddenly presented to her by the puzzled daughter’s request? What is your opinion?

Once Herod had made the oath before God and before those men present, did he have to keep it, even if it meant he must commit a crime to maintain his word? What were the moral alternatives open to Herod when Salome returned with her criminal request? Be careful; God regards the breaking of an oath as sin.

Luke (Luke 9:9) reports that from the moment that Herod began to hear the reports about Jesus, he sought to see Him. Why would Herod, wicked as he was, desire to have opportunity of audience with Jesus? How do you think Herod would go about seeking to see Him? Publicly? Privately?

Why did John’s disciples, after the burial of their teacher’s body, go and tell Jesus?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

At that time Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, heard about the fame of Jesus, the miracles and ministry of His Apostles as they went through the villages of Galilee preaching the gospel that men should repent. Jesus-’ name had become well-known, so the king heard about it and all that was going on. This left him perplexed, because it was whispered by some that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead. Others suggested, It is Elijah. Still others affirmed that either one of the old prophets or one like them had risen. But when Herod himself heard it, he said to his men, This is John the Baptist, whom I beheaded: he has been raised from the dead. That is why these wonderful powers are at work in him. But who IS this man about whom I hear such news? Herod began seeking to see Jesus. Earlier, Herod himself had sent men to arrest John. They bound him and locked him in prison. Herod did this for Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, for he had married her. John kept saying to Herod, It is not right for you to take your brother’s wife! Now Herodias held a grudge against John and longed to kill him, but she could not, since Herod respected John, knowing him to be a righteous and godly man. So Herod protected him from harm. Whenever he heard him preach, he was deeply disturbed and yet he listened gladly to his messages. Ironically, though he wanted to put John to death. Herod feared the masses, for they considered John to be a prophet of God. But an opportunity came when Herod’s birthday arrived. Herod gave a banquet for his court officials, military officers and leading Galileans. When Herodias-’ daughter, Salome, came in and danced before the company, she pleased Herod and his guests. Then the king promised the little girl with an oath, Ask me for anything you desire, and I will grant it,even half of my kingdom! Then Salome went out to ask her mother, What shall I ask for? Herodias said, The head of John the baptizer! So, prompted by her mother, she came in immediately, rushing up to the king, requesting, I want you to give me here at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter! The king was exceedingly sorry. However, because of his oaths made in the presence of his guests, he did not want to break his word to her. So he commanded it to be given. Without delay the king ordered an executioner to behead John and bring his head. The soldier went and beheaded him in the prison, brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl. She, in turn, presented it to her mother. But when John’s disciples heard about his murder, they came, took his corpse and buried it in a tomb. Then they went to inform Jesus. So when He heard the news, He withdrew from the Capernaum area to a lonely deserted area on the east side of the Sea of Galilee.

SUMMARY

The guilt-ridden conscience of Herod Antipas began to plague him more severely when he mistook the reports about Jesus-’ miracles and ministry for the resurrection of John the Baptist whom the king had murdered. At an earlier period John’s fearless preaching directly struck the public image of both Herod and Herodias. Consequently, neither could forbear from silencing this voice of God in the land, accusing them of gross incest and adultery. Herodias wished to murder John; Herod, however, preferred only to imprison him, since the tetrarch himself highly respected the prophet. However, a thoughtless oath at a public dinner party cost Herod his desire to protect the Baptist. Ignoring all conventions, Herodias demanded the head of the great prophet be brought immediately on a charger. Herod gave the fatal order, preferring to commit murder than repent of his oath. Faithful disciples of John buried his headless corpse and reported the horrible facts to Jesus.

INTRODUCTION: WHY DID MATTHEW INCORPORATE THIS ACCOUNT?

As with our other attempts to capture the organization and direction of Matthew’s thought, so here too we ask how this narrative as it is organized and set in this place would have been intended to affect the original readers, and, thus, how it reveals the genius of the Holy Spirit who inspired Matthew so to order it. The striking chronological order within the narrative itself draws attention to itself:

Herod hears about the fame of Jesus and attributes the phenomena to a resurrected John the Baptist.

Herod imprisoned John for his accusations relative to Herodias.

Herod assassinated John against his own conscience.

Whatever motive may be attributed to Matthew for his inserting it at this point in his narrative in precisely this order, must be attributed to Mark also. Luke, on the other hand, having already spoken of John’s imprisonment at an early point in his gospel, described as the capping climax of Herod’s wickedness and the eventual conclusion of John’s work (Luke 3:18-20), does not inform us of the circumstances surrounding his murder, limiting himself to cite Herod’s words: John I beheaded. · (Luke 9:9) from which we are to intuit what Matthew and Mark describe in their historical flash back. Their use of this literary device is completely legitimate and nicely changes the pace of simple chronological reporting. Still, the puzzle remains: why did they both use it here?

Was it, as Gonzàlez-Ruiz (Marco, 136) believes?

(It was) to emphasize the ridiculous attitude of that controversial monarch who was partly slave to his passions and partly interested in the austere figure of the Baptist. In the final analysis, that Herod was more consistent with himself than the orthodox Pharisees who collaborated with him while faking an extreme moral dignity.

While this latter observation is a reasonable psychological consideration, it is doubtful that Matthew or Mark is merely moralizing about wicked kings in the style of a Josephus. Their purpose is to present and, expound Jesus of Nazareth.

Or, was Gonzàlez-Ruiz (ibid.) right to point out that this passage, as read originally, establishes the theological independence of Christ’s movement from that of John, by recording the liquidation of John and the scattering of his group, in order thereby to show that the congregation created by Jesus was completely new, while, at the same time, preserving the high honor of the martyred prophet? This would tend to discourage any who were tempted to seize upon John’s style of piety as somehow normative for Christianity and canonize John himself as a representative Christian, when, as a matter of fact, John’s work ended tragically before Jesus established His Kingdom. (Cf. Acts 18:24 to Acts 19:7; cf. the Mandean, or Sabian, Ebionites, who, while other Ebionites revered Peter the Apostle, glorified John the Baptist. See Schaff, History of the Christian Church, II, 433, 434.) Perhaps the Essenic Ebionites, forced by the facts Matthew here states, could not adopt John as their saint, notwithstanding his ascetic life style. But because these tendencies did not mature until the late first and second century, some might doubt that their rebuttal were our Gospel authors-’ purpose. However, this would be no hindrance to the Spirit’s foresight to see any future tendency where previously given information could forestall it. Besides, who today could say how many disciples of John had difficulty swinging into line behind Jesus after the demise of their master?

Since Matthew and Mark intend to glorify the Christ, they have omitted the circumstances of His forerunner’s death until this point, because those facts were relatively less important. Now, however, in their analysis of Jesus Christ, they must picture, in addition to the religious opposition to Him, the political risks also. Further, because Herod’s treacherous interest in Jesus is but another limitation of His freedom of movement from this historical moment forward, hence part of the explanation of Jesus-’ decisions, and because Herod’s curiosity arises out of a historical fact of special interest to godly admirers of John, this is a convenient point at which to connect those otherwise disparate notes.

There is a lateral psychological effect of postponing any direct mention of John’s martyrdom until exactly this point, when it could have been recorded earlier. The assassination of John, the great forerunner of Jesus, at the hands of impious men is but an ominous warning of what would happen to the Lord Himself just a little over a year later. Now, if this retelling of John’s heroic end prepares the reader for the suffering of Jesus, a fact which the original readers probably already knew, the psychological impact of the entire episode must be another: if Jesus left John unavenged, either by miraculous intervention or revolutionary uprising against world evil, and if Jesus Himself had to undergo such brutal opposition of sinners against Himself before arriving at His glorious goal, what must be the lot of any genuine disciples who cast their hope on Jesus? Whatever they may have seen in Him up to this point, they must recognize the unwelcome reality that all who would live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and being deceived. (Cf. 2 Timothy 3:12) In this sense, then, this episode is a telling example of the kind of coexistence in the world between the sons of the Kingdom and the sons of the evil one, as that concept was communicated by the Parables in Matthew’s Chapter Thirteen.

Plummer (Matthew, 199), too, feels that this insertion needs explanation:

So detailed a narrative of John’s death would not have been given merely to explain the craven fear of Antipas that Jesus was the murdered Baptist risen from the dead. The story of John’s end is required to complete the account of his message to the Messiah and to illustrate the Messiah’s eulogy of him (Matthew 11:2-19); and as the one narrative begins with a message carried by John’s disciples from Machaerus (Matthew 11:3), so the other narrative ends with one. (Matthew 14:12)

To conclude, perhaps a combination of these various factors may have decided this notable literary side-trip into a Herodian dinnerparty.

**NOTES

A. HEROD’S OPINION OF JESUS (Matthew 14:1-2; Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9)**

Herod hears about Jesus

Matthew 14:1 At that time, does not refer strictly to the events mentioned in chapter 13, but more generally to the wide-ranging, intensive evangelistic activities of Jesus and His Apostles in Galilee, before the crisis and collapse of His popularity near the beginning of Jesus-’ third year of ministry. (Cf. Matthew 14:13 to Matthew 15:21; John 6 all) Mark and Luke connect this event directly with the mission of the Twelve in Galilee which Matthew recorded in chapter Matthew 10:1 to Matthew 11:1. (Cf. Mark 6:7-14; Luke 9:1-7) Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, loosely called king by courtesy, not by right (see on Matthew 14:9), ruled only Galilee and Perea from his capital at Tiberias on the Lake of Galilee, In fact, it was Herodias-’ ambitious urging him to convince the emperor Caligula to recognize Herod officially as king that precipitated his ruin. (Ant. XVIII, 7, 2; Wars, II, 9, 6) If it be thought puzzling that the Synoptic authors should spend even one line on this weak, minor ruler of Palestine, let it be recalled that THIS Herod was, by a quirk of history, to become one of the judges of Jesus Christ. (Luke 23:6-12; Acts 4:27. See also introductory note 3 above.)

**Herod heard the report concerning Jesus **and all that was done (Lk.), for his name had become known (Mk.). He was actually hearing of the expanded evangelistic power of Jesus-’ multiplied preaching force represented by the six two-man teams, but the undeniable result of their magnificent work is not self-glorifying, because the attention of all Galileeand, consequently, that of Herod,is concentrated only on Jesus. Their mission, their labors and their attitude unselfishly held up the name of Jesus before Israel! Herod heard the report, because he would not himself go hear the itinerate Galilean rabbi, and had to depend upon the intelligence reports. He had to depend upon reports, also because Jesus deliberately avoided Herod so as not to precipitate the crisis of the cross before He had enjoyed sufficient opportunity for the training of the Twelve. The vices and vexations of court life and the uncertainties of Middle-East political relations would have more than filled Herod’s major attentions, leaving minor religious figures and movements relatively in the background of his mind until their importance threatened his tranquility, Perhaps Herod’s absence from Galilee on trips to Rome and his preoccupation with the war with the vindictive Arabian king, Aretas, would explain much of Herod’s ignorance about the exact identity of Jesus.

Herod’s interpretation of the news

Matthew 14:2 **Herod said to his servants. **How did Matthew, or any of Jesus-’ disciples, supposedly far removed from any connection with Herod’s corrupt court, learn that Herod was making these presumably private, self-incriminating observations? Is it possible that Chuza, Herod’s steward, overheard it and reported the conversation to his wife, Joanna? (Luke 8:3) And did she pass the word directly to the Lord? Or did this entire scene come through Manaen, Herod’s foster-brother (sùntrofos, also rendered familiar friend), who later became a noted teacher and prophet in the Antiochean church? (Cf. Acts 13:1) His servants (toîs paisin autoû) are his courtiers. (In 1Ma 1:6; 1Ma 1:8 paîs means the generals of Alexander the Great; cf. Genesis 41:10; Genesis 41:37 f; 1 Samuel 16:17; 1 Samuel 18:22-26; 1 Samuel 22:7 ff, 1 Samuel 22:17; 2 Samuel 3:38; 2 Samuel 10:2; 2 Samuel 12:15-21; 2 Samuel 15:21; 2 Samuel 15:34; Jeremiah 36:31; Jeremiah 37:2) He is not merely chatting with his household servants (doûloi, oikétai or other); rather, he is taking counsel with responsible men in his court.

**This is John the Baptist. risen from the dead; that is why these powers are at work in him. **However wicked Herod may have been, he could not shake himself free from his own presuppositions nor his conscience. Resurrection from the dead was a fact of Old Testament history. Was Herod perhaps troubled by Jewish history of the apparition of the prophet Samuel to King Saul with the message of doom? (Cf. 1 Samuel 28:8-19) Was he troubled by reports of resurrections reportedly done by Jesus Himself at Nain just 15 miles southwest of Tiberias, or up at Capernaum 6 miles north of his capital? (Cf. Luke 7:11-17; Matthew 9:18-26) Further, his own admission of John’s prophetic greatness, when combined with a not totally unfounded fear of God’s vengeance, may have pushed him to conclude tentatively that God, in fact, resurrected His great prophet.

Was Herod himself sympathetic to the Pharisean views? (Cf. Acts 23:8) Edersheim sees the Herodian party as combining strict Pharisaic views with devotion to the reigning family. (Life, I, 240) But Jesus seems to distinguish the influence of Herod from that of the Pharisees and probably also that of the Sadducees. (Cf. Matthew 16:6; Matthew 16:11-12; Mark 8:15) Other commentators, perhaps harmonizing these texts cited, see Herodianism as essentially Sadducean religiously. If so, Herod’s Sadduceism, which technically denied the resurrection from the dead, melted before the glaring sun of his own conscience.

While John had done no miracles during his ministry (John 10:41), so powerful must have been the effect of his life and work that the tetrarch has no difficulty believing that so mighty a prophet should be risen and now working miracles too. It is unnecessary here to superimpose the idea supposedly prevalent among the ancients that departed spirits were endowed with superhuman powers, or that Herod therefore supposed that the risen John had brought these powers with him from the spirit world. (McGarvey, Fourfold-Gospel, 370) Rather, if Herod’s understanding of God had been at all sharpened by John’s preaching (Mark 6:20), then the ancients-’ views may have had no bearing at all on Herod, since he could have truly imagined that God would raise and empower John. His actual deduction about Jesus is: This is John. risen from the dead, Nor is it necessary to ascribe to him a belief in the transmigration of souls (from John to Jesus), since he is simply confused, having never seen Jesus, as had, for example, some of his own courtiers, as their arguments imply. (Mark 6:15; Luke 9:8)

**These powers are at work in him. **Plummer (Matthew, 201) rightly sees that all these conjectures about Jesus are indirect evidence of the reality of His miracles. In fact, all that Herod heard of all that was done, Jesus-’ name and fame, can point to nothing less than the mighty miracles which were characteristic of the ministry of the great, ancient prophets. In fact, the counsellor’s conjectures would have been meaningless, had His miracles not been of such character that their first reflex explanations of the phenomena should be It is Elijah!, It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old!

Others-’ opinions

While Matthew briefly reports only Herod’s views, Mark and Luke relate the ignorant suggestions of his courtiers stabbing at an explanation of the marvel. They reject Herod’s view, because they, having perhaps seen and heard both John and Jesus, would not confuse the two. So they seek another explanation.

Herod’s desire to see Jesus

Herod’s tormented conscience refused their comforting logic only partially, because Luke reports him as musing: John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things? At this point Herod began seeking to see Jesus (Luke 9:9), a fact of significance, because the suspicious king’s sinister interest is now directed fully at Jesus. Perhaps it was to apply tests that would have settled in his own mind this tormenting question of identity. After all, the trouble he had suffered earlier was supposedly concluded with John’s assassination, but here was an as yet unidentified person who is bringing the whole question to life again. Was his guilty conscience yearning merely to identify Jesus?

On the other hand, did the ghost of John rise in Herod’s mind, not because of a superstitious dread, but rather because he desired that the Baptist rise again? What a relief it would have been to Herod were John alive again! Trapped into slaying him, John’s murderer must have been haunted by the deed. The news about Jesus may have temporarily awakened that vain, impossible desire to right what had been done. But, since Jesus was not John, Antipas remained an unpardoned murderer with no way out, but to repent. When a man refuses to be ruled by God, he begins to be ruled by tyrants a thousand times worse, even though they be but the ghosts of his own imagination.

While Luke 9:9 seems to point to some definite endeavor to get to see Jesus, it is to be doubted that Herod himself would stoop to wandering about among the multitudes to hear Himunless he were so desperate as to attempt something incognito. Was he hoping that the Lord would visit Tiberias so that, without too much trouble, the encounter with Him could be arranged? If so, the silence of the Gospels regarding any such visit to Tiberias on the part of Jesus suggests that Herod kept waiting in vain until the very end, because Jesus, fully aware of the king’s treachery, deftly avoided all contact with him until the Last Week trials. (Study Jesus-’ movements after the crisis and collapse of the Galilean ministry: Mark 7:24; Mark 7:31; Mark 8:13-15; Mark 8:27; Mark 9:30; Luke 13:31 ff; Luke 23:7-12)

B. THE HISTORICAL FLASH BACK: THE DEATH AND BURIAL OF JOHN

John imprisoned by Herod to appease Herodias

Matthew 14:3 **For Herod had laid hold on John. **(Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19-20) The Synoptics clearly link John’s arrest with the general period following Jesus-’ baptism and before He moved from Judea to Galilee. John (John 3:22-30) pictures the Baptist as free to evangelize in the Aenon-Salim area until Jesus-’ trip to Galilee through Samaria. (John 4) From this point John disappears into Herod’s prison whence he sent his last recorded message to Jesus. (Matthew 11:2 ff) The apparently easy access enjoyed by his disciples is explicable on the basis of Herod’s own capricious attitude. (Mark 6:20; see also on Matthew 14:12.)

WAS JOHN EVER AT MACHERUS FORTRESS?

Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 5, 2) locates John’s prison as in the castle at Macherus, 20 miles southeast of Jericho on the east of the Dead Sea, about 100 miles southeast of Galilee, Several supposed discrepancies in this construction of the events have been noticed. (Cf. Kraeling, Rand-McNally Bible Atlas, 385; also ISBE, 1959a)

Josephus himself affirms (ibid., 5, 1) that Macherus. is a place on the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod. Macherus. was subject to her father, Aretas. But Aretas the Nabatean king is the outraged father ready to make war against Herod for the insult of discarding Aretas-’ daughter in favor of Herodias, Although the fortress was in the territory inherited by Herod Antipas from his father, Herod the Great, having actually been fortified by the latter (Wars, VII, 6, 1-2), it may have been held by Herod and Aretas conjointly by some unrecorded agreement. Thus it may have been in Aretas-’ hands when his daughter fled to him there before Herod was aware that she had already privately learned of his infidelity to her in favor of Herodias. Consequently, John the Baptist who piqued Herod for his stern denunciations of this infidelity would not have been imprisoned in a castle that AT THAT MOMENT was subject to the embattled father, Aretas!

The birthday party to which the principle men of Galilee were invited would probably have been held, not 100 miles to the south of their Galilean homes, but most likely at Tiberias, Herod’s capital on the Lake of Galilee.

Further, there is no hint in the Gospel story that any significant time elapsed between Herod’s order to execute John and the actual presentation of his head on a platter as requested by Herodias and Salome, i.e., time required to send a soldier from Galilee down to Macherus to return with John’s head.

ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS

Josephus can make mistakes, but the alleged error of his placing Macherus in Aretas-’ dominion while affirming that Herod beheaded John at Macherus, as if the castle were under his own influence, is an affirmation that he makes within two consecutive paragraphs. (Ant. XVIII, 5, 1-2) The close proximity of the two expressions which supposedly create so glaring an error would represent an unusual inadvertence on the part of Josephus, or else it would be a historical fact so obvious to him that he saw no need to clarify what appears to us to be a discrepancy. The quirks of reality are often stranger than can be invented.

Aretas apparently did not himself live at Macherus, but in Arabia, because Josephus affirms that his daughter, to anticipate Herod, made as if she were going to Macherus, but upon her arrival there, she just kept traveling until she soon came to Arabia. and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod’s intentions. The solution may be that, though Macherus was officially within Aretas-’ jurisdiction, it may have been available by special treaty to Herod by virtue of his marriage to Aretas-’ daughter. If such an agreement provided for common access, then until Aretas declared war on Herod (shortly after John’s death?), Herod could use the Macherus castle as if it were his own. (Study the relation of his grandfather, Antipater of Idumea, with the Arabians: Wars, I, 8, 9)

Was Herod, even at the time of John’s murder, living in this border fortress to direct the war with his offended former father-in-law, Aretas?

What if Herod, in a gesture of personal bravado, paid the round-trip travel expenses of his Galilean princes clear down to Macherus just to combine a military and political visit to that castle, and, while there, to celebrate his birthday with a feast?

The assumption that time would be required for the executioner of John to travel from Galilee to Macherus to behead him and return is eliminated by the above-mentioned considerations.

If Edersheim (and others, see on Matthew 14:6) is right in thinking that the banquet in our text is not merely a birthday party, but rather a grand feast celebrating Antipas-’ accession to the tetrarchy, such a trip from Galilee to Macherus as that demanded by the facts related by the Evangelists and Josephus, would not at all be unfitting.

Since the very war with Aretas was not merely over Herod’s repudiation of Aretas-’ daughter, but also a border dispute with a king who lived at Petra (Ant., XVIII, 5, 2-3), where could Herod better pursue his battle plan than from a fortress on the Nabatean frontier about 88 miles from Aretas-’ capital? What more logical headquarters could he find where he could gather his courtiers, officers and leading men of Galilee to counsel him in the prosecution of the war?

Despite the conjectures, the hypothesis of Josephus-’ credibility is the better, because the above suggestions show a possible harmonization of the Gospel accounts and Josephus, thus helping us better to visualize the situation and assure ourselves of the Evangelists-’ accuracy in describing John’s death as a historical fact.

**For the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said to him, It is not lawful for you to have her. **A simplified version of the Herodian family tree will show the relationships on which John’s charge was based:

Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 5, 4) explodes:

Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth, Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorce herself from her husband, while he was alive and was married to Herod [Antipas] her husband’s brother by the father’s side; he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, the tetrarch of Trachonitis.

The bracketed additions to Josephus-’ text are by the translator Whiston, wisely added because of the multiple confusions created in Herod the Great’s family by the latter’s using the same name to name different people. Negative critics could accuse the Synoptic authors of a historical blunder wherein they seem to confuse Philip the tetrarch for the first husband of Herodias, when in reality he later became her son-in-law. In this case Matthew and Mark would be guilty of confounding the Herod of Rome, mentioned by Josephus, with his half-brother, Philip the tetrarch of Trachonitis, as well as of making the latter Herodias-’ husband. But Whiston’s additions are perfectly justifiable for the reasons collected by Edersheim (Life, I, 672, note 2):

Among the eight sons of Herod the Great, three are also named Herod. Of only one, i.e., Herod Antipas, do we know the second name. It is not very probable that the other two did not also have some distinguishing name. While Josephus speaks of both Herodias-’ first and second husbands as simply Herod, the Evangelists use only the distinctive name of the former: Philip.

Herod the Great must have named two sons Herod Philip by different mothers, which, though problematic, is not impossible, because:

He had two sons named Antipas, or Antipater, sons of different mothers, Doris and Malthace. Antipas may be a short form of Antipater. (See Arndt-Gingrich, 75; cf. Ant. XIII, 14, 1!)

He had two wives of the same name: Mariamne.

While as yet non-Biblical historical documentation is lacking to prove that Herodias-’ first husband was named Philip, as the Evangelists affirm, the above-mentioned considerations definitely lift the Gospel narratives above the suspicion of inaccuracy levelled at them by the detractors. There is no confusion in the Gospel narrative over the identity of Herodias-’ first husband, as some critics allege, (Cf. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 35) In fact, the Philip in question here is never termed the tetrarch, as is his half-brother in Luke 3:1. Thus, Matthew and Mark are as knowledgeable as Josephus on this point. (Contrast Emil Kraeling, Bible Atlas, 385.)

On the basis of the foregoing it is now possible to see why John charged: **It is not lawful for you to have her. **The legal points in his accusations are two:

INCEST: as discernible from the genealogical chart above, the relation of consanguinity between Antipas and Herodias was within the forbidden limits, because she was his own step-niece, being the daughter of his half-brother, Aristobulus. (Cf. Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21) The only exception to these laws was the levirate marriage in the event of the death of a childless brother. (Deuteronomy 25:5 ff) However, Herodias had already borne one daughter to Philip, i.e., Salome, moreover Philip himself was still alive. The crime, then, is incest. Farrar notes (Life, 296, note 2):

Even the Romans regarded such unions with horror; and never got over the disgust which the Emperor Claudius caused them by marrying his niece Agrippina; but they were almost the rule in the Herodian family.

ADULTERY: Herodias-’ husband and Herod’s wife, daughter of Aretas, were both still alive. (Cf. Ant. XVIII, 5, 1-2) John interpreted the marriage institution as did Jesus. (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:3-9; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11-12) In fact, Mark’s version (Matthew 6:18) clearly quotes John as labelling Herodias as your brother’s wife, as also Luke 3:19. Even though Herodias succeeded in divorcing her husband, Philip (or Herod) of Rome, it appears that Herod Antipas himself had not been able to effect his divorce from Aretas-’ daughter, because she outwitted him before he could legitimize his separation from her. But that annoying detail did not hinder the lusty tetrarch from taking up his adulterous-incestuous union with Herodias in open defiance of truly Jewish sensibilities.

These particular charges, added to the other public rebukes of Herod’s misdeeds (Luke 3:19), blew the safety valve by exposing the tetrarch and his lover as common sinners before the Jewish law. Herod Antipas himself had not a drop of Jewish blood in his veins, being the son of Herod the Great, a pure Idumean (Ant. XIV, 7, 3 also 15, 2), and Malthace, a Samaritan woman (Wars, I, 28, 4). Whereas the Idumeans submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews (Ant. XIII,** **9, 1), yet the Herods could be reproached for being but an Idumean, i.e., a half Jew (Ant., XIV, 15, 2). John’s attack is legally based on the Mosaic legislation to which the Idumean Herods never gave anything but the most distant attention. But the very Jewishness of John’s rebuke can easily be construed as a political threat, because it exposes Antipas-’ unwillingness to be governed by those laws to which truly JEWISH kings must submit.

Matthew 14:4 **For John kept saying to Herod **(élegen) on what occasions? Is the direct statement, It is not lawful for you to have her, a summary of the Baptist’s message addressed to Herod’s face? While the Gospels do not affirm that John uttered this blistering condemnation either in the wilderness before the approving multitudes or in the audience of the tetrarch himself, it would seem more consonant with John’s known character to envision him fearlessly denouncing the prince personally. He had not feared to expose the hypocrisy and iniquity of the religio-political power-bloc at Jerusalem. His single-minded fearlessness and sense of right and duty probably drove him to encounter Herod head-on.

Herodias tries to avenge herself against John.

Mark 6:19: And Herodias had a grudge against him, and wanted to kill him, but she could not for Herod. kept him safe. Accustomed to the self-importance of the royal house, the grandeur of Rome and the broadening of travel, Herodias was not about to permit a brassy-voiced backwoods revivalist to call hereven by implicationan incestuous adulteress! While as fully pagan as Herod, she apparently had less conscience. Stung by John’s condemnation, she took it as a personal affront, flew into a terrible rage, screaming fiercely her hatred and demanding John’s execution.

She is under stress not only because of John’s publicly denouncing her as an adulteress. She is also menaced, because if she must return to her first husband, or at any rate, leave Herod, to whom she has attached her ambitions, these very ambitions must be immediately relinquished, and her personal struggle for supremacy must begin all over at a time when she sees herself beginning to arrive at her goals. Quite insecure since her childhood, being the orphaned daughter of Aristobulus who was murdered by her grandfather, Herod the Great, murderer of her grandmother, Mariamne I, she had been married to her half-uncle, Herod Philip, only son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, even before she was of age. (Ant, XVII, 1, 2) This would have guaranteed the throne to her husband in the event of the unforeseeable death of Antipater, the heir apparent, because Herod the Great’s will set Herod Philip as next in line, (Ant, XVII, 3, 2) Unfortunately for Herodias, Herod Philip’s mother, Mariamne II, was caught in a plot to murder Herod the Great, for which the latter divorced her, and blotted her son out of his testament. (Wars, I, 30, 7) Herodias thus found herself married to a Herod, who, however wealthy (Ant. XVII, 8, 1; 11, 5), had become just another private citizen who could not even boast a portion of a semi-royal position. Now that she is finally enjoying her first ladyship, i.e., married to Antipas, John’s righteous sentence threatens to snatch it from her, No wonder she was nervous!

Lest our self-righteousness blind us to the Herodias in our own spirit, have we never felt the same bitterness and anger toward someone who challenged our goodness and rebuked us for some cherished sin? Our mere shock at committing murder to turn off the embarrassing accusation must never blind us to what the Lord thinks about our hatred and desire for revenge, since the spirit behind both is essentially the same, and will be judged accordingly. (See on Matthew 5:21-22.)

Herodias. wanted to kill him. But she could not, for Herod. kept him safe. Did Herod’s self-estimate of his own goodness grow in direct proportion to his effectiveness in blocking Herodias-’ agitated urging? Did he satisfy himself for yielding to one temptation (to live with her) by reminding his conscience that he did not yield to the other (to surrender John to her)? Was this his attempt to bargain with Divine Justice?

Herod’s mixed motives blocked any effective action.

Matthew 14:5 **And though he wanted to put him to death he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet. **Herod makes an interesting character study because of the contradictory elements that constitute his personality:

Sheer political expediency demanded the death of an enemy so dangerous to the crown as John, and yet extraordinary measures must be taken to avoid public displeasure on the part of a nation conscious of the divine call and the righteousness of that enemy’s accusations. Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 5, 2) writes:

… Herod. feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do anything he should advise), thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it should be too late.

Herod feared the nationalistic Zealots, because of his collaboration with Rome; he feared the Romans because his tenuous power depended upon their good grace as long as he preserved order in his realm; therefore he feared John, because the latter could easily, by inciting the Zealots and others of Herod’s political enemies, dynamite everything Herod had so laboriously constructed. In fact, but for the refusal of Jesus to head such an insurrection after John’s murder, Herod would have quite probably faced the violence of civil war, precisely BECAUSE he murdered John! (John 6:15; Matthew 14:12-13) Ironically, from a purely self-serving political standpoint, to eliminate John meant political suicide for Antipas! The notorious scarcity of genuine prophets in Israel for centuries made it a particularly serious matter to manacle, much less murder, this rare man. Further, the Herods in general, primarily because they were merely tolerated Idumeans, had followed a very astute policy of seeking to ingratiate themselves with the Jewish people. To hinder this holy man, from the people’s standpoint, meant to outrage public opinion and reverse the pacifying policy to a most dangerous degree.

Note a similar mental block in the minds of the Jewish authorities when Jesus quizzed them about John’s authority: If we say, -From men,-’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold John to be a prophet. (Matthew 21:26) Fear of public opinion, more than fear of God, keeps men from acting consistently with their real views, reducing them to moral cowards and hypocrites.

Matthew’s statement of Herod’s murderous intention toward John may reflect Antipas-’ original reflex action before actually hearing John on numerous occasions and, because of which preaching, mellowed for the other motives mentioned by Mark (Mark 6:20):

Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, despite his own political conviction demanding his death. What a contrast: the ragged prisoner in Herod’s presence stood free and uncondemned by a holy God, while the richly-robed monarch himself grovelled in his own moral filth in the presence of the same God John so valiantly proclaimed! Herod feared John, because he feared John’s God. In fact, John made his God so real to the vile tetrarch that the latter could not but bow his crowned head in awesome respect at the unsullied sincerity and unrelenting courage of the prophet. He possessed not even the suspicion of a defense against the truth of John’s accusations. Herod was conscious that before him stood a MAN whose soul was honed razor-sharp by constant communion with God, a man who knew precisely what he thought and where he was going, and for whom the reality of righteousness was his daily bread. Here stood a mighty rock of a man whose moral power laughed at all the waves of shame and insults beating helplessly against him, whom the threats of imprisonment and death could not shake and the bribes of office, wealth and glory could not buy. Herod’s court was filled with enough reeds shaken by the wind, time-serving, self-seeking men clothed in soft raiment, who pliantly bent morality and truth whenever Herod willed. But here is a giant of a man who is not afraid to live the life of the living God in the presence of dying men, and the tetrarch could not but admire this rare specimen. Though Antipas pile up defense upon defense against the forerunner’s message, no vindication could satisfy even the corrupt tetrarch himself, because he sensed that he had at last come face to face with reality itself, the truth of God incarnate in one single man who would not budge. Either Antipas must surrender to God and to John, or.

Whereas Mark mentions only Antipas-’ conviction that John was a righteous and holy man, it is evident, from Antipas-’ surmise about Jesus, that the former considered John to be the kind of man from whom not even the performance of miracles to almost any extenteven his resurrection from the deadmight not be reasonably expected. Either Antipas too sees John as a prophet of God, which is more likely, or his surmise about Jesus reveals a paganish superstition, which is not altogether unlikely either.

Herod kept him safe (Mark 6:20) probably includes the ideas involved in the alternate textual reading included in the KJV: he did many things, now corrected to he was much perplexed (the difference between epoìei and epòrei in the next phrase). The verb sunteréo means not only to protect, defend against harm, contextually pointing to protective custody from Herodias-’ murderous clutches, but also to keep in mind; be concerned about, and to hold or treasure up (in one’s mind, memory). This latter significance suggests that he treated John with respect and a kindness limited to their respective positions and circumstances. It appears, thus, that Herod’s official stand on John collided with his personal concern. Whereas he must officially silence that embarrassingly public accusation that menaced his throne, yet, once John was securely locked in Herod’s dungeon, the king could safely be generous with him whom he really respected. But Herod was unwilling to do the one thing that would free him from his guilty conscience: break with his beloved sins and Herodias. Did he hope that such kind treatment shown John could atone for his adultery, or be substituted for doing the very thing God demanded of him? But in the long view, what became of the king’s sollicitous carefulness for the wilderness preacher, his eager listening to his message? The inadvertence of an unguarded moment and a rash promise wiped it all out! And even later, his alarmed conscience, shaken by news about Jesus, did not lead to any deep repentance either.

When he heard him, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard him gladly. (Mark 6:20 b) Herod’s perplexity was caused, on the one hand, by his unwillingness to make a break with the luxury and licentousness he desired, and, on the other, by his consciousness of the rightness of John’s denunciations and his fear of God’s wrath. The word rendered perplexed (aporèo) beautifully sketches his embarrassment, uncertainty and mental inability to resolve his dilemma. Here is a man whose will is completely blocked in the presence of clear-cut choices, because of the contradictory demands of his desires.

He heard him gladly, perhaps because John was a link with a better past. Herod too had been a boy once, trying to make sense out of the world, and had perhaps set higher ideals for himself than were common among the corrupt Herodian courts. Later, gradually slipping and finally plunging to the hilt in the powerful vices which his unique position offered him, and even now, compromised completely by his incestuous paramour, he cannot shake that lingering appreciation for integrity, principle and the service of God in the life of another young man who made it.

He heard him gladly perhaps for a more sinister reason. Did Herod frankly enjoy the verbal beatings John gave him? That is, because of the vicarious punishment he received thereby, did he actually like to hear his sins aired and condemned? His guilty conscience would not let him rest, but his desires would not let him repent either. Is it possible that the more John leveled his fiery denunciations at Herod, the happier Herod could feel psychologically? Naturally, since this type of catharsis does not lead to repentance and restitution, the temporary feeling of psychological cleansing lasts only until the whole scene is forgotten under the rush of other interests, other lusts, which, in turn, bring on the felt need for another blistering by John’s fearless declaration of divine truth and righteousness. In this sense, Herod NEEDED John, keeping him on call for his private catharsis.

(Compare the mixed motives of another ruler and his preacher. Acts 24:24-27, Paul and Felix)

At his public birthday celebration Herod rashly vowed anything to Herodias-’ daughter, Salome.

Matthew 14:6 But when Herod’s birthday came (genesìois dè genoménois toû Heròdou), the tetrarch gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee. (Mark 6:21) Some, with Edersheim (Life, I, 672), doubt that what is involved here is a simple birthday party for a few choice guests. They think it, rather, the anniversary of the death of Herod the Great and, consequently, the anniversary of the accession of his son Herod Antipas to the tetrarchy. The debate revolves around the word genésia and the probabilities of Herod’s character; the outcome of the discussion strengthens the Gospels-’ position.

Genésios, according to Rocci, 381, refers either (in the neuter plural as in our case) to the anniversary date of the death of a parent, or to the feast for the anniversary of the birth, but in Matthew 14:6 Rocci prefers birthday. Arndt-Gingrich (153) also think it means birthday celebration, but point out that genésia earlier. meant a commemorative celebration on the birthday of a deceased person. Vine (Expository Dictionary, 128) notes that the interpretation the day of a king’s accession. is not confirmed in Greek writings. The irrelevance of this latter remark is illustrated by the fact that we are not dealing only with Greek writings as such, but with Jewish Greek of the LXX (cf. Genesis 40:20) as well as the Jewishness of both our Gospels and of the situation described. Edersheim (ibid.) cites the Rabbinic equivalent in Abod. Z. 10a where Yom Ginuseya is expressly and elaborately shown to be the day of accession. He further shows that the event described in our text certainly took place before the Passover, and this was the time of Herod’s (the Great) death and of the accession of Antipas.

It is impossible to establish the likelihood of the celebration of Herodian birthdays, because of the unpredictability of the human personality, and because Herod, with perfect consistency, could be deliberately affecting imperial manners where he could manage it. Plummer (Matthew, 202, note 2) cites Origen as arguing that birthday celebrations are wrong, affirming that we find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man. Pharaoh and Herod Antipas are the two examples he offers, a fact which argues that Origen translated genésia birthday rather than accession day.

The foregoing conclusionless debate only demonstrates the probable authenticity of the Evangelists-’ narrative against any who would question their veracity by doubting that Herod would drag his courtiers clear to Macherus for a little birthday party. Further, as suggested above (Was John ever at Macherus?), the tetrarch and his court may have been at Macherus, as Josephus informs us, on quite other business than birthday parties, in which case, Herod may have wished to combine several things together by uniting the celebration of his accession to the throne (or his birthday) with the presence of his courtiers and generals at his southernmost military post.

Mark notes that the opportunity Herodias had so diligently sought, came. While Herod dallied, wavering between the threatenings of his conscience and the satisfaction of his desires and the day-to-day prosecution of his reign, Herodias singlemindedly plotted the venting of her rage. Was it at her insistence that Herod should give a banquet on his birthday? Did she draw up the list of big names to invite as witnesses of her vendetta, choosing men whose doubtful moral fiber could be counted upon not to quail at murder? Did she groom Salome for her chorus-girl act so as to entice some rash promise from Herod? Did she leave Salome deliberately uncoached as to what to request, or was this feigned unpreparedness also part of the act? Josephus-’ attitude toward Herodias describes her as an ambitious plotter, fully capable of managing from offstage every move in the scene the Gospels describe here. (Cf. Ant, XVIII, 7 1-2; Wars, II, 9, 6) Or, did Herodias merely seize an unexpected opportunity suddenly thrust into her hands by the puzzled request of her daughter? Her quick-wittedness to grasp this unparalleled opportunity is certainly the deliberately sought outlet for months of frustrated revenge.

**The daughter of Herodias danced in the midst and pleased Herod. **The girl, Salome, was also daughter of Herod Philip of Rome, apparently brought along with Herodias when the latter divorced her husband for Antipas. (Ant. XVIII, 5, 4) The attentive reader of the Greek in Mark 6:22 will notice what seems to be a mistake on Mark’s part:

With the reading autoû in the text, the girl is described as Herod’s daughter: his daughter came in. In verse 24 she is correctly described as Herodias-’ daughter, whom Josephus identifies as step-niece of Antipas. But Mark makes no blunder here, because, in the wider Jewish usage, any younger female relative may be called daughter, or else, because, by virtue of Herod’s illicitly contracted marriage to Herodias, Salome became the daughter of Herod.

However, Metzger (A Textual Commentary, 89f) believes that according to this reading the girl is herself named Herodias, i.e., Herodiàdos is taken as an appositive genitive with daughter, thus naming her Herodias. However, in light of the historical and contextual difficulties such a translation causes, it is better to consider Herodiàdos to be a genitive of origin or relationship, thus identifying Herod’s unnamed daughter as of Herodias, without naming her. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, Sect. 162, 168) The interpretation would be stronger, however, had Mark added the article tês before Herodiàdos, but such a solecism as the text now stands might not overly trouble a Hebrew writing in Greek as he constructs this concatenation of genitives with different meanings.

With the reading autês tês, however, the situation becomes more picturesque and significant: the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced. This reading draws instant attention to the shocking lowering of this girl of rank who thus displays herself in this dance. However, the former textual variant must not be ignored, because of the strength of its external attestation.

The daughter of Herodias is described later (Matthew 14:11) as a girl or koràsion, a diminuitive form of kòre, a girl; maiden; virgin, or even a married daughter, or bride, hence koràsion would indicate a little girl, a child. (Rocci, 1073) Nevertheless, we have no way of ascertaining her exact age, nor, on that basis, what kind of dance she did, nor, on the basis of this, how she pleased Herod and his guests. Various commentators have pictured, not impossibly, a lucious teenager doing something like an Egyptian belly dance. However, is it possible that we have a mere child doing some more innocent presentation particularly well, who rightfully deserves the applause she received? Then, after taking her bows, did she wiggle into her new daddy’s arms for a kiss of approval and the promise of some future bauble? It is psychologically possible that Herod in his (drunken?) exuberance would have made just such a promise to this child just to see if her young mind were as keen as her ability to perform. This, if it turns out as Herod desires, would become one more way of showing off Herodian pride, since she is his grand step-niece. Unsuspecting the outcome, Herod may even have thought her taking counsel with her mother a mark of maturity.

Matthew 14:7 **So that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask, **to which he rashly added: even half of my kingdom. (Mark 6:23) Is Herod’s swaggering manner a conscious imitation of real emperors? (Cf. Esther 5:3; Esther 5:6; Esther 7:2; 1 Kings 13:8)

About this same period, Caligula was making this same kind of patronizing promise to Antipas-’ step-nephew, Agrippa I, at Rome. On that occasion, too, Caesar felt he could not back down from his promises, because of so many witnesses to his promises. See Ant. XVIII, 8, 7.

The inconsiderateness of these oaths, however often repeated for emphasis (cf. oaths Matthew 14:9), becomes apparent from the fact that they were never made with that seriousness of purpose, that consciousness of God and that appreciation of truth and righteousness that must always accompany a proper oath. (See on Matthew 5:33-37.) Otherwise, when confronted with such a request as Herodias demanded, which took such unfair advantage of the broad terms of his promise and oaths, he would not have been caught so completely off guard.

Herodias requires John’s murder which Herod reluctantly orders.

Matthew 14:8 **Prompted by her mother **summarizes a short, behind-the-scenes conversation narrated by Mark: She went out and said to her mother, -What shall I ask?-’ And she said, -The head of John the baptizer.-’ And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, -I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.-’ The words at once. here on a platter point to the nearly immediate possibility of instant compliance with her request, hence to the nearness of John’s prison.

This gesture of asking her mother is absolutely no indication of Salome’s chronological age, since psychological subjection to an ambitious, domineering mother is possible from the cradle to the grave, It is perfectly natural for a little girl to ask her mother, but it may also have been perfectly natural for a Salome to suffocate her own desires in favor of a Herodias-’ ambitions. Agreed, she was not mature enough to make her own decisions, but what does THAT tell us about her age?

Matthew 14:9 **And the king was **(Mark: exceedingly) **sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests, he commanded it to be given. **Did Herod’s oaths really obligate him to grant this criminal request? No, he had two valid options:

The actual request made was not contemplated in the oath-covered promise. Despite the exceedingly general nature, of his promise, he might honorably have declared that his, generosity implied, so necessarily that it needed not be expressed, an intention to give her an expensive gift, or at any rate, what was lawful and proper. So, when she demanded that a crime be committed, the oath was no longer valid and his obligation to keep it ceased.

Even if all the men present had objected that the very generality of his promise should be interpreted to include even this request, Herod Antipas could have REPENTED of his oath. An oath is a solemn promise guaranteeing the seriousness and certainty of its fulfillment because of man’s awareness of God’s presence to witness the affirmations. But this very awareness of God’s concern in the transaction must remind the swearer of God’s interest, not only in the validity of human promises, but also in the sacredness of human life. Ethically, the choice between the murder of an innocent victim of an adulteress-’ revenge and the possible embarrassment because of a broken oath, should have been easy to solve on the basis of moral priorities. But this awareness of God and this sense of ethical priorities was notoriously absent in the case of Antipas. From this standpoint his oath and what it should have stood for was better honored by being broken than by being kept. To have repudiated the hasty oath would not have been sin, but repentance. If the oath must be considered valid, repentance was his only way out, but it WAS a way out! (Leviticus 5:4-5) Despite John’s preaching, Herod had so long followed a pattern of refusal to repent that, now when he needs desperately to respond better to this crisis of conscience, he cannot. Though his conscientious awareness of John’s righteousness, holiness and innocence threw him into deep grief (perìlupos genòmenos, lupetheìs), other factors blocked any effective decision to repent of his oaths.

Herod is an example of the supposed necessity for sinning. Though stricken with a feeling of grief at what necessity made him do, he felt the apparent validity of his reasons: For the sake of his oaths. But these are the justifications of a man whose conduct was governed, not by the unchanging ethical principles of right and wrong, but by a vague sense of honor and a flexible, dubious conventionalism derived from his own profligate society and its traditional customs. So, the snare which entrapped Antipas was of the flimsiest quality, because he could have repudiated his oaths, and because he knew he was gratifying a cruel hatred with which he did not really agree.

Herod’s conscience was dead to real crimes like adultery, incest and murder, but supersensitive to the point of scrupulousness about a broken oath! What moral blindness to uphold a dubious point of honor at the expense of elementary justice! The second factor blocking Herod’s decisive refusal of so wicked a request is his guests. His oaths and his guests, as factors, must be taken together, because of the unspoken social pressure these witnesses supplied. His oaths had not been spoken in a vacuum nor merely for the sake of Salome. He intended to impress his guests and now their very existence pressured him, as if they said, Can Herod’s word to any of us be trusted, if here in his presence he breaks his most solemn oaths? The king’s fear of being disgraced in their presence proves that both his oaths and Salome’s request were heard by the entire group. The moral immobility of each single guest at this sudden turn of events which unavoidably involved the life or death of God’s prophet, is the more eloquent against them, because of their unpreparedness to impede the tragic conclusion of a merry feast brought on by Herod’s cowardly acquiescence. It is unfair to believe that all the guests were cutthroats, because the politician in Herod may have invited some reasonably good men for political window dressing. Even Herod himself had balked at killing John before this. But in these few seconds after Salome delivered her mother’s demand, no voice of protest, no remonstrating with the tetrarch to repent of his oath, is recorded. How mistakenly Herod read the thoughts of the most reflective among them: Let Herod show us by royal example for once the high regard with which the life of an innocent private citizen in his realm is to be regarded! Even at the doubtful cost of temporary embarrassment! Let the king repent of his oath, refuse the iniquitous request, spare the life of God’s prophet, and his kingdom may stand forever! Nevertheless, the order was given and executed before they reacted, and a valiant, innocent victim lay dead because of this inaction. Would Herod have repented of his oaths, had but one or two brave men stood up to defend John? (Contrast Ephesians 5:3-18; cf. Jeremiah 26 all; Jeremiah 36:25; 1 Samuel 14:43-46.) Certainly it was too much to hope that Herod himself should have correctly read the thoughts of any men of character in the group, for how could a man, so habitually insensitive to other people, hope to understand their deepest thoughts at a crisis like this? Or, on the other hand, did those guests, with their consciences deadened and reflexes slowed by wine, actually express their insistence that he maintain his oaths? The monstrousness of his distorted ethic is well-measured in Edersheim’s exclamation (Life, I, 674):

Unfaithful to his God, to his conscience, to truth and righteousness; not ashamed of any crime or sin, he would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath, and appear honourable and true before such companions!

Mark (Mark 6:26) underlines another deciding factor that tipped the scales in Herod’s mind: He did not WANT to break his word to her. (ouk ethélesen athetêsaì) His desires, or wishes, conspired against his conscience, will and intelligence, and because he was accustomed to do whatever he wished, he simply did what instinctively seemed most natural to him. He could have repented, objected and refused, but he did not want to.

What irony: some men defy the blazing judgment of an angry God rather than face a snicker from an unpredictable crowd, or a tongue-lashing from their women! Herod was just another weakling like Ahab, who although they recognized the divine mission in God’s prophets, John or Elijah, and gestured with the pride of a Xerxes, meekly folded before those vicious wretches, Jezebel and Herodias, to whom they were slaves!

Matthew 14:10 **he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 and his head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. **What a dainty dish to set before the king! Yet from that platter the now lifeless eyes of the holiest man Herod had ever known stared at him. Sinners like Herodias and her dancing daughter seemed momentarily to have conquered by silencing the prophet’s voice, but too late. John had already indicted them of evil, already thundered the judgment of the living God in their hearing. Already their consciences had been warned. John had won, because by lifting his head, they only hurled him into the presence of his Vindicator and their Judge!

Ironically, their crime precipitated the very security crisis Herod and Herodias had hoped to avoid, because to their publicly condemned adultery is now added the infamy of murdering a popular holy man.

John’s body is buried by his disciples and Jesus is informed.

Matthew 14:12 **And (Mark: when the disciples heard of it) his disciples came and buried it (Mark: in a tomb). And they went and told Jesus. **When John’s followers heard of it, who told them? Was Chuza, Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3) also present at that fatal banquet and a horrified witness to the scene when John’s disembodied head was presented to the tetrarch? Was he the contact in the Herodian bureaucracy through whom John’s disciples could be assured of access to their master in the dungeon? It is not unlikely, because Herod needed not only fawning pawns who would bend truth and righteousness at his demand, but also a few dependably upright, godly men to whom he could entrust the administrative oversight of his affairs. Where would he have been able to find a more faithful manager than among those men with ability who possessed the undoubted character of a John the Baptist? Was Chuza perhaps a disciple of John, whose wife had already swung over to Jesus, and whose own sentiments agreed with everything John stood for? If so, he may have moved rapidly and certainly to contact other godly men to come to prepare the corpse for a proper burial in a tomb. Did Chuza, himself a conspicuously wealthy man, provide the tomb, in somewhat the same way Joseph of Arimathea offered his for the entombment of the Lord? Too many unknown factors prohibit any certainty, In fact, perhaps even the remorse of Herod himself played some role here too, facilitating the burial.

**Then went and told Jesus: **why?

They have no decent alternative, While some disciples of John had chosen previously not to follow Jesus in order to remain loyal to their master (see notes on Matthew 9:14-17), now they have no other option to their dark despair and heartbreak but to seek Him out who was now their last hope. This significant choice to go to Jesus throws light upon John’s attitude toward the Lord. When he received the Lord’s answer to his impatient question, apparently he was satisfied. (Matthew 11:2-7) This contentment with Jesus was communicated to his disciples and in their blackest day they turn to Him.

Did they go to Jesus to prod Him into action? In the same way John had sent to Jesus, hoping He would do something immediate about the wretched state of the nation, perhaps these disciples go to the Lord, hoping He might be more ready to do something about John’s death. If He had not hurried the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom when the Baptist had challenged Him earlier, perhaps John’s tragic end would shock Him into instant action. Would He raise John from the dead, as He had others?

Did these disciples believe that the Messiah’s kingdom must automatically mean the overthrow of Herod’S? Does their move indicate a positive political switch of allegiance from their late master, and a readiness to crown Jesus their king in order to revolt politically against Herod? Were these very disciples of John among those who fomented the grassroots movement to proclaim Jesus the Messianic Sovereign? (John 6:14-15) What a task Jesus must have had to cool their bitterness and calm their demands for revenge! As righteous Judge of the world and grateful Kinsman and Friend of the great martyr, in this case He could sympathize perfectly with the rightness of vengeance. But here Jesus could not violate His own priorities by turning aside from His goal to save the world, in order to satisfy a definitely secondary priority, that of avenging John.

Or did they hurry to warn Jesus who was even then evangelizing in Herod’s Galilee, lest He too fall by the butcher’s sword? The reality of the danger to the Lord is measured by His instant move to push His popularity to its logical climax and collapse, and subsequently, by His constant movement to outmaneuver His enemies.

Whatever their specific motive, they probably felt that Jesus would be understanding in their grief.

Matthew 14:13 a **Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from thence in a boat, to a desert place apart. **What a blow against truth and righteousness had been struck: the voice of the Messiah’s forerunner and the message of this great prophet had just been forever silenced on earth! This tragedy was not altogether unexpected, since Jesus had forewarned His disciples that all who would be faithful to God may expect similar rejection. (Matthew 5:10-12; Matthew 10:14; Matthew 10:16-39) But this is a personal loss to Jesus: His cousin, John, has just been mercilessly chopped down in a tyrant’s dungeon! (Cf. Luke 1:36)

When Jesus heard it, He had been evangelizing mainly in Galilee west of the Jordan, as were also His disciples. (See on Matthew 14:1.) If John was decapitated in the Macherus prison, several days would have elapsed before common travelers could have brought the news the 100 miles from that fortress east of the Dead Sea to central Galilee. When Jesus heard it, He withdrew? The disciples of John, Jesus-’ own followers, and a shocked nation were impatient for Jesus to denounce that dastardly deed in a declaration of holy war against all wickedness in government and religion. But Jesus is deliberately silent, as far as His official, public pronouncements go. Nothing more striking, nothing more out of step with human politics, could be imagined. Nevertheless, here is written the patience, meekness and wisdom of the Son of God who must firmly resist the almost overwhelming temptation to turn aside from His unique mission, in order to avenge His beloved herald. And yet this silence, so frustrating to those who expected decisively crushing vengeance from the Lord, is the divine self-government that keeps God from bludgeoning every sinner instantly whenever he tramples truth and mercy underfoot. There must be time to repent. If the Apostles and disciples are going to be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them (Matthew 10:18), this moment of mercy offered the highest authorities in the land must not be snatched away from them by hasty vengeance, no matter how justified. But the silence of God, seen here in Jesus Christ, must not be mistaken for apathy, because His silence is but that ominous quiet that precedes the violent firestorm of divine justice that must finally break over sinful men. Jesus, further, understood perfectly the principle of escalation: to become even distantly embroiled in a holy revolt against Herod must necessarily enflame to fever pitch the emotions of the nation to the point of violent explosion and national upheaval and, at the same time, involve Rome by whose grace Herod ruled. In the certain war, any hope of establishing a spiritual kingdom on earth would be completely wiped out. In short, it would be totally self-defeating. For the sequel, see the next section which flows directly out of this one.

A KING AND HIS PREACHER

King Herod Antipas

John the Baptist

Herodias

A. A Guilty King

His conscience was awakened by another voice of righteousness proving that God’s voice could not be stilled by murdering His prophets.

Awakened by a nearly forgotten remorse over John’s murder.

A. A Fearless Preacher

Not only before the nation of Israel, making holiness a way of life among a degenerate people.

But also before the King

No soft, easy sermons

Rather, It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife!

A. A Vindictive Woman

Justly condemned for her incestuous adultery.

Out for revenge on John.

Cared not what measures she took.

B. A Weak-willed Adulterer

Divorced own wife without just cause (Ant., XVIII, 5, 1)

Seduced and married his brother’s wife

Beguiled by Salome’s dancing

Feared John (Mark 6:20)

Fear the people (Matthew 14:5)

Feared official scorn (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:26)

B. A Strong and Righteous Man

By Jesus-’ estimate (Matthew 11:11)

Even in Herod’s eyes (Mark 6:20)

Afraid of no one but God

B. A Woman of Loose Morals

Not satisfied with own husband.

Accepted Herod’s advances and hand in marriage (Ant. XVIII, 5, 4)

Unrelenting murderess of John

C. Openly Confused and Confusing

Herod desired John’s death but feared men

Herod feared John 3.

Herod protected him

Herod heard him gladly although much perplexed

A rash, foolish oath:

Made in haste in dubious circumstances to a dancing girl while himself perhaps half-drunk

Could have been broken by repentance but kept to avoid scorn.

C. Openly Convinced and Convincing

Absolutely certain of his divine commission

He spoke God’s word, not his own opinions, regardless of personal cost or danger.

He lived in real harmony with his own beliefs; he was genuine.

C. Openly Corrupt and Corrupting

Corrupted Herod further after immoral beginning

Corrupted her own daughter for her own nefarious purposes:

(assuming her majority)

Salome, shameless like her mother.

Danced, though improper for a princess so to expose herself,

Collaborated with her mother, though it meant murder.

D. A Bitter Remorse

The king was exceedingly sorry, but did not repent.

The king lost last voice of God, since Jesus would not speak to him but once, and then through Pharisees. (Luke 13:31)

The king lost all but the woman who ruined him. (Ant., XVIII, 7; Wars, II, 9, 6)

D. A Glorious Maryrdom

Not only preceded Jesus in life, but also in death.

Also preceded Him into the regions of light where God awaited this faithful prophet!

D. A Disgraced Consort

Her high-vaulting ambition over reached itself: jealous of the glittering kingship of Agrippa I, she pushed Antipas to seek the title king. A suspicious Caligula banished Antipas.

Herodias faithfully followed Herod into exile, (Ant., XVIII, 7; Wars. II, 9, 6)

A KING AND HIS LORD

Herod’s Attitude Toward Jesus

Jesus-’ Attitude Toward Herod

A. He left Herod’s curiosity forever unsatisfied.

By apparently shunning Tiberias altogether

By refusing to do miracles for Herod.

B. He eluded Herod’s opposition

Morgan (Matthew, 187): He passed with quiet dignity out of the reach of the man, left him to his terror, his fear and his frenzy; abandoned him.

C. He never feared Herod

Neither his influence (Mark 8:15)

Nor his power (Luke 13:32-33)

D. He rejected Herod permanently by leaving him to his own self-appointed doom.

A. Avid Curiosity (Luke 9:9; Luke 23:8)

Perhaps to hear the more humane message of Him who was the opposite of John (cfr. Matthew 11:18-19)

To see miracles (Luke 23:8)

To have a new confessor?

B. Fear of Jesus-’ Influence, Covert Hostility

Did he use the Pharisees? Luke 13:31

His fear was due to the popular influence of Jesus-’ ministry.

C. Totally Frustrated (Luke 23:7-12)

Herod was totally helpless before a Man who had no fear of him and who knew that Herod could not kill Him.

FACT QUESTIONS

Explain the intensity of the impression made upon Herod by Jesus-’ miracles.

How long did John the Baptist’s ministry continue?

When did he preach to Herod? Publicly in the wilderness or privately before Herod himself?

Why was John imprisoned? When? i.e., what other major incident(s) helps to coordinate our data and establish this general period? Where was he imprisoned, and where do we learn this detail? How long was he in prison?

What message did he send to Jesus while he was in prison? How did Jesus answer it?

When, how and why was John killed?

How many miracles did John the Baptist perform? List them.

Which of the Herods killed John? What is a tetrarch? In what sense was he called a king?

Explain how Herod could be so ignorant about Jesus. Then explain how Jesus-’ name could have become known to Herod.

Explain why Herod could feasibly expect John to rise from the dead. Would Herod have believed in life after death, if, as some believe, he were a Sadducee?

Who was Herodias? What was her character? What was her role in this drama? Who was Philip her former husband, i.e., what was his exact relation to Herod Antipas? Why was this marriage to Antipas unlawful?

Who were the guests at the birthday dinner party of Herod?

List the OT passages that Herod could have cited for repenting of his oath.

State whatever principles of right and justice apply to Herod’s case, that should have caused him to break his oath rather than keep it in this case.

What happened to the body of John after he was beheaded?

What does the action of John’s disciples after John’s death indicate about the relations between John and Jesus, especially after John had sent Him the great question about Jesus-’ Messiahship?

According to the Synoptics, where were Jesus and His Apostles when word came of John’s murder? What were they doing? How did Jesus react publicly to the news?

Much intimate detail of Herod’s private life is reported in this section. Where could the Apostles and Jesus have learned this information, without making use of special inspiration that would reveal these otherwise unknown facts?

Luke (Luke 9:9) reports Herod’s desire to see Jesus. When and where was this desire fulfilled?

Matthew 14:13-33

Section 34 JESUS FEEDS THE 5000 AND WALKS UPON THE WAVES

(Parallels: Mark 6:30-52; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-21)

TEXT: 14:13-33

13 Now when Jesus heard it, he withdrew from thence in a boat, to a desert place apart: and when the multitudes heard thereof, they followed him on foot from the cities. 14 And he came forth, and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, and healed their sick. 15 And when even was come, the disciples came to him, saying, The place is desert, and the time is already past; send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food. 16 But Jesus said unto them, They have no need to go away; give ye them to eat. 17 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. 18 And he said, Bring them hither to me. 19 And he commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass; and he took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. 20 And they all ate, and were filled: and they took up that which remained over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. 21 And they that did eat were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

22 And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side, till he should send the multitudes away. 23 And after he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when even was come, he was there alone. 24 But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary. 25 And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea. 26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out with fear. 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. 28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters. 29 And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and he walked upon the waters to come to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me. 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? 32 And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. 33 And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

If Jesus loved people as much as you say, why would He want to get away from them, as He obviously intended to do on this occasion?

Why would so many people follow Jesus such a long distance from home without bringing any food along? Is it reasonable that they forget this item essential to existence?

How do you harmonize the apparently contradictory reports of the Synoptic writers who say that the crowds ran on foot to where Jesus was going and actually got there ahead of His debarkation at the place (Mark 6:33), whereas John (John 6:5) clearly states that when Jesus had already gone up into the hills and sat down with His disciples, then He looked up and saw the crowds coming to Him?

Matthew (Matthew 14:13) says that Jesus took His disciples to a desert place, whereas John (John 6:10) affirms that there was much grass there and Mark (Mark 6:39) notes that it was even green. Make up your mind: how can it be a desert place and there still be much green grass?

Jesus-’ deep need for privacy as well as the Apostles-’ need for rest caused Him to leave the Capernaum area abruptly. Many would probably have been angered at the selfish persistence of the people. But what effect did this persistence have upon Jesus? In what likeness did He see them?

How much food did the Apostles think to be needed to feed such a crowd? What is the relative value today of what they considered necessary to purchase that quantity of food?

Can you suggest an explanation why only one lad had food when, no one else did?

Why did Jesus command that the multitudes sit down in orderly groups of fifties and hundreds?

Are the Apostles to be condemned for their lack of vision when they faced the prospect of having to feed thousands of people with little or no provisions? If so, on what basis? If not, why not?

Where did the power to meet the need really lie? Was a miracle absolutely necessary? Some feel that the real miracle was the change in human hearts as Jesus called the unselfish lad with the lunch forward as an example of the unselfish sharing that the multitudes could imitate. Everyone then took out his own lunch and shared with those who had none, so that everybody ate all he needed to get back home. Do you agree with this solution? If not, why do you feel it inadequate to explain the phenomena reported in the Gospels? If so, how do you answer those who affirm that a miracle has indeed taken place?

If you believe that the people had not brought along their own lunches, then kindly explain where the twelve baskets came from, into which the Apostles gathered the broken left-overs. Where there were twelve such kosher-food baskets, there could have been more, no?

Why would Jesus be so. interested in gathering up the left-over fragments? He who has limitless power to provide such miraculous meals would certainly not need to be so frugal, would he? Could it be that Jesus realizes that His power is limited, and so He is here saving up the scraps against a future shortage just in case His power should fail? Why do you answer as you do?

What principles of crowd control do you see displayed in Jesus-’ tactics in this incident?

What importance would you attribute to this event when considered in context with the circumstances leading up to it and the aftermath that follows it?

Why do you think Jesus refused the popular crown that was offered Him on this occasion? Could He not have kept this movement under control and led these blindly enthusiastic followers to understand His real purpose? If Jesus could not have kept such a movement under control, then what does this say about Him? Does this not make the damning admission that, after all, Jesus is not like Godomnipotent? Examine the alternatives that lay open to Jesus, forcing Him to make the choice He did.

If Jesus is God, why did He have to go pray most of the night? What did He hope to gain from prayer? If He is God, to whom was He praying?

What do you envision as the reason why the multitudes were planning to take Him by force to make Him their king? How could they have done this?

After the feeding of the 5000, Jesus rushed His twelve Apostles away in a boat: how do you explain this?

After rowing most of the night against the heavy wind and waves, why did the disciples keep rowing instead of turning back? What lesson do you see in this for your own life?

Why did the disciples, when they saw Jesus walking on the water, think that what they saw was a ghost? Are they superstitious?

Why did the disciples cry out in terror? Had they not yet learned not to fear?

Why do you suppose Jesus began to walk past the boat, instead of coming directly up to it? (Mark 6:48)

What do you think motivated Peter to want to meet Jesus out there on that rolling water?

Do you think Jesus rebuked Peter for wanting to walk on the water? If so, on what basis do you say this? If not, then why did He rebuke him?

Is it psychologically reasonable to accept the idea that this seasoned fishermen who had spent his adult life out on this lake should so completely panic when he began to sink, that he would forget how to swim? (See John 21:7.)

What part did doubt play in causing Peter to sink?

aa.

How do you harmonize the apparent contradiction between the statement of Matthew (Matthew 14:33) where he reports the disciples-’ reaction as one of worship and confession, with the declaration of Mark (Mark 6:51-52) where this latter writer declares that the disciples were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

Upon their return from their evangelistic tours the Apostles met with Jesus to report all that they had done and taught. However there were so many people coming and going that the Apostles and Jesus had no opportunity even for meals. So when Jesus received the news about the death of John the Baptist, He told them, Come on, let’s go off by ourselves to an unfrequented place to rest awhile. Accordingly, He took them and privately withdrew from the area around Capernaum, setting sail in the boat toward the east shore of the Lake of Galilee (which is another name for Lake Tiberias). Once across, they retired to a remote area near a town called Bethsaida Julias. Ashore, Jesus climbed the hillside and sat down there with His disciples. (Incidentally, the Passover festival of the Jews was soon to take place in Jerusalem.) Meanwhile, many of the people saw them going and recognized them. Consequently, when the rest got word of His departure, they hurried around the lake, coming by foot from all the towns. Some arrived ahead of Jesus and His disciples. They all came because they were impressed by the miracles that He had been doing for the diseased people. By this time the crowds began to arrive where Jesus was. Looking up as He came out of His retreat, His gaze took in this great throng of people approaching. The sight caused Him to be filled with compassion for them, because He saw them as a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Then He turned to Philip with the question: How can we buy bread to feed these people? He said this to test Philip, because He Himself already knew what He would do. Philip answered, It would take over six months-’ wages and it would never be enough for each of them to get even a little piece! So the Lord welcomed the people and began to teach them many things about God’s Kingdom. He also cured those who needed it. The day began to draw to a close. So, in the afternoon, the Twelve approached Jesus with the proposal: This is a deserted spot and the hour is now late. Dismiss the crowds so they can go to the surrounding farms and villages to find themselves lodging and buy food: there is nothing around here. But Jesus-’ reaction was: They do not need to leave: you give them something to eat! But they responded, Shall we spend our two hundred denarii for bread to give them something to eat? So Jesus opened a new approach, How many loaves do you have on hand? Go look! When they had found out, one of His disciples, Andrewthat’s Simon Peter’s brother,reported, There’s a lad here who has five barley buns and two little fish. But what’s the use of that to feed so many? We have no more than those five buns and a couple of fish, the others commented, that is, unless we are to go and buy food for all these people! Bring them here to me, was Jesus-’ reply. Direct the people to sit down for a meal on the grass, grouping themselves in parties of about fifty each. Now there was plenty of green grass around there, so the disciples organized that vast crowd to sit down in groups of fifties and hundreds. Just a total of the men numbered five thousand! At this point Jesus took the five buns and the two fish in His hands. Looking up toward heaven, He thanked God for the food, asking His blessing upon the meal. Then He broke the buns and began distributing them to the disciples, who, in turn, served them to the crowds who were reclining there. He then divided the two fish among them all, as much as they wanted. They all ate their fill and were satisfied. Afterwards, Jesus directed His men, Go gather up the left-over pieces, so that nothing gets lost or wasted. So they picked up the leftovers, loading twelve picnic baskets full of the broken pieces of the barley buns and fish over and beyond what had been consumed by the crowd! Now those who ate numbered about five thousand, not counting the women and children! And when the people realized the miracle Jesus had done, they began commenting: This man is the Prophet, the Coming One! For this reason, because He sensed that they were about to come take Him against His will to make Him their king, Jesus immediately ordered His twelve disciples to board the boat and go on ahead of Him to the other side of the lake, i.e., over to Bethsaida, while He sent the crowds home. After He had said goodbye to the people, Jesus got away again: He went off up into the hills for private prayer. When night fell He was there alone, since His disciples had gone down to the lake, boarded the boat and pushed off toward Capernaum on the other shore. Even though it was now dark, Jesus had still not rendezvoused with them. The sea grew rough, because it was blowing up a real gale out of the northwest. The boat by this time was roughly halfway across, battered by the waves. Jesus was alone on the land, but He was aware that they were straining at the oars against a strong headwind. When they had rowed about three or four miles, sometime between three and six o-‘clock in the morning, He came to them, walking across the lake. They sighted him approaching the boat. Although He meant to go along beside them, when they caught sight of Him, they were terrified, for they thought Him a phantom. In fact, they cried out, It’s a ghost!, for they all saw Him and were gripped with terror. But He immediately began talking to them, saying, Cheer up: it’s me! Stop being afraid! Peter tested Him, Lord, if it is really you, call me to come to you on the water! Jesus shouted, Come on! At this, Peter climbed out of the boat and walked toward Jesus atop the waves. But when his attention was diverted by the wind-tossed whitecaps, he panicked. Starting to sink, he shouted, Lord, help me! At once Jesus reached over and grabbed Peter, saying as He hauled him out, O man of such limited confidence in me: why did you doubt? Then the other disciples were glad to take Jesus into the boat. When He and Peter climbed into the boat, the wind dropped. The men in the boat were utterly astounded. Although they worshipped Him, confessing, You really ARE God’s Son!, they still did not understand what the feeding of the five thousand meant, for their minds were slow to learn. In no time at all the boat beached at the land they were making for.

SUMMARY

Just at the moment that Jesus-’ disciples began reporting back to Him the happy news of their successful ministry in His name, the disciples of John the Baptist brought Him the heart-rending news of John’s murder. To gain both rest and solitude for body and soul, Jesus sailed with the Twelve east to the deserted country south of Bethsaida Julias. But the multitudes, electrified by the momentous events then occurring in Galilee, followed them. Jesus-’ compassion for people would not permit Him to leave them again without helping. After He had spent the day teaching them and curing their illnesses, the disciples pointed out the shortage of both food and time to procure it unless Jesus dismissed the crowds immediately. Instead, He chose to feed the assemblage miraculously with a lad’s lunch. The effect on the already excited throng was the confirming of their conclusion that Jesus was truly the coming Messiah, To head off a run-away attempt to make Him a worldly messianic king, Jesus divided the Apostles from the tempestuous crowds and ordered them to leave by boat. Then He dismissed the enthusiastic multitudes to go home and cool off, Finally, Jesus hiked off alone in another direction, into the hills, to pray. Meanwhile the Apostles battled the stormy sea, trying to row across the Galilean Lake with but little progress. Noting their distress, the Lord walked out across the lake to them. The specter terrified the men, but He spoke to them, restoring their calm. Peter made bold to meet Jesus on the water, but lost confidence and had to be rescued. Together, Jesus and Peter boarded the boat. The astounded Apostles worshipped Him, still unaware of the full impact of His identity even after the miracle of the multiplication of food.

NOTES I. JESUS-’ PROBLEM

To appreciate adequately this crucial moment in Jesus-’ ministry, we must grasp the factors that made it what it was:

Jesus and the Apostles had just finished wide-ranging evangelistic efforts in Galilee. (Matthew 11:1; Mark 6:12-13; Mark 6:30-31; Luke 9:6; Luke 9:10) Hence, they needed privacy for rest and discussion of their work, results, mistakes and successes.

Passover crowds started gathering in Galilee, massing around Jesus, not only because of the excitement aroused by the just-finished evangelism in Galilee, and the effect of the miracles (cf. John 6:2), but also because of the shocking news of John’s murder. (John 6:4; Matthew 14:13 see note.) Hence the need to escape to rest from the insistence of the ever-present crowds.

The need had also arisen to react to Herod Antipas-’ suspicions, based as they were on his information about Jesus-’ popular ministry and that of HIS disciples, rather than that of the murdered John the Baptist, (Matthew 14:1 f, Matthew 14:13; Mark 6:14; Luke 9:7-9) While personal fear of Herod does not motivate Jesus-’ withdrawal, prudence dictated that HE forestall any decisive action by Herod to hinder His mission. Fear is not involved, because after the popularity-bubble burst, He could move more freely throughout Herod’s jurisdiction both in some traveling in Galilee as well as His later Perean ministry.

Jesus probably sensed a grassroots movement afoot to establish Him as Messianic King over Israel, principally among the Zealots (John 6:15) and augmented by the multitudes generally (John 6:14), a movement that came to a head immediately after the supernatural feeding of the 5000. These suspicions, if relayed to Herod, would have stirred that ruler to fear a popular revolt that must inevitably involve Rome by whose grace he held his throne. (Cf. Ant. XVIII, 5, 2) His disciples, however, must be saved from the influence of such wrong-headed thinking.

The need for privacy with God. (Matthew 14:23; Mark 6:46)

II. JESUS-’ PLAN

While the Synoptics indicate the above-mentioned variety of motives for Jesus-’ movements, Foster (Middle Period, 151, 160f) is probably correct in laying emphasis on John 6:6 as the key to understanding His tactics, not only with reference to the immediate problem of food for the crowds, but also in dealing with the larger problem of His popularity: … he himself knew what he would do. This comes into sharper focus if we see the deliberate steps Jesus took to bring these unwieldly forces under His control. Each step is a pressure-point intended to concentrate the attention of everyone on Jesus and push each one to some point of decision:

PRESSURE: Jesus took a leisurely, easy-to-follow boat trip in full view of the crowds, sailing east toward Bethsaida Julias rather than south or southeast, almost suggesting thereby that they follow Him.

By sailing unexpectedly He drew the crowds into a deserted place where no food was readily available, a fact that would later become another pressure-point.

So doing, He sifted the most interested followers from the less ambitious who remained at home. If Josephus-’ figures are even roughly indicative of the total Galilean population which he establishes at over three million people (240 villages the smallest of which numbered 15,000 inhabitants), the crowd that actually followed Jesus around the lake would hardly have filled one small Galilean village! (Cf. Wars, III, 3, 2; Life of Josephus, 45)

By deliberately sailing to a deserted place, He frustrated any efforts of the Zealots to build a revolutionary mob spirit in the more populated areas.

The large result of the miracle that followed was the building of faith in Jesus in the heart of those who could be saved for His spiritual Kingdom, by being able to withstand the blow He must give to the materialistic designs of the popular, but wrong-headed nationalistic liberation groups and parties, The total effect of the miracle prepared superbly for His discourse on the Bread of Life (John 6:25-66) in which He applied maximum pressure on everyone to leave Him if they were not interested in letting Him be their true nourishment.

PRESSURE: Taking the initiative, Jesus pushed Philip: How are we to buy bread so that they may eat? (John 6:5) This question, connected by John with the arrival of the multitudes at the beginning of Jesus-’ working day, pressures Philip to begin thinking about the problem and perhaps discuss it with the others in order that, when the need actually arises, they might arrive at the correct solution.

PRESSURE: Jesus taught the crowds the rest of that day until evening, healing some, but apparently giving no opportunity to go for food.

PRESSURE: When the worried disciples bring the plight of the famished crowds to Jesus with their suggestion that He dismiss them as the only working alternative, Jesus throws the problem back into their laps, You give them something to eat. (Matthew 14:16)

PRESSURE: When they argue their shortage of money for an adequate meal for all, He ordered them to check out their actual resources. (Mark 6:38)

PRESSURE: In seeking any available food, the Apostles drew the attention of the entire crowd both to the need for food and encouraged them to expect Jesus to do something about the need. But the Apostles, too, are under pressure to obey Jesus by going through that crowd calling out, asking if anyone had perhaps a handful of food, to enable Jesus to feed that multitude, because the Twelve themselves probably did not know Jesus-’ plan. (John 6:6)

PRESSURE: When Andrew turned up only five buns and two fish, he was doubtful of the significance of his find (John 6:8-9), and the others repeated their only apparent alternative: buy bread. (Luke 9:13) Hereupon, Jesus sent the Apostles to bring the food to Him, a mission that required faith in His wisdom. (Matthew 14:18)

PRESSURE: In order to draw full attention to what He was about to do, He ordered the Apostles to organize the crowd into orderly groups for a picnic on the grass. (See note on Matthew 14:19.) The effect of this command is most fully felt when all that anyone could see was some sandwich ingredients in the hands of the Lord.

PRESSURE: When the hushed expectancy of the crowd permitted Him to speak again, in a dramatic gesture full of significance, He blessed the food, began breaking the loaves and fishes, and distributed it among the Twelve for redistribution among the multitudes.

SOLUTION, OR RELEASE OF PRESSURE: They all ate to the full.

PRESSURE: Jesus ordered the Twelve to gather up the leftovers to avoid waste, but the psychological effect on all pushed each to decide about the magnitude of the miracle, and, hence, of Jesus-’ power, since even the estimated size of the group, easily figured by tallying the orderly groups, adds to the psychological pressure too. (John 6:12; Matthew 14:21)

REACTION: Discussion and conclusion of the crowds about Jesus: He is the coming Prophet: let us make Him our King! (John 6:14-15)

PRESSURE: Jesus then made the disciples embark for the west shore of the lake, although the crowd was growing restless with ignorant messianic enthusiasm. This tested the Apostles-’ obedience severely, since they must leave when popular excitement was the highest, and the moment to declare the Kingdom the nearest. In fact, John (John 6:17) suggests that they did not immediately comply, but dallied offshore, waiting for Him to sail with them. When He did not show up, they started across.

PRESSURE: Jesus dismissed the crowds and walked away from His Galilean popularity forever, leaving them to go their separate ways. He had deliberately rejected their crown, their ideals and their popular support.

PRESSURE: The next day, Jesus mercilessly pressured the people to decide about Him and His Word as their only hope of Life and Strength from God, (John 6:25-66) Even the Apostles faced the choice of desertion. (John 6:67 ff)

From the foregoing evidence, it becomes clear that the climax and collapse of Jesus-’ great Galilean ministry was not a crisis in which He became the helpless victim of circumstances. These pressure-points are all His doing; He is the Lord and Master of His circumstances, carefully guiding even the smallest detail so that all the various factors should collaborate to arrive at the result HE desired. (Cf. Notes on Matthew 11:25-26)

Matthew 14:13 b **Now when Jesus heard **about the murder of John the Baptist, as well as for the other reasons mentioned in the other Gospels, **He withdrew from thence. **From thence means from Galilee on the west side of the Lake of Galilee, since the following geographical limitations locate His movements toward the **desert place apart **on the Golan side:

**To a desert place apart, **when compared with populous Galilee, clearly points to the less densely populated zone east of the lake. (Cf. Wars, III, 3, 3)

Although John had recorded a conversation Jesus held with the Jews in Judea west of the Jordan Valley (John 5), here he simply expresses himself like an old inhabitant of the Bethsaida-Capernaum area: After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. (John 6:1) For a non-Galilean, such a reference would be ambiguous: WHICH other side? he would have to ask. But for John, the other side is the east side, where else?

Luke registers their general destination as a town named Bethsaida. (Matthew 9:10) Since they embark on the western, or Galilean, side of the lake where another Bethsaida is located near Capernaum to which they would return after the miraculous feeding (Mark 6:45; John 6:17), the Bethsaida on the other side is Bethsaida Julias, developed from a local fishing village into a beautiful city by Philip the Tetrarch. (Ant., XVIII, 2, 1) This Gaulonite city must not be confused with the Galilean fishertown home of the Apostles, Peter, Andrew and Philip. (John 1:44; John 12:21) The name Bethsaida simply means House of Fishing, a Semitism for a place where fishing takes place. Since the Galilean lake was famous for its fish (Wars, III, 10, 7-8), it is not at all surprising to find several Bethsaidas, or fishing villages, around the lake, either separate or connected with some larger town or city.

Thomson (Land and Book, II, 29-32), on the other hand, argues not for two Bethsaidas, but for one major settlement by that name, however located on both banks of the Jordan River where it enters the Lake of Galilee. Accordingly, when viewed from the site of the miracle, the disciples could actually have sailed generally toward Bethsaida (both towns), and still be roughly en route toward Capernaum, by hugging the shore while waiting for Jesus to arrive to be taken aboard at some point along the coast.

In answer to Thomson, it might be asked whether it be possible, that, in the same way in which Jericho has occupied several sites not far from each other over the centuries, Bethsaida too was originally located on a site west of the Jordan near Capernaum,the birthplace of several Apostles,whereas Philip the Tetrarch moved its location to a site east of the Jordan and dedicated it to Caesar’s daughter, Julia, hence establishing it in his realm? History is not ignorant of such city movings for topographical, political or military reasons. (Cf. Neapolis or new city in the history of that word! Naples is the new Parthenopea in Italy; there is the Neapolis in Macedonia, Acts 16:11; and Neapolis, or Nablus, is Shechem in Palestine. All refer to the new city constructed in the area of an older one.)

Further, Jesus-’ command to the disciples to cross over to the other side to Bethsaida (Mark 6:45) is understandable only if that town in question is actually on the western shore of the lake. Therefore: two towns of the same name, however located on opposite sides of the point where the Jordan empties into the lake at its north side.

The landing point where the disciples with Jesus beached on the day after the miraculous feeding is described as when they had crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret (Matthew 14:34; Mark 6:53), i.e., on the western side, and on the other side of the sea from where those who remained on the site of the miracle. (John 6:22; John 6:25) Gennesaret was opposite the eastern side.

**He withdrew from thence in a boat to a desert place apart. **McGarvey (Lands of the Bible, 327f) describes the area east of the point where the Jordan enters the Sea of Galilee, as follows:

East of the Jordan, at its entrance into the lake, there is a plain called Buti-‘ha, whose shore-line curves around the northeastern part of the lake about four miles, while its width, from the shore back to the hills, is somewhat more than a mile, The plain is larger than that of Gennesaret, but much like it in shape and surface.. On the east bank of the Jordan, and at the foot of the hills which bound the plain in that direction, are the ruins of Bethsaida Julias.. At the southeastern end of this plain, the hills which bound it approach within less than half a mile of the lake-shore, where they form an angle with those which extend due south along the eastern side of the lake. At the foot of the high hill at this angle is located the feeding of the five thousand, for here alone all the characteristics of the spot indicated in the sacred text are found. Here is the smooth, grassy plain on which the vast multitude could sit by fifties and hundreds while the disciples served them with the bread and fish. Here is the lake-shore, close at hand, whence Jesus and the twelve had gone forth when the multitude met him, and where the boat lay into which the twelve entered when the feeding was concluded. Here also, rising abruptly from the spot, is the mountain into which Jesus went up after he had dismissed the multitude. A spot farther east or north would not meet these requirements, while one farther south would fail to meet some others, It would not be a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida; nor could the people whom Jesus had left on the western shore have gone to it around the head of the lake while he and the twelve were crossing in their boat. Finally, if the place had been farther north, the disciples, in starting for Bethsaida or Capernaum (Mark 6:45; John 6:17) could not have been said to have gone to the other side, seeing that they would have been going only from the head of the lake to one side of it, and not from one side to the other.

See also Matthew 14:34 where their return to the west side at Gennesaret is spoken of as their having crossed over. (Mark 6:53)

The point of the above is to absolve the Gospel eye-witnesses from critical attacks that would accuse them of confusing names and locations, leading to the insinuation that the real editors back of the present Gospels were neither eye-witnesses of the facts nor even remotely familiar with the geography. Further, the traditional location of the supernatural multiplication of the loaves and fishes at a site south of Capernaum on the road to Gennesaret is entirely incompatible with the information given above. (Cf. Rand-McNally Bible Atlas, 376, 386)

**To a lonely place apart **(kat-‘ìdian) is the same expression Jesus used to describe the kind of rest needed for which they embarked on this voyage across the lake. (Matthew 6:31-32) Since the expression means privately, by oneself (Arndt-Gingrich, 371), the first impression is that Jesus intended to avoid all multitudes, despite the view of many that He deliberately sailed slowly across the north end of the lake in full view of any interested watchers who could easily follow Him around by land to meet Him on the other side. Which view is correct? Did He change His mind upon seeing the crowds whose arrival He had not desired, hence postpone His sincerely desired retreat? Or did He actually plan to offer some rest to His disciples, while AT THE SAME TIME use a baiting tactic that would draw the crowds away from the Capernaum-Bethsaida area? If so, then rest awhile must mean literally rest a short while. (olìgon) In fact, the moments of privacy in the boat had to suffice, because, until the problem of the crowds was permanently settled, there could be no real leisure for the task of developing the Twelve.

**But when the crowds heard (it), **what did they hear? McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 130) thinks that they learned of the death of John the Baptist, not Jesus-’ departure: When Jesus heard of John’s death, He departed. when the people heard of John’s death, they followed Jesus. However, Luke, in his parallel expression (Luke 9:10-11), connects what the crowds heard, not with a message about John’s deathabout which Luke tells nothing,but with Jesus-’ withdrawal with His Apostles. So it is better to see the crowds as learning of Jesus-’ movements by word of mouth from those who saw Him sail. (Mark 6:33) Matthew’s descriptive expression, a great throng, (Mark 6:14) raises the problem: how is it that so many people were free to go traipsing about over the countryside in pursuit of local attractions? This 5000-plus crowd of men is particularly free from normal business pursuits because the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. (John 6:4) Shortly thereafter the entire group would be journeying to Jerusalem for that festival. That this was to be no merely local picnic is spelled out in Mark’s vigorous language: They ran there on foot from all the towns. (Mark 6:33) Even so, to hear Josephus set the population of Galilee at 3,600,000 people (Wars, III, 3, 2; Life, 45), would lead one to conclude that only a small group from Galilee eventually followed Jesus around the lake, i.e., only 1/600th of the total population.

**They followed Him, **because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. (John 6:2) That they hoped for more of the same is evidenced by the number of sick they brought with them. (Matthew 14:14; Luke 9:11) Although there may have been fishing boats tied up at Capernaum and Bethsaida, the entire crowd remained on land, running around the north shore of the lake, fording the Jordan near Bethsaida-Julias, and continuing on around the lake-front plain, Jesus-’ obvious destination, The five-mile run from Capernaum would be nothing for people planning to walk the 100-mile jaunt to Jerusalem for the Passover!

II. JESUS-’ PROVISION

Matthew 14:14 **And he came forth, and saw a great multitude. **Matthew telescopes the information, because.

He omits the fact that some of the faster runners in the crowds arrived on the scene before Jesus and the Twelve could go ashore. (Mark 6:33) This would not mean that the entire 5000-plus crowd stood panting on the beach as Jesus disembarked. In fact, Mark only says that many saw them. ran. and got there ahead of them. Lenski (Matthew, 563) rightly objects that we have no right to reduce -a great multitude-’ to a few fast runners who arrived ahead of the rest of the crowd. These earliest arrivals apparently were also privileged to be with Him during that semi-private period before the excitement of teaching and healing began with the arrival of the main body of people.

He omits the fact that, immediately upon disembarking, Jesus went up into the hills, and there sat down with his disciples (John 6:3), which suggests that He spent some time up there with them before lifting up his eyes, He saw a multitude coming to Him. (John 6:5) This impression of time spent alone with His disciples before the bulk of the crowds arrived is further confirmed by Jesus-’ return to the hills again (pàlin) by Himself. (John 6:15) Coincidental confirmation of this retreat is the time required to bring the slower-moving sick people into that uninhabited area for Jesus to heal them. (Cf. Matthew 14:14; Luke 9:11)

From the foregoing it becomes clear that Jesus, IMMEDIATELY UPON DISEMBARKING, did not see a great throng, as some translators render it. (Cf. RSV, Jerusalem Bible, NEB, et al.) Others, more sensitive to the above-mentioned problems of harmonization, render the phrase (kaì exelthòn eîden) as follows:

Either as a temporal participle of nearly contemporaneous action, but in contextual relation to Jesus-’ successful retreat upon the hill: And when He came out, He saw a great multitude. (New American Standard) When Jesus emerged from his retreat he saw a vast crowd. (J.B. Phillips)

Or as a circumstantial participle which does not define any time sequence or causal connection or even the means by which the action of the principle verb (eîden) occurs, but simply adds an associated fact. Equivalent to a coordinate verb with and, it may be resolved: kaì exelthòn eîden = kaì exélthe kaì eîden: And Jesus went forth, and saw. (KJV), or Jesus got out of the boat, and when he saw. (TEV) Cf. Burton, Moods and Tenses, p. 174; Robertson-Davis, p. 382; Blass-Debrunner, p. 217f. In this sense, then, Matthew telegraphically states two facts which are not immediately connected, being very loosely related.

So, if we connect he came forth with Jesus-’ disembarking, we must not believe Matthew in contradiction with John who is more complete in recording what occurred between the time of the disembarking and the arrival of a great throng, and, consistently, we must object to all translations of this verse that, while objectively possible within themselves, ignore the problems of harmonization. On the other hand, if we connect he came forth with Jesus-’ return from His retreat in the hills, then the problem of His seeing a great throng precisely as He went ashore, no longer exists.

Notice the close psychological progression of events:

**Jesus saw a great throng **coming to Him. This is the moment of decision: shall He place His disciples-’ need for emotional rest and physical refreshment and recital of their efforts, ahead of the needs of helpless, leaderless people, or must He continue pouring Himself out for them? If John 6:6 be the key to the understanding of Jesus-’ plans for this entire day, then perhaps this decision was already forming: He Himself knew what He would do. But even this decision is but the practical application of a higher commitment: Christ pleased not Himself. (Romans 15:3) **He saw the multitude, **because He had eyes to see, a sensitivity to feel, a conscience that would not let Him forget how many eternally precious people out there in that group would be lost. Despite the fact that only He could truly appreciate them for what they werepeople who were shepherdless sheep because they would reject His spiritual goals and the means He taught to achieve themstill He saw His duty clear.

John informs us that it was precisely this moment when seeing that a multitude was coming to him, that Jesus tested Philip’s grasp of the situation by raising the question of food for everyone. (John 6:5-7; see note at Matthew 14:16.)

**He had compassion on them, **because they were like sheep without a shepherd, (Mark 6:34 a; see fuller notes at Matthew 9:35-38; cf. Matthew 15:32.) Rather than treat them as bothersome intruders who had thoughtlessly interrupted His sorely needed rest and retirement with the Twelve, as also His sorrow over John’s assassination, He welcomed them! (Luke 9:11) Rather than let their persistence rule Him, He took charge of the situation, took decisive action, and remained in control of both Himself and others. Tragically, they had lost their other great shepherd, John the Baptist, and would soon be on their way to a Jerusalem that sheltered the hirelings and false shepherds, the haughty scribes, Pharisees and corrupt priests who despised the ordinary people and, when attempting to instruct them, only led them further from the truth. How badly they lacked instant help! and that from a true Shepherd who could minister to their hunger of soul! No wonder people flocked around a Leader so sensitive and responsive, who would not avoid helping them, so obvious to Him was their distress! Had not Jesus possessed a warm, shepherd’s heart, the story would have ended right there. His eye was neither on the clock nor His attention fixed on His comforts.

He began to teach them many things (Mark 6:34), speaking to them of the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:11) Although His announced topic is manifestly quite general, its very mention was enough to spark revolution, because it was the hottest topic of discussion in Galilee. However, in light of Jesus-’ contextual situation, it is quite probable that He used His opportunity well to cool tempers ready to march against Herod for that tyrant’s part in the assassination of John the Baptist. He may well have hammered hard on the kind of Kingdom God has in mind for His people. It is, of course, not His fault that His ideas did not get through to the majority of His audience. (Cf. John 6:14-15) But, in the same way He thought it worth the effort to try to get people to understand His great Sermon in Parables on the Kingdom, but failed to penetrate their prejudices (see on Matthew 13), so also here He thought it definitely worth the effort to try again to salvage the saveable.

**He healed their sick, **never forgetting their bodies while ministering to their spiritual needs, Many had followed Him only for instant cures, and He knew it. But this did not hinder Him from sharing the generous love of God with them, despite their calculating selfishness, their ignorance of His real blessings and their ungratefulness. (Cf. Romans 5:6-11) We follow Him, not only because of the supernatural evidence of His identity these miracles provide, but also because He kept giving help where most of us would have already driven off that unthinking mob of insensitive, unthankful people! He acted in character as God would.

The fact that the prevailing excitement had not caused some to forget to bring along their sick for healing, while contemporaneously forgetting any food preparations, may indicate something about the time when they left home, i.e., during the morning when it may have been supposed there were plenty of time to procure food when needed.

Matthew 14:15 **And when even was come, **as an expression, does not define the time of day, because, after what must have been a long process of distributing the miraculously multiplied food to the 5000, Matthew (Matthew 14:23 b) again adopts this same expression (opsìas genoménes), at which time John (John 6:17) notes: darkness had already come. Critics, noting Matthew’s repetition in both Matthew 14:15 and Matthew 14:23 b, could accuse him of imprecision. Matthew’s idiom, however, intentionally sets the stage for the disciples-’ dramatically urgent advice, and mirrors precisely the Hebrew distinction between the two evenings. Inasmuch as agreement is wanting among the Jews themselves about the precise limits of the two evenings, only approximations may help us here:

The first evening began after noon and lasted until about three o-‘clock.

Then began the period known as -between the evenings,-’ which would be longer or shorter according to the season of the year, and which terminated with -the second evening.-’ (Edersheim, Life, I, 681)

The second evening began at the time from when the first star appeared to that when the third star was visible. (ibid.; cf. Keil-Delitzsch, Pentateuch, II, 12 on Exodus 12:6; also PHC, II, 226)

It is important to repeat that other Jewish authorities think of sunset as the dividing point between the two evenings. However, Josephus (Wars, VI, 9, 3) provides us a testimony contemporary to the time of Jesus that circumstantially corroborates Matthew’s language, since the Jewish historian pictures Passover slaying, which according to the Law must be done between the two evenings (Exodus 12:6), as beginning at three o-‘clock and lasting until eleven p.m. (See also Gesenius, Hebrew-English Lexicon, 652.)

In light of the above-mentioned data, therefore, it may be supposed that the boat-trip began from Capernaum in the morning. Then the multitudes, in order to hear Jesus, left home hurriedly without food. Now, after a morning of messages and healings, noon came and went without any respite. Thus, the disciples-’ observation, The time is already past, refers to the dinner hour. Evidently, since they themselves had already missed some meals because of the crowds, they knew that, unless something was organized rather soon, not only they, but the people themselves would be facing a trip back home on an empty stomach.

**The disciples, **i.e., the Twelve (Luke 9:12) **came to him. **If it be correct to interpret John’s organization of the events to mean that very early in this episode Jesus planted in Philip’s mind the problem of food to which they all began searching for a solution, then this verse (Matthew 14:15) represents their frustration and inability to come up with anything short of miraculous. Further, their conclusion is not hasty: if Philip shared Jesus-’ conversation with them, they would have been thinking about it all morning, and especially so as the day began to decline. (Luke 9:12) Their arguments are those of good sense, discretion and consideration, but not of faith:

**This is a lonely place: **no grocery stores or restaurants or even homes to offer some simple hospitality. Desert, as some translate it, means deserted, not sandy wasteland. See on Matthew 14:19.

**The hour is already past **to do what? For the noon meal? The Greek expression (he hóra éde parêlthen = Mark’s éde hóra pollé) need not be pushed so far as does the RSV’S the day is now over, since the hour involved may be nothing more than the usual dinner hour, so that, from that standpoint, Mark’s expression, It is already a late hour, refers primarily to the time to eat and only secondarily to the conclusion of some period of the day. (Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 631, 904) The Apostles-’ concern is that the people start for home with some hope of arriving in time for the evening meal. Some exaggerate the need of these people who are NOT starving, even though understandably hungry. In fact, they are accustomed to fasting, many of them twice a week, and traditionally, in connection with the annual feast of atonement. (See notes on Matthew 6:16-17.) They had eaten the day before this day, and would eat on the following day, so would not have been nearly as hungry as the 4000 Jesus fed later. (Cf. Matthew 15:32; Mark 8:2-3)

Solution: Send the crowds away:

to go into the country in hopes of buying some food from farmers. (Mark 6:36; Luke 9:12) **Buy themselves food; **i.e., so **WE **will not need to buy them food with our limited means.

**to go into the villages **round about, and **buy food for themselves **from shopkeepers not yet closed for the night by the time they arrive.

to lodge in the event they are too far from their own town. (Luke 9:12)

This solution was not at all unreasonable, because, if we have correctly located the site of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fish on the Plain of Buti-‘ha, or even nearby, the crowds had only about four or five miles to walk to make it into Bethsaida Julias before the stores closed. Since Peter, Andrew and Philip, as well as James and John, were former residents of the area, they would know how and when food could be purchased and how much time would be required to do so (1) if they themselves were to go and bring it back; and (2) if the crowds merely picked up some groceries on their way home.

Just how much presumption is involved in their advice to Jesus? Their command, **Send them away, **may be less imperative in spirit than the verb-form seems to imply. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, sec.387, p. 195; Burton, Moods and Tenses, sec. 182f; Robertson-Davis, sec. 407, p. 312) Did they suppose that anything were too hard for the Lord? The presumption is not in the verb-form but in the attitude. They are probably not ordering Him, but in coming to advise Him, because they feel a need He is apparently ignoring, they are presuming to lead the Lord who knew what he would do.

Matthew 14:16 **But Jesus said unto them, They have no need to go away, **even though your arguments for their doing so are quite plausible. YOU **give them something to eat, **is an order that deliberately throws the Apostles upon their own resources. This sudden pressuring them to provide what they seemingly could not, was intended to push them to think: But it would take a MIRACLE to feed this crowd! Say, that is what you have been empowering us to do during our own evangelistic efforts! Sure, why not? Only a lack of vision and faith on our part would hinder it, if you desire that the miracle be done. From this standpoint there is a direct comparison between their failure properly to respond here, and their failure to heal the epileptic, demonized boy later. (Cf. Matthew 17:14-21 and parallels.) **You give them something to eat, **makes all the group immediately responsible for the problem, and indicates the moment at which their faithfulness and helplessness begins to reach its climax. In fact, up to this point, apparently only Philip had been specifically under pressure to seek a solution. Now, however, every single Apostle is being tried.

Clearly, then, Jesus-’ demand is neither unfair nor unreasonable, because it pointed to some overlooked source of supply. After all, they had all just returned from a successful, miracle-working evangelistic tour that had stirred all Galilee to rally around Jesus. (Matthew 14:1; Mark 6:12-24; Luke 9:6-9) So, when He turns this practical problem over to them for solution, they should have forgotten neither the implication of everything they had just accomplished in His Name on their personal tours, nor that of the turning water into wine at Cana. (John 2:1-11) So, Jesus-’ surprising demand was no mere strategem whereby attention would be drawn solely to Himself. Rather, it was a practical method for them to rise in great faith to multiply the loaves and fish themselvesby His power working in them as before! Or, at least, they could rise out of their blindness and frustration to exclaim in faith, Lord, if you desire, you can feed them all! So, He successfully tested their understanding and confidence, and sadly found them staggered at the thought of feeding such a mass of people, because their vision of His power was too limited.

The disciples-’ response merely repeated Philip’s earlier suggestion: Shall we go and buy 200 denarii-worth of bread and give it to them to eat? (Mark 6:37) But not even Philip considered the sum sufficient to buy enough bread for each of them to get a little. (John 6:7) Does the 200-denarii figure represent the actual state of their common treasury? (Judas Iscariot carried the bag, John 12:6, which contained gifts made for the financial support of Jesus-’ ministry, Luke 8:3.) Yes, it would be a reasonable amount for the apostolic group to be carrying at the time, since a denarius represented a day’s wage for a working man (cf. Matthew 20:2), and, when divided among the Twelve plus Jesus, the 200 denarii amounted only to the equivalent of just a little over two weeks-’ wages per man. So it was no great sum. That this figure actually pinpointed their on-the-spot financial condition is suggested also by their report: We have no more than five loaves and two fishunless we are to go and buy food for all these people. (Luke 9:13)

On the other hand, their discussion about their financial resources for buying bread significantly reveals another side of the usual mode of life among the Apostles and Jesus: Jesus did not turn stones into bread everyday even to keep His Apostles alive. They lived on the financial support for their ministry that others provided, or on the hospitality offered, or they went without. This regular modus operandi used in their own operations may have unduly influenced their thinking, even in a situation where they could have justifiably used God’s miraculous power for the definite benefit of others in such a way as to bring Him glory. Mention here of their life-style does not justify their doubts or lack of vision; it only attempts to understand their otherwise inexplicable lack of ideas in the face of the crisis into which Jesus thrust them by ordering them to provide food for the crowds.

**They need not go away **seems to point to Jesus-’ loving unwillingness to send them away hungry: Why I do not send them away will become evident when I show them that I care, not only to bring them sermons, but also to provide them daily bread. However, strictly humanitarian considerations, such as the emergency involved in the urgent need to feed the 4000 (Mark 8:1-3), may be inadequate to motivate the miracle that follows here. Nor is it only Jesus-’ generous unwillingness to calculate whether the people are hungry enough to justify exerting some supernatural power to feed them. In fact, He could have dismissed them without losing one iota of public respect for His character. Rather, His planned miracle (see John 6:6) is aimed to start the sifting process which would separate the spurious disciples from the genuine. Bruce (Training of the Twelve, 119-121) points this out:

No better method of separating the chaff from the wheat in that large company of professed disciples could have been devised, than first to work a miracle, which would bring to the surface the latent carnality of the great number, and then to preach a sermon which could not fail to be offensive to the carnal mind.

The Twelve were stymied by the problem. The multitudes could not foresee His plan. Therefore, Jesus was willing to submit Himself publicly to a new testing of His power, because His very success in passing the test would, in turn, test the people themselves on what they understood about Him from what they saw.

When the disciples express their financial inadequacy to feed the crowd, Jesus pushed them to investigate their actual food supply:

How many loaves have you? Go and see. (Mark 6:38)

Matthew 14:17 **And they say to him, We have here but five loaves and two fish. **It was Andrew who turned up the lad with the lunch (John 6:8-9). But even his attitude reflects the consensus of pessimism among the others: … but what are they among so many? His observation is fundamentally, though not intentionally, unbelieving. He simply did not take into consideration Jesus-’ power, even though both he and Philip had experienced it so long. (Cf. John 14:9)

Five loaves: we must not judge these by the size of American loaves of bread and conclude that the boy was making a major bakery delivery! The barley flour loaves (literally breads) were, rather, more probably the size of hamburger buns, only flatter, more like pancakes. (See Luke 11:5-6 where three are considered enough for one late-night guest.) The very attitude toward the use of barley flour for making these flatcakes, however delicious, tended to consider them as poor folks-’ food. (Cf. Judges 7:13; 2 Kings 7:1; Ezekiel 4:12 in context) The fish were no whoppers either, because John the fisherman called them little fish (John 6:9). In fact, he used a word, opsària, which means tidbits to be eaten with bread, perhaps even the same hors d-‘oeuvres for which Tarichea (Pickletown, or a fish salting establishment) was famous over on the west side of the lake.

**We have here but five loaves and two fishes. **this is the woeful result of a thorough search for food ordered by the Lord. (Mark 6:38) It is quite possible that He deliberately insisted upon this search in order to foredoom any slander that would discount the miraculous by insinuating that there was actually more food available than just a mere lunch. (Cf. Barclay, Matthew, II, 114, who reduces the miracle of multiplication of food to an act of sharing by changed, now unselfish people.) If such were the case, both the search and this dismal report would be utter fiction!

Matthew 14:18 **And he said, Bring them hither to me. **Does this mean that the disciples were to buy the food from the lad, or encourage him to loan it to the Lord? At any rate, it must have required some open-handed generosity on the boy’s part to turn his entire lunch over to Jesus when he could probably guess that, normally, it would have filled only him up, but would not be near enough for many others. To me: how often had Jesus been table guest of others? None the less, here He provides a needed meal at His own expense for thousands, and, incidentally, provided simple proof that, though others provided Him some financial support (Luke 8:3), He accepted it not because He was otherwise unable to provide for His needs and those of His companions. Not only did He refuse to work miracles for His own benefitand, by extension, for His closer followers,rather, He humbled Himself to the real level of our common human experience, yes, even to the point of becoming dependent upon the financial support of others. But in our text He rises to the full height of His lordly power by supplying the needs of others by the full exercise of the power of God! Little is always a great deal when Jesus gets hold of it.

Matthew 14:19 **He commanded the multitudes to sit down **by ordering the Twelve to organize the well-nigh unmanageable people into orderly groups of fifties and hundreds. The language Jesus used indicated to people definite preparation for a picnic on the grounds: Cause them to lie down to eat (kataklinàte, anaklithênai) in dinner parties (sympòsia, sympòsia; klisìas; Mark 6:39; Luke 9:14). The number of guests was easily tallied from the orderly arrangement which also facilitated the rapid serving and simplified its completion. It also eliminated the usual selfish thoughtlessness of those who would crowd around those who were distributing food. Jesus first mastered the confusion by organizing the people who would have caused it. Here, too, is thoughtful consideration for the weak.

**Sit down on the grass, **because there was much grass in the place. (See on Matthew 14:13 b for McGarvey’s argument and description of the area.) Thanks to Mark’s adjective, green grass (Mark 6:39) and John’s much grass as well as his note that this incident occurred around Passover (John 6:4), we may date this incident in the spring about two weeks after the full moon. McGarvey (Evidences of Christianity, 87) points out that a few weeks before this, grass is not abundant, and a few weeks later it is dry.

**He took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven. **Whether or not He had before this moment mentioned His intention to multiply the food miraculously. His pantomime speaks eloquent volumes. **Looking up to heaven **certainly draws everyone’s attention to the Heavenly Father as Provider, giving Him glory before eating at His table as in His presence. (1 Corinthians 10:31; Romans 14:6) But it also argues for that openness with which Jesus the Son could communicate with the Father, as if He were just looking right into the Father’s face. (Cf. John 11:41; John 17:1) **He blessed: **Matthew used blessed (eulògesen) without an object that would indicate what Jesus blessed, a usage which might be better rendered: He gave thanks and praise. (Arndt-Gingrich, 322) However, if the food be inferred as its object, as in fact Luke states (eulògesen autoùs), Jesus-’ prayer in reference to the food is the typically sacerdotal act of every believer who eats his meals with thanksgiving, and so consecrates it by the word of God and prayer. (Cf. 1 Timothy 4:3-4) John (John 6:11) speaks of Jesus-’ prayer as a remarkable giving of thanks (eucharistésas), remarkable because worth mentioning again as having importance in the working of the miracle. (Cf. John 6:23) Jesus-’ thanksgiving, however, is not faked: He was glad to receive this simple fare from the Father’s hand. Certainly He would and could do more with it than any other man, but this does not detract from the sincerity and simplicity with which He depends upon the Father’s provision and power. HERE is the power and secret of faith: that open-hearted, confident dependence upon God, that giving God glory before the people. (Contrast Numbers 20:1-12.)

But is it necessary, or even possible, without debasing the Gospel writers, to affirm so confidently, with Cuminetti (Matteo, 216) that

it is impossible to deny an allusion to the Eucharist, especially if attention is given to the words looking up to heaven, He pronounced the blessing and broke the bread and gave it to the disciples, (v. 19) desumed certainly from ancient liturgical formulae?

Even McMillan’s comment (Mark, 85) assumes this connection as proved:

The terminology closely approximates the last supper (Mark 14:22). Either the incident has been retold to bring out its anticipations of the Lord’s Supper, or the actions of Jesus were familiar things which he then endowed with new significance in the last supper.

And yet, there is absolutely nothing in this text that could be explained as indicating any direct connection with the Last Supper except the coincidental similarity of Jesus-’ taking food and praying. The words cited by Cuminetti are completely explicable, not only in terms of habitual actions of Jesus, but especially in terms of the normal way a master of the house acts in two similar situations, by giving a benedictory prayer and beginning to share the food with his guests. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, I, 683)

**He gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. **And he divided the two fish among them all, as much as they wanted. (Mark 6:42; John 6:11) Trench’s excellent apologetic

Notes on the Miracles (167) bears repeating:

This miracle, even more than that of the water changed into wine, when we endeavor to realize to ourselves the manner of it, evermore eludes our grasp, and baffles imagination. Nor is this strange; for indeed, how can it be possible to bring within forms of our conception, or in thought to bridge over the gulf between not-being and being, which yet is bridged over in every creative act? And this being so, there is no force in the objection. against the historical truth of this narrative, namely, that there is no attempt by closer description to make clear in its details the manner and process by which this wonderful bread was formed. It is true wisdom, to leave the indescribable undescribed, and without so much as an attempt at the description.

Indeed, would not the critics pick at the description too?

When Jesus multiplied the bread and fish, however superior the quantity, the multiplied food remained bread and fish, i.e., the same delicious, however common, food it was. He could have created a feast of the finest delicacies. Is there something to learn here?

Contentment with the fare we receive from the Father by whatever means He chooses to provide it?

A principle of parsimony in miracles? That is, the miracle involved only what was strictly necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was done. For example, it was not produced in monstrous excess of the actual need: only twelve baskets of left-overs. It was not brought down miraculously from heaven: Jesus broke it Himself. Nor was it miraculously distributed: the Twelve had to do the leg-work.

**The disciples gave them to the multitudes: **the waiters at this banquet are none other than those reasonably successful miracle-working evangelists who had so stirred Galilee! (See note on Matthew 14:16.) Certainly, the food distribution was most easily handled by a few men directed by Jesus as fast as He multiplied the food, but were the mere mechanics of efficient distribution what interested Jesus? Did He not, rather, desire that the implications of their lack of vision and faith, and the implications of His presence and power dawn upon them? But note how He honored His men by making them respected co-laborers with Him, even though their faith was sagging. This notwithstanding, they were generously rescued from embarrassment and despair without a certainly deserved word of rebuke from Him: what mercy!

Did the Twelve use the baskets, later so useful in collecting the leftovers, to distribute the food in the first place? This is more likely than that each disciple used only his hands to carry what he could to the hungry people in hundreds of trips. To be able to increase the physical quantity of molecules of bread so as to feed such a multitude to satisfaction is to exercise the power of the Creator Himself. Anyone who could do this could have created a world out of nothing. Even if we could not witness that creation, this one, however, gives us a glimpse at what it means to possess nothing less than full creative power. Who is this Man who enjoys such power?

Matthew 14:20 **And they all ate, and were filled. **All four Gospel writers lay stress on the abundance of the sandwiches: everyone had all he could eat. (John 6:11; cfr. echortàsthesan, eneplésthesan) This means second and third helpings: no miserliness here. What a contrast to Philip’s estimate that a large purchase of bread would be insufficient for each of them to get a little! (John 6:7) What a contrast to Andrew’s pessimism: But what are they among so many? (John 6:9) These people had been waiting all day to eat too! What a travesty on truth to suggest, with some, that the miracle consisted merely in making a small amount of food seem enough for them to nourish them sufficiently to arrive clear home! This kind of comment clearly ignores the witnesses and their unequivocal testimony.

At this point Jesus ordered the re-collection of the left-overs (tà perisseùsanta). Several motivations for this move suggest themselves:

His major purpose is stated: that nothing be lost. (John 6:12) Merely because He could endlessly multiply miracle-food is absolutely no reason for wastefulness of even the left-overs! Lenski (Matthew, 567) reminds that some people always take too much. So here, some took pieces from the disciples of which they could not take even a bite, being so filled. Plummer (Luke, 245) notes that details of this character guarantee against the possibility that the entire story is a deliberate fiction or a myth, because of the incongruity of representing one who could multiply food at will as giving directions that the fragments should not be wasted (John 6:12). The possessor of an inexhaustible purse is never represented as being watchful against extravagance.

Further, be it a result and not a prime motive, it is a fact that twelve baskets full of sandwich makings are take-home evidence that the miracle was real and abundant. After seeing those brimming baskets, no one could sneer that Jesus had made just enough, but certainly could have made no more!

The baskets in question (kòfinos) were the picnic variety used by Jews on a journey to carry kosher food to avoid purchasing ritually unclean food from pagans. Such baskets were thought by the latter to be characteristic of Jews, as illustrated by the following quotations collected by Plummer (Luke, 245):

Juvenal: … the Jews whose equipment is a basket and some hay. (Sat. iii. 14)

Martial: … thou, Gellia, hast married a basket-carrier (=Jew) (Epig. v. 17.4)

As is clear from these pokes at the Jews, such satire would be impossible if the majority of the audience did not instantly recognize the basis of these jokes, were it not characteristic of the Jews to carry such baskets.

Lenski (Matthew, 568) suggests that the twelve baskets full were intended for the Apostles themselves, because, having fed all the others, they may now finally sit down around Jesus with ample provision for their needs. All they had shared with others had, by Jesus-’ power, now returned to them with interest, and by that same supernatural might, they could still share this food with thousands more, if need be, and give God thanks.

The twelve baskets full were probably carried by twelve red-faced men who had earlier balked at the seemingly impossible challenge: You give them something to eat! with no more real working materials than their own faith in God’s miraculous power and a handful of sandwiches. They finished the evening with more groceries than they started with, and ironically, at the beginning, even with Jesus present, even with their own miracle-working power, they had dared to think that they had nothing! Compare their lack of confidence with the quiet reliance of Elisha. (2 Kings 4:42-44)

Matthew 14:21 **And they that did eat were about five thousand men, besides women and children. **Why bother to take a count even for the record?

In order to furnish the reader an adequate conception of the magnitude of this miracle. It is noteworthy that Luke and John mention the massive numbers during the conversation between Jesus and the Twelve at the time of their disturbance over their lack of resources. It would seem that these Gospel writers chose that moment to indicate the greatness of the crowd to impress the readers with the magnitude of the PROBLEM to be solved, Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, apparently reserved mention of the number until the close, in order to present the greatness of the SOLUTION.

The count is perhaps recorded, in order to forestall doubts about the miracle’s real occurrence, because Matthew cites how many male witnesses were present and qualified to testify to its reality. The very astronomical nature of the number challenges the dubious reader to begin immediately to seek out some of these men for an on-the-spot verification of the account. That many available witnesses and so precise a figure become powerful psychological stimuli to begin checking into the whole story of Jesus of Nazareth.

By counting only the men, the Gospel writers deliberately understate their evidence, and the resultant psychological effect on the reader is far more stunning upon reflection: if the women and children were omitted from the count, then the exact total must be considerably greater than 5000. The result (or was it purpose?) of mentioning only the men as they that did eat, is the disarming of any critics who would diminish the magnitude of the miracle by alluding to the eaters as a cluster of dainty women and little children who could manage on far less than hungry men.

Matthew 14:22 **And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side, till he should send the multitudes **away. The reader of only Matthew and Mark would find quite inexplicable this urgency of Jesus that pushes His inner circle of disciples to embark, leaving Him on the land alone with the crowds. John furnishes the precious explanations:

When the people saw the sign which He had done, they said, -This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.-’ (John 6:14) And so the Baptist’s last inquiry, -Art Thou the Coming One?-’ was fully and publicly answered, and that by the Jews themselves, (Edersheim, Life, I, 685) This confession which apparently swept the crowd was formerly the very faith Jesus had sought to establish, yet its content was so badly confused about what the Messiah and His Kingdom should be, that He could not but respond negatively to their eagerness by hurrying them to leave for home.

This popular inference, perhaps even grounded in a tradition that the Messiah would feed Israel with bread from heaven (Cf. 2 Baruch 29:8; Sibylline Fragment 3:49; see Edersheim, Life, I, 176) was no surprise to Jesus, because He had deliberately planned for it. Everything had conspired together to lead people to this conclusion. Nevertheless, grounded as it was on good, undeniable evidence, it would prove the damnation of most of those who made it. They did not take the next step: If He be The Prophet, let Him teach us! Whatever He says, however strange, disagreeable or untraditional, we will submit, because His message is the voice of our God who sent Him! Their shallowness is measurable in the inconsistency between this confession made in the heat of popular enthusiasm one day, and their rejection of His doctrine on the next. (Cf. John 6:25-66)

While their confession is grand enough for what they think they are saying about Jesus, they probably did not see that in this miracle He acted as the Lord of nature, multiplying its elements to supply the needs of His people.

Perceiving then that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king. (John 6:15) These wrong-headed messianic king-makers not only burned to see the Messianic Kingdom materialize; they were clamoring to make it materialistic! The Passover festival to take place shortly in Jerusalem nicely suited their plans for a triumph in the capital with Jesus as their Messianic King, acclaimed by these paschal pilgrims thoroughly excited and ready to march in His cause at a moment’s notice.

Send the multitude away had been the disciples-’ advice (Matthew 14:15) based on their ignorance of Jesus-’ intentions and power. Now, precisely because the Lord knows His own mind, He MUST send the multitudes away. This literal dismissal has the force of a symbol, because, due to the motives for which He sends them away, He personally marked the climax of the popular enthusiasm for Him. His refusal to accept the Zealot crown is, in their estimation, to commit political suicide, to ruin His image by extinguishing the hopes of all who, in sympathy with the nationalistic liberation party, had been expecting the Messiah to play the role of a God-sent neo-Maccabean to deliver Israel from all oppressors, establish a state that would rule the world and bring unprecedented wealth and glory to Israel. That He actually intended to drive away the unwilling and the unthinking is evident from His handling of a majority of these same people the next day in His Sermon on the Bread of Life in Capernaum, where, almost systematically, He unmasked their crassly materialistic reasons for following Him, and bared the hard spiritual realities of His real Messiahship, (John 6:25-66; cf. Romans 16:18) Nevertheless, this attempt to make Jesus a political king will explain many of the unusual attempts to avoid publicity, His trips to foreign areas and deserted zones, and His desire for privacy. (Cf. Matthew 16:20; Matthew 17:9; Mark 7:24; Mark 7:36) In fact, although Matthew does not affirm it, this incident marks the acme and end of His great popularity with the Galilean crowds.

Jesus-’ reaction to the turbulent fanaticism was rapid and decisive: He instantly dampened all enthusiasm in three lightning moves:

He ordered the sudden sailing of His disciples to separate this precious nucleus from the well-nigh overpoweringly passionate enthusiasm of the crowds.

He calmly but decisively dismissed the crowds.

He hiked up into the hills alone.

Without violence, in this one unhesitating move He saved His disciples, avoided the wrong crown and made no one particularly angry. After all, the picnic was over and it was time to go home anyway.

Till He should send the multitudes away sounds like the Twelve were to await His arrival at the beach after the dismissal, and as suggested at Matthew 14:24, they may have so interpreted it. However, He had not specified HOW or WHEN He would rejoin them, so there is no promise implied here that Jesus did not keep, because He DID rejoin them before they could arrive at their destination anyway.

However, the Apostles sailed because of sheer obedience, not because what He required of them made any sense. After all THIS was the moment for which they had prayed, the moment when He would accept the Messianic Crown and popular acclaim, and proclaim the Kingdom. Instead, if He sends them away in a boat this way, they will miss it all! Yet their obedience is remarkable for its reality, despite their seemingly justifiable reasons to do anything but what He ordered.

IV. JESUS-’ PRAYERS

Matthew 14:23 **He. sent the multitudes away, **and, in fact, most of them did depart outright. Nonetheless, some lingered around the area overnight, hoping to encounter Him as He returned from His mountain vigil. Next morning, when He did not appear, they boarded some boats from Tiberias to sail for Capernaum in search of Him. (John 6:22-25)

In the meantime, however, **He went up into the mountain by himself to pray. **(Cf. Luke 6:12) From the plain at a level nearly equal with the surface of the Sea of Galilee, the hills that form the backdrop for the plain would seem like mountains seen from below. In fact, the Bashan hills rise nearly 3000 feet above the surface of the lake. To pray nearly all night, i.e., from the fall of darkness when He sent the crowds away, until sometime after three in the morning. (Matthew 14:25) McGarvey (Matthew-Mark, 132) is so right to rebuke our surprise that the Son of God should spend so much time in prayer, since our astonishment only measures our ignorance of the life of Jesus, and our under-valuation of prayer.

About what Jesus prayed the text does not say, but did He not mention.

THE WANTON WICKEDNESS OF THE ENEMY: Could He have released all His bottled-up emotions about the assassination of John? Who could not grieve when the holiest man in all Israel, the very messenger of Javeh, Jesus-’ own cousin, had been ruthlessly chopped down in his prime by the wicked?

WRESTLING WITH HIS OWN SOUL: Would He not also have prayed for more self-discipline to withstand the temptation to accept an earthly crown and plunge personally into campaigns to right earth’s wrongs, and vindicate John? John’s death for righteousness only brought the cross more vividly before the Lord Himself. How real this was becomes more evident in His somber allusion to Judas Iscariot whose character, Jesus knew, all too well matched Satan’s designs and who would betray Him. (John 6:64; John 6:70 f) Next day in His scandalous sermon on the Bread of Life, He would exclaim, The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is MY FLESH! (John 6:51)

WEAKNESS OF HIS DISCIPLES: Surely He interceded for His tiny nucleus of disciples who were so exposed to His same temptations. The passionate patriotism of the nationalists could not but touch these disciples too whereinsofar they shared those ideals. If the motives that once moved Simon the Zealot to cast his vote for violent revolution should infect the entire apostolic group, Jesus could see all His efforts to establish a spiritual Kingdom mercilessly wrecked from within.

WORLDLINESS OF THE CROWDS: And was there no prayer that the mind of people, blind to the spiritualness of His teaching and Kingdom, should be opened to the realities He had tried so hard to depict? Was He even then rehearsing the thoughts that would burst forth in that career-ending sermon to be preached the next day in one mighty push to drive them, in despair, to request explanations as would real disciples?

WAITING UPON THE FATHER: But all these prayersand morekeep His mind centered on the great God before Whom all human praise, honors, powers and crowns fade into insignificance. Was it only during the Gethsemane experience that He offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death or in which he learned obedience through what he suffered? (Cf. Hebrews 5:7-9)

V. JESUS-’ POWER

Matthew 14:24 **But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary. **The boat did not arrive in the midst of the sea instantly upon the disciples-’ embarking and setting sail. In fact, John (John 6:16-18) recounts the disciples-’ hesitation that caused them to dally offshore, perhaps debating whether they should wait on Jesus-’ arrival or not. His demand that they sail for Capernaum had been clear enough, but His words had apparently not indicated whether or not they were to wait for Him offshore until He should have dismissed the crowds, in order to be free to come aboard and sail with them. The expression, It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them (John 6:17 b), suggests that, whereas they had decisively embarked in the general direction of Capernaum, they may have been hugging the eastern shore, scanning the plain for any indication of His arrival. But then it became too dark to see, and there was nothing left to do but obey His specific order to sailwith or without Him. Their expectation was mistaken, because He intended to pray alone. Even if they had been correct, their dallying offshore would have encouraged the crowds to believe that Jesus intended to embark as well, thus encouraging some to hang around Him until He did, thus slowing their eventual dispersing in the dark toward their homes. (Cf. John 6:22)

The expression, in the midst of the sea, has been corrected by textual editors to The boat was already many stadia from the land, which agrees with John’s remark shortly afterward: When they had rowed about 25-30 stadia, or roughly three or four miles on a lake that is but six miles wide. (Cf. Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 37) The sea rose because a strong wind was blowing (John 6:18), out of the northwest, for the wind was against them as they sailed northwest toward Capernaum from the supposed site of the miracle of the loaves on the eastern lake-shore plain. (John 6:17) The next day they disembarked south of their destination, at Gennesaret on the mid-western shore. (Matthew 14:34) Some mistakenly think the wind was out of the east-north-east and that it blew the ship in a south-westerly direction toward Gennesaret, for which explanation they must argue that the disciples were rowing eastward to keep themselves near the eastern shore to meet Jesus, but that the wind eventually nullified their efforts. (Cf. G.A. Frank Knight, PHC, XXIII, 245) This view pictures the disciples as never really attempting to go to Capernaum-Bethsaida, hence inexplicably insinuates an insipient disobedience to the Lord’s specific orders to do so, excusing them for loving the Lord while disobeying Him. For a description of a storm similar to that faced by the Apostles, see Johnson-DeWelt, Mark, 184f, and notes on Matthew 8:24.

Sailing, at this point, against such a wind and beaten by the waves, was out of the question, so they turned to the oars. Their best efforts notwithstanding, the disciples were straining at the oars (basanizoménous en tô elaùnein, Mark 6:48) or, battered in rowing, because the boat was battered by the waves (Matthew 14:24: basanizòmenon).

As Bruce (Training, 126) believes, if these men thought this literal storm terrible, they had yet to experience another spiritual hurricane the next day when they were to watch the fickle crowds who had the day before attempted to crown Jesus their Messianic King, turn abruptly away from in shock, disappointment and disgust. This sudden and violent apostasy would require gargantuan effort on the part of the Twelve to maintain their own headway against the waves of unpopularity and unbelief.

Matthew 14:25 **And in the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking upon the sea. **The Romans divided the night guard-duty into four watches of three hours each, beginning at 6:00 p.m., thus the fourth watch ran from 3:00-6:00 a.m. So, calculating that the Twelve had actually started across at just after sunset, and that they had made no more than three or four miles by three o-‘clock in the morning, we must conclude that they had fought that storm for no less than six or seven hours, and probably more! This is obedience, because these men, accustomed to such storms, could well have turned the boat to run with the wind: their whole trouble was caused by their insistence (in obedience to Jesus) in continuing against the wind. Their loyalty to Jesus kept them rowing. However, their fatigue was even greater, because of the lack of proper food and rest that had occasioned their escape from Capernaum, and because they had worked steadily with Jesus at least since their arrival at the scene of the multiplication of the food. These factors help to explain their reactions to what follows.

Why did Jesus come to them, walking upon the sea? Merely to take a short cut across the sea, rather than walk around the land?

Jesus decided to help them in their plight, because, as Mark (Mark 6:47-48) describes the scene: When evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and He was alone on the land. And HE SAW that they were distressed in rowing. The reader must ponder how that could be humanly possible if Jesus did not use superhuman vision. Two factors must be remembered here:

At Passover time the moon is full, lighting the entire lake. During the period March-April the Tiberias area sees an average of only eight rainy days. Besides, the storm wind does not necessarily presuppose any clouds to obscure the bright moonlight.

Further, Jesus stood on an excellent point for observing the entire scene: the hills into which He had retreated after dismissing the crowds are the same hills used as observation points by Arab gun spotters on the Golan Heights in the Arab-Israeli wars.

In the same way that He saw the need of the multitudes and had compassion upon them, now, rather than send an angel to help them or calm the storm from where He was, compassionately He chose to come to them through the tempest Himself.

Their very circumstances furnished Him the opportunity to demonstrate even further His essential Deity in a manner, however incomprehensible, that was absolutely undeniable and real. Though the masses think of Him as some great Messenger come from God, His immediate disciples must know Him as the indisputable Lord of Nature. They need to understand that what Jesus can do with the molecules of five buns and two sardines, He can do with the molecules of a roaring sea beyond their control. In the one case He multiplied them; in the other He transformed them into a walkway that supports His weight. This nature miracle, like the transformation of water into wine, must lead them to conclude that He who comes to them, making the water support Him as would any terrestrial surface, can be only He who created the seas and the dry land in the first place.

**He came to them, walking on the sea. **The only alternative to accepting this crisp, simple sentence as the expression of a historical miracle that actually occurred is either to deny the total history, because the witnesses are impugned as incredible, or follow those who, like Barclay (Matthew, II, 117) profess inability to decide whether a miracle occurred here or not. He argues that, since the Greek expressions epì tês thalàsses and epì tèn thàlassan CAN mean the same thing, i.e., upon the sea or on the sea, or also at the sea, over the sea, or towards the sea respectively, and since peripateîn means to waLk. walk around, he concludes that Jesus walked around the head of the lake, saw the boat fighting the waves and came down toward the shore to help. Walking through the surf on the shore and the waves toward the boat, He came so suddenly upon them that they were terrified when they saw Him. While admitting that the above-mentioned Greek expressions may also describe a miracle in which Jesus actually walked on the water, he affirms that whatever interpretation of the Greek is chosen, it does not matter. While his own comments on Peter’s walking on the water quite ignore the problem, that very incident is described in Scripture in such a way as to remove every ambiguity and reflect back on Jesus-’ walk on the waters. That disciple requested permission to come to you upon the waters (eltheîn pròs sé epì tà hùdata). Then he, too, walked about on the water (periepàtesen epì tà hùdata). Here it is clearly impossible for a disciple sitting in the boat some distance from any shore to walk around. towards the waterl It is dubious translation or interpretation to presume two distinct meanings for the same words in so close a context unless moral or material considerations render identical translation impossible. Worse, such an interpretation as Barclay’s ignores the eyewitnesses-’ location of the boat in the middle of the lake. Further, it ignores Jesus-’ intention to pass by them (Mark 6:48): why should He do this, if, according to the theory, He was coming to help them? Again, it is everywhere presumed that Peter, in requesting to go meet the Lord, wanted to do precisely what he saw the Lord doing, and that, upon the Savior’s invitation, he actually did so until the moment when his fear of the new element in which he found himself broke his confidence in Jesus and down he went. If he were only wading toward a shallow beach, he was in no need, no real trouble and needed no faith at all to do what Jesus did. Therefore, Jesus-’ rebuke of his little faith is out of order. Finally, the Apostles-’ reactions to the whole scene is life entirely without explanation, were there no miracles here. (Matthew 14:33; Mark 6:51 f)

Matthew 14:26 How long had these men ardently desired Jesus to be with them as they battled the waves during that interminable night? Suddenly, **the disciples saw him walking on the sea, **and, ironically, their reaction to what they thought they saw was anything but relief. However, for a group of men caught in a potentially disastrous sea-storm at night, struggling at the oars to keep their boat afloat and make any headway against adverse winds, fatigued by their lack of rest for all the hours spent fighting the storm, their reaction to Jesus-’ appearance is quite natural: **they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear. **Their fear is real, given the state of emergency: they are physically exhausted, unnerved by the persistence of the tempest, hampered by the darkness, when suddenly, unexpectedly someone sights the incredible, but perfectly visible, form of something or someone moving toward them on the water. Our condescending toleration of their ignorance and superstition is a comfortable criticism made in the tranquility of our study, but shows little sensitivity for what real men felt in that careening boat.

The observation made about Jesus-’ ability to see the disciples-’ struggles with the storm (at Matthew 14:25 regarding Mark 6:48), also permits us to see how **the disciples saw Him walking on the sea. **In the half-light of the paschal moon they could make out a shadowy figure striding across the waves, perhaps rising with each crest, drawing ever closer (John 6:19). Mark’s puzzling remark, He meant to pass by them, has been variously interpreted:

He did it so that in their terror they would not abandon the ship to escape from this unnameable terror, and so drown before He could calm their fears. So, He did not approach the boat directly, but only on a parallel course.

Foster (Middle Period, 170) sees this tactic as showing Jesus to be perfectly independent of the boat in every sense. He is not saved by them: it is He who must save them.

Plummer (Matthew, 208) sees it as His desire to cause them to feel their need to cry to Him for help. He does not automatically help until they have identified in Him their only help.

Naturalistic attempts to discount this eyewitness account proceed by various routes:

By supposing that Jesus walked merely on the land, but it SEEMED to the disciples that He walked on the sea itself, because they were closer to the land than they thought. (Cf. John 6:21) However, is it credible to believe that they could make out the dim figure of a man walking along the shore, and yet be unable to distinguish the land itself on which he walks? Could they have been close enough to him to communicate with him and yet be unable to measure their distance to the shore with reasonable accuracy? For the interpretation of Joh 6:21, see on Matthew 14:33. Further, if by the fourth watch we are not to understand its beginning, i.e., around 3:00 a.m., but, rather, its middle or end, i.e., around six o-‘clock, then predawn light may have permitted even better visibility, hence, more than ever precluding the possibility of honest error.

To accept the conclusion that a myth about a miraculous walking on the sea could have grown up around so common an experience as walking along the shore is to admit an absurdity greater than the hypothesis of the story’s truth. Further, the myth-hypothesis leaves Peter’s walk (in, at, near, or toward?) on the water completely without either justification or explanation.

By supposing mass hallucination: they all saw him, and were terrified. (Mark 6:49-50) Men in this state of mind, it is said, would not have been calm, objective observers of the phenomena, and the excited shout of one could easily suggest to the others the subjective vision of something that, objectively, just was not there. However, supposing the other details of this account to be true, which is perhaps asking too much of some critics, the detail about Peter’s failure to walk all the way to Jesus on the water is left unexplained, as is also their embarking at the conclusion of Peter’s walk with Jesus. Do hallucinations become so concrete as an additional Passenger in the same boat, whose very presence could be verified at will?

By supposing that the disciples, by their cry: It is a ghost! reveal an ignorance and superstition that would disqualify them as observers prepared to identify and report this strange phenomenon. (Cf. Luke 24:37; Acts 12:15) Several answers may be suggested:

The Evangelist reports them as shouting, as their first reaction, a hypothesis which was subsequently discredited by the facts. Had they first shouted, It is the Lord!, we might have had more reason to suspect their psychological reaction, for, in that case, they would not have examined the possibility that they were themselves subject to the fear of ghosts. But, because they themselves eliminated the ghost-hypothesis, suggesting it as their most natural explanation, we do not have to suggest it.

Only the determined antisupernaturalist (who is himself biased by that position) could fail to admit that the Apostles had, in their national historico-theological literature, Scriptural antecedents for seizing upon this explanation of that eerie figure moving across the waters now along side them. (Cf. 1 Samuel 28:8-20; Job 4:12-16)

Nor is it a necessary disqualification of the observer when he experiences terror without explanation when some unearthly figure appears to him. (Cf. Daniel 10:5-11; Revelation 1:17; Luke 1:11-12; Luke 1:26-30; Luke 2:9-10) Rather, the terrified observer compromises his credibility when he DENIES his fear. Whatever the Twelve thought about the phantasms of others (cf. Wis. 17:3; Wis. 17:14), their own immediate circumstances offered no direct explanation when they find themselves confronted with the weird figure now before them.

Finally, were the above-mentioned objection of real weight, is it likely that the early Christians (not to say: Matthew too) bent on glorifying the Apostles by the creation of myth around them, should have left in their tradition what to critical minds must reduce them here to ignorant, superstitious men, unless this experience were so unquestionably authentic that no amount of Christian whitewash could cover their embarrassment? So the accusation of disqualification because of the Apostles-’ cry of Ghost! is surprising evidence of the historicity of the account, since, as they recount it, they must objectively and dispassionately include what, to the critics, must appear a defect.

Whereas the expression, It is a ghost, implies to the English reader that the Twelve thought they were beholding a disembodied spirit, however, ghost translates fàntasma, a word used by the Greeks to express several ideas. It means a phantasm, a false appearance, a specter; a vision, a product of phantasy, as in a dream; celestial phenomenon; a prodigy, a portent; a reflection (as in water); a semblance, an apparition; an image, a phantom (Rocci, 1941) Which of these is nearest to the mentality of the Apostles in this instance?

The manner itself in which He approached them explains their bewilderment. They had never seen Him control the normal procedure of natural law in relation to His own body. Since the concept of His walking across the sea had never entered their minds, in the absence of any other rational explanation, they shout the first explanation that comes to mind. They might have meant no more than: It is a marvel! It is a prodigy!

Apparently everyone in Judaism believed in the reality of the spirit-world, except the Sadducees against whose position Jesus would both warn His disciples and later argue this point. (Cf. Acts 23:6-9; Matthew 16:12; Matthew 22:23-33) It should not surprise anyone, therefore, that these Jewish Apostles should blurt out a perfectly Jewish explanation. It would, rather, be far more perplexing if they did. not. In fact, for them, fàntasma may be equal to spirit, pneûma. (cf. Luke 24:37)

From the standpoint of the rebuttals previously suggested (under 3a-d) there need be no prejudice against the rendering ghost, since the facts subsequently verified cleared up any misunderstanding this word might imply.

Matthew 14:27 **But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. **He humanized even this stupendous miracle by His infectious good humor, greeting His friends, Cheer up, boys, it’s I Myself: no need for nervousness here! Haggard eyes and worn muscles do not permit the most cheerful responses, but the Lord knew that the relief He brought them was capable of injecting adrenaline vigor into those tired bodies through a new positive excitement. He had not yet promised the end of their struggles, but they can take courage in His encouragement. When they recognized that familiar voice and could shout, not It is a ghost!, but It is the Lord!, their fear no longer had a basis, even though the wind continued to blast over the lake and the spray from the waves smashing the boat continued to dampen them.

VI. JESUS-’ PEOPLE

Matthew 14:28 **And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee upon the waters. **What a mad mixture of motives must have pushed Peter to blurt out this impulsive request!

Was there none of that boyishness that, without calculating consequences or implications, always wants to try anything someone else is doing?

Was there also impatient joy to run meet his Lord after a night of anxiety in the face of death on the sea? (Cf. John 21:7) This impetuous demonstration of affection is really welcome to Jesus. Its only fault is its failure to weigh the consequences of its reaction. His is a psychological rebound from utter despair and fear to the opposite extreme of reckless joy and confidence.

There must have been also the conviction that Jesus-’ power was sufficient to permit him to do exactly what the Lord Himself was then doing. This is real faith, because it awaits an order to overcome this natural impossibility, because it is fully convinced that Jesus-’ power to make him do it is only limited by His will that he do so.

In the larger picture of Peter, that includes also his doubt and failure, we have that combination (so strange and yet so natural) of confidence in the Master and confidence in himself. There is the usual impulsiveness (partly good and partly evil). (Plummer, Matthew, 209)

From this standpoint, then, Peter’s If it is you. does not mean to doubt Jesus-’ identity, but rather state: Since it is you, Lord.

Since there is no indication in the text that Peter is trying to outdo and outdare his fellow-disciples by leaping to a mightier proof of his faith than the others, it is better to leave this out of the picture. After all, Jesus does not, in His later reproof, make any comparisons, as, in fact, He had to do after Peter’s denials. (Cf. John 21:15-19 in contrast with Matthew 26:33-35) It is unfair to Peter to read his later boasts back into this text when in fact they are absent.

Some redactionists just cannot conceive of Matthew’s including this story about Peter as an event containing tremendous teaching power, without any intention to glorify Peter also. Cuminetti (Matteo, 218) exemplifies this:

To Mark’s account, Matthew adds three verses about Peter, Matthew 14:29-31). Precisely because this attention is given to him, one cannot deny the important place Peter had in the primitive church, at least in the Judeo-Christian congregations; this will be confirmed by later passages in which Peter will appear as he who speaks in the name of all the apostles (Matthew 16:15-19; Matthew 16:22-23; Matthew 17:24-27). However, another hypothesis cannot be excluded, that could easily be complementary to the one just mentioned: Peter is placed in the foreground because of his attitudes that set him forward as a prototype of the believer, full of enthusiasm and love for Jesus, however with an ever insufficient faith.

Is it not just as easy to interpret these same facts as tending to demythologize Peter the man and disarm any tendency to elevate him to honors belonging only to the Lord? In trying to ascertain any theological motive for this incident registered by Matthew alone, we should not overlook other possible apologetic motives:

Did he intend to show Jesus-’ power, not only to walk on the sea, and so reveal Himself as Lord of creation, but also His power to cause others to do it too? Great is the power to work miracles. Greater still is the power to confer power. (Cf. Notes on Matthew 10:1)

Was Matthew’s intention for including Peter’s walking on the water to show how Jesus-’ walk on the waves is to be understood, i.e, as a literal miracle, not otherwise? (See the naturalistic objections at Matthew 14:26.)

Matthew 14:29 **And he said, Come! **Here is the gracious invitation given in response to a request for a sign of Jesus-’ identity based on the disciple’s determination to trust Jesus, whereas the unbelieving Pharisees, attempting the same, were drowned! (Cf. Matthew 16:1-4) Admire the generosity of the Lord: He who could have foreseen Peter’s failure of confidence in Him, still permitted His friend to share His divine power in this way. Jesus lost nothing of His uniqueness by letting Peter walk on the lake surface too, because He knew that the power to walk on the surface is one thing, while the power to cause others to do so too, is further evidence of His uniqueness and power. But even if these distinctions do not seem apparent, Jesus did not refuse Peter, saying, No, stay in the boat, because if you walk on the water too, someone might think your power somehow equal to mine, and rob me of my proper glory!

Further, as Lenski notes (Matthew, 573),

The faith which Peter manifests Jesus accepts and justifies. If it had not been true faith, or if wrong and foolish motives had prompted Peter, Jesus would never have given this command. Those who criticize Peter ought to see that their criticism really strikes Jesus who consents to Peter’s proposal.

On the other hand, is it not possible that by this experience Jesus wanted Peter to learn his own character and his need for more dependence upon Jesus? If so, Peter’s faith was not so well-developed as he supposed. Hence, the Lord consented to Peter’s exposing his faith to this testing, to reveal to him the immaturity of his confidence in the Lord.

**And Peter went down from the boat, and walked on the **waters to come to Jesus. It takes courage to step out on a heavy sea. In fact, who could say, on the basis of Matthew’s information whether the lake is not still in turmoil precisely as before Jesus-’ appearance walking on its surface? Lenski (Matthew, 571, 574) unnecessarily creates for Jesus a path level and smooth through the waves so that, whereas the boat is at first being pounded by the waves and roller-coasting, Jesus Himself is walking sedately on a level path through the waves. Then, accordingly, he sees the boat as entirely entering that calm path in front of Jesus, no longer wallowing as Peter calmly disembarked and started down the path toward Jesus, the path remaining calm while the lake still roared all around. But what is mistaken about seeing Jesus earlier, and now Peter too, as walking on the surface of the cresting waves with deep troughs that make walking difficult, even though Jesus-’ powerful will makes the surface to support their weight? It is more consistent with the data not to create such paths:

It was when Peter saw the wind that he was afraid and began to sink (Matthew 14:30), but if there had been a level path in front of him, the wind was not affecting at least this much of the sea.

However, the wind ceased only when they got into the boat. (Matthew 14:32; Mark 6:51)

How and why did Peter walk upon the waters?

Was it PETER’S FAITH that worked the miracle by that power which Jesus had bestowed upon all the Apostles for their own evangelistic ministry? (Cf. Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:8; Mark 6:12 f; Luke 9:6) If so, his failure is perfectly understandable, even as was that of the nine Apostles who could not cast out the demon from the epileptic boy. (Cf. Matthew 17:16-21) The exercise of such power is entirely dependent upon the individual miracle worker’s trust in Jesus (God), and where that confidence is weak or fails, for whatever reason, then he is unable to work the desired miracle. The Twelve had worked the same miracles as Jesus before. Here, then, Peter is seen doing the same miracle of walking on the water as does the Lord, not, as we shall see, by his own independent power, but by faith sharing what the Lord offers him of His own power. (Cf. John 14:12)

Or, on the other hand, did JESUS-’ POWER instantaneously cause the water to support Peter’s weight in direct proportion to Peter’s trust in Him? Was it Jesus-’ will alone that intended to work the miracle of which Peter was only the passive, however confident, participant?

To raise these perhaps inappropriate questions is to begin to grasp the relationship between the power to work miracles of the Apostles and that of Jesus. Between the Apostles-’ faith and will to do the miracle there had to be a perfect collaboration with the power and will of Jesus. This, in turn, was affected by the Apostles-’ concentration upon what Jesus is, and what He could do through them. In other words, their confidence in Him predisposed their entire being to become a channel through which He could function, but their will expressed itself in stepping out of the boat onto the water, anointing the sick with oil, casting out the demons, etc. On other occasions, where Jesus was absent, prayer aided this concentration upon God (Jesus) from whom all power comes. (Cf. Mark 9:29; John 11:41-44; Acts 9:40 ff; however, other miracles do occur where prayer is not specifically mentioned.)

Matthew 14:30 **But when he saw the wind **whipping the water into mountainous waves, **he was afraid. **Admit it: his experience was absolutely unique among men! It is one thing to brave a storm from the inside of a relatively safe fishing boat one had used all his life. It is quite another to brave the same storm walking right out on those same mountainous waves, exposed to its full fury. Put yourself in his sandals and step out of the boat yourself before criticizing his terror. See yourself too far from the boat to brace yourself and not yet near enough to the Lord to grab His hand. Look around at the next wave towering over you, and try to remember what it was you were going to say about Peter! It was not a mere taking his eyes off Jesus that occasioned his fright and failure, as if all depended upon staring at the Lord. His MIND was taken off the Lord by turning his ATTENTION to the dangers that whirled around him. It was this distraction that fixed his mind on the hazards, that left him dizzy, helpless and fearful. Was he thinking about how deep the sea must be at the very point where he was walking? At this moment, total, unquestioning confidence in Jesus was replaced with dependence upon his own feeble powers, But Jesus-’ powerful will made the water solid only for Peter’s confidence in Him and only in relationship to the reality and strength of that trust. So, when fear took faith’s place, the conditions Jesus placed upon the miracle were no longer met, the solid sea surface under Peter’s feet melted into its normal state, and down he went. (The foregoing is not an attempt to explain the mechanics or the physical processes involved in this miracle, because, how Jesus did it, the Scripture does not inform us. It is only an attempt to understand the relationship between confidence in God and the power to work miracles.)

**Beginning to sink, **he did not swim, even though he probably knew how. (Cf. John 21:7) Rather, his instinctive reaction is that of a believer,desperately afraid, but a believer: **Lord, save me! **His faith becomes clearer to us if we imagine him turning away from Jesus and trying to reach the safety of the boat.

Matthew 14:31 **And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him. **Lenski (Matthew, 576) makes the interesting suggestion that Jesus, in taking Peter by the hand, was not merely hauling him bodily out of the water. The fact that Peter was to walk with Jesus back to the boat on the water’s surface indicates that he was to do so once again by faith in the power of the Lord. Therefore, says Lenski, Jesus did actually more than save Peter from going to the bottom. By His handgrip on Peter, He focused Peter’s attention entirely upon Himself, thus restoring in Peter that confidence which had been temporarily lost. As his confidence in the Lord’s power is once again restored, so also the condition for which Jesus had originally exerted His power to help Peter walk on the waves.

Jesus-’ gentle rebuke is instructive for what He did not say: **O man of little faith **(not: O man of no faith), **why did you doubt? **(not: why did you attempt to come to me on the water?) Peter’s mistake was not in boldly stepping out on faith when the Lord bid him do so, but in forgetting that his bold venture depended entirely upon the power and wisdom of Christ and his own unwavering confident dependence upon Him. Jesus sensitively points to the cause of Peter’s trouble: Your courage has already returned: your doubt is in the past; why did you doubt? You walked on these waves before doubt and fear of danger crowded out your courage. See, now that your confidence has returned, you are striding on their surface again. Because all things are possible to him who trusts me unreservedly, you, too, see that it was not impossible. In fact, everything depended on the steadiness of your nerve (= endurance and resolution.)

**Little faith: **cf. Matthew 6:30; Matthew 8:26; Matthew 16:8; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 28:17! These amazing references to the little faith of the early disciples stimulate us to understand that, though these people were unquestionably believers in Jesus at the intellectual level, their DEPTH OF CONFIDENCE in Him was far too shallow. This expression of faith is not that intellectual assent to evidence for the Messiahship and divine identity of Jesus that confesses Him as Teacher come from God. (Cf. Nicodemus-’ attitude: while making this confession, he had not personally sounded the depths of his own conclusion. John 3:1 ff) Great faith, rather, is that unlimited confidence in His being able to do everything He leads us to believe He will, a confidence that surpasses our intellectual decision that He could do it, a certainty that permits us to do our part without distraction, regardless of the difficulties to overcome. Great faith, then, overcomes those mental reservations or psychological doubts about Jesus-’ (God’S) care, power or willingness, once He has clarified what He desires. **Little faith, **then, still lives on the plane of the non-disciple in his concern with the worries of human beings unaided, uncared-for, unprotected by God’s promises or Jesus-’ abilities. So doing, they bare their real confidence in their own, or in others-’ ability, care and wisdom. (See notes on Matthew 6:19-34; Matthew 8:10.)

Jesus did not rebuke Peter for daring more than the others, because, from the point of view expressed above, all Twelve Apostles, had they but so dared, could have confidently stepped out of that boat -and walked to Jesus without a word of rebuke from Him. Hypothetically their joining Him out there on the water could only have caused Him to exult in the depth of their reliance upon Him! In this sense, then, their remaining in the boat measures the limits of their vision, their confidence, their boldness, and, contemporaneously, exalts that of Peter. Jesus-’ rebuke, however, was intended to push Peter to reflect the next time. Bruce’s sad comment is so appropriate (Training, 130):

But Peter was not to be made wise by one lesson, nor even by several. He would go on blundering and erring, in spite of rebuke and warning, till at length he fell into grievous sin, denying the Master whom he loved so well. The denial at the final crisis was just what might be looked for from one who so behaved at the minor crisis preceding it. The man who said, Bid me come to Thee, was just the man to say, Lord, I am ready to go with Thee both to prison and to death. He who was so courageous on deck, and so timid amid the waves, was the one of all the disciples most likely to talk boldly when danger was not at hand, and then play the coward when the hour of trial actually arrived.

Defense of the account of Peter’s walk on the water is the same as that for Jesus-’. Either the whole story is to be embraced as historic fact, or it must be wrenched from the narrative as being totally false. It cannot be thought of as a parable told for the spiritual lessons it contains, constructed entirely by some unknown editor of this Gospel quite unbeknown to the Apostle whose name it bears. Plummer (Matthew, 208) decides,

We have no means of knowing how the Evangelist became acquainted with the incident respecting Peter; but it was probably current among the circle of first Christians who had known Peter.

Was Matthew himself not in the very boat from which he personally witnessed the entire episode, and did he not record it in his Gospel? Plummer himself answers (ibid., x):

The answer therefore to the question, Who was the author of the First Gospel? is a negative one. It was not S. Matthew. The writer was an early Jewish Christian, not sufficiently important to give his name to a Gospel, and in no way desiring to do so.

Such a position, based on the false presuppositions of modern critical schools, insinuates the doubtful authenticity of the report, hoping thereby to save the less problematic, or perhaps the more intellectually acceptable in the Gospel narrative for subjective faith, but the effort is vain. Although Plummer himself is assured that this narrative cannot be invention (ibid. 209), the seed is sown for doubting it. The position taken here is that of its perfectly tenable authenticity.

Matthew 14:32 **And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. **John who omits Peter’s walk on the water, adds here: Then they were glad to take him into the boat (John 6:21: éthelon oûn labeîn, they desired to do so, and so did it. Cf. John 8:44: thélete poieîn) Their previous terror of the ghostly figure has been completely replaced by the old familiar confidence in their Friend and Lord. How or why the wind ceased, or even its connection with the time when they were gone up into the boat, is not clear. Did Jesus rebuke the wind as He did on another occasion? (See on Matthew 8:23-27.) What is easily inferable is that the storm stopped because Jesus willed it. One more miracle is certainly not impossible after so many that day!

Even the comment at John 6:21 that immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going, reports what seems to be another miracle. However, this translation, while perfectly correct within itself, is ambiguous enough to leave the negative critic with a seemingly plausible argument for the conclusion that the miracle happened near the shore and therefore was confused for a miraculous water crossing by a group of excited foLk. or else elaborated by later myth-formation. Unless we are to conclude it as intentional fraud the earlier notice that Jesus approached the boat when it was in the middle of the sea (Mark 6:47) when they had rowed about three or four miles (John 6:19), hence many stadia from land in any direction (Matthew 14:24), then we must decide that the expression in question, the boat was immediately at the land, refers only to a rapid arrival at the destination. Since John does not state nor necessarily imply a miracle, we are not obligated to affirm it. His language only suggests that, in contrast to the night-long fatigue of hard rowing into the wind, they were able to make such easy headway after the wind ceased, that it took practically no time at all to arrive in port. It is as if John were saying, After our fatigue and fright, we took Jesus on board, and suddenly we were there! John’s telescoping must not be used against him, as if his testimony should be thought to contradict that of other witnesses.

Matthew 14:33 **And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. **This confession by the Twelve, so rich in significance, is not the spontaneous invention of the moment. There had been precedents that must have surprised them, but remained in their minds and surfaced here as the men find in this experience reason to voice their conviction. (Cf. John 1:49; Matthew 8:29) Did their present sea-storm experience remind them of the earlier trip on which Jesus calmed the tempest, after which the demoniacs addressed Him as Son of God? The similarity of situations may have evoked the details of the other incident and suggested the majestic reality couched in the demons-’ mysterious form of address.

The ASV translators are probably right to render the disciples-’ anarthrous confession (alethôs theoû huiòs eî) as they did: the Son of God. Whereas it appears not to say, You are THE Son of God in the unshared sense intended by Peter later (cf. Matthew 16:16), nevertheless, when taken together with their mental attitude of worship when they said it, it leads to the conviction that they consider Him far more than a supremely godly man (= a son of God). However, their faith’s foundation was less than it should have been, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. (Mark 6:52) This is because all foregoing miracles, expressly that of the supernatural multiplication of food, should have prepared their minds to consider nothing Jesus did as utterly incredible, since they would have been emotionally and intellectually prepared to see not only miracles like His bold walking on the water or His masterful calming the sea, but even His majestic ascension into heaven. (Cf. Mark 6:51; John 6:62) Their heart was hardened, in this case, is not a symptom of opposition to Jesus, or that obduracy we associate with determined unbelief. Rather, in light of their relative opportunities, they are surprisingly slow to perceive that He possessed all the power He needed to do anything He willed. The very conclusion to which these breath-taking miracles should lead, but unfortunately was not yet part of their understanding, is that in these mighty works He is acting as the Lord of creation, altering and using its elements for His purposes to help His people.

It is important to note that Mark’s record of the disciples-’ slowness to comprehend is not mere theological redaction (alla Wrede and disciples!), but a strong guarantee of the narratives-’ historical truth. A mythical representation would not so quickly admit such damning evidence of the Apostles-’ slowness, were the editor’s intention to glorify those men whose position in the early Christian congregations was almost next to their esteem for Jesus. Rather, their remarkable slowness to understand and grow in confidence is the more psychologically plausible as we consider how painfully parallel it is to our own. We would have been far more skeptical perhaps had we read of ready confessions, easily arrived at with no hesitations or doubts. Their slowness to understand not only encourages us in our toiling to understand too. It also gives us confidence in these records of real people with real problems even in the presence of the Son of God!

Despite the admittedly less-than-perfect understanding of the disciples, several technical details need also to be weighed into the picture before we decide the content of their confession:

Nouns that designate persons of which there is only one of a kind, and come very close to being a proper name, do not require the article to make them definite; the article appears when the specific Jewish or Christian God or Lord is meant, but it is sometimes missing, especially after a genitive which depends on an anarthrous noun (especially a predicate noun) as in our case: alethôs theoû huiòs eî. (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, sec. 254, p. 133) From this standpoint, therefore, the disciples no more intended to say, You are A son of God, than they meant, You are a son of A God, because, for them, the absence of the article did not indicate a multiplicity of gods of which Jesus were a son.

The very addition of the genitive to modify a noun makes that noun definite, especially where a Semitic influence can be traced behind the Greek being used, because in Hebrew the noun governing a genitive would appear in the construction or with a suffix and hence would be without the article. The article is also omitted with the genitive noun in such cases (which was not required by Hebrew, but rather by Greek). (Cf. Blass-Debrunner, sec. 259, p. 135; However, see Robertson-Davis, 388.)

Colwell’s rule, further, shows that definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article. (See Robertson-Davis, 283; Blass-Debrunner, Sec. 273, p. 143.)

If Son of God would not seem unambiguously definite on the basis of the foregoing, it must be recalled that even the Jewish enemies of Jesus so considered it when applied to Him. (Cf. Matthew 27:40; Matthew 27:43; John 10:36; John 19:7) Perhaps they did it on the basis of Psa 2:7 which is anarthrous too. (cited also in Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5.)

Therefore, huiòs theoû in the minds of these Apostles is as specific and definite as God’s Son is in ours. (Lenski, Matthew, 578)

The very existence of this confession in a Jewish book raises the question whether the Twelve were hereby confessing Him to be Messiah. Whereas the unique, unshared title Son of God speaks of a unique begetting by the Father, one of the concepts that is the stuff of Johannine theology, when found located here in a heavily Jewish apologetic, draws attention to its Jewish expectation as an appellative of the Christ. (Edersheim, Life, II, 716, demonstrates that Psalms 2:7 is quoted by the rabbis as Messianic.) But the distinction between Son of God and Christ, as two separate titles for the same person, must be respected, since they refer specifically to two not necessarily connected aspects of His earthly mission: His unique generation and His anointing. Nevertheless, the net result of this confession for Matthew’s Jewish readers is the conviction that here is one more convergence of reasons for considering Jesus in the way His disciples confessed Him, i.e., as God’s Son and worthy of worship. Later this same day, Peter gave fuller expression to this same confession. (John 6:68-69)

FACT QUESTIONS

Why did Jesus go away to a desert place? List carefully all the various independent factors that led to this move.

What is a desert?

Where was this desert located?

Where was the city called Bethsaida? Which Bethsaida was this?

How did Jesus succeed in going to sit on a mountain to await the coming of the multitudes, if the crowd preceded them to the place? (Mark 6:33)

In what likeness did Jesus see the crowds?

What did Jesus teach the crowd?

Who first mentioned the crowd’s need for food?

What did the disciples advise Jesus to do with the hungry crowd?

How many people were there to feed?

How much food was found and brought to Jesus? Describe it.

Who found the food that was given to Jesus?

How did Jesus organize and carry out the feeding of so large a crowd?

How much bread was thought to be needed for such a crowd?

What was the reaction of the crowd to this miracle?

Why did Jesus send the disciples away in a boat? When did they leave?

Where did He tell them to go?

At what time of day did they leave?

What did Jesus Himself do after they left? Where did He do this?

What happened to the disciples on the sea? How far across the lake had the disciples travelled when this occurred?

How can we determine which way the wind was blowing that night?

What was Jesus doing when they next saw Him?

About what time was it when they saw Him?

What was their reaction to Him?

What did He first say to them?

What did Peter answer?

What did Jesus tell Peter to do?

What did Peter see that frightened him?

What uncomplimentary title did Jesus call Peter?

What did those in the boat call Jesus?

What amazed the disciples after Jesus got in the boat with them?

Why was this lake called the Sea of Tiberias?

What time of year did this event take place and what does this fact contribute to our understanding of specific details in the narrative?

Harmonize the variant accounts that describe the arrival of the crowds to the place to which Jesus led them for teaching, and, ultimately, the feeding of the people.

Give the evidences, drawn from the eye-witness testimony itself, that answer the purely naturalistic attacks which reduce the narratives of this miracle to common fiction, or legend, or worse.

List the facts or declarations made in this section that prove the supernatural identity of Jesus.

SHARING THE BREAD OF LIFE

A Non-expository Sermon

INTRODUCTION: Since Jesus Himself drew upon this event to present His message on the Heavenly Bread, in which He presented Himself as the Bread of Life to a dying world, we cannot be too far from the proper application of His teaching, if we see beyond the original, historical implications of the feeding of the multitude to grasp our part in His work of bringing His Life to a perishing world. The following message is NOT an explanation of the text, but an attempt at recognizing in our own situation our need to react as did He, but with the power He makes available to us.

I. JESUS-’ PROBLEMOUR PROBLEM

Matthew 14:13 b **The multitudes. followed him: **what a picture of the heterogeneous mobs that compose our society! All of the sanctity, selfishness, sordidness and sadness that He faced comprises our society too.

Matthew 14:14 **He had compassion on them, and healed their sick. **Until we too can sympathize with the world’s pain and weakness among people whose misfortune to be sick or old or weak is held in contempt by the young, the powerful, the rich, we will not, with Jesus, believe in the usefulness of the rejected refuse of society nor attempt to reclaim for God those individuals sacrificed to the claims and interests of an indifferent society, insensitive to anything but its own pleasures and programs. We will not readily enter into Jesus-’ ministry until the pathos of life is vivid to us, until we appreciate the multitude of broken, disordered, disappointed and disappointingly wretched lives, until we see how much of childhood gladness crumbles, time-worn with grief, until we understand how much sin ends in misery and death. Nor will we be of much use unless we KNOW and USE the power at our disposal in deeds of real helpfulness and Gospel proclamation that brings joy, light, order, confidence and peace with God and men.

Matthew 14:15 **And when even was come, the disciples came to him, saying, The place is desert, and the time is already past; send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves food. **How often we are staggered by the magnitude of our task, the inadequacy of our means and the shortness of the time to act! How often, when looking into such an ocean of faces, we conclude that our wisdom and knowledge is totally inadequate to work all the renovation needed to save them! In our despair we too are tempted to send them away to others seemingly more qualified or reputedly better able to solve their problems.

II. JESUS PLANOUR PLAN

Matthew 14:16 **But Jesus said unto them, They have no need to go away; give ye them to eat. **The Lord has ordered us to care for the spiritual nourishment of the world, and too often we forget the power at our disposal: the transforming power of divine truth! All the insight, sympathy, delicacy and preaching power we can muster can never be enough to effect the revolution needed. The most needed preparation of Jesus-’ servants for their world-wide ministry is their discovery that their own scanty resources are totally inadequate. Only thus can we be convinced to distribute from His inexhaustible supply.

Matthew 14:17 **And they say to him, We have here but five loaves and two fish. **We too complain how little we possess for our task. Our Bible, for example, is so small in size, that it would seem to many as meager a resource as five barley buns and two sardines to feed thousands. Yet how many thousands upon thousands have been nourished thereby, and how many more it will feed until Jesus comes again, if only shared with Jesus-’ blessing!

Matthew 14:18 **And he said, Bring them hither to me, **With what is brought to Jesus, He works His miracle. In fact, He sets before each of us the tremendous responsibility of communicating His life and His message to men. However, He does not demand from us power, results and deeds that we cannot produce. He invites us, Come to me as you are, however ill-equipped; bring to me what you have, however little, and I will use it greatly in my service. Little is always much in the hands of Christ. (Barclay, Matthew, II, 113) Jesus could save the world by quite other means than by its evangelization, by simply commissioning angelic messengers to speak peace to every last man on earth, or even more astonishingly, He could forcibly change each man’s mind for him. But when we examine what God’s word in His hands has already done, we cannot but appreciate His wisdom in choosing to do it this way.

III. JESUS-’ PRAYERSOUR PRAYERS

Matthew 14:19. **He took the five loaves, and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed. **The Son of God glorified the Father as the Giver of the food, and, by reflex consequence of the miracle that followed, the Power behind it. Contrast Moses and Aaron’s miracle of bringing water from the rock, who without prayer nor mention of God’s Name, struck the rock. (Numbers 20:1-12) Remember God’s rebuke: Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel. Consider the disciples-’ impotence because of their little faith and prayerlessness. (Matthew 17:19-20; Mark 9:29) We, too, attempt great things for God, and yet we have not always the good sense nor the genuine confidence in Him to consider even the simplest blessings, as a means of achieving precisely the goal we seek. Nor do we always remember that all our greatest attempts are vain unless we actually glorify God in the minds of the people we attempt to bless by what we do.

**IV. JESUS-’ PROVISIONOUR PROVISION

He gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. **Jesus could Himself go into all the world with His saving Gospel, but He has chosen to use men, His disciples, as the channel to bless others. But these disciples must give to others only what they have first received from Him.

Matthew 14:20 **And they all ate and were filled. **What a mixture of theologies, ideologies and ignorance constituted the mind of that group Jesus so generously helped! No limitations were placed on previous affiliation, no embarrassing questions, no demands were made that those needy people prove themselves -worthy of His blessing, They only needed to recognize their desperate need and accept the provision He supplied them. His Word is inexhaustible to bless any one who willingly submits himself to devour its contents to fill the need of his soul.

Matthew 14:21 **They that did eat were about five thousand men, besides women and children. **Even in the same way that more food was available at the finish than at the beginning of the meal, so also the more people the Gospel is made to feed, the more people can actually be fed, since the more people become disciples to feed thousands of others in an almost infinite multiplication of the power of the Gospel outreach!

CONCLUSION:

Rather than retreat behind lines of safety to conserve jealously what little reserves of Gospel power we suppose ourselves to possess.

Rather than use violent measures to drive away the unthinking, ignorant masses whose presence and failure to respond rightly to God’s message not only embarrasses and frustrates us, but often outright hinders the work we are trying to do.

Let us plunge actively into the business of feeding the world with the Gospel means at our disposal.

We may not possess the same miracle-working potential Jesus shared with His Apostles and the early Christians.

But we can use every legitimate means at our disposal to make the Bread of Life available to the world. (Printing press, radio, television, conferences, conventions, evangelistic campaigns, personal witness, letters, etc.)

Are we praying in faith that God will work through us?

Are we exploring the use of every means that can be turned to useful service for God’s glory?

Are we conscientiously and generously sharing with people what Jesus so unselfishly distributed to us?

Physical, material food, clothing and shelter, jobs and proper self-respect? God is concerned about men’s bodies too!

The problem-solving, soul-transforming victorious Gospel that alone can make men over again.

THE EMBATTLED CHURCH

A Non-expository Sermon

As with the preceding message, the following is NOT an explanation of the text, but a recognition of two parallel situations, one in the life of the Apostles, the other in our own ministry to Jesus. During that sea tempest, these disciples in that frail fisherman’s boat constituted the heart of everything Jesus had accomplished on earth at the moment: His Kingdom and its future expansion, its victory or its failure were bound up in that small group straining at the oars, seemingly making no headway toward their ordered goal. Is not this a picture of the Church of Jesus Christ in the world today? Let us see how, out of their problems, come suggestions that help us to solve ours:

I. THE PROBLEM: DIFFICULTY IN OBEDIENCE

Matthew 14:22 **And straightway he constrained the disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side, till he should send the multitudes away. **Often we, too, find ourselves where we do, because duty and love to Christ puts us there, even though everything is not clear to us. We question: Why should we HAVE to live and work here without Jesus-’ personal presence? Yet He has ordered us to set sail on our voyage to the port He indicated. Although we, too, long to be with Him immediately and forever, we embark and set sail, not because we understand His plans perfectly, but because HE is our Lord and He has given us this duty to perform.

Matthew 14:23 **And after he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into the mountain apart to pray: and when even was come, he was there alone. **His very absence is part of our problem: Jesus seems to us quite far away, so far, in fact, that not only do we have only the slightest notion where He may be, but also it may seem that His absence itself is evidence of impassive indifference to our needs, our desires, our fears, our dangers and our prayers. But He is our Mediator, interceding on our behalf before the Father. (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2; John 14:16) He is busy preparing us a place in our Father’s house. (John 14:1-4)

**Matthew 14:24 But the boat was now in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves; for the wind was contrary. **Even though we have Christ’s own orders under which we sail, we are not therefore exempt from danger and trouble. We too must battle the elements that constitute our life situation, Rather, we should expect such trials, because of the moral opposition that our very existence and preaching must arouse. (John 15:18 to John 16:4) Also, our physical and personal moral weakness will plague us until the final victory, even as those storm-tossed sailors fought their little faith and great fatigue that night.

II. THE SOLUTION: THE COMING OF THE LORD

In this solution to our problems, we see three elements that counsel patience and steadfast hope, despite the continuation of our trials:

A. THE CERTAINTY OF HIS CARE

Matthew 14:25 **And in the fourth watch of the night he came unto them, walking upon the sea. **For good and sufficient reasons best known to Jesus, He does not always come to our aid when we most desire it, but rather in His own good time. It may be not only that He desires that we learn patience by the things we suffer. He may also see the need for time for certain situations to mature before He can answer our prayers as we prayed them. BUT HE DOES SEE OUR NEED: (Cf. Mark 6:48 He DOES care and He WILL help! He is the Lord of difficulties, coming to us, walking over the very waves and against the same wind that so distressed us!

Matthew 14:26 **And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a ghost; and they cried out for fear. **Too often we too form a stereotyped conception of the Lord and picture His help to us only in terms of this idea. Should He approach us in some way other than unmixed blessing, we do not recognize Him and become afraid. Should He come multiplying blessings, He is easily recognized and welcome, but somehow we suppose it cannot be the Lord if He arrives on the very waves of our misfortune. And yet it is He!

How often do others reduce Christ Jesus to a phantom, a delusion produced by a lively imagination and projected upon the minds of a gullible, superstitious mob! No longer the Son of God for them, His historical figure is little more than an unprovable, deliberate forgery, barely visible through the shimmering mists of legends, editorial rewriting and pious misunderstandings. And yet it is He!

Far too often we do not recognize our truest Friend! We mistake Jesus for a jailed prisoner, a hungry, homeless, unhealthy beggar, unkempt and ill-clad, rather than welcome such as we would serve the Master Himself. (Matthew 25:31-46) Instead, we turn from them in disgust and horror, afraid to take them aboard our already battered craft. And yet it is He!

Matthew 14:27 **But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid. **Suddenly the mask of the specter is ripped away, and He who seemed a terror greater than all the dangers of our existence, is no other than the Lord Himself! The earth and sea all around us continue to rage, but at the decisive moment all of this will be overcome by the cheerful, all-powerful word of the Lord of the Church. Everything will turn out quite differently from what we had feared, and certainly quite differently from all unbelievers supposed!

B. THE CONFIDENCE TO DARE

Matthew 14:28 **And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid **me **come unto thee upon the waters. **When the entire Christian experience is considered from a human standpoint, when the work of the Kingdom of God is evaluated, human judgment must pronounce the whole thing as impossible as walking on the sea. In fact, we labor for results that go beyond human nature and we utilize means that function beyond human reason. Heroic souls, however, have always risen spontaneously to the challenge to enter into Christ’s walk and work and dare to do the impossible, just to be with Jesus in His. Peter did not sin by daring great, impossible things for the Lord, nor do we!

Matthew 14:29 **And he said, Come. And Peter went down from the boat, and walked upon the waters to come to Jesus. **A caution is in order here against a danger in our boldness. Note that before Peter hazarded stepping out onto the water in faith, he awaited the Lord’s specific permission, and yet some bold Christians, without waiting for Jesus-’ orders, presumptuously and rashly dash into situations, expecting the Lord to support them in their folly. This service is not a willingness, but a wilfulness, because He did not command it. Naturally, we must not expect the Lord to speak from heaven to each of us as He did to Peter on the sea. Rather, we must judge each particular case by the general directives indicated in His Word, using our common sense to evaluate what He, in His wisdom, provides. Our decisions, contrary to the certainty of Jesus-’ call to Peter, will be far less certain, and about which we must be far more humble and cautious.

Matthew 14:30 **But when he saw the wind, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, Lord, save me. **We too, must severely count the cost of our decision to undertake the impossible with Jesus, before bouncing out of our relative security into the arena of His activity. We may not be able to foresee certain dangers and threats before they arrive, but the relative certainty that we MUST face them should forearm us to concentrate our attention and fix our dependence upon Jesus as we leap out to join Him. In fact, it was when Peter shifted his confidence from Jesus to his own frail powers that he went down. But risk we must, if we would attempt great projects for the Lord. But we must be assured that we are doing His bidding and not our own. Nevertheless, all our boldness will be to no avail, if after having dared the impossible in the name of Jesus in obedience to His call, our underlying confidence shifts from Him to human means and strength.

Matthew 14:31 **And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? **The confidence in Jesus to dare great things for God is limited only by our concentration upon Him as the source of our power. All our activities for Him in this present age must be done out of confidence in His wisdom and might. Otherwise, nothing can be dared, or what is dared fails, because the bold ones, no less believers in Jesus than before, like Peter, place their confidence in anything else but Him. But thank God for the mercifulness of a Lord that restores our sagging strength and substitutes our misplaced confidence, and causes us to stand once again as we call upon Him!

C. PEACE AND JOY IN HIS PRESENCE:

Matthew 14:32 **And when they were gone up into the boat, the wind ceased. **In answers to prayers, even now He comes to calm temporary storms. One day His majestic presence and lordly power will eliminate ALL that curses, He will wipe away every tear from our eyes. Death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for these former things have passed away!

Matthew 14:33 **And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. **In the same way that this deliverance from a raging sea convinced the Twelve even more of Jesus-’ divine identity than the miraculous multiplication of food for the 5000 in relative calm, sometimes rescue from sure death speaks more convincingly of God’s power, divinity and tender care to the menaced person than even His more spectacular works seem to those who think themselves in no immediate danger.

Though now we walk by faith, living on hope, believing that Jesus will come to our rescue, one day He will! Worlds afire, the elements aflame, the whole thing ready to blow., and Jesus will appear to take His own to eternal safety. That will be a glorious moment when we can rejoice and throw ourselves at His feet in willing worship, confessing; Lord, you really are God’s Son!

CONCLUSION:

Let us even now row against the wind and waves of our lives until we drop, not giving in to any of the temptations to give up and coast with the current! Let us continue, whether He rescues us personally and miraculously in this life or not! Let us continue to long for, and look for, His glorious coming when His omnipotent word will guarantee our eternal security, and His personal presence will assure our inexpressable joy and imperturbable peace with Him forever!

Matthew 14:34-36

**Section 35

JESUS HEALS SOME SICK AT GENNESARET (Parallel: Mark 6:53-56)**

TEXT: 14:34-36

34 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land, unto Gennesaret. 35 And when the men of that place knew him, they sent into all that region round about, and brought unto him all that were sick; 36 and they besought him that they might only touch the border of his garment: and as many as touched were made whole.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Jesus-’ original purpose for the disciples was that they sail for Bethsaida near Capernaum. How is it that they disembark so far south of that city?

If Jesus had already performed so many miracles of healing in the general area of Gennesaret, how do you account for this report of so many people needing to be healed?

What evidence of generosity do you discover in the inhabitants of Gennesaret shown in what they did?

Why do you suppose they chose the particular method by which they would be healed, i.e., why try touch only the border of His robe?

Matthew reports that as many as touched were healed. Does he mean to imply that there were others who did not come to Jesus? Did Jesus ever heal each and every diseased person in any single area of Palestine? If not, why not? If so, how do you know this?

Do you think the Apostles helped Jesus with the healing done at this time? Or did they let Jesus do all the work of healing? If they did help Jesus, what is your proof that they did? If they did not, why do you think they did not? What was their relationship to Jesus at this moment, in contrast to their work during their own first evangelistic tour in Galilee?

What do these miracles prove about Jesus?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

When Jesus and His Apostles had crossed over the Sea of Galilee, they beached at the plain of Gennesaret, mooring the boat at the shore. When they disembarked, at once the people recognized Jesus. The men of that area ran through the entire neighborhood to bring to Him all the sick people on their pallets to any spot where they heard He was. Wherever He went, whether in villages, cities or in the countryside, they laid their sick in the market places, begging Him that they might only touch the fringe of His garment. And as many as touched it were healed.

SUMMARY

Although it had been Jesus-’ order to sail for Bethsaida near Capernaum after the feeding of the five thousand, the strong north-westerly winds had blown the Apostles further south, so that shortly after Jesus boarded the boat, they beached at Gennesaret. They were recognized at once by the local people who began collecting their sick along the road Jesus must travel. He healed them all, as He made His way to Capernaum.

INTRODUCTION WHY INCLUDE THIS SECTION AND OMIT THE CLIMAX AND COLLAPSE?

As a matter of fact Matthew and Mark pass over in silence the stunning rejection of Jesus-’ spiritual mission by the crowds that abandoned Him after the Capernaum discourse on the Bread of Life. (John 6:25-66) It would hardly be thought likely that BOTH Matthew and Mark (the interpreter of Peter) should have neglected to describe an event that must have tested their personal loyalty to the limit. Unfriendly commentators see this section as just one of Matthew’s almost colourless little connecting passages with no definite connection with his general presentation of the Messiah:

After a few, brief summary verses (Matthew 14:34-36), composed on the model of those which we found in Matthew 4:23-25 and in Matthew 9:35, we find the discussion with the Pharisees and the specialists in the law, placed here because it belongs to the section on the bread.

This comment by Cuminetti (Matteo, 220), while reducing our text to a brief summation serving only a literary function, ignors the true, historico-theological editing by Matthew. His purpose is not to fill space nor simply to indicate chronological connections at this point. The very fact that two major eyewitnesses of Jesus-’ ministry (Matthew and Peter, if we may presume to include his message as standing back of Mark’s Gospel) produce a version different that a third major eyewitness (John), a version which does not contradict the other two in any detail, should lead the reader to expect a difference in evaluations on the part of the witnesses, which, in fact, we have here.

Edersheim (Life, II, 6-36) takes the view that Matthew and Mark approach the climax and collapse of Jesus-’ Galilean ministry from quite another angle than that of John, Whereas John deals with the critical message that widened the crevice between Jesus and the multitudes, Matthew and Mark deal with the critical position taken by Jesus that deepened the abyss between Himself and the champions of Jewish orthodoxy, the Pharisees. Edersheim endeavors, then, to harmonize the two presentations quite tightly, concluding that the reproof of the religious leaders (Matthew 15; Mark 7) preceded the Discourse on the Bread of Life (John 6). However, even a looser harmonization than he produces would still permit us to consider Matthew 15 and Mark 7 as those Evangelists-’ treatment of Jesus-’ deliberate conclusion of His popular ministry in Galilee. That is, even if we place the attack of the Pharisees as occurring after the Passover and return of the pilgrims to Galilee, or about two weeks after the feeding of the 5000 and the scandalous Bread of Life discourse, it could still be considered as the coup de grace of Jesus-’ popularity.

On this basis, then, we may sense that Matthew and Mark intend only to omit the clash of popular views with those of Jesus, in order to illustrate the collision between Jewish official doctrine and the spiritual nature of Jesus-’ doctrinal position. In effect, then, these two Evangelists do actually include the climax and collapse of Jesus-’ popular ministry. If so, then what role does this present section play in their outline?

This section, when coupled with the following clash with the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23) gives the impression that, while Jesus intended to sift the superficial from the serious followers (see Notes at Matthew 14:13 b), He did not ever intend to turn off the mercy of God from anyone. Rather, He kept right on showing men that God cared about them in practical ways. Thus Matthew and Mark, in this vivid scene at Gennesaret, clarify Jesus-’ position before they record His verbal broad-sides levelled at the Pharisees-’ representation of traditional orthodoxy.

This impression is heightened if we consider the pathos of the scene before us. Here Jesus appears only as a Healer of the sick. There is not even a suggestion that these healings were possibly accompanied by teaching. Other considerations would easily explain this absence of instruction, as for example, Jesus-’ haste to return to Capernaum to strike the final blow to His popular following before Herod Antipas could effectively move to hinder Him, or perhaps He wanted to deliver the Bread of Life sermon before the people left for the Passover at Jerusalem, or in order to begin the private Training of the Twelve so much sooner, or in order to avoid the continuation, by a popular ministry in Gennesaret, of the very thing He must now bring to a close. Nevertheless, the sensitive reader can probably sense the grim fact that something is amiss, even in reasonably tranquil Gennesaret, because Jesus does not pause to teach this generous, solicitous folk. Why does He keep moving, pausing only long enough to cure this or that sick one and move steadily on to Capernaum? (Cf. John 6:24-25; John 6:29)

Is it possible that Matthew is pushing forward a theme he introduced earlier in his gospel? (Cf. Matthew 8:17; Matthew 12:18-21) Jesus is the healing Servant of Jehovah who moves steadily toward victory while steadfastly avoiding riots and demagoguery, mercifully helping the weak and making truth and righteousness to triumph. He could easily have avoided the Gennesarenes by ordering an immediate sailing to Capernaum without going overland and risking the loss of valuable time. Psychologically, then, Matthew’s presentation is essential to the overall picture of the Messiah, because he inks in this detail of Christ’s merciful kindness, before he sketches His terrible judgment of Phariseeism and rabbinical tradition.

The apologetic value of this miniature lies in its presentation of one more grand proof of Jesus-’ right to reveal God’s message to the Jewish people, hence all the more reason why they should listen to Him, even if He turns immediately thereafter to cut official orthodoxy to pieces.

Then, conversely, the reader who reflects upon this scene and the one following, could appreciate the absolute sterility of Pharisean ideals when thrown into contrast with the concrete, down-to-earth practical human kindness exemplified by Jesus who continued showing the love of God to people who desired Him all too often for what they could get out of Him. The miserable helplessness of the Pharisees makes a striking antithesis to the vibrantly alive, openly caring and morally alert personal godliness of Jesus of Nazareth! No sooner did the Lord appear than people began to come to Him as a magnetic source of Life and Power; no sooner did the Pharisees begin to teach than the Law became an intolerable burden. Joy in righteousness began to drain out of even the simplest acts of life. (See Notes on Matthew 15:1-20.) The reader cannot miss the implication: righteousness is not something abstract and purely philosophical, but a message believed and acted upon that brings with it happiness, harmony, and healing to the soul, if not also to the body, And it is to be found in Jesus, not embalmed in tradition nor debated among the rabbis.

NOTES

Matthew 14:34 **And when they had crossed over **is Matthew’s way of concluding the incident where Jesus walked on the water, not an independent introduction to an unrelated section. John’s conclusion to the same event reads:

Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going, (John 6:21; cf. Note at Matthew 14:32)

This arrangement is better than Lenski’s arguments for placing this event after the Bread of Life Sermon, because the most natural connections indicated by Matthew and Mark suggest the natural conclusion of the overnight boat trip from the east side of the lake. Diaperào means to cross over.

Cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 186; Rocci, 459, while admitting an extended sense: to go through in a figurative sense, however gives to pass across, to traverse, to cross, to ferry from one bank to the other as the literal meaning.

After the crossing they moored to the shore at Gennesaret. (Mark 6:53) Lenski’s view demands too much not in the text: (1) a supposed landing at Capernaum after the walking on the water, although John’s remark (Matthew 6:21) that they arrived at the land to which they were going need not mean Capernaum, as opposed to Gennesaret, but Galilee, as opposed to Gaulonitis; (2) the Bread of Life Discourse after which most of Jesus-’ followers left Him; (3) an unrecorded sailing to Gennesaret, because Lenski used the aorist participles (diaperàsantes: crossed over) to cover the trip to Capernaum, leaving the sailing to Gennesaret unrecorded in Scripture. (4) Then, because the collapse at Capernaum is thought to have occurred first, the enthusiastic reception at Gennesaret, only a few miles south, is strangely inexplicable except on the supposition that Jesus had never been there and the Gennesarenes completely out of touch with events at Capernaum: The facts are more easily harmonized as follows:

Jesus walked on the water to the boat in mid-lake; called Peter to Him; walked with him back to the boat. The wind dropped (He calmed it?) and in no time at all the boat arrived on the west side of the lake. (Matthew 14:24-33; Mark 6:47-52; John 6:19-21)

The crossing concluded (diaperàsantes), Jesus and the Twelve find themselves immediately at the shore on the Gennesar Plain and moored the boat there. (Mark 6:53)

Immediately recognized upon disembarking, Jesus walked through the Gennesaret region, healing as He went. (Matthew 14:35 f; Mark 6:54-56)

He gradually made His way to Capernaum where He concluded His teaching in the synagogue. (John 6:59)

Later-how much later no text informs us,Jesus was attacked by the Pharisees from Jerusalem. (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23) Edersheim makes an interesting case for reversing these latter two items. (Life, II, 6-36)

On this view the enthusiasm of the Gennesarenes and the tolerant attitude of Jesus are perfectly explicable, because He had not yet so forcefully, nor so publicly, declared that crucial position that eventually ruined His public image in the minds of His superficial disciples.

**They came to the land, unto Gennesaret. **The boat came into port (prosormìsthesan) presumably early in the morning after the night voyage across. The Plain of Gennesaret is located on the west side of the Galilean lake about two and a half miles south of the Capernaum-Bethsaida area, the original destination Jesus ordered the Apostles to reach when they sailed the day before. This coming to land so far south of their intended goal suggests that the wind they fought during the night blew out of the north-north-west. On the other hand, it might be rightly objected that after Jesus calmed the storm, they could have rowed (or sailed) to any destination He then chose. If so, it is interesting that He should have chosen Gennesaret: was it simply the closer shore? After breakfast did He desire to make good use of His time while deliberately staying away from Capernaum during at least the morning hours, in order to give people adequate time to collect back into Capernaum for the final show-down in the synagogue there?

Gennesaret is glowingly described by Josephus (Wars, III, 10, 8) in a paragraph that would do honors to the local tourism office of the Gennesaret Chamber of Commerce. The plain itself is about 3.7 miles long and 2.5 miles wide, but its fertility and fruitfulness more than compensate for its diminutive area. On its southeast corner was located the village of Magdala, the home of Mary the Magdalene. Was the woman whom Jesus healed of the hemorrhage also from this area? (See on Matthew 9:20-22; and note on Matthew 14:36.)

Matthew 14:35 **And when the men of that place knew him, **i.e., immediately recognized Him as soon as they disembarked (Mark 6:54), they sprang into action. Their attention would have been drawn originally perhaps by the fishing boat full, not of fish, but of men. Upon closer investigation, they recognize Him who could bring instant aid to all their sick. The decision and instantaneousness of their reaction is perfectly understandable on the supposition that:

they had known Him from contacts with Him up at Capernaum, if He had never come to Gennesaret before;

they had their mind firmly decided upon this course of action in the event He should ever pass this way;

His arrival only triggered their reaction.

**They sent into all that region round about and brought unto him all that were sick. **Mark (Mark 6:55 f) emphasizes the extensiveness of their preparations:

They ran about the whole neighborhood and began to bring sick people on their pallets to any place where they heard he was. And wherever he camein villages, cities or countrythey laid the sick in the market places, and besought him..

Because the precise sequence of events from this point to the end of the Sermon on the Bread of Life and the Attack of the Jerusalem Pharisees is difficult to establish, we may assume that the urgency of these Gennesarenes is not based upon any declared intention of Jesus to be in Capernaum for the day, unless, in some unrecorded statement of His, He had warned them to hurry because of His scheduled stop in Capernaum. If Mark’s language, that speaks of a considerable healing ministry, seems too elaborate for one day’s activity, as if Jesus needed to spend more than one day in the Gennesaret area to accomplish all that is here affirmed, it must be remembered that John did not specify that the people found Jesus on the day following the miracle of the loaves. We merely interpret it so. (John 6:22; John 6:25) John may not have intended the tight chronological connection we think we see. However, Mark’s language is not objectively overstating the case, because, by planning His itinerary carefully, Jesus could well have worked His way through lots of people all the way from Magdala, at the south end of the Gennesaret Plain, clear to Capernaum, two and a half miles north of it, arriving at the synagogue in time for His decisive sermon on the Bread of Life,all on the same day.

What a contrast distinguishes the Gennesarenes from the Gerasenes, their neighbors on the opposite side of the Galilean Lake! Whereas the latter, upon His arrival there, fearfully rushed Jesus away (see on Matthew 8:28-34), the inhabitants of Gennesaret joyfully welcomed Him. The Gerasenes felt no need of the Lord; the men of Gennesaret not only recognized their own deep need, but also that of their sick folks at home. Mark’s language suggests that the Lord made a loop through the villages and towns in the Gennesaret area, making His way to Capernaum. Because His route was more or less clear to the local people, they could more easily run ahead of Him and anticipate His approach to a given point and assemble their sick there.

Matthew 14:36 **And they besought him that they might only touch the border of his garment. **What a contrast distinguishes the men of Gennesaret and the Nazarenes, their inland compatriots to the west! Whereas the latter were so totally indifferent to Jesus as not even to trust Him enough to ask Him to bring merciful healing to their people (see on Matthew 13:54-58), Gennesaret’s people gratefully rushed as many infirm people as possible to every possible point they imagined He would pass!

What a contrast between these people of Gennesaret and the woman healed at Capernaum when she touched the border of His garment: these men openly requested Jesus-’ permission but she did not and had to be called from hiding to open discipleship and blessing. (See notes on Matthew 9:20-22.) The amazing request that they be permitted to touch His garment is the more curious, because nowhere else is it recorded that so many people desired that they be allowed to use this method to contact His power. Is it possible that news of the healing of the woman in Capernaum a short distance north of here encouraged them to request that they too be permitted to do so likewise? (Cf. by contrast Mark 3:10; Matthew 8:8) Their magnificent respect for the Lord manifests itself, as Matthew Henry (Vol. V, 208) said it so succinctly: They approach Him

with great humility; they came to him as those that were sensible of their distance, humbly beseeching him to help them; and their desiring to touch the hem of his garment, intimates that they thought themselves unworthy that he should take any particular notice of them, that he should so much as speak to their case, much less touch them for their cure; but they will look upon it as a great favour, if he will give them leave to touch but the hem of his garment.. With great assurance of the all-sufficiency of his power, not doubting but that they should be healed, even by touching the hem of his garment; that they receive abundant communications from him by the smallest token or symbol of communion with him. They did not expect the formality of striking his hand over the place or persons diseased, as Naaman did (2 Kings 5:11); but they were sure that there was in him such an overflowing fulness of healing virtue, that they could not fail of a cure, who were but admitted near him.

In light of these suggestions, it is probably too low a view of their confidence in Jesus to affirm that their choice of the garment-hem by which to contact His power indicates an imperfect faith.

**As many as touched were made whole. **It is important to remember here that the modern expression; We are but touching the hem of the garment has nothing essential in common with this story, because that expression means to imply that we are only beginning to tap the potentiality of something. There is no connection between that notion and this story, because the people of Gennesaret experienced the full total cleansing, healing power of God by that touch, because theirs was a touch of humble, expectant, trusting faith! There is no indication whatever in the text that they would have been more greatly blessed, or would have tapped greater spiritual resources, if they had touched Jesus somewhere else, or approached Him in some other fashion. From this standpoint, Jesus granted their request with the same generosity with which He responded to Peter’s spontaneous proposal to come to Him on the water. His permission must not be construed as the superior condescension to ignorance and superstition, as if they thought His tassels to possess some magical power. It is, rather, His friendly bending to an enlightened request made in a climate of confidence. Who would not want to work with people like that? But these very open-hearted people will stand out in sharp contrast with the beady-eyed, narrow-minded, small-souled Pharisees and their selfish, contracted religion in the next section.

FACT QUESTIONS

What major events precede this incident?

What major sermon follows this incident?

How had Jesus and His disciples come to Gennesaret?

Locate the plain of Gennesaret and describe it.

Analyze the attitude of the inhabitants of this area toward Jesus.

How many people did Jesus heal in this area?

What method of healing did the people themselves prefer that He use?

Trace the general travel plan of Jesus from the time He left the Capernaum area by boat until He returned there. (John 6:59)

**EXPOSITORY SERMON:

JESUS CAME TO OUR TOWN**

I. THE DEPTH OF OUR NEED (Matthew 14:35)

Gennesaret, however fertile, however fruitful, could not assuage the grief and heal the sick with its choicest food within their reach! Environment, however fine, is not everything!

So, upon His disembarking in our country we recognized Him.

We recognized that our day of opportunity had come.

Jesus had evangelized elsewhere in Galilee, but this was His first real visit, and perhaps His last, in Gennesaret, for all we knew, so we must seize the moment.

Application: Jesus was recognized because He was known; He was trusted and appealed to, because He was known. Men will be able to appeal to Him only to the extent that they KNOW Him. If His disciples neglect to make Him known, how can men call upon Him? (Romans 10:14-17)

Our men spread the good word that the Great Healer had come to our land.

We knew that Jesus-’ power was great enough to be shared with all.

We chose not to monopolize Jesus on the beach, but share Him in the neighborhood.

Unselfishly and quickly, our sick were assembled along His route in order not to have to ask Him to turn aside for anyone.

Application: If you have tested the goodness and power of Christ, you too will want to take the trouble to share that goodness with everyone around you, bringing them to Him to be saved, We can show no better love to our own people than by opening up to them all the benefits of the knowledge and power of Christ!

II. THE TRUSTING HUMILITY OF OUR APPROACH (Matthew 14:36 a)

We brought nothing to Jesus when we let Him know of our need:

No external inducements were offered Him, except the reality and extent of our need, to stir His compassion.

No certificates of faithful attendance at synagogue were offered as proof of our worthinessthose who approach this holy Lord must do so out of real humility!

We made no appeals to His pride; ours was an appeal to His mercy and an appeal that was fully confident of and totally dependent upon His power.

We offered Him no money: what earthly treasure could we pay to equal the value received when He turned the miraculous power of God to bless and heal us?

All we sought was the privilege to bring our sick into contact with His power.

Application: This is the only approach acceptable to Jesus Christ: we have no righteousness worth mentioning and must depend entirely upon His grace!

III. THE SIMPLICITY OF HIS METHOD: a mere touch of the tassel on His robe! (Matthew 14:36)

We knew that there was no particular efficacy in the robe itself, but in the Lord whose robe it was.

What an amazing condescension to the desires of this humble people!

This request is the more astonishing because of its universality: was the woman who had been healed earlier of the twelve-year hemorrhage from this area? (See on Matthew 9:20-22.) At any rate, had news of her healing encouraged these people to request that they too be permitted, in faith, to touch His tassel?

Application: While we should beware of mindless imitation of the formal patterns of someone else’s successful approaches to Christ, yet their experiences can be valuable encouragement to us too. We may well make use of those methods of devotion which others before us have found so rewarding, i.e., Bible reading, regular prayer, fasting, giving, etc. Even so, we must choose among those means He has promised to honor, if we would come to Him and be blessed. Nevertheless, we must never despise even the humblest approach: some must look upon a brazen serpent to live, others must paint blood on doorposts, others must be immersed in water, others touched His garment, but all who did were blessed. And those who did not?

IV. THE COMPLETENESS OF HIS RESULTS (Matthew 14:36 b)

The sick were universally healed:

There were none who were given only temporary relief.

There were none whose complaint was rejected as too difficult for Jesus to correct.

There were none who went away hopeless, saying He could not help them.

All were thoroughly cured: Jesus stopped nothing short of banishing all existing sickness out of our land in the case of everyone brought to Him!

Application: He who can miraculously heal the body proves by that act that He can save our souls too. (Cf. Matthew 9:6; Matthew 12:28; Matthew 11:2-5) If a word or a touch can heal our bodies, our trust in His powerful word can bring healing to our sin-sick spirit, if we but earnestly turn to Him to request and so receive His gracious blessing! (Philippians 1:6) If He can save the chief of sinners, He can save the tribe! (1 Timothy 1:15-16) He is able to save for all time those who come to God through Him! (Hebrews 7:25; 2 Corinthians 5:21)

CONCLUSION:

In that day of judgment, will the men of Gennesaret stand up and condemn our generation, for they graciously and gladly brought their sick to the great Physician, whereas we could bring our friends and neighbors to the Prince of Life, so that they may have eternal salvation, but we have not done it? Are we consistently anxious for the whole neighborhood to have the joy of preparation for Jesus-’ coming to our world?

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

Section 36. Jesus Debates With Jerusalem Pharisees about the Elders-’ Traditions (Matthew 15:1-20)

Section 37. Jesus Liberates Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter (Matthew 15:21-28)

Section 38. Jesus Feeds 4000 and Heals Many of Decapolis (Matthew 15:29-39)

STUDY OUTLINE

I. JESUS DEBATES WITH JERUSALEM PHARISEES ABOUT THE ELDERS-’ TRADITIONS (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23)

The attack led by the Pharisees (Matthew 15:1 f; Mark 7:1-5): You break our rules !

Jesus counterattacks (Matthew 15:3-20; Mark 7:6-23)

Before the Pharisees themselves (Matthew 15:3-9; Mark 7:6-13): You break God’s Law to keep your rules!

Before the multitudes (Matthew 15:10 f; Mark 7:14-17): Real defilement is not external, but spiritual!

Before the disciples privately (Matthew 15:12-20; Mark 7:17-23):

Human tradition does not possess God’s authority, so will finally be eradicated.

Nothing eaten affects the soul; defilement proceeds from an unregenerate heart.

Sin defiles man like no ceremonies, foods or other externals ever could.

II.

JESUS LIBERATES A SYROPHOENICIAN WOMAN’S DAUGHTER (Matthew 15:21-28; Mark 7:24-30)

Situation: Jesus desires privacy (Matthew 15:21; Mark 7:24)

The Request by faith (Matthew 15:22; Mark 7:25 f)

She came out of the depth of her distress.

She came despite the distinct disadvantages of her position.

She came despite her meager knowledge of Jesus.

The Relentlessness of faith (Matthew 15:23-27; Mark 7:27 f)

Her resolution undaunted by Jesus-’ seeming indifference.

Her resilience seen in her steady good humor despite desperation

Her reserve seen in her proper humility. D. The Rewarding of faith (Matthew 15:28; Mark 7:29 f)

III.

JESUS FEEDS 4000 AND HEALS MANY OF DECAPOLIS (Matthew 15:29-39; Mark 7:31 to Mark 8:10)

Situation: Journey through Decapolis from Tyre and Sidon to Lake Galilee (Matthew 15:29; Mark 7:31)

Many miracles of healing (Matthew 15:30 f; Mark 7:32-37)

Jesus feeds the 4000 (Matthew 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-10)

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 13 Matthew — All Chapters Chapter 15 ›