Matthew 14

CHAPTER XIV

XI

Christ Hears of the Baptist’s Execution and Begins to Withdraw. Chapter 14

Matthew 14:1

1 At that season Herod, the tetrarch, heard the report of Jesus and said to his servants: This is John the Baptist; he arose from the dead, and for this reason these works of power are operating in him. The “season” referred to is the one marked by the growing hostility indicated in the two preceding chapters. Josephus regularly calls this Herod “Anti-pas.” His tetrarchy consisted of Galilee and Perea, the two territories that were separated by the Decapolis. Only by courtesy was he styled “king.” Where and how “the report of Jesus” (objective genitive) came to him is of no moment, only his opinion of Jesus is worthy of notice. On Luke 9:7–9 see the commentaries on Mark and on Luke.

Matthew 14:2

2 This he uttered “to his servants,” παῖς being regularly used in this sense also with reference to Jesus as the great servant of Jehovah. Here Herod’s courtiers are evidently referred to. Superstition and an evil conscience are combined in making this cowardly criminal jump to the conclusion that Jesus, who is now for the first time brought to his attention, is John the Baptist returned from the dead, ἠγέρθη used in the middle sense, and the aorist indicating only the fact as such. That, Herod asserts, explains the miracles reported regarding Jesus; δυνάμεις has its ordinary meaning, “works of power,” being followed, as it is, by ἐνεργοῦσινἐναὐτῷ, and αἱ is nearly demonstrative: “these powers,” R. 694.

Matthew 14:3

3 It is now, after the brief reference to John’s being in prison (11:2), that Matthew recounts the entire tragic story, appending it to Herod’s word about John’s resurrection. For Herod, having taken John into his power, bound him and placed him in prison because of Herodias, the wife of Philip, his brother. The aorists report only the facts, and we know no more. John was snatched out of his ministry by Herod’s order to some of his minions who carried John away bound as a criminal and lodged him in prison in the fortress Machærus (Josephus, Ant. 18, 5, 2), on the southern border of Perea, on the height near the Dead Sea. “Herodias” is a feminine patronymic from “Herod” (Herod the Great), her grandfather. She was the daughter of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Herod the Great and Mariamne. She first married her uncle, Herod, called Philip, a brother of Aristobulus.

This Philip was disinherited through the treachery of his mother and lived privately in Rome with Herodias and their daughter Salome. Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan Malthake and thus a half-uncle of Herodias, and was married to the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia Petrea. While he was on a visit to Rome, Antipas and Herodias eloped, and the wife of Antipas, not waiting to be divorced, returned to her father, and a war followed between Aretas and Herod Antipas.

An effort has been made to remove “of Philip” from the text, and its presence in Mark 6:17 is called “a historical error” on the assumption that Herod the Great had only one son by the name of Philip. But he had two: one (the husband of Herodias) the son of Mariamne, the high priest Simon’s daughter; and the other (the tetrarch) the son of Cleopatra. Salome, the daughter of Herodias, married the tetrarch Philip, her half-uncle. Two of the sons of Herod the Great were also called Antipas. The fact that two half-brothers were called Philip does not prove the presence of an error in the text.

Matthew 14:4

4 For John was saying to him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. We should like to know what lies back of this imperfect and this dative; ἔλεγεναὐτῷ. It seems to be improbable that Herod met John, who spent all his time in the uninhabited wilds. There is no hint that Herod ever summoned John into his presence; ἔλεγε implies that John said what he did more than once. Even the personal “for thee” does not necessarily imply that Herod stood or sat before John. It is probably best to assume that the flagrant sin of Herod was castigated by John in the course of his preaching and thus came to the ears of Herod and to those of his illegal second wife. And it evidently was Herodias who instigated John’s arrest. Mark 6:17 reports that Herod commissioned his men to go and to capture John.

Herod’s crime was a public outrage. The woman Herodias had first married her own father’s brother and then had run away and lived with the half-brother of her husband, who thus was also her half-uncle and who already had a wife. Two marriages were disrupted, and the new union was not a marriage. It was plain adultery and within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity. Josephus charges Herodias with the intention of confounding her country’s institutions. No wonder John raised his voice although Herod was his ruler. “To have her”=to have as a wife.

Matthew 14:5

5 And though ready (θέλων) to kill him, he feared the multitude because they considered him as a prophet. Mark 6:19 explains this readiness as being due to the strong influence of Herodias who was set on John’s death. Herod would have killed John to satisfy her. Mark also adds a detail to Herod’s fear of the people who considered John a prophet, namely that Herod himself knew John to be a righteous and a holy man. Thus Herod was swayed by mixed motives. Ἔχειντινά with a predicate, here προφήτην with or without ὡς (R. 481), means “to consider someone something,” ὡς here adding, “something in the nature of a prophet” (see also 21:26, 46).

Matthew 14:6

6 Now when a birthday celebration of Herod’s took place, the daughter of Herodias danced in the midst (of the company) and pleased Herod. The neuter plural γενέσια is used to designate a festive birthday celebration. We expect the genitive absolute, but Matthew has what appears to be a dative absolute. This construction is passed by in R.; B.-D. 200, 3 conjectures that it is a mixture of the genitive absolute with the temporal dative, which is somehow due to copying τοῖςγενεσίοις from Mark 6:21; but this is rather improbable, since Mark wrote after Matthew, and no copyist would add the participle, and such a conjectured mixture of constructions is untenable. Zahn thinks the dative tries to reproduce the Latin ablative absolute, which, however, is improbable in the case of a man like Matthew. We simply have the locative dative of time, and the participle is added in order to emphasize the arrival of the time which precipitated the catastrophe.

The Jews abhorred the keeping of birthdays as being a pagan custom, but the Herods even outdid the Romans in these celebrations, so that “Herod’s birthday’ (Herodis dies) came to be a proverbial expression for excessive festival display. Mark 6:21 remarks regarding the grand feast.

The climax of the entertainment was the spectacular dancing of Salome, the daughter of Herodias; ἐντῷμέσῳ means “in the midst,” before the company of guests. The exhibition was thoroughly pagan and had been learned while the girl and her mother lived at Rome with Philip.

Matthew 14:7

7 Herod’s delight in the performance carried him completely away: wherefore he promised with an oath to give her what she might ask. In ὅθεν we have the source “whence” the action flowed, here Herod’s pleasure in Salome’s dancing. Heated with wine and excited by the company, the man lost his reason. We must add his desire to make a grandiose display in the most magnificent royal style. Mark records the words of the oath. The verb ὡμολόγησεν is to be construed with the oath: “he made acknowledgment accompanied by (μετά) an oath.” First he made the promise and then acknowledged or sealed it with an oath, thus making it absolutely irrevocable.

A blank promise as such, no matter how it is to be fulfilled, is sinful and silly at the same time. An oath added to such a promise is directly forbidden in Lev. 5:4, etc. No promise or oath of this kind is binding; when it is made, it must be confessed as sin (v. 5) and retracted, and pardon must be sought.

Matthew 14:8

8 And she, instigated by her mother, says, Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist. The present participle may be rendered, “while under instigation,” and it describes tersely what Mark 6:24 spreads out in detail: the girl running to her mother, getting the instigation from her, and then coming quickly to make her request. She never hesitated because of the crime involved and because of the gruesomeness of such a gory gift. The force of ὧδε, “right here,” is significant; here where all the company may see in the delivery of the gift that Herod kept his promise and oath. The same viciousness is manifested in the request for “the head.” Herodias wants the head, the absolute evidence of John’s death, and no mere promise of John’s death at some future day. A πίναξ is really a “board,” and thus any flat dish.

Matthew 14:9

9 And the king was grieved, yet because of his oaths and those reclining together at table he ordered it to be given. Since he was called “king” only by courtesy, Matthew’s use of the title here has a touch of irony: a king made the tool of a woman. In the king’s grief we have no conflict with v. 5, as some suppose; for the grief was due to the very considerations which had hitherto kept Herod from killing John. The plural “his oaths” indicates only that the king had emphasized his promise by repeating his oath. Instead of letting the outcome of his rashness open his eyes to the enormity of his folly, thus inducing him to declare that a gift involving a horrible crime was beyond his granting, this morally helpless fool imagined that his oaths really bound him. Coupled with this moral impotence was his pride.

His sworn promise was intended to impress his guests, in fact, had been made for their sake not for that of the girl. To deny her request appeared like a disgrace in the eyes of those reclining with him at the feast. Thus Herod perpetrated his greatest crime, filling the cup of his iniquities. The fact that Matthew has not mentioned the guests before this need not be explained and is no point against his record. All that he has said makes it clear to any intelligent reader that a feast at which many notables were present is in progress. Why ask for common prolixity where conciseness is more forcible?

Matthew 14:10

10 This is also true regarding the tragic brevity of the next sentence. And having sent, he beheaded John in the prison. Though it was done by the hand of an underling (πέμψας), Matthew makes the deed entirely that of Herod.

Matthew 14:11

11 And his head was brought on a platter and was given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. The three cold aorists record nothing but the awful facts. The term κοράσιον does not necessarily support the view that the girl was only twelve years of age. In arriving at her age we should not think only of her first going to her mother for advice but also of Herod’s promise to her. Such a promise would not be made to a mere child, and even an older girl would, after such a promise had been given her, consult a mother who was as dominating as Herodias. To what indignities John’s head was subjected we are left to imagine.

Matthew 14:12

12 And his disciples, having come forward, took up the corpse and buried him; and, having come, made report to Jesus. From 11:2, etc., we see that John’s disciples had access to him in his prison, and thus they were permitted to give the headless body decent burial in a tomb (πτῶμα, “a fallen body”). The fact that John’s disciples report the tragedy to Jesus shows that they automatically turned to him. The answer Jesus had sent to John (11:4) must thus have satisfied John. From the Acts we know that some of John’s disciples sought to continue by themselves (Acts 18:25; 19:3), but most of them now probably followed Jesus.

While this account of John’s death explains the remark of Herod to his courtiers in v. 2, it evidently has a deeper significance. It reveals the entire attitude of the ruler of Galilee as regards both John and Jesus and thus offers one of the reasons why Jesus began to withdraw himself more and more. The time of John’s death was about a year before Jesus’ own death. Jesus died at the Passover, and John’s death occurred just prior to the preceding Passover, John 6:4; for the feeding of the 5, 000 and Jesus’ walking on the sea occurred at this time, John 6:5–21, the same as Matt. 14:15–33. John’s bloody death pointed forward to that of Jesus.

Matthew 14:13

13 Now when Jesus heard it he withdrew thence in a boat to a desert place in private. The motive for this withdrawal is the news of John’s murder. With this, however, went another motive. The Twelve had returned from their tour of evangelization (10:5), and Jesus wanted to get away from the crowds in order to confer with them in private (Mark 6:30, 31). Matthew does not mention this additional motive, yet, as Zahn points out, by the use of ἀκούσας he by no means excludes it, for the participle may be regarded as being merely temporal. Matthew does not report about the return of the Twelve.

That fear of Herod moved Jesus to this action is an unworthy surmise. Matthew does not say, as some suppose, that Jesus left Herod’s domain, for he permits his readers to find out only incidentally that Jesus crossed the lake from the west to the east; and it is unfair to say that Matthew forgot that Jesus presently returns to Capernaum. What we are told about is more than an ordinary change of locality. This withdrawal of Jesus with the Twelve is the beginning of a new course on his part. In 4:12, when the news of John’s imprisonment was brought to Jesus, Matthew uses the same words as here in 14:13, and tells us that Jesus withdrew to Galilee in order to prosecute his ministry with the greatest vigor and publicity. This period was now ended, and even the Twelve had completed their part in it.

The great hostility had arisen. John’s murder thus marks a new turn for Jesus. He begins his withdrawal. While he still meets multitudes and heals the sick, etc., we no longer see him seeking publicity; he often moves to distant parts and gradually prepares the Twelve for the end.

And when the multitudes heard it they followed him on foot from the towns, taking the longer route by land around the upper part of the lake. The crowds swelled as they passed from town to town along the populous west shore.

Matthew 14:14

14 And having come forth, he saw a great multitude and had compassion on them and healed their sick, ἀρρώστους, those without strength. Jesus landed on the eastern shore hours ahead of the arrival of the crowds. He chose a spot near Bethsaida (Luke 9:10, which must be distinguished from the Bethsaida on the west shore) and found a retired place up in the mountain where he spent some time with the Twelve (John 6:3). It was from this retired spot that he came forth and saw the multitude that had gradually assembled near the shore. Mark’s (6:33) προῆλθοναὐτούς is textually questionable (see the data in Souter) and is without parallel in the sense of “outwent them” (our versions), i.e., arrived there first, which would be ἔφθασαναὐτούς. The arrival on the eastern shore, plus the finding of a private place in the uninhabited locality, are contained already in v. 13 with its aorist ἀνεχώρησεν and must not be overlooked.

Hence ἐξελθών cannot mean: “when Jesus landed and stepped out of the boat.” Both in Matthew and in Mark (who has the same participle) mention of the boat lies too far back. Jesus “came forth” from the private place (κατʼ ἰδίαν) which, according to the aorist in v. 13, he had actually reached. John 6:3 places this beyond doubt. Then he saw the “great multitude.” We have no reason to suppose that the boat of Jesus loitered long enough to let the great crowd arrive, which would entail hours; and we have no right to reduce “a great multitude” to a few fast runners who arrived ahead of the rest of the crowd.

The heart of Jesus goes out in compassion to the great crowd which Jesus sees assembled on the lower levels. The verb σπλαγχνίζομαι seems to be “a coinage of the Jewish Dispersion,” “to be moved as to the σπλάγχνα,” the nobler viscera, heart, lungs, and liver, here conceived in the Hebraic sense as the seat of the affections (cf. M.-M. 584 on verb and noun). It means much that, in spite of all the unbelief that Jesus encountered and in spite of his intention to withdraw from his great public activity, his heart should thus be moved at the sight of this crowd that had followed him. Matthew reports that in this compassion of his “he healed their sick.” The very word indicates that these “strengthless ones” could only with great difficulty have been transported to this distant, uninhabited place, which fact makes it still more certain that Jesus spent some hours alone before the crowd came. Mark and Luke add the detail that Jesus also taught, but the healings must have preceded, for Jesus would certainly not let the sick suffer while he taught.

Matthew 14:15

15 Now evening having come, his disciples came to him, saying: Desert is the place, and the hour has already gone by; dismiss the multitudes in order that, having gone away into the villages, they may buy themselves food. At this point John 6:5–7 must be inserted. When Jesus first stepped out of his retirement on the mountainside he put the question to Philip about buying bread for all these people, and this Jesus did to test out one of his disciples. Already then Jesus knew what he would do when evening would come. But the only reply that Jesus received from Philip was that it would take more money than they had in their treasury to provide even a very little for so many people—not an inkling that Philip remembered Cana or thought of miraculous help on the part of Jesus in any way. Disappointed in Philip, Jesus descends to the multitude, heals the sick, and teaches about the kingdom until evening has actually come—entirely unconcerned about the needs of the people and the passing of the time.

Jesus evidently intended that Philip was to report the question to the other apostles, and thus all of them were to think about it as the hours wore on. They did that but arrived at nothing definite.

So evening came at last, γενομένης, an aorist to express the simple fact. The disciples can stand the pressure no longer. Despite all that Jesus had said to Philip a thought such as Jesus desired had not occurred to them. In a body they come to him, and one, as their spokesman, reminds Jesus of what he seems to have entirely forgotten. He is now not in a city but out here in a desert place. And it is beyond the hour (R. 613, παρά in the verb); hence it is reasonable for this crowd to scatter and to try to find something to eat by buying what they can in the villages along their way back. The implication is that it is already past the time for this, and that probably only some will succeed in buying something, and, if Jesus waits any longer, none will be able to do so. “Buy themselves food” (βρώματα Speisen, bread and fish) shows that Jesus’ conversation with Philip about buying had been talked over by the Twelve.

Matthew 14:16

16 But Jesus said to them: They have no need to go away. Do you give them to eat! Astonishing reply to these dull-witted men and yet wholly transparent! If they are to give food to this tremendous host with no food in their possession, and if there is no need for any to go away in search of food, Jesus must mean that they, the Twelve, have a source of supply they have thus far entirely overlooked. But even now they fail to understand. Mark and Luke report that the disciples ask whether Jesus has in mind that they, at this late hour, are to go out and buy up food. What a hopeless proposition! This would require at least 200 denarii (more than they had); and how could they, twelve men, gather and carry food for so many?

Matthew 14:17

17 Vainly Jesus tried to call out the faith of the Twelve. He now proceeds with the miracle. It is he who tells the disciples to go and to see what bread is available (Mark 6:38). John informs us about the lad who had this tiny supply and about Andrew speaking for the rest in reporting to Jesus. And they say to him, We haven’t here but fives breads and two fishes. They put it negatively: nothing but so small a bit. The ἄρτοι are round, flat cakes of bread, literally “breads,” and not loaves in our sense. In this lake country the common addition (Zukost, ὀψάριον) to bread was fish.

Matthew 14:18

18 And he said without the least explanation, Be bringing them here to me! Matthew alone reports this order, which means, of course, that the food should be bought from the lad. The disciples, who heard this peculiar order, and those who went to hunt up the lad must have wondered at Jesus’ intention. The bread and the fish are brought.

Matthew 14:19

19 All the minor actions are expressed by aorist participles, and all these actions precede those of the main verbs (R. 1136); in English this distinction between minor and main actions is usually not made. And having ordered the multitudes to recline on the grass, and having taken the five breads and the two fishes, and having looked up to the heaven, he spoke a blessing and, having broken, gave the breads to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitudes. Comment is scarcely needed, for all is graphic and clear. The Greek uses the plural when speaking of grass. Near the Passover season (John 6:4) the open spaces would be covered with grass, which afforded an ideal place for dining out. The guests reclined as if on couches.

The five flat cakes and the two small fish were easily held in the hand while the blessing was being pronounced. This must have been the usual grace before a meal, for nothing unusual is reported concerning it by any of the evangelists. Looking up to heaven was a common attitude in prayer while one was standing. The idea that Jesus first had to have God’s consent and help and here asked for it before he could work the miracle, misconceives not only this but all the miracles, all of which were wrought by the omnipotence which belongs equally to the three Persons. The breaking, which is in no way symbolical, is merely done for the sake of distribution. The cakes which were about one-half inch thick were never cut for the purpose of eating them.

As Jesus broke the bread and the fish, both multiplied in his hands. Instead of indicating this by an imperfect tense, Matthew has the constative aorist ἔδωκε, the whole extended action being regarded as a unit: “he gave.” This weighty verb stands alone; what the disciples did with the food handed to them is not stated by means of a verb. They were merely the waiters who were to serve the guests at this feast. Yet as such they could and did carry out v. 16.

Matthew 14:20

20 And they did eat all and were filled; and they took up what was superfluous of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. More was left than had been at hand in the beginning. “They did eat all,” by the order of the words emphasizes both the verb and the subject. There was not one who did not eat. How much? As much as each could eat. The verb is really coarse, it is borrowed from animals who are fed to capacity for fattening by using grass (χόρτος) or fodder. All, having had little or nothing to eat all day, were certainly hungry. No stinting here as when Philip thought of each having a little.

Moreover, broken pieces of both bread and fish were left. 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. Jesus intends that none of his gifts are to be wasted. This miraculous food was not to be thrown away. It filled exactly twelve of the little wicker baskets that were used by travellers to carry food and necessaries and were here probably used by the disciples when serving as waiters.

Twelve—one for each of the Twelve, none for Jesus, which means that he who had created all this bounty created an opportunity for the Twelve to share their abundance with him. From all that he gives to you you are privileged to give a little back to him. What were the feelings of the Twelve when, as the dusk approached, they finally sat down around Jesus with twelve baskets full of food before them?

Matthew 14:21

21 Now those eating were about five thousand men without women and little children. This parenthetical addition shows exactly what the more indefinite “multitude” and “multitudes” spoken of in the previous verses implies. Mark 6:39, 40 helps us to see just how the count was made. Since the women and the little ones were not counted, we must place the actual figure of those who were fed considerably above 5, 000. The present participle οἱἐσθίοντες (as in 2:20) describes the people according to the progress of the act: “the eaters”; it is not like the aorist which indicates completion (as our versions do).

Matthew 14:22

22 And immediately he compelled the disciples to enter into the boat and to be going on ahead of him to the other side while he dismissed the multitudes. And having dismissed the multitudes, he went up into the mountain privately to pray; and when it was evening, he was there alone. It is John (6:15) who informs us regarding the reason for this hasty compulsion. The multitudes were so affected by this miracle that they were scheming to kidnap Jesus and in triumph to carry him as king to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover now close at hand (John 6:4). The Twelve would have delighted in such a scheme. Therefore Jesus separates them from the multitude and sends them away by themselves, in order soon to give them a new revelation of the kind of King he really is.

The aorist ἐμβῆναι is punctiliar to express the one act of embarking, it is followed by the durative present προάγειν to indicate the journey across the lake. R. 857 regards the former infinitive as constative. “To go ahead of him to the other side” implies that later on Jesus would join the disciples. Mark has, “to the other side towards (πρός) Bethsaida”; while John writes that “they were going to (εἰς) Capernaum,” and that the next day the multitude also went to Capernaum. Bethsaida was merely a suburb of Capernaum, and thus either could be named as the destination.

A one-sided emphasis on the clause introduced by ἕωςοὗ has this imply that Jesus would join the Twelve immediately after dismissing the multitude, and some even charge Jesus with breaking his word by not doing so, or Matthew with writing as though this were the case. But this is answered by the implications made already in the main clause. The Twelve were to go by boat and to the other side and thus ahead of Jesus. That means that he would join them, not at once after being rid of the multitude, but “on the other side,” hence after they would arrive there. How this was done John 6:21 indicates. The ἕωςοὗ clause (here meaning not “until” but “while,” Zahn) states only what prevented Jesus from going along with the disciples in the boat; he must dismiss the multitudes.

Matthew 14:23

23 The serious turn which was now taking place in the affairs of Jesus explains his dismissal of the multitude and his ascent into some lonely spot to spend hours in prayer. On the very next day so many turned away from him that he asked even the Twelve whether they would also go away, John 6:66, etc.; and his reference to Judas being a devil shows that his mind was facing the coming betrayal and crucifixion. The reading φεύγει instead of ἀνεχώρησε, in John 6:15, expresses the fact: he actually fled up into the mountain, alone, by himself. When at last he was where none could find him in the dark he prayed, and the aorist προσεύξασθαι merely states the fact without intimating continuousness. Note that the dismissal of the multitude is mentioned a second time and following it, as in vital connection with it, comes the hurrying away to prayer.

That multitude wanting to make him king was one of Satan’s temptations to Jesus, and the sending these crowds away shows the temptation overcome. And thus the prayer in the dark that stormy night may well have been an outpouring of his heart to the Father for the renewed victory, glorifying the Father by his obedience in facing the cross and interceding for the Twelve and all his disciples that they might not be led away by these false Messianic conceptions. We thus catch just a glimpse of the deep inner life of Jesus. His praying was perfect, pure, and exalted communion with his Father. The genitive absolute, “evening having come,” is the same as in v. 15, but there it marked the beginning of the evening while here we have its end; that “evening” was also divided into a first, “when the day began to decline” (Luke 9:12), and a second, when the shadows began to fall just before darkness.

Matthew 14:24

24 Now the boat was already in the midst of the sea, distressed by the waves, for the wind was contrary. When the disciples started before dark, all was fair and beautiful and, experienced sailors as most of them were, they hoisted sail and expected a pleasant voyage to their destination. But this soon changed. One of those sudden storms, for which this lake is noted, lying, as it does, between high ridges, descended and swept over the water, lashing the waves furiously. The adverb ἤδη looks back to the time Jesus spent in prayer and hence means “already.” The sail had been hurriedly furled, the men took to the oars and held the boat straight against the wind to keep it from being swamped. Matthew says, “the boat was distressed,” literally, “was being put to the test by torture”; Mark, that the disciples “were distressed in rowing.” Both are graphic.

The variant reading: the boat “was many stadia distant from the land,” distressed, etc., may be original. John 6:19 gives the distance as being 25 or 30 stadia, 3⅛ to 3¾ miles, a stadium being one-eighth of a Roman and English mile.But this must not be understood as being a great distance. Only thus far had they come, out into the middle of the lake, and still far from their port. The necessity of holding the boat against the strong wind prevented them from making any appreciable progress.

Matthew 14:25

25 The miracle is told in the briefest and the most restrained manner. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. Matthew and Mark mention the time, to which John, who constantly supplements, adds the distance covered. The first watch is from 6 to 9, the second from 9 to 12, the third from 12 to 3, and thus the fourth from 3 to 6. So many hours the disciples had labored; they must have been at the point of exhaustion. But now, when strength and hope were nearly gone, “he came to them.” One might inquire whether he had walked all the way out from the shore through the storm in the dark, or had suddenly transported himself to the spot where the disciples saw him.

Curious questions deserve no answer, and in Holy Writ receive none. The present participle pictures Jesus’ progress: “walking on the sea.” The wind howled, the waves dashed but affected him not at all. He was not pitched about or tossed up and down; he was not soaked with waves or spray striking him. Before him as he moved his feet a smooth, apparently solid path lay on which he walked as on ordinary ground. He did not move or float in the air as a specter is supposed to do; no unearthly light played around him as painters generally imagine. It was simply Jesus just as they had seen and left him the evening before—but now walking on the storm-tossed sea.

And “he came to them,” πρός, towards. Had they not wished for his presence most ardently during those long hours? Well, here he was! “Toward them” when they were in such danger and distress could mean only one thing: help, deliverance, safety at last. Walking as he did could mean only that he was coming with omnipotent power, one that made the water bear his weight and prevented wind and water from in the least disturbing him. With such power he was now so near.

Matthew 14:26

26 And the disciples, having seen him walking on the sea, were upset, saying, It is a ghost! and they shrieked from fear. It was the walking on the sea, this incredible thing, that caused the fright. Mark adds the fact that “all” saw him, not merely one or two who were, perhaps, inclined to see things and might have been quieted by the rest. They think they see a φάντασμα, an unearthly form, a specter, or ghost. The darkness, the hour of night, the storm and the danger still in full force, the physical exhaustion, all combine to make the disciples give way to the superstitions still lurking in their minds. What would some who now smile at superstition have felt if they had held an oar in that boat?

They are shaken because they think that this unearthly form walking toward them is a sure sign that they are all doomed men. So they shriek aloud, giving expression to their terror (ἀπό).

Matthew 14:27

27 Immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying: Cheer up! It is I! Stop being afraid! The reason they saw Jesus, though it was dark, was because he was only a short distance away. At once he checks their terror. With θαρσεῖτε he calls to them to take courage and to be filled with cheer. “It is I!” furnishes the reason: “I”—not a specter! Away with your superstition! I, your own Lord and Master, whose voice you know so well! The present imperative in prohibitions often, as here, means to stop what one is already doing, i.e., to end it permanently: “stop fearing!” there is no cause for it (R. 851, etc.). The first imperative is positive and is matched by the second, a negative: fear out, cheer and courage in!

Matthew 14:28

28 The word of Jesus had its effect. The astounding reality that it was their own Lord and Master standing out there on the water by the exercise of his divine power penetrated their minds. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it is thou, order me to come to thee upon the waters. And he said, Come! And having stepped down from the boat, he walked on the waters to come to Jesus. From superstitious terror Peter leaps to the opposite extreme, the daring of faith. It is characteristic of him to act thus quickly. Convinced that Jesus actually walked on the water, the thought suddenly flashed into his mind that with Jesus’ consent he, too, could do so.

It is a mistake to read doubt into the conditional clause “if it is thou,” for this is a condition of reality, meaning, “if it is, as indeed it is.” It is added by Peter because a moment ago he and the disciples had other thoughts. The English subjunctive, “if it be thou,” subtracts from the reality. Moreover, Peter wants to express his faith to Jesus, namely that he really believes Jesus is standing out there on the water. He intends to say that he believes this so completely that Jesus can make him, too, walk out to the place where Jesus is on the water. This was true boldness of faith on Peter’s part, that strength of faith which knows and trusts that even natural impossibilities yield before the will, word, and power of Jesus. For note that Peter asks Jesus to command him to come, for only such a command will enable him to do so. And that command implies, when it is acted on by Peter, full faith that trusts that command.

Matthew 14:29

29 Only under those circumstances could Jesus say, “Come!” The faith which Peter manifests Jesus accepts and justifies. If it had not been true faith, or if wrong arid foolish motives had prompted Peter, Jesus would never have given his command. Those who criticize Peter ought to see that their criticism really strikes Jesus who consents to Peter’s proposal. Peter is ready to make up for the cowardice of the superstitious fear he had had a moment ago by the courage of faith which now trusts Jesus’ power enough to walk out to him at his command. We cannot agree that Peter intends to outdo and to outdare the other disciples, to show off his faith before them before the Lord as being greater than theirs as he afterward did when he said, “Although all shall be offended, yet will not I” (26:23). Peter makes no comparison between himself and the rest.

If he had done so even silently, the Lord would never have replied, “Come!” but would have warned and corrected him exactly as he did on the later occasion. The Lord’s “Come!” is the bidding Peter asks, and it is uncalled for to qualify it as Trench does: “Come, if thou wilt; make the experiment, if thou desirest!” This reads something into the simple command that it does not contain.

So Peter went over the side of the boat and walked, actually walked, on the waters in order to go to Jesus. In Jesus’ eyes it was good for the others to see Peter’s faith and its full justification on the part of Jesus. But we must not suppose that the boat still pitched in dire distress and that Peter climbed out onto raging waves. The boat must have lain in the path that extended before Jesus as he had walked and now stood on the water, which was a stretch of calm amid the surrounding tumult. As one of the good sailors among the Twelve, Peter otherwise also could not have forsaken his oar which was necessary in holding the boat on its course.

Matthew 14:30

30 But in looking at the wind he became frightened; and having begun to sink, he yelled, saying, Lord, save me! And immediately Jesus, having stretched out his hand, took hold of him and says, Man of little faith, why didst thou doubt? For a little while Peter regarded the terrific force of the wind, piling up the waves about him far above his head. It is difficult to imagine this if Jesus and Peter were tossed up and down by these waves, their waters dashing over them. Before their feet the waters must have been smooth enough for walking. Peter was not in danger, but fright struck him when he looked at what was threatening all about him, and the thought that he was now away from the boat and that these waves were liable to swallow him at any moment.

In that moment of fright Peter’s faith gave way. He looked at the terrifying wind and forgot Jesus who was only a few paces away. And then he began to sink. The solid water was again becoming fluid under his feet. It is uncalled for to refer to Peter’s ability to swim. The thought of swimming never came to Peter.

When he felt himself sinking, he was afraid that the wind and the waves stirred up by it would engulf him. But this very fear that was due to what his eyes saw and his heart forgot made him instantly remember and turn to Jesus with the cry, “Save me!”

Peter had not overestimated his faith, nor had he wanted to show it off; nor did Jesus want to teach him a lesson by properly humbling him. Jesus never humbles faith but always encourages it. He encouraged that of Peter mightily when he told him to come. The trouble was that, instead of holding to his faith, Peter let go of it. This often happens even to men of strong faith. The things that faith has to overcome are such as, when they are looked at by themselves, are bound to create dismay and depress faith. The will of Jesus made the water solid only for Peter’s faith and only in response to that faith. Thus, when doubt took the place of faith, the water began to return to its natural state.

Matthew 14:31

31 The Lord merely stretched out his hand and took hold of Peter; the genitive αὐτοῦ means that he grasped some part of Peter. With a few quick steps Jesus was at Peter’s side. Not with both hands did he grasp Peter’s body in order to hold him up by main force; only with one hand, only taking hold of him, not lifting his entire weight. The saving for which Peter cried was a physical deliverance out of the engulfing water. The saving Jesus granted him was more, namely this physical deliverance by the spiritual restoration of his faith. At the touch of Jesus’ hand Peter again stood upon the water which held him up as it had done before. To be thus helped by having faith created, restored, increased in us is the most essential and perfect help, even apart from physical succor.

Jesus’ word to Peter is usually regarded as a rebuke. In reality it in a gentle way points out to Peter just what caused his trouble: too little faith when he looked at the wind, and doubt crowding out faith at the thought of danger. “Man of little faith” is intended, as is the plural in 8:26, again to increase that faith. And εἰςτί refers not to cause but to purpose (R. 739). The cause of Peter’s doubting was apparent, but what purpose could he have in doubting (the aorist to indicate the momentary doubt that assailed him) when he knew that Jesus’ call to him to come was intended only for faith and that his ability to walk over the water was wholly dependent on faith? Jesus’ question must ever remain without an answer, for no rational or sensible answer can be given. No believer can ever find the least purpose for doubting, for doubting can have but one result, namely disaster. Every believer’s purpose should be connected solely with his faith, for faith alone and always results in deliverance, safety, and praise of the Lord.

Matthew 14:32

32 And when they had gone up into the boat, the wind stopped, κοπάζειν, to grow tired, to abate. Peter walked to the boat with Jesus and climbed into it. It lay in the calm water that surrounded Jesus. We cannot conceive the boat as pitching up and down and being distressed by the waves. The force of the genitive absolute is temporal: at that moment the wind ceased; not causal: the entering the boat made the wind cease. Yet this sudden stopping of the wind at that moment was evidently not a singular coincidence.

The wind stopped through the will of Jesus. More than that. John 6:21, supplementing Matthew and Mark, adds the detail that immediately the boat was also at its destination—there in the dawning light lay the docks of Capernaum. Now we see why the distance the boat had travelled was mentioned, and why we were told so particularly that it was still in the midst of the sea. He who walked on the sea and enabled Peter to do so caused the storm to cease in an instant and caused the boat to be transferred to its destination. The fact that Matthew and Mark omit the latter detail is the plainest evidence that they are not intent on magnifying the miracles or their miraculous features.

They never overstate but, as in this case, often understate the facts.

Matthew 14:33

33 But those in the boat worshipped him, saying, Thou art truly God’s Son! The Twelve were overwhelmed by the manifestation of the omnipotence of Jesus. They bow before him in the boat by an involuntary act of worship, confessing him as God’s Son. The adverb ἀληθῶς is to be construed with the copula, but its force is that the disciples have for a long time recognized Jesus’ Sonship and now find it confirmed in the strongest manner. The absence of the articles with Θεοῦυἱός does not make this predicate indefinite: “a Son of God,” as though there were other such Sons. With proper names and again with nouns that denote only the one of this kind that exists articles are not needed.

The disciples have in mind the one and only one who can be called “God’s Son.” By this title they declare both who and what Jesus is. It is grammatically untenable to bar out the who and to retain only the what. The absence of the articles stresses the quality, but it does this equally for both nouns. Hence just as Θεοῦ does not mean “of a God,” so υἱός does not mean merely “a Son.” As there is only the one God, so there is only the one Son. More than this, the genitive as such, as is the case where a genitive is added to a noun, makes the noun thus modified definite. “Son” might mean one of a number, but “God’s Son” cannot have this meaning. The context also implies that this divine title is intended to be the direct opposite of mere men or of one who is only a man.

The claim that “God’s Son” is not the same as “Messiah,” and that the miracle here wrought has nothing to do with Christ’s Messiahship, is specious. Who would the true Messiah be but the Son of God? Are not all his miracles a revelation of his omnipotent power over the forces of nature? Furthermore, this miracle was to give the Twelve a true conception of the divine power and majesty of Jesus over against the unworthy conceptions of the multitude that was planning to make him a mere earthly king (John 6:15) even against his will.

Among the other criticisms of Matthew’s narrative we note the claim that Matthew must have had a special collection of stories regarding Peter which he worked into his Gospel. Well, Matthew was in the very boat out of which and into which Peter climbed, and Matthew was not blind.

Again we are told that “God’s Son” was not uttered here in the boat; “the historicity of the words at this point in the life of Jesus” is to be doubted; they voice a much later faith which Matthew “has read back into the story.” But Matthew himself was one of those who prostrated themselves before Jesus and called him God’s Son. And later on this very day Peter, speaking for all the disciples, once more made the same confession, only in ampler form, John 6:68, 69.

Matthew 14:34

34 And having crossed over, they came to the land of Gennesaret. John’s record (6:21 and the following discourse on the Bread of Life) makes it certain that after the storm Jesus and the Twelve landed at Capernaum where the multitude that had been fed so miraculously found him later in the day and heard his discourse and then turned from him. And the argument that this was the Sabbath, since Jesus was in a synagogue, and that this Sabbath must then have been a later day, since on a Sabbath the crowds would not travel the distance from the east side to the west side of the lake, cannot be maintained. The Jews assembled in their synagogues also on Monday and on Thursday. The facts are that Jesus landed at Capernaum and on that day spoke on the Bread of Life and some days later visited Gennesaret. The aorist participle “having crossed over” is quite general and only means that, when Jesus was through in Capernaum, he visited Gennesaret.

This is a triangular plain that lies south of Capernaum and north of Tiberias, which is made by the recession of the mountains. It was praised by Josephus for its fertility. The lake is called the Sea of Gennesaret after it.

Matthew 14:35

35 And when the men of that place recognized him they sent into that entire neighborhood and brought up to him all those that were ill; and they kept beseeching him that they might only touch the tassel of his robe. And as many as did touch it were made well. Why οἱἄνδρες, only the men? Evidently, because some of them had been to Capernaum and perhaps elsewhere and had seen Jesus, which could not be said of the women and the children. The conclusion is correct that this was new territory for Jesus; he had not been here before. This, then, is also a sample of how Jesus withdrew from the center of his great activity and sought out retired and even distant localities.

As soon as he is recognized (R. 827), these people realize their opportunity for healing, send messengers, and from their small territory (about three miles along the lake and two back from the shore) bring up to him all their sick; κακῶςἔχειν is entirely idiomatic (R. 546), for which we use “to be” with an adjective. They collected everyone who had any ailment whatever.

Matthew 14:36

36 They are also so trustful as to the healing power of Jesus that they do not ask him to touch the sick but only to let the sick touch him, namely the κράσπεδον of his robe (explained in 9:20). The ἵνα clause is the object of the verb, it is exactly like an infinitive (R. 993). Mark adds that in every town, village, and even in the country they had the sick ready for him. Jesus consented to this procedure and honored this faith—every touch brought perfect restoration to health. Nothing is said about teaching, for Matthew and Mark intend to record only what was exceptional on this brief tour of Jesus to this little region.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.