Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 14:20 - 14:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_14:20 f. Τῶν κλασμ . is independent of τὸ περισς . (the fragments that were over), with which latter also δώδεκα κοφ . πλήρεις , twelve baskets full, is in apposition. In travelling, the Jews carried small baskets with them to hold their provisions and other necessaries. For κόφινος , see Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 455. It is more general (in Xen. Anab. iii. 8. 6, it is used in the sense of a dung-basket) than σπυρίς (Mat_15:37; Act_9:25).
ἦραν ] they took up, from the ground on which the people had been eating. The subject of the verb is the apostles (Joh_6:12); each of the Twelve fills his travelling-basket. But the κλάσματα are the pieces (comp. Mat_14:19, κλάσας ) into which the loaves had been divided, and which had so multiplied in the course of distribution that a great quantity still remained over.
γυναικ . κ . παιδ .] occurring frequently in classical writers, and sometimes with the order of the words inverted; Maetzner, ad Lycurg. p. 75. But observe here the diminutive παιδίων , little children, whom their mothers either carried in their arms or led by the hand.
REMARK.
To explain away the miracle, as Paulus has done (who thinks that the hospitable example of Jesus may have induced the people to place at His disposal the provisions they had brought along with them; comp. Gfrörer, Heiligth. u. Wahrh. p. 171 ff.; Ammon, L. J. II. p. 217 f.), is inconsistent with the accounts of all the evangelists, and especially with that of the eye-witness John. Notwithstanding this, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 234, thought that, even on exegetical principles, the plural σημεῖα in Joh_6:26 (but see note on this passage) would justify him in declining to rank the incident among the miracles; whilst Schenkel thinks he sees his way to an explanation by supposing what is scarcely possible, viz. that Jesus fed the multitude with a rich supply of the bread of life from heaven, which caused them to forget their ordinary food, though at the same time He devoutly consecrated for their use the provisions which they had brought with them, or had managed to procure for the present emergency. Weizsäcker likewise leaves the fact, which is supposed to underlie the present narrative, too much in a state of perplexing uncertainty; this element of fact, he thinks, must somehow correspond with the symbolism of the miracle, which is intended to teach us that there is no sphere in which the believer may not become a partaker of the fulness of Jesus’ blessing. Keim, adhering above all to the ideal explanation that the bread which Jesus provided was spiritual bread, and referring by way of parallel to the story of the manna and the case of Elisha, follows the Paulus-Schenkel line of interpretation, in conceding a residuum of historical fact, though he seems to doubt whether that residuum will be considered worth retaining. But to eliminate the element of fact altogether, is no less inconsistent with historical testimony. This, however, has been done by Strauss, who thereupon proceeds to account for the narrative, partly by tracing it to some original parable (Weisse, I. p. 510 ff.), partly by treating it as a myth, and deriving it from the types of the Old Testament (Exodus 16; 1Ki_17:8-16; 2Ki_4:42 ff.) and the popular Messianic ideas (Joh_6:30 f.), partly by supposing it to belong to the lofty sphere of ideal legend (Ewald, see note on Joh_6:12), and partly by understanding it in a symbolic sense (Hase, de Wette). Such a mode of dealing with this incident is the result of denying the possibility of bringing a creative agency to bear upon dead, rather upon artificially prepared materials,—a possibility which is not rendered more conceivable by having recourse to the somewhat poor expedient of supposing that what was done may have been brought about by an accelerated natural process (Olshausen). But that such agency was actually brought to bear, is a historical fact so well established by the unanimous testimony of the evangelists, that we must be contented to accept it with all its incomprehensibility, and, in this case not less than in that of the changing of water into wine at Cana, abandon the hope of being able to get a clearer conception of the process of the miracle by the help of natural analogies. The symbolical application, that is, to the higher spiritual food, was made by our Lord Himself in Joh_6:26 ff.; but, in doing so, He takes the miraculous feeding with material bread as His historical basis and warrant. Moreover, the view of Origen, that it was τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τῇ εὐλογίᾳ that Jesus caused the bread to multiply, is greatly favoured by the fact that the circumstance of the thanksgiving is mentioned by the whole four evangelists, and above all by Luke’s expression: εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς .