Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - John 6:1 - 6:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:1-13)
6:1 ff. The incident of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is the only one in the public ministry of Jesus before the last visit to Jerusalem which is found in all four Gospels; Mk., Mt., and Jn. (but not Luke) adding an account of the Storm on the Lake. The Synoptists (Mar_6:31f., Mat_14:13f., Luk_9:10f.) agree in placing the miraculous feeding after the return of the Twelve from their mission, and after the beheading of John the Baptist. The labours which the apostles had undertaken made a period of rest desirable (Mar_6:31); and also it was but prudent to go into retirement for a time, as Herod’s suspicions had been aroused, and he was desirous of seeing Jesus (Luk_9:9). The setting of the miracle in Jn. is not inconsistent with these somewhat vague indications of the period in the ministry of Jesus at which it was wrought.
Reasons have been given already for the conclusion (see Introd., p. xvii) that Son_5 and 6 have been transposed, so that in the original draft of Jn., c. 6 followed directly after c. 4. At the end of c. 4 Jesus and His disciples are at Cana, and we now find them crossing the Sea of Galilee to its north-eastern side. They probably followed the road familiar to them (2:12), and went down from Cana to Capernaum, where they had their heavy1 fishing-boat (τ ποο, Mar_6:32). Mk. (followed by Mt.) says that the place to which they went by boat was “a desert place,” as Jesus wished to retire for a time from public view, but that the crowd followed them by road, evidently being able to observe the course the boat was taking, and arrived before them (Mar_6:32, Mar_6:33). Jn. rather implies that Jesus and His disciples arrived first (6:3). Lk. (9:10) gives the name of the place as Bethsaida, by which he must mean Bethsaida Julias (et Tell) at the extreme north end of the lake, on the eastern side, for no other Bethsaida is known.2 These data are all fairly consistent with each other, if we suppose that the place was the little plain on the north-eastern shore (about a mile south of Bethsaida Julias) which is now called el-Batî This was grazing ground, and there would be abundance of grass there at the Passover season (cf. 6:4, 10, Mar_6:39).3 A hill (6:3) rises up behind it. This plain is about 4 miles by boat from Tell Hû (the most probable site of Capernaum; see on 2:12), and perhaps 9 miles from it by following the path along the western shore and crossing the fords of Jordan, where it flows into the lake from the north. It was the latter route that the crowds took who followed Jesus. See further 6:15f.
1. μτ τῦα For this phrase, see Introd., p. cviii.
ἡθλσατςΓλλίςis the name given in Mt. and Mk. to the lake called in the O.T. the “Sea of Chinnereth” (Num_34:11, etc.). It is called ἡλμηΓνηαέ in Luk_5:1, and ἡθλσατςΤβράο Joh_21:1. Tiberias was a town on the western shore, founded a.d. 22 by Herod Antipas, and named after Tiberius, which shows that the designation “the Sea of Tiberias” could hardly have been current during our Lord’s ministry.1 Accordingly the double designation found here, τςθλση τςΓλλίςτςΤβράο, shows the use of the contemporary name “the Sea of Galilee,” followed by the explanatory gloss “that is, of Tiberias,” added to identify the lake for Greek readers at the end of the first century. If we ascribe τςθλση τςΓλλίςto the aged apostle, John the son of Zebedee, when telling his reminiscences, the addition τςΤβράο would naturally be made by the evangelist, whom we call Jn. Cf. v. 23 for the town of Tiberias.
2. ἠοοθιδ. So א But the rec. κὶἠοοθι(AΓΘ is quite in Jn.’s manner, who often uses κὶfor δ (see below, v. 21).
“A great crowd was following Him” (cf. Mat_14:13, Luk_9:11; and see Mar_6:33), i.e. not only did they follow Him now, when He wished to be in retirement, but they had been following Him about before He crossed the lake; ἠοοθιis the impft. of continued action. Their reason was “because they were noticing the signs that He was doing on the sick.” ἐερυ (BDLNΘ is the better reading, as preserving the idea that they had been continually observing His powers of healing (for θωενin a like context, Cf. 2:23), but אΔhave ἑρν W has θωονε.
As Jn. represents the matter, it was previous works of healing that had attracted the attention of the crowds; e.g., presumably, the cure of the nobleman’s son, which has just been narrated (4:46ff.). Cf. also the works of healing narrated in Mar_1:29, Mar_1:32, Mar_1:40, Mar_1:2:1, Mar_1:3:1, Mar_1:6:5, but not described by Jn. Mat_14:14 and Luk_9:11, however, record that Jesus began the day on this occasion by healing the sick. This is not mentioned by Mk. On the other hand, Mar_6:34 (followed by Luk_9:11, but not by Mt.) says that the earlier part of the day was spent in teaching the people; but neither for this nor for works of healing is there room in the Johannine narrative (see below on v. 5). Jn. seems to know the Marcan story (see on v. 7), but he corrects it as he proceeds. See Introd., p. xcvii.
3. ἀῆθνδ εςτ ὄο Ἰ., “Jesus went up to the hill,” i.e. the hill rising out of the little plain by the shore. Mk. (6:46), followed by Mt., mentions the hill after his narrative of the miracle; but Mt. (15:29), in telling what preceded the parallel miracle of the Feeding of the Four Thousand, says, as Jn. does here, ἀαὰ εςτ ὄο ἐάηοἐε. Perhaps Jn. has borrowed here from Mt., but this is unlikely.1
It was the habit of Jesus to sit when He taught, as the Rabbis were accustomed to do (cf. Mar_4:1, Mar_9:35, Mat_26:55, Luk_4:20, Luk_5:3 [Jn.] 8:2); and He was wont to go up to the hills, whether for teaching (Mat_5:1, Mat_24:3) or for prayer (Mar_6:46, Luk_6:12, Luk_9:28).
The verb ἀέχμιoccurs again in N.T. only at Gal_1:18; and give א give ἀῆθνhere.
This narrative represents Jesus and His disciples as having arrived at the eastern side of the lake before the crowd, who according to Mk. (6:33) had arrived there first. According to Mar_6:30, Luk_9:10, the disciples who were with Jesus were the “apostles”; and this is implied in Jn.’s narrative, though not explicitly stated, for the twelve baskets of fragments of v. 13 indicate that the number of disciples present was twelve. See on 2:2.
4. It has been pointed out2 that, although τ πσαis read here by all MSS. and vss., yet there are patristic comments on the verse which suggest that some early writers did not treat “the feast” of 6:4 as a Passover, and that therefore the texts before them did not include the words τ πσαat this point. Thus Irenæ (Hæ II. xxii. 3) is silent as to this Passover, although it would have been apposite to his argument to use it.3 If τ πσαwere omitted here, it would be natural to identify the feast of this verse with the Feast of Tabernacles noted in 7:2. Having regard to the importance of the σηοηί, it might properly be described as pre-eminently ἡἑρὴτνἸυαω (see on 7:2). But it would be precarious to omit words so fully attested as τ πσα and on the hypothesis, which has been adopted in this Commentary, that c. 5 comes after c. 6 (see Introd., p. xviii), all is clear. The Passover mentioned here as “near” is the feast whose celebration is narrated in 5:1; i.e. it was the second Passover of the public ministry of Jesus (that mentioned in 2:13 being the first), and was probably the Passover of the year 28 a.d.
For the phrase “feast of the Jews,” see on 2:13; and cf. 2:6, 19:21, 42.
It has been suggested that this note about the approaching Passover was introduced into the narrative to explain the large concourse of persons who were present on the occasion of the miracle, and who are supposed to have been thronging the roads on the way to Jerusalem for the observance of the feast. But the north-eastern corner of the lake is hardly a point at which we should expect to find thousands of such travellers. Jn. is fond of introducing notes of time into his narrative (see p. cii), and he has similar notes about approaching festivals at 2:13, 7:2, 11:55. ἐγςis a favourite word with him, both in relation to time and to distance.
5. ἐάα οντὺ ὀθλοςὁἸ. For this phrase, see on 4:35, where, as here, it is followed by the verb θᾶθι It is used again of Jesus at 17:1; cf. also 11:41 and Luk_6:20. For θᾶθιsee on 1:14.
πλςὄλς i.e. apparently the ὄλςπλςof v. 2 (see on 12:9), who had followed Jesus and His disciples round the head of the lake. But, no doubt, once it was known where He was, people would flock to the place from the neighbouring villages to see and hear Him. According to the Synoptists (see on v. 2), the crowd came upon Jesus early in the morning, and the day was spent teaching or healing their sick. Then, towards evening, the disciples suggest that the people should be sent away that they might buy food for themselves. Jn. tells nothing of teaching or healing on this occasion, and he represents Jesus as having foreseen, as soon as the crowd began to gather, the difficulty that would arise about food. When He saw the great multitude coming, He asked Philip, “Whence are we to buy loaves?”
It is to be observed that in the narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mar_8:4, Mat_15:33), although not in the parallel narratives of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, the disciples put this question (πθν to Jesus. The question is the same as that which Moses puts to Yahweh (Num_11:13), πθνμικέ δῦα πνὶτ λῷτύῳ and the misgivings of Moses, when he reflects that he had 600,000 footmen to feed, are expressed in terms not unlike those which Philip uses here, πντ ὄο τςθλση σνχήεα ατῖ κὶἀκσιατῖ; (Num_11:22).
Another O.T. parallel may be found in 2Ki_4:42f., where Elisha’s servant exclaims at the impossibility of feeding a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and ears of corn “in his sack” (εκσ ἄτυ κιίοςκὶπλθς i.e. cakes). The narrative relates that Elisha said, Δςτ λῷκὶἐθέωα, declaring that Yahweh had told him there would be enough and to spare. And so it was: ἔαο κὶκτλπν This is a story which bears a likeness to the Feedings of the Multitudes in the Gospels, in detail much more striking than the story of the miraculous increase of meal and oil by Elijah’s intervention (1Ki_17:16). See Introd., p. clxxxi.
However, in Jn.’s narrative the question (πθν is a question put by Jesus Himself to Philip. Philip was of Bethsaida (1:44), and presumably he knew the neighbourhood; he was thus the natural person of whom to ask where bread could be bought. This is one of those reminiscences which suggest the testimony of an eye-witness. The Synoptists, in their accounts of the wonderful Feedings of the Multitudes, do not name individual disciples; but Jn. names both Philip and Andrew, and their figures emerge from his narrative as those of real persons, each with his own characteristics. See below on v. 8.
λγιπὸ Φλ For this constr., see on 2:3.
For ἀοάωε (אΘ the rec. has ἀοάοε.
6. τῦοδ ἔεε πιάω ατνκλ We have seen already (cf. Introd., p. xxxiv) that Jn. is apt to comment on the words of Jesus and offer explanations of them. The comment at this point is probably due to a misunderstanding (as at 2:21). Jn. thinks it necessary to explain why Jesus asked Philip where bread could be bought, because he hesitates to represent Him as asking a question which would suggest His ignorance of the answer. But the true humanity of Jesus is not realised, if it is assumed that He never asked questions about the simple matters of every day.
Jn. does not write thus of Jesus elsewhere. On His way to the tomb of Lazarus, Jesus asks where it is (11:34). When He saw the fishing-boat on the lake, He asked them if they had caught any fish (2:15, where, however, He may be represented as knowing that nothing had been caught). It is by a like mistaken idea of reverence that the later Synoptists often omit questions which Mk. represents Jesus as asking, e.g.: “Who touched my garments?” (Mar_5:30, Luk_8:45, omitted by Mt.). “Seest thou aught?” addressed to the blind man who was healed by stages, is found only in Mar_8:23. “How long time is it since this hath come to him?” asked of the epileptic boy’s father (Mar_9:21, is omitted by Mt. and Lk.
The simple question, “Where can bread be bought?” asked by Jesus of a disciple who was familiar with the locality, needs not to be explained or explained away.
πιάενdoes not occur again in Jn., but that by itself does not prove the verse to be a later gloss, although it raises the question if it may not have been added after Jn. had completed his work.
7. δαοίνδνρω ἄτιοκἀκῦι κλ There is no mention of the “two hundred pennyworth” in Mt. or Lk., but Mar_6:37 makes the disciples say ἀοάωε δνρω δαοίνἄτυ; It is probable that Jn. is recalling the phraseology of Mk. at this point, although it is possible that two distinct traditions, that which came through Peter and that which came through John the son of Zebedee, have independently preserved the same remark made by disciples. Jn. several times betrays a knowledge of the Marcan narrative, which he corrects where necessary.1
A denarius was the ordinary day’s wage of a labourer (cf. Mat_20:2). Even if the disciples had as much as two hundred denarii in their common purse (13:29), which is improbable, Philip points out that they would not purchase enough bread to feed five thousand people, nor would it be easy to find so much bread in the vicinity without notice.
There is a reminiscence of the phrase ἵαἕατςβαύτ λβ in a passage quoted below (v. 11) from the second-century Acts of John.
8. εςἐ τνμθτνατῦ This description of an apostle is not found in the Synoptists (except at Mar_13:1, without ἐ); but Jn. has it again at 12:4, 13:23; cf. 18:17, 25. For the constr. εςἐ followed by a gen. plur., see on 1:40.
For the designation of Andrew as “Simon Peter’s brother,” see on 1:40. His first impulse of discipleship was to find Peter and bring him to Jesus (1:41). He appears here as a resourceful person who tries to find a practical answer to the question put to Philip by Jesus, although he does not think that he has been successful in gathering a sufficient supply of food. In 12:20-22 Philip and Andrew are again associated in somewhat similar fashion, Philip not knowing what to do until he has consulted Andrew. These notices in Jn. supply the only indications of Andrew’s character that we have, and it is interesting to observe their consistency with each other. The only distinctive mention of Andrew in the Synoptists is at Mar_13:3, where he appears as associated with the inner circle of the Twelve—Peter, James, and John.
A second-century notice of Andrew and Philip shows that they were held to be among the leaders of the Twelve. When Papias collected traditions from the elders of his day, he used to ask them, “What did Andrew and what did Peter say? Or what did Philip? Or what Thomas or James or John or Matthew?” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39. 4), placing them respectively first and third of the apostles whom he names.
In the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, Andrew is specially associated with the writing of the Fourth Gospel: “eadem nocte revelatum Andreae ex apostolis ut, recognoscentibus cunctis, Johannes suo nomine cuncta describeret”; and it is possible that his intimacy with John the son of Zebedee was handed down by tradition, although it cannot be held that he lived until the Gospel was published (see Introd., p. lvi).
9. In the Synoptists the five loaves and two fishes are the provision which the disciples had for their own use. In Jn., Andrew reports that a lad was present who had this food with him, possibly having brought it from a neighbouring village, for Jesus and the Twelve.
πιάιν There is no mention of this lad in the Synoptists; see above. The word πιάινdoes not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but it is frequent in the LXX; and it must be noted that it is the word used of Elisha’s servant (2Ki_4:38, 2Ki_4:43) in the passage immediately preceding the story of Elisha’s multiplication of the loaves (see above on v. 5).
The rec. has πιάινἕ (AΓΘ א om. ἕ. The Synoptists sometimes use εςor ἕ, as a kind of indefinite article, for τςor τ (cf. Mat_8:19, Mat_26:69); but this is not the style of Jn. (cf., however, 11:49, 19:34).
κιίος It is only Jn. who tells that the loaves were of barley. Barley bread, being cheaper than wheaten, was the common food of the poor; cf. Jdg_7:13 and Eze_13:19. Reference has already been made to ἄτυ κιίοςin the Elisha story (2Ki_4:42).
δοὀάι. The Synoptists say δοἰθα; and Mt. and Mk. in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand say ὀίαἰθδα
The word ὀάιν(only found here and at 21:9, 10, 13 in the Greek Bible) is a dim. of ὄο, which originally meant “cooked food,” and thence came to be used of any relish taken with food; e.g. in Pap. Fay. 119:31 εςτ γνσαΓμλη πμι ὠάι,1 the ὀάι were delicacies for a birthday feast. Thus ὀάι in the present passage stands for dried or pickled fish. The curing of fish was an important industry on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and is alluded to as such by Strabo.2 Neither in Jn. nor in the Synoptic narrative is there any mention of lighting a fire and cooking fish on the occasion of the miracle; and it is not to be supposed that the meal was of raw, fresh fish and bread. See, however, on 21:10.
10. πιστ (for the aor. imper., see on 2:5) τὺ ἀθώοςἀαεεν…ἀέεα ονο ἄδε. The R.V. distinguishes ἀθώοςfrom ἄδε: “make the people sit down …so the men sat down,” suggesting that the women (or children), if present, remained standing. But no such discrimination is indicated in the Synoptic accounts, and it would, in the circumstances, be improbable, despite the Oriental subordination of women: ἐέαε ατῖ ἀαλθνιπνα is Mk’s statement. ἀή is an infrequent word in Jn., occurring again only 1:13, 30 and 4:16, 17, 18 (of a husband); and it may be that its introduction here is due to a reminiscence of Mk.’s πναχλο ἄδε, to which Mt. afterwards added the gloss χρςγνιῶ κὶπιίν as he did also in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand (Mat_14:21, Mat_15:38). Jn. returns to the word ἄθωο at v. 14.
ἀαίτι is “to lie back” or “recline,” whether on the sloping hillside (as here) or on a couch (as at the Last Supper, 13:12, 21:20). Mk. uses ἀαίτι as well as ἀαλνι in his parallel narrative; Mt. has ἀαλνι only, and Lk. κτκίεν
χρο πλς “there was much grass”—green grass, Mk. says—it being spring-time, after the rainy season, just before the Passover (v. 4). Jn. does not mention the greenness of the grass, nor does he say anything about the people being distributed into groups or companies.
11. ἔαε οντὺ ἄτυ. Jesus took the loaves, and blessing them, caused them to be distributed, thus acting as host.
It is remarkable, and probably significant, that Jn., alone of the evangelists, does not say that the loaves were broken by Jesus, as well as blessed. In all the narratives descriptive of the Feedings of the Multitudes, except this, we have ἄτυ ἔλσνor κτκαε τὺ ἄτυ, or the like. Jn. never uses the verb κά or κτκά. Now, in all the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, that Jesus “brake the Bread” is explicitly mentioned, ἔλσνἄτν only one loaf being used. The rite itself is called in Act_2:42 ἡκάι τῦἄτυ(cf. Act_20:7, and perhaps Act_27:35), so essential a feature was the breaking of the one loaf deemed to be. Thus, in this particular, the Johannine narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand is less suggestive of the action of Jesus at the Last Supper than are the Synoptic narratives of the same miracle. By the omission of ἄτυ ἔλσνJn. has deviated from the Synoptic tradition in a fashion which suggests that he did not regard the miraculous meal, which he describes, as anticipatory of the sacrament with which he was familiar, although he does not tell of its institution. The discourse which follows (cf. esp. vv. 52-56) cannot be interpreted without including a sacramental reference; but it would seem, nevertheless, that Jn. wishes to avoid suggesting that the miraculous feeding was a sacramental meal.
It is just possible, although unlikely, that Jn. omits all mention of the breaking of the bread, not because he did not regard the meal as sacramental, but because he lays stress on the circumstance (19:33) that the Body of Christ was not broken on the Cross.
We must also note that Jn. omits the words, ἀαλψςεςτνορννbefore the blessing of the loaves, which are common to all three Synoptists. This “lifting up of the eyes” was a very ancient feature of the Eucharistic rite, and we cannot be sure how far back it goes (cf. 11:41, 17:1, and see on 4:35).
In another detail, per contra, Jn.’s narrative of the Feeding of the Five Thousand suggests the Last Supper more clearly than the Synoptists do. In Jn., it is Jesus Himself who distributes the loaves to the multitudes, δέωε τῖ ἀαεμνι, just as He distributed the Bread to His disciples on the eve of His Passion (cf. also 21:13); but in the Synoptists, it is the Twelve who, acting under His direction, bring the loaves round, which probably was what actually took place. Jn.’s δέωε, however, need not be taken as excluding the assistance of the Twelve in the distribution, although this is not explicitly mentioned. Qui facit per alium, facit per se.
The rec. text inserts after δέωε the words τῖ μθτῖ, ο δ μθτί(so אΓΘ but this is a harmonising gloss introduced from Mat_14:19. The intercalated words are not found in א or in most vss.
We must now examine the word εχρσήα, “having given thanks.” ελγῖ is the verb used in the Synoptic parallels (Mar_6:41, Mat_14:19, Luk_9:16); but Mk. (8:6) and Mt. (15:36) have εχρσενin a similar context in their narratives of the Feeding of the Four Thousand. In the accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Lk. (22:19) and Paul (1Co_11:24) use εχρσενof the Blessing of the Bread, while Mt. (26:27), Mk. (14:23), and Lk. (22:17) use it of the Blessing of the Cup, the Cup being called by Paul τ πτρο τςελγα ὃελγῦε (1Co_10:16). In these passages it is not possible to distinguish in meaning between εχρσενand ελγῖ,1 although εχρσενand εχρσί soon came to be used in a special sense in connexion with the Holy Communion (cf. Ignat. Philad. 4 σοδστ ονμᾷεχρσί, and see Justin, Apol. i. 66, and Iren. Hæ iv. 18. 5).
But the verb ελγῖ is never used in Jn. (except once in a quotation, 12:13); and he uses εχρσενelsewhere (11:41, Πτρεχρσῶσι where no sacramental reference is possible. In this general sense, “giving of thanks,” εχρσενoccurs a few times in the later books of the LXX (Judith 8:25, 2 Macc. 12:31) and in Philo, as well as frequently in the N.T., e.g. Luk_17:16, Luk_18:11, and very often in Paul.
It may be that the “giving of thanks” or “blessing” which all the evangelists mention in their narratives of the miraculous Feedings of the Multitudes was the grace before meat which the Lord used, and which was the usual habit of piety before a meal (cf. Deu_8:10). The form of Jewish “grace” which has come down to us is, “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the world, who bringeth forth bread from the earth.” But if this is the allusion in εχρσήα or ελγσςin the evangelical narratives of the Miraculous Feedings, it is curious that no such phrase occurs in connexion with the other meals described in the Gospels at which Jesus presided or was the principal Guest (Luk_24:30 is sacramental). Jn. does not hint that “a blessing” was asked or pronounced at the Marriage Feast in Cana (2:1, or at the supper in Bethany (12:2), or at the meal by the lake-side (21:13). Cf. Mar_14:3, Luk_5:29, Luk_7:37. In Act_27:35 it is said, indeed, of Paul λβνἄτνεχρσηε τ θῷἐώινπνω κὶκάα ἤξτ ἐθεν but it is not clear that this was an ordinary meal preceded by a “grace.” Knowling and Blass regard it as a sacramental celebration.
Whatever be the reason, it would seem that the evangelical traditions handed down the incident of Jesus “blessing” the loaves at the Miraculous Feedings as an incident of special significance. The similarity to this verse of Joh_21:13, λμάε τνἄτνκὶδδσνατῖ κὶτ ὀάινὁοω, brings out the more clearly the omission of any such word as εχρσήα or ελγσςin the latter passage.
The stress that was laid in early times on the blessing of the loaves, in connexion with their multiplication, is apparent in a legend preserved in the second-century Acts of John (§93):“If at any time He were bidden by one of the Pharisees and went to the bidding, we accompanied Him; and before each was set one loaf by him that had bidden us, He also receiving one loaf. And, blessing His own loaf, He would divide it among us; and from that little each was filled (ἐ τῦβαέςἕατςἐοτζτ: see v. 7 above), and our own loaves were saved whole, so that they who bade Him were amazed.” The act of blessing is a preliminary condition of the miracle, according to this writer. See on 6:23 below.
ὅο ἤεο. All the evangelists agree in the statement that the multitudes “were filled,” i.e. that they had a substantial meal, and not merely a scrap of food; but Jn. is even more explicit, saying that of the fish as well as of the loaves they had as much as they wished for.
12. ἐελσηα. The Synoptists have ἐοτσηα, as Jn. has at v. 26. The phrase μτ τ ἐπηθνιused of the Eucharist in the Didache (10:1) probably comes from this passage.
τ πρσεσνακάμτ. Mk. (6:43) has the curious expression κάμτ δδκ κφννπηώαα but Mt. (14:20) has τ πρσεο τνκαμτν and Lk. (9:17) has τ πρσεσνατῖ καμτν Jn. uses πρσεενonly here and in v. 13 (he has πρσό at 10:10); and it has been suggested that he is here dependent either on Lk. or Mt., rather than Mk. But he was quite capable of correcting Mk.’s πηώαα just as Lk. and Mt. have done, and the verb πρσεενis the natural one to use. Jn. uses the word πήωαonly of the “fulness” of Christ (1:16), and avoids it in all other contexts, perhaps because of its misleading employment in Gnostic systems.
κάμ is a word used in the N.T. only in the Gospel accounts of the miraculous feedings. It is rare in LXX, but we find κάμτ ἄτνin Eze_13:19 and κάμτ ἄτυin Jdg_19:5 (A text). It is used of the Bread of the Eucharist in the Didache (ix. 3).
Lightfoot1 recalls a Jewish custom at meals of leaving something over for those who served: this was called פה peah. This possibly is behind the incident recorded here. The apostles had each his travelling-basket or κφνς(cf. Jdg_6:19), and having ministered to the people they went round and collected what was left over. Juvenal mentions the κφνςas a basket characteristic of Jews: “quorum cophinus foenumque supellex” (Sat. iii. 14). All four evangelists have the word κφνς while in the parallel narrative of the Feeding of the Four Thousand the word is συί or συί, which was a hamper large enough to hold a man (Act_9:25).
It is Jn. alone who tells that it was at the bidding of Jesus that the fragments were gathered up, and he alone adds a reason, viz. ἵαμ τ ἀόηα. This is one of those comments upon his narrative to which Jn. is so prone (see p. xxxiv), and no doubt it gives an excellent sense at this point. But the Synoptists know nothing of this, and the Jewish custom of leaving a peah or morsel at the end of a meal for the servers provides a sufficient explanation of the matter.
There is no suggestion that the bread, miraculously provided, was like the manna of ancient days, which could not be kept over from one day to another (Exo_16:19); and the objection of the people recorded at v. 31 shows that they did not consider the supply of bread that they had witnessed as at all comparable with the manna from heaven which their fathers had enjoyed.
13. δδκ. This suggests that all the original apostles were present
ἐ τνπνεἄτνκλ Mk. (6:43) speaks of fragments of the fishes being gathered up along with the fragments of the loaves, but Jn. (as also Mt., Lk.) speaks only of the fragments of bread.
ββωόι. The verb does not occur again in the N.T.
Jesus Acclaimed as the Messianic King (Vv. 14, 15)
14. ὁποήη ὁἐχμνςεςτνκσο. The people had already been attracted because of the “signs” of healing which Jesus did (v. 2); now this greater “sign” led them to think of him as “the prophet that cometh into the world.” The woman of Samaria had been convinced that He was “a prophet” (4:19), as the blind man whom He healed said of Him afterwards (9:17); but the miracle of the loaves and fishes inclined the eye-witnesses to go further, and to identify Jesus with the prophet of popular belief whom Israel expected (see on 1:21) as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deu_18:15. “They began to say” (ἔεο), “This is truly the prophet that is coming into the world” (see on 11:27). Cf. v. 31.
ἀηῶ is a favourite adverb with Jn.; cf. οτςἐτνἀηῶ ὁποήη (7:40), and see on 1:47.
ὃ…σμῖν not ἃ…σμῖ, is the true reading, the reference being to the particular “sign” which has just been described.
The rec., with ALNΓΘ ins. ὁἸσῦ after σμῖν for clearness, but om. א
15. Jn. generally writes ὁἸσῦ (see on 1:29), but we have Ἰσῦ (without the art.) followed by ον as here, several times; cf. 11:38. 18:4, 19:26.
γοςὅιμλοσνἔχσα κλ The excited people, having concluded that Jesus was the prophet of their expectation, began to plot how they might seize Him (ἁπζι) and make Him king, that is, the Messianic king. The Jerusalem crowds had the same idea when they cried “Hosanna” and greeted Him as “King of Israel” on His entry to the city (12:13). Indeed, it was made part of the charge against Him, that He had claimed to be “King of the Jews” (18:33f.). But He would not accept the title in the sense in which they understood it. He was not a political revolutionary. And so “He withdrew again to the hill” (see v. 3), from which He had come down to feed the people.
Mk. and Mt. tell nothing of the fanatical excitement of the crowds, or of their being so much impressed by the miracle as to think of Jesus as Messiah;1 the only hint the Synoptists give of this being supplied by Lk., who follows up the narrative of the Feeding by the story of the various answers to the question, “Who do the multitudes say that I am?” (Luk_9:18) which Mk. and Mt. put in another context.
Indeed, Mk. and Mt. give as the reason of Jesus’ retirement to the hill, that it was to pray, which is perhaps here suggested by μνς That was His habit, and such a motive for His retirement is not inconsistent with His other motive, viz. to be freed from the embarrassing attentions of the crowds. Mk. and Mt. tell that He dismissed the crowds (Mar_6:45, Mat_14:23), while Jn. suggests rather that He escaped from them. Probably He tried to disperse them, but some, more obstinate and excited than the rest, would not leave. It is these latter who come before us in v. 22 as having remained until the next morning. Again, Jn. does not mention that the return of the disciples was ordered by Jesus, as Mk. and Mt. do; but it is evident that they would not have left Him had they not been told to do so. He may have wished to remove them from the atmosphere of political excitement which had been generated. Apparently Jesus had not told His disciples exactly where and when they would meet Him again.
The Storm on the Lake (Vv. 16-21)
16. ὀί may indicate any time in the late afternoon (cf. 20:19 and Mat_14:15, Mat_14:23). The sun set after the disciples had started, and it became dark (σοί, v. 17) while they were on the lake. Mar_6:48 notes that Jesus met them “about the fourth watch of the night,” i.e. about 3 a.m.
κτβσν “they descended,” sc. from the slopes of the hill.
16 ff. The incident is described with vividness. It was late in the evening when the boat started on the return journey to Capernaum (v. 17; see on v. 1). The wind had risen, and the lake was stormy. Mk. does not say that the destination of the boat was Capernaum, although that is what we should have expected: his words are ἠάκσντὺ μθτς…πογι εςτ πρνπὸ Βθαδν(Mar_6:45), and he goes on to tell that, driven by the storm, they landed ultimately at Gennesaret, which is a little to the south of Capernaum. That is to say, according to Mk., they made for Bethsaida in the first instance; whether because they wished to take Jesus on board there, or to land one of the party (it was the home of some of them; see on 1:44), or because they wished to keep under the lee of the land, in view of the impending storm, we cannot tell. In any case the storm caught them, and when they had rowed 25 or 30 furlongs, that is, about 3 or 4 miles, they see Jesus πρπτῦτ ἐὶτςθλση, and coming near the boat. Now by this time, having rowed nearly 4 miles, they must have been close to the western shore of the lake, and so Jn. says: εθω τ ποο ἐέεοἐὶτςγςεςἣ ὑῆο.
If we had only Jn.’s account of this incident, we should have no reason to suppose that he intended to record any “miracle.” The phrase ἐὶτςθλση (v. 19) is used by Jn. again at 21:1, where it undoubtedly means “by the sea shore”; and it is probable that he means here that when the boat got into the shallow water near the western shore, the disciples saw Jesus in the uncertain light walking by the lake, and were frightened, not being sure what they saw. Jn. does not say, as Mk. does, that Jesus was received into the boat; he only says that they were desirous to have Him with them, when they found that the voyage was already over (v. 21). Nor does Jn. say anything about a miraculous stilling of the storm (cf. Mar_6:51). Nor does he say (as Mar_6:49, Mat_14:26) that the disciples thought they had seen a phantasm (φναμ). So far from it being true that we always find in Jn. an enhancement of the miraculous, in this particular case, while the story as narrated by Mk. (followed by Mt.) is miraculous, in Jn. there is no miracle whatever. Nor does Jn. call the incident a “sign,” as he is accustomed to speak of the miracles which he records (cf. v. 14). In short, this story, as told by Jn., is exactly the kind of story that we might expect from John the son of Zebedee, a fisherman with experience of the lake in all its moods, well accustomed to its sudden storms, and knowing the distance from one point to another (v. 19). See Introd., p. clxxvi.
17. ἐβνε εςποο. The same phrase occurs for embarking 21:3 and 1 Macc. 15:37. ADΓW insert τ before ποο, which no doubt gives the sense, it being probably their own boat that they took for their return voyage; but אΔOmit τ.
ἤχνο “they were going,” the impft. being used for an incompleted action.
For κὶσοί ἤηἐεόε, א read κτλβνδ ατὺ ἡσοί, “but darkness overtook them” (cf. 12:35 and 1:5, where see note). This, again, gives the sense, but we follow ABLΓNΘ with the rec. text, although κτλβνατὺ ἡσοί is a thoroughly Johannine phrase.
οκis read for οπ by AΓΘ but οπ is better attested (א and gives the better sense. Jesus had “not yet” come to them. They had expected to meet Him at Bethsaida Julias (see on 6:16 above), or at some other point, but their course had been embarrassed by the storm. They were probably keeping close to the shore on the look out for Him, before the storm broke.
18. The sea was rising because of the squall. We have the same expression ἡθλσα…ἐηερτ, Jon_1:13.
19. ἐηαόε. Cf. βσνζμνυ ἐ τ ἐανι (Mar_6:48). ἐανι occurs again in N.T. only at Luk_8:29, Jam_3:4, 2Pe_2:17.
They had rowed about 25 or 30 stades, i.e., as a stade was 600 feet, nearly 4 miles, and therefore, as has been shown above (v. 16), they were close to the western shore. Mk. says they were ἐ μσ τςθλση (Mar_6:47), which need not mean more than that the water was all round them. Mt. adds to Mk.’s sentence, according to the text of BΘ(although the other uncials do not confirm this), σαίυ πλος(Θhas ἱαος ἀὸτςγςἀεχ, which seems to be a gloss derived from the narrative of Jn., but intended, after the manner of Mt., to emphasise the miraculousness of the story.
In some texts of Mat_14:25 we have ἐὶτνθλσα for the ἐὶτςθλση of Mar_6:48 and Joh_6:19. The latter does not necessarily mean more than “by the sea shore”: to read ἐὶτνθλσα would indicate beyond question that Jesus literally “walked on the sea.” Job says of the Creator that He “walks upon the high places of the sea,” πρπτνὡ ἐʼἐάοςἐὶθλση (Job_9:8); and Wisdom declares (Ecclus. 24:5), ἐ βθιἀύσνπρεάηα from which passages it might be concluded that “walking upon the sea” is a Divine prerogative. It is possible that some such idea may account for the transformation of the Johannine tradition, which is void of miracle, into the supernatural story in Mk., Mt. See on v. 15 and Introd., p. clxxvi.
θωοσν “they notice”; see on 2:23 for θωεν
ἐγςτῦποο γνμνν sc. “getting near the boat,” a use of γγοα for ἔχμιwhich we have again in v. 25; cf. Act_20:16, Act_21:17, Act_25:15.
ἐοήηα, “they were afraid,” and so Jesus says—
20. ἐώεμ, μ φβῖθ. These comforting words are reported in identical phrase in the Marcan and Johannine narratives (cf. Mar_6:50, Mat_14:27, both of which prefix θρετ). They probably mean simply “It is I: be not afraid,” the Marcan account suggesting that the reason of the disciples’ alarm was that they thought Jesus was a spirit (φναμ). Another explanation has been offered of ἐώεμ, viz. that it stands for the self-designation of Yahweh in the prophets, אניהּ, I (am) He; cf. 8:58, 13:19. But this explanation is not necessary here,1 and such a mystical use of words would be foreign to the style of Mk., although there are parallels in Jn.
21. ἤεο ονλβῖ ατνεςτ π., “they were wishing to receive Him into the boat, and straightway the boat was at the land.” ἤεο is used here as at 7:44, 16:19, the wish not being translated into action. Here Jn. is at variance with Mk. (6:51), who says, as also Mt. does (with an amplification about Peter’s going to Jesus on the water, Mat_14:28-32), that Jesus climbed into the boat. The narrative of Jn. is simpler.
It has been objected to this view that we should expect ἀλ εθω τ. π. κλ rather than κὶεθω, if the meaning intended is that they did not receive Jesus into the boat, because they found their voyage already ended. But Jn. is prone to use κὶ where ἀλ or δ would be employed by another writer (see on 1:11).
For εθω in Jn. see on 5:9.
The People Cross the Lake and Find Jesus at Capernaum (Vv. 22-25)
22 ff. The readings of א in vv. 22-24 are curiously aberrant, and the text from א must be transcribed in full: τ ἐαρο ὁὄλςὁἑτςπρντςθλση εδνὅιποάινἄλ οκἦ ἐε ε μ ἕ, ἐεν εςὃἐέηα ο μθτὶτῦἸσῦ κὶὅιο σνλλθιατῖ ὁἸσῦ εςτ ποο ἀλ μνιο μθτὶατῦ ἐεθνω οντνποῶ ἐ Τβράο ἐγςοσςὅο κὶἔαο ἄτν εχρσήατςτῦκρο, κὶἴοτςὅιοκἦ ἐε ὁἸσῦ οδ ο μθτὶἀέηα εςτ ποο κὶἦθνκλ This is evidently a rewriting of the original, which has a clumsy parenthesis at v. 23.
Other variants are ἰώ (rec. reading with