The Feeding of the Four Thousand

S. Mark viii. 1–9

man satisfy these men with bread And they that had eaten were about asked them, How many loaves have away.

S. Augustine expressed satisfaction that the providential record of this miracle by Evangelists, who recorded the kindred miraculous feeding of the five thousand, had preserved it from the attacks of hostile critics. But what kept them off in an earlier age has been found to interpose no barrier in these later times, when the credibility of the Gospel narrative is so fiercely assailed.

This account has been spoken of as “a loose tradition,” or “an ill-remembered reproduction” of the former, but the only ground for the supposition is the surprise of the Apostles, “Whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in the wilderness?” If, it is said, they had seen a similar multitude supernaturally fed, they would have expected a repetition of the same creative act for a corresponding necessity. It is a plausible objection, but admits, as will be seen, of satisfactory explanation. Leaving this for the moment, we turn to a consideration of numerous facts which are wholly inconsistent with the suggested theory. Almost all the details of the two narratives are different. The mode of distribution through the agency of the Apostles 1 is the only point in which they exactly agree. Some uncertainty, it is true, hangs round the scene of this miracle, but the most that can be said is, that it was at least in the same neighbourhood as the first. There is no question that that was in a desert adjoining Bethsaida-Julias, on the north-eastern side of the lake. It may be inferred that this was wrought on the same coast, for it is said that Jesus had reached the further shore through the midst of Decapolis, and that after the multitudes had been dismissed, He took ship and crossed over to Magdala on the Galilean side. There is, however, no evidence to enable us to fix the exact locality.

In all other points and characteristic features there is distinct divergence.

In the earlier miracle the people were Jews, chiefly from the Jewish towns of Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida, on the western side of the lake, pilgrims preparing to go up to the approaching Passover. In the later they were Gentiles. All the history which immediately precedes is occupied with our Lord’s ministry among the semi -heathen population of Decapolis; and an expression of S. Matthew, in describing the effect produced upon them by His miracles, where he says that “they glorified the God of Israel,” admits of no other explanation than that they were not Israelites themselves. This, added to their wonder at the sight of His miracles, which would have been unaccountable in the Galileans after a ministry of two years amongst them, leaves little doubt of their non-Jewish nationality.

The time also differed. When the five thousand were fed i Cf. p. 138. the Passover was nigh at hand, as S. John says, and it is borne out by the undesigned coincidence that the remaining Evangelists all call attention to the abundance of grass, which springs up in Palestine at this time of the year.

Whereas, in describing what took place at the second miracle, there is no such allusion. It is merely said that they sat “on the ground.” From the sequence of events several weeks must have elapsed, and, as usually happens in that country, the verdure had dried up and withered, and called for no observation.

There is, moreover, a marked difference preserved throughout all the narratives in the kind of baskets used for gathering up the fragments in the two cases.

In the first, each one of the Twelve unstrapped the wicker wallet which, in accordance with custom, he would take with him on his travels, and filled it with the broken pieces; and this accounts for the number of the baskets corresponding with that of the Apostles. In the second a much larger basket was used, for on one occasion it served to hold S. Paul when he was let down through a window in the walls of Damascus. It is a noteworthy coincidence that the more capacious basket is found in connection with a prolonged sojourn in a heathen district, when a larger store of “clean” provisions would be required than could be carried in the ordinary cophinus or wallet.

Again, the multitudes in the first miracle were more, and the loaves and fishes fewer in number than in the second; and herein may be found a further and decisive argument against the supposed invention of the latter account. A forger would have reversed the statistics, and made the numbers greater and the provisions smaller in the second case; for nothing could be gained by inventing such a narrative if it did not tend, so to speak, to magnify the wonder-working power of our Lord.

Lastly, there is a striking difference in the results. When the Jewish crowds witnessed that great creative act they were filled with enthusiasm and excitement. The expected Messiah had shown Himself in their midst, and they broke out with the cry, “This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world;” and then they were so carried away with the conviction, that nothing would satisfy them till they had tried “to take Him by force and make Him a king.”

The heathen multitude, on the other hand, less excitable, because they had no such expectations, dispersed without any demonstration, when their wants were satisfied and they realised that Jesus was about to depart.

A full consideration, therefore, of the circumstances of the second miracle furnishes ample proof of the authenticity of the record — none whatever that it is of spurious origin.

The question of the Apostles, which has supplied the assailants of its credibility with their chief argument, admits of a double solution, either of which will satisfy the requirements of the case. If the multitudes were Gentiles, the Apostles might well have hesitated before concluding that their Master would work such a miracle for them, as He had done for the Jews. There was no lesson harder for them to learn, than that all x alike were eligible for His bounty.

Or again, we may find the explanation in their slowness to believe. It is only another illustration of the proverbial forgetfulness of past mercies. Had not God cleft the rock in the wilderness to satisfy the thirst of the wanderers? Had He not given them quails from heaven? And was it not true that when the fountain dried up, and the pangs of hunger returned, they forgot the past, and in their ingratitude murmured against Him?

It has been well said, “It is only the man of full-formed faith, of a faith which as yet the Apostles did not possess, who argues from the past to the future, and truly derives confidence from God’s former dealings of faithfulness and love.”

The spiritual teaching to be derived from the history differs in no way from that which the kindred record supplied, but we may gather an additional fragment of instruction from the words, “So they did eat, and were filled.” It is a significant expression in the original, “They were fed to satisfaction.” That such a result followed, was the consequence of their being fed by Him alone Who “satisfies the empty soul, and filleth the hungry soul with gladness.” There is need to be reminded of this in an age when men are pointed to other sources of satisfaction — to education, to culture, and to refinement, and bidden to find their highest enjoyment in these and suchlike pursuits. If they bear no reference to Him towards Whom all that is noblest and best in Nature and Art is designed to lead us, they will turn out to be but “broken cisterns that hold no water.”

There is only one answer to the inquiry, “From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread?” and it is contained in the words, “He that cometh to Me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst.”

Note: Magdala. The best MSS. give Magadan as the name of the place. Possibly it bore both names. The modern El-Mejdil is clearly the representative of the former. The Dalmanutha of S. Mark is not mentioned elsewhere; but it must have been either a town or district on the south-western side of the lake.

Note: “The latter rain” fell during the greater part of the month of March, and was followed by a great outburst of spring verdure, which would be most noticeable about the time of the Passover.

Note: a-rrvpis, Lat. sporta, was a large provision-basket, much used for meals, hence the phrase beiirvov dirb cnrvpidos. It was perhaps more of the nature of a hamper.

Note: The miracle of the five thousand took place during a short absence only from Galilean territory. The “cophinus” would contain ample provision for this, but His travels through the towns of Decapolis had occupied a considerable time.

Note: Cf. the case of the Syrophenician woman. “Send her away,” they cried. S. Matt. xv. 23.