Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 9:17
And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.
17. of fragments ] Compare 2Ki 4:43-44. These were collected by the order of Jesus, who thus strikingly taught that wastefulness even of miraculous plenty is entirely alien to the divine administration.
twelve baskets ] Cophini, probably wicker-baskets ( salsilloth, Jer 6:9). Every Jew carried such a basket about with him to avoid the chance of his food contracting any Levitical pollution in heathen places (Juv. Sat. iii. 14, vi. 542). The baskets used at the miracle of the four thousand were large rope-baskets, ‘frails’ ( spurides). The accuracy with which each word is reserved by all the narrators for each miracle is remarkable.
At this point there is a considerable gap in the continuity of St Luke’s narrative. He omits the amazement of the multitude which made it likely that they would seize Jesus to make Him king; His compelling His reluctant disciples to sail back towards the other the western Bethsaida; the gradual dismissal of the multitude; His flight, , Joh 6:15, ) to the hill top to escape those who still lingered, and to pray alone; the gathering of the storm; the walking on the sea; the failure of Peter’s faith; the very memorable discourse at Capernaum, intended to teach what was the true bread from heaven, and to dissipate the material expectations of the popular Messianism; the crisis of offence caused by these hard sayings; the dispute with the Pharisees on the question of the Oral Law or Tradition of the Elders; the deepening opposition and the one great day of conflict and rupture with the Pharisees (which St Luke appears to relate out of chronological order in Luke 11); the flight among the heathen as far as Tyre and Sidon; the incident of the Syrophoenician woman; the feeding of the four thousand; the return to Galilee and demand for a sign; the sailing away, and the warning against the leaven of the Pharisees; and the healing of a blind man at Bethsaida Julias during His second journey northwards. These must be sought for in Mat 24:1 to Mat 26:12; Mar 6:45 viii. 30; John 4. For my view of them, and their sequence, I may perhaps be allowed to refer the reader to my Life of Christ, I. 403-11. 9.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And they did eat, and were all filled,…. Every one had a part, and enough:
and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them, twelve baskets; [See comments on Mt 14:20].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Twelve baskets ( ). For discussion of and as well as of (broken pieces) see on Mark 6:43; Matt 14:20.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Were filled. See on Mt 5:6.
There were taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets [ ] . The Rev. is more accurate, putting the comma after aujtoiv, to them, instead of after klasmatwn, fragments; and making the latter word depend on kofinoi, baskets. Render, therefore, And there was taken up that which remained over to them, of broken pieces, twelve baskets.
Baskets. See on Mt 14:20.
18 – 21. Compare Mt 16:13 – 20. Mr 8:27 – 30.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And they did eat, and were all filled:” (kai ephagon kai echortasthesan pantes) “And they all ate and were satisfied,” all the multitude of many thousands who had sat down in orderly rows of fifty to a row to be fed, Mat 14:20; Mar 6:40; Mar 6:42. The supply of food was limited only by the number of consumers.
2) “And there was taken up,” (kai erthe) “And there were taken up,” gathered up, much as a feeding by Elisha, 2Ki 4:42-44; Eph 3:18-19, Mat 14:20; Joh 6:12; as a visible testimony of our Lord’s feeding the huge crowd in a miraculous manner, and to attest His power, Mar 2:10-11; Joh 3:2.
3) “Of fragments that remained to them,” (to perisseusan autois klasmaton) “The excess of fragments to them,” from the loaves and fishes, the good fish and loave parts remaining, Mat 14:20; Joh 6:12.
4) “Twelve baskets.” (kophinos dodeka) “Twelve baskets,” wicker baskets, or enough to fill twelve baskets, a basket full for each of the twelve apostles, Mar 6:43; Joh 6:13. Even fragments of the poorest of bread, the barley bread, were not to be wasted. The basket was the kind the Jews customarily carried food in while on a journey.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(17) Twelve baskets.See Note on Mat. 14:20.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘And they ate, and were all filled. And there was taken up that which remained over to them of broken pieces, twelve baskets.’
And the result was that from those five loaves and two fishes that great crowd was fed, with twelve basketfuls remaining over and to spare. The ‘twelve’ indicated continued sufficiency for the new Israel. We may compare the jar of meal and the cruse of oil in the time of Elijah, ‘the jar of meal shall not be spent and the cruse of oil shall not fail until the day the Lord sends rain on the earth’ (1Ki 17:14-16). And so it was with the bread and the fishes, they were not spent until all were filled.
The term for ‘basket’ could denote the wicker basket (kophinos) carried regularly by Jews, and for which they were well known, so that they could take their own provisions with them wherever they went, undefiled by the world. Such baskets were indeed a popular joke among Gentiles. From where did the baskets come? They probably belonged to the disciples, although previously being empty. It should be noted that the broken pieces would not have been gathered from the grass. Poor people did not throw away food. What was put in the baskets was what was left over after the distribution. It was gathered so as to be eaten later by the disciples.
One significance of the twelve basketfuls left over was that God’s supply was not only for the present but continued into the future. There was sufficient for the twelve tribes of Israel to go on being fed by Him.
It should be noted that taking the account at face value it is undoubtedly indicating that a remarkable miracle took place. The logistics are expressed in such a way as to bring this out. Whatever explanations others may find, the writers saw this as a miracle of provision. And we may also assume that they saw in it the guarantee that the Lord would from now on ‘feed’ His people. The account appears in all four Gospels, coming from eyewitnesses, and demonstrating how important it was seen to be. Either they were telling lies, or it happened.
Note on Other Explanations.
Necessarily Atheists and Agnostics and those who deny the possibility of miracles cannot accept that it happened like this, but we should note that by doing so they go against the evidence. Rather than accept the truth they weave fairy stories. For in order to give an explanation that is what they have to do, ignore the evidence and what is written, and spin their own threads of gold. For the sake of completeness and to assist those who are troubled by such things we will consider one or two of these explanations.
1). The first is that what happened was that a young boy brought his dinner and gave it to Jesus who then told the disciples to share it with the crowds, and that those in the crowds were so moved by His action and the action of the little boy that they all shared their food that they had brought with them with others (or something similar). It is a nice idea. But it clearly goes contrary to what the four accounts say. And it ignores how long the crowds had already been away from home. They were not out on a picnic. Nor can we understand why if this was what happened a hint of the fact is not supplied by at least one of the eyewitnesses as a wonderful picture of the influence of Jesus. And certainly it would be strange that such a trivial happening as it would then be should be treated as so important by all four Gospel writers.
2). That what happened was that Jesus divided up the loaves into minute amounts which were then given to the crowds as a ‘token Messianic meal’ and that this gave them such an uplift that their hearts were satisfied and they were ‘filled’ and therefore did not for a while notice their hunger. This still requires us to drastically reduce the numbers involved, or increase the food available, and it is also to assume that the ‘meal’ had a significance not made apparent in the first three Gospels. If this was what happened it is strange that the lesson to be drawn from it was totally ignored and that it was interpreted as just physical. It would also leave everyone still hungry and as much in danger of fainting as before.
3). That the story is simply an invention based on what Elijah did in 2Ki 4:42-44. But if this were the case its importance as revealed by its presence in all four Gospels, in different presentations, is inexplicable. There is no avoiding the fact that all four considered the event extremely important and on the whole gave basically the same picture.
End of note.
Up to this point Luke has made constant use of Mark, but now he deliberately omits Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26. This may partly have been because Luke did not want to introduce the clear but rather reluctant movement towards the Gentiles that it contained (especially with regard to the Syro-phoenician woman). For Luke the Gentiles have been in mind from the beginning, and it may be that he did not want any indication of reluctance in the matter. For Luke the major movement towards the Gentiles will come in Acts 10-11. Meanwhile he wants it to be recognised that there has been no bar to them.
But it may also have to do with Luke’s presentation of his material. Having outlined the different indications of Jesus’ ‘other world’ powers, stilling the storm defeating a legion of evil spirits, and raising the dead, he leads on to the preaching of the Apostles going out in the same power and this is then intimately connected with the question, ‘Who is He?’. Who is this One Who does such things and sends out His emissaries to the world in this way? It is the question that is on everyone’s lips. And it a question which puts Him in danger. As with John 6 Luke wants to follow the covenant meal with a recognition of the looming danger of the cross.
So this then results in Jesus privately calling His disciples to one side and results in a unique covenant meal which is deliberately stated to be ‘in the wilderness’, and the question then arises for the second time, but this time more personally to His own followers, ‘Who am I’? And the answer is then given. He is ‘the Christ of God’.
So on the one hand the world is left hanging in the air, while on the other hand the disciples are brought into unique fellowship with Him and then learn the intimate secret of His coming death. In this sequence Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26 would only be an unnecessary intrusion.
But following the covenant meal it is unquestionable that death is in the air. For not only does Jesus begin to prepare His Apostles for His death, but He also gives a clear warning of the possibility of death to all who follow Him. What follows can be interpreted in no other way.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
17 And they did eat, and were all filled: and there was taken up of fragments that remained to them twelve baskets.
Ver. 17. See Trapp on “ Luk 9:13 “
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17. ] . in Matt. is joined with , in Mark with : here it may be taken with . (ordinarily, and De Wette) or . (Meyer), but best, it appears to me, the latter , because the article is not expressed as in Matt.
Immediately after this miracle, Matt., Mark, and John relate the walking on the sea, which, and the whole series of events following as far as Mat 16:12 , the healings in the land of Gennesaret, the discourse about unwashen hands, the Syrophnician woman, the healing of multitudes by the sea of Galilee, the feeding of the 4000, the asking of a sign from Heaven, and the forgetting to take bread, are wholly omitted by our Evangelist. Supposing him to have had Matt. before him, how is this to be explained?
It is also an important observation, that the omission by Luke of the second miracle of feeding is not to be adduced against its historical reality, as has been done by Schleiermacher (transl. p. 144), since it is only omitted as occurring in the midst of a large section, which the accounts gathered by Luke did not contain . We see also, that the characteristic of the first feeding is preserved, without any confusion of terms: being always used in relating and referring to the second, Mat 15:37 ; Mat 16:10 ; Mar 8:8 ; Mar 8:20 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
remained = was over and above. Put a comma after “them”.
baskets. See note on Mat 14:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] . in Matt. is joined with ,-in Mark with : here it may be taken with . (ordinarily, and De Wette) or . (Meyer), but best, it appears to me, the latter,-because the article is not expressed as in Matt.
Immediately after this miracle, Matt., Mark, and John relate the walking on the sea, which, and the whole series of events following as far as Mat 16:12,-the healings in the land of Gennesaret, the discourse about unwashen hands, the Syrophnician woman, the healing of multitudes by the sea of Galilee, the feeding of the 4000, the asking of a sign from Heaven, and the forgetting to take bread,-are wholly omitted by our Evangelist. Supposing him to have had Matt. before him, how is this to be explained?
It is also an important observation, that the omission by Luke of the second miracle of feeding is not to be adduced against its historical reality, as has been done by Schleiermacher (transl. p. 144), since it is only omitted as occurring in the midst of a large section, which the accounts gathered by Luke did not contain. We see also, that the characteristic of the first feeding is preserved, without any confusion of terms: being always used in relating and referring to the second,-Mat 15:37; Mat 16:10; Mar 8:8; Mar 8:20.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
eat: Psa 37:16, Pro 13:25, Mat 14:20, Mat 14:21, Mat 15:37, Mat 15:38, Mar 6:42-44, Mar 8:8, Mar 8:9
were: Psa 107:9
and there: 2Ki 4:44, Mat 16:9, Mat 16:10, Mar 8:19, Mar 8:20, Joh 6:11-13, Phi 4:18, Phi 4:19
Reciprocal: 2Ki 4:43 – They shall eat Psa 146:7 – which giveth food Joh 6:12 – they
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
The twelve baskets of fragments remaining proves that being filled was not imaginary on the part of the multitude.