Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 14:14 - 14:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
17, 18 And they say unto him, We have here but five loaves, and two fishes. He said, Bring them hither to me. 19And he commanded the multitude to sit down [recline, ἀíáêëéèῆíáé ] on the grass, and took the five loaves, and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake, and gave the loaves to his [the] disciples, and the disciples to the multitude. 20And they did all eat [all ate], and were filled: and they took up of the fragments that remained twelve [travelling] baskets full. 21And they that had eaten [ate] were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Mat_14:15. And when it was evening, Ὀø ßá ò äὲ ãåíïìÝíçò .—“This refers to the first evening which lasted from the ninth to the twelfth hour of the day [according to the Jewish mode of counting from sunrise to sunset]; while Mat_14:23 refers to the second evening, which commenced at the twelfth hour [at six o’clock P. M.]. See the word òֶøֶá in Gesen. Lex.” Meyer
The hour is now past.—Fritzsche and Käuffer: tempus opportunum, sc. disserendi et sanandi.—De Wette, Meyer: The day-time. Why not more definitely, in view of what follows: the hour of the evening meal?—De Wette and Meyer have erroneously supposed that the account of this event, as recorded by John, where Jesus Himself is represented as introducing the question as to the bread, is incompatible with the narrative in the other gospels. But as John evidently intended to relate merely the fact of the miraculous feeding, we must not press his words as if he meant that the Saviour had put this question when first beholding the people. According to the account in John, it was a lad who had the five loaves and the two fishes.
Mat_14:18. To recline on the grass.—In Palestine, spring commences in the middle of February. If, therefore, the festival of Purim occurred that year on the 19th of March, the miraculous feeding must have taken place in the second half of March, or during the middle of spring in the holy land.
[Green grass ( ἐðὶ ôῷ ÷ëïñῷ ÷üñôῳ , as Mar_6:39 has it), or pasture, which, according to Joh_6:10, abounded in that region, was a delightful resting-place at that season of the year in Palestine. Mark adds a graphic touch concerning the manner in which the Saviour commanded the multitude to recline on the pasture ground, viz., in ranks (better, by parties, or in groups, Greek: ðñáóéáὶ , ðñáóéáὶ = areolatim, in square garden plots), by hundreds, and by fifties (Joh_6:40; comp. Luk_9:14 : “by fifties, in a company”). They probably formed two semicircles, an outer semicircle of thirty hundreds, and an inner semicircle of forty fifties. This was a wise, symmetrical arrangement, which avoided all confusion, and facilitated an easy and just distribution of the food among all classes by the disciples.—P. S.]
Mat_14:19. He took the five loaves.—Baked according to Jewish fashion; bread-cakes, in the shape of a plate.
He blessed.—Literally, He gave praise, åὐëüãçóå . John expresses it: åὐ÷áñéóôÞóáò . Luke uses the terms åõëüãçóåí áὐôïýò , indicating the consecration of the bread, as in the Eucharist, 1Co_10:16. “According to Jewish custom, at the commencement of every meal the head of the house gave thanks while he broke bread. This prayer was called ‘a blessing.’ ” According to Mark, the disciples distributed the bread among the people, who were arranged in groups, Mar_6:40.
Mat_14:20. Of the fragments.—Broken pieces, not crumbs. [Olshausen: With the God of nature, as with nature herself, the most prodigal bounty goes hand in hand with the nicest and exactest economy. This notice of the Evangelist is an additional mark of the truthfulness of the narrative, and the divine character of the miracle. The gathering of the fragments was also for the purpose of impressing the miracle more vividly on the memory, and perpetuating its effect, as well as for teaching a lesson of economy.—P. S.]
Twelve travelling-baskets full, êüöéíïé .—The number twelve seems to refer to that of the Apostles, although it by no means implies that the baskets belonged to them. The Apostles gathered these fragments, when each brought his basket full. All the second miraculous feeding, the seven baskets are called óðõñßäåò , the term employed for the round plaited baskets commonly used for bread and for fishes. De Wette: “The narrative clearly conveys the fact, that more fragments were left than would have constituted the five loaves. Paulus [the rationalist] attempts to paraphrase the language of the text: ‘they took there twelve baskets full.’ Of course, that would destroy the miraculous character of the event. But this clumsy device may now be regarded as only a historical curiosity.”
Mat_14:21. And they that had eaten.—As the feast of Passover was at hand, the people had already collected in larger numbers.
General Remarks. 1. On the relation of this miracle to the other miraculous feeding related in Mat_15:32.—The critical conjecture of Schleiermacher, Strauss, and others, that the first and the second miraculous feeding were, in reality, two different and incorrect narratives of one and the same event, is evidently untenable. Irrespective of the confusion which is presumed to exist in the account of the Evangelists, even a slight consideration of the differences in point of time and circumstances will convince us of its groundlessness The provision, the number of the people, and the fragments left on each occasion, were entirely dissimilar. Besides, in the first instance, the miracle was wrought on the evening of the first day; in the second, after the people had remained for three days with the Saviour. Lastly, there is an equal difference between the events which preceded and succeeded each of these miracles. In the one instance, Jesus had passed over from the western shore, and the feeding of the multitude was succeeded by His walking on the sea. In the other instance, Jesus had arrived at the eastern shore, after His journey through the Phœnician territory, and the district around the sources of the Jordan, while the miracle was succeeded by His last conflict with the Pharisees and Sadducees of Galilee. Again, the people which were fed on each occasion were, as might readily be supposed, those who had just listened to his teaching, and who followed Him from the places which He had visited. Accordingly, on the first occasion they were chiefly gathered from the cities along the western shore of the lake; while, on the second, they assembled from the mountains on the eastern side. Lastly, as the place where the miracle took place was different, so the time also,—the first occurring in spring, and the second a considerable time after Easter, or in summer.
2. The miracle itself.—Different theories on the subject have been current. 1. It has been attempted to explain it away: (a) By exegetical devices , or attempts to represent it as a natural event. Thus Paulus suggests that those who sat down at this meal were induced by the example of Christ to give up their provisions, etc. Similarly, Gfrörer, Ammon, etc. (b) On the mythical theory; it being supposed that it was an imitation of Old Testament models (Exodus 16; 1Ki_17:8-16; 2Ki_4:1; 2Ki_4:42), with the view of meeting the popular notions concerning the Messiah (Strauss). (c) By viewing it symbolically. This may be characterized as a combination of the theory of Paulus with the mythico-poetical theory of Strauss. It is supposed that, with special reference to certain analogous passages, a natural event had assumed in the mind of the Church a symbolical bearing; the truth thus conveyed being simply, that Jesus had broken the bread of life, or the bread of Christian fellowship (de Wette). (d) By regarding it as a parable (i.e., as mythical only so far as its form is concerned); the narrative being supposed to have arisen from what was originally intended as a parable (Weisse).—2. The miracle has been fully admitted, but it has been viewed,—(a) as an abstract miracle, or simply as the result of omnipotence, no attempt being made to account for it either in a mental or moral sense; nay, these intermediate links of connection being intentionally ignored or denied. (b) An attempt has been made to account for the manner in which the miracle was brought about by what Olshausen calls a quickening and accelerating of the natural process—an explanation which we frankly confess our inability to understand. (c) Christ effected the increase of the provision ôῷ ëüãῳ êáὶ ôῆ åὐëïãßᾳ (Origen, Meyer). Everybody admits this; but the difficulty is, what we are to understand by the expression åὐëüãçóåí áὐôïýò in Luke. (d) We regard it as a concrete and moral, manifestation of the miraculous power of Christ. This miraculous feeding may be viewed as a parallel to the miraculous production of wine at the marriage in Cana, and both as foreshadowing the Eucharist. In His capacity as glorified Redeemer, Christ is here working and acting upon His creatures, quickening, so to speak, and infinitely enlarging the qualities inherent in bread; while, at the same time, He awakens a corresponding disposition in those who sit down to partake of the meal. It is a heavenly meal where hearts and minds as well as bodies are fed, and where the inner man is not dead, or standing without, like a beggar, but where, for the time, all are treated as members of Jesus in the house of the Lord. Viewed in this light, the increase of quantity is just the blessing of God the Son, as Creator of the kingdom of bliss and of love. This explanation, we venture to say, has not yet been sufficiently understood and appreciated. However, it must not be regarded as implying that the result produced was merely moral and religious. As in the production of the wine, power went forth from the Logos, by which earthly water was converted into heavenly wine—real wine, though not of earthly vintage; so, in the present case also, power went out from Him which increased the natural quality of the bread—enlarged it—just as, to some extent, the leaven does. Even the operation of leaven shows that bread is thus capable of having its powers increased. Something of this kind seems to have been present to the mind of Olshausen, who also aptly remarks, that “throughout the gospel history we never read of any purely creative work on the part of the Saviour. Just as nature forms a new creation from the seed, so Christ transforms water into wine, or increases the five loaves; but without some substratum He creates neither wine nor bread.” In thinking of similar miracles under the Old Testament, we specially recall to mind the provision of manna and of quails; while we regard as a parallel case what is recorded of Elijah in 1Ki_19:8 : “And he rose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto Horeb the mount of God.”
[The English and American interpreters generally pass by in silence, or expressly reject, all attempts to make this and similar miracles intelligible, and resort to an act of divine omnipotence on the part of Him who was the Eternal Word of God, similar to the original act of creation, with this difference, however, that in our case there was a material substratum to work on in the five loaves and two fishes, so that it was not a creation out of nothing, but an act of creative accretion; the bread growing and multiplying in the hands of Christ (so J. A. Alexander, and Owen), or of the distributing apostles (so Alford, following Meyer), or of the eaters, or of all, at all events in such a manner that the whole multitude were abundantly fed, and much more remained and was gathered in the twelve travelling-baskets, than the whole original provision. Trench, Notes on the Miracles, p. 267 (6th ed., Lond., 1858): “Here, too, even more remarkably than in the case of the water changed into wine, when we seek to realize to ourselves the manner of the miracle, it evermore eludes our grasp. We seek in vain to follow it with our imaginations. … But this is the wisdom of the sacred narrator, to leave the description of the indescribable unattempted. His appeal is to the same faith which believes ‘that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear’ (Heb_11:3).” J. A. Alexander, on Mat_14:21 : “The greatness of the miracle consists not merely in the vast increase of nutritive material, but in the nature of the process which effected it, and which must be regarded as creative, since it necessarily involves not merely change of form or quality, or new combinations of existing matter, but an absolute addition to the matter itself. … The only rational alternative is either to refute the overwhelming proof of authenticity and inspiration, or to accept the passage as the literal record of a genuine creative miracle, the first and greatest in the history [is the raising of Lazarus not equally great if not greater?], and therefore perhaps fully detailed in all the Gospels.” Even the German commentator H. A. W. Meyer, so often quoted in this work (Com. on Matt., p. 298 sq. of the 4th ed.), in view of the unanimous testimony and circumstantial agreement of the evangelists, fully admits the miracle, but, in view of its transcendent creative character, renounces all attempts at a rational explanation. He derives the interpretations of Paulus, Strauss, Weisse, de Wette, from a denial of the possible creative working on dead matter, a power which is not explained by the heterogeneous idea of a hastened process of nature (Olshausen), but which stands historically so firm, that we must rest satisfied with its absolute incomprehensibleness (dass man sich bei der völligen Unbegreiflichkeit dieser möglichen schöpferischen Einwirkung beruhigen muss, auf Veranschaulichung des Processes durch natürliche Analogieen verzichtend). But compare the forcible second doctrinal reflection of Dr. Lange, which follows.—P. S.]
2. The Church has rejected the doctrine of Patripassianism as a heresy. We would add a warning against a parallel error which we might call Patrimessianism, in reference to the miracles of Christ. The distinction between the economy of the Father and of the Son must ever be kept in mind: creation being ascribed to the Father, and redemption—which, however, also includes transformation—to the Son. Hence it is a confusion of these economies to represent as strictly (or rather abstractly and magically) creative acts what really are manifestations of this transforming power. Besides, we must not forget that when the Church repudiated Monophysite views in reference to the person of Christ, the same principle also applies to the manifestation and the economy of the Son. Hence we must always view Him as the God-Man, and all His working as thean-thropic. He is the Creator in a moral and religious sense, who above all influences the heart, and who, by and with the heart, transforms all old things into new. Under His word the withered hand moves and extends, along with the withered heart. Perhaps the idea, that a ban of miscarriage and of barrenness rests on our earthly bread, which Christ removed by this miracle, showing the positive fulness which it contains when His blessing descends upon it, may, in some measure, help us to understand the grand mystery which awaits us at the final transformation of this world (the transformation of what is mortal, the renovation of the earth, the setting free of its fulness, and the restoration of the tree of life).
Starke:—Quesnel: The further Christ appears to remove from us, the more closely should we endeavor to follow Him.—Jesus has never been idle, but has always wrought with His Father, Joh_5:17; 2Th_3:8.—It is often unseasonable to listen to the dictates of reason, when we should rather think of the goodness and the omnipotence of God.—Still it is right to use all ordinary and prudent means, since God always honors their employment.—Hedinger: Christ can create bread even in the wilderness, Psa_78:19.—It matters not with the Lord whether the provision be great or small, Psa_107:36.—It is the Lord who addeth the blessing.—We should bring back to the Lord the bread which we have got from His hand, in order that He may bless it.—Let us not think of the smallness of our provision, but rather of the blessing of God.—Cramer: Why weepest thou? the Lord reigneth, Psa_145:15.—Let us not preserve anything from covetousness, but for future use.—To bestow alms on the needy will never make us poorer.—God can nourish those who have many children quite as readily as those who have none.
Gerlach:—Meat is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, 1Ti_4:5.—Hence the wicked first defile and corrupt the meat, and then, by the meat, themselves.—Those who are desirous of witnessing this glorious miracle must be willing to be content with barley loaves and dry fishes.—Heubner: Christ never continued late meetings with a large multitude. His example may therefore be rightly quoted in reference to protracted conventicles at night (still, a Christian congregation can scarcely be placed on the same level with this multitude, comp. Act_20:7).—Jesus as the Head of a house.—Grace before meat enjoined by the example of Christ.—Similarly, carefulness, preservation, order, and arrangement taught by His example.—The daily miracle of the feeding of the millions who people our earth.
[Prudentius:—Tu cibus panisque noster, Tu perennis suavitas; nescit esurire in œvum, qui Tuam sumit dapem.—Trench: Christ proclaims Himself in this miracle the true bread of the world, that should assuage the hunger of man, the inexhausted and inexhaustible source of all life, in whom there should be enough and to spare for all the spiritual needs of all hungering souls in all ages.—D. Brown: (Com. on Mar_6:35-44): The Bible, so little in bulk, like the five barley loaves and the two fishes, what thousands upon thousands has it fed, and will it feed, in every age, in every land of Christendom, to the world’s end!—P. S.]
Footnotes:
Mat_14:14,— Ἰçóïῦò is wanting in Codd. B., C, etc., as also in Mat_14:22 [and Mat_14:25]. Probably in both [all] cases inserted from the beginning of Scripture-lessons. [So Meyer. Cod. Sinait. likewise omits Ἰçóïῦò in Mat_14:14; Mat_14:22; Mat_14:25.—P. S.]
Mat_14:15.—[The critical editions omit áὐôïῦ after ïἱ ìáèçôáß . Lange, however, translates: “seine Jünger,” and takes no notice of this difference of reading.—P. S.]
Mat_14:20.—[ Åöáãïí ðÜíôåò , lit: they all ate. It is the simple past tense, while the C. Vers.: did all eat, is in modern English an emphatic expression, the auxiliary did implying a doubt or denial of the fact.—P. S.]
Mat_14:21.—[Lit.: the persons eating, ïἱäÝ ἐó èßïí ôå ò . The present participle means the time present, asusual, but with reference to a past act of numbering the persons fed.—P. S.]
[ ÊëÜóìáôá from êëÜù , to break, as fragments from frango, Bruchstücke from brechen.—P. S.]
[In his new and more popular work on the Life of Jesus, which has just appeared (Leipzig, 1864, p. 496 sqq.), Strauss takes the same mythical view of this miracle, as in his larger work, and states that the account of the evangelists contains no feature which may not be satisfactorily explained from the Mosaic-prophetic precedent of the twofold miraculous feeding of Israel in the wilderness (Exodus 16 and Numbers 11). and from the antitype of the Christian eucharist.—P. S.]
[Hase. and de Wette.]
[Olshausen’s idea of a divinely hastened process of nature (ein beschleunigter Naturprocess), by which Christ brought about in a moment, what comes to pass by the slow process of growth in several months, does not suffice in the case without the additional hypothesis of a hastened process of art (Kunstprocess), or the combined labor of mowing, reaping, threshing, grinding, and baking, by which wheat is changed into bread. Nor does the form of the miracle favor this attempt to explain the inexplicable. We should rather expect in this case that the Saviour had cast a few grains of wheat into the ground and made them germinate into a rich harvest at once. But this would have been rather an unnatural miracle, such as the apocryphal Gospel of St. Thomas really ascribes to the child Jesus, at least as regards the quantity of wheat produced from a single grain for the benefit of the poor. (Thilo: Cod. Apocryph., p. 302.)—P. S.]
[As, indeed, God’s creatures should not be viewed as dead abstractions, but as possessing living powers and principles, on which the Creator may breathe, giving them new, or rather enlarged capacities; thus working what to the carnal onlooker may seem a miracle, in the sense of being an interference with the course of nature, while the deeper thinker, or the devout believer, sees in it only a higher order of nature, the setting free of qualities and powers, bound down by sin. through the operation of an ever-present, almighty, and all-gracious Sovereign.—The Edinb. Translator.]
[Olshausen adds, however (vol. i., p. 520, in Kendrick’s edition): “In these remarks I refer only to the recorded facts; how far it is conceivable that Christ’s miraculous powers might have been put forth in a different form, is another question. According to the gospel history, the Saviour constantly appears as the restorer of creation. He creates no new men but He transforms the old; He makes no new bodily members formerly wanting, but He restores the old that were useless.”—But on the other hand He raised the dead to life, and is literally and truly the Resurrection and the Life. He brought life and immortality to light. The regeneration of the Spirit, too, is a new birth, a new creation, by which we become “new creatures” in Christ Jesus.—P. S.]