Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 16:7
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, [It is] because we have taken no bread.
7. It is because we have taken no bread ] “Neither had they more than one loaf” (Mark). It is possible that Jesus may have employed figurative language even more than was usual with Eastern teachers; certainly this special metaphorical use of leaven was new. See Lightfoot ad loc. Again, the Pharisees had rules of their own as to what kind of leaven it was lawful to use, and what kind it was right to avoid. Hence it was not strange that the disciples should imagine that their Master was laying down similar rules for their guidance.
The error of the disciples was twofold; (1) they took “leaven” in a literal sense, (2) they thought Jesus intended a rebuke to their forgetfulness. The first (1) implied a want of spiritual insight; the second (2) a want of trust.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 7. They reasoned] For, as Lightfoot observes, the term leaven was very rarely used among the Jews to signify doctrine, and therefore the disciples did not immediately apprehend his meaning. In what a lamentable state of blindness is the human mind? Bodily wants are perceived with the utmost readiness, and a supply is sought with all speed. But the necessities of the soul are rarely discovered, though they are more pressing than those of the body, and the supply of them of infinitely more importance.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Ver. 7 And they reasoned among themselves,…. Either what should be the meaning of this caution of Christ’s, and upon what account he should say this to them; or they were anxiously concerned what they should do for provision:
saying, because we have taken no bread; for the phrase, “it is”, is a supplement, and is not in the original text, which confines the sense to the first way of interpretation; the words may be read without it, and confirms the other sense, and which receives strength from what follows.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
They reasoned (). It was pathetic, the almost jejune inability of the disciples to understand the parabolic warning against “the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” (verse 6) after the collision of Christ just before with both parties in Magadan. They kept it up, imperfect tense. It is “loaves” () rather than “bread.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
(7) It is because we have taken no bread.There is a childish navet in their self-questioning which testifies to the absolute originality and truthfulness of the record, and so to the genuineness of the question which follows, and which assumes the reality of the two previous miracles. The train of thought which connected the warning and the fact was probably hardly formulated even in their own minds. It may be that they imagined that as the Pharisee would not eat of bread that had been defiled by the touch of heathen or publican, so their Master forbade them, however great their need, to receive food at the hands of either of the sects that had combined against Him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Because we have taken no bread The uneasiness of the disciples at their oversight in not taking bread confused their minds and filled their thoughts, so that they had no expectation of the Lord’s figurative meaning. This is not strange. They have a material bread to take care of; and the allegorical language of our Lord might easily take them unawares. Besides, as there has been very lately a severe contest between the Pharisees and our Lord, who knows what treachery the sellers of bread among the Pharisees may be guilty of? Perhaps our Lord may be warning us against a poison in the leaven.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And they reasoned among themselves, saying, “We took no bread.” ’
But they misunderstood His words and took them literally. They thought that He also was talking about their having no bread, and so vigorous discussions took place about what they were going to do in order to remedy the situation.
Leaven was the old dough kept back from a previous baking which when put in with the new flour mix ‘leavened’ the whole making it light and airy. Its swift and insidious action was well known. This should have warned them that He was speaking pictorially. For why otherwise should he have spoken of the leaven and not the bread itself? It was bread that they were lacking. Alternatively they might have taken His words as a shorthand expression for leavened bread.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 16:7 f. Owing to the notion of bread being associated in their minds with that of leaven, the words of Jesus led them to notice that their supply of the former article was exhausted, so that they supposed all the time that His object was to warn them against taking bread from the Pharisees and Sadducees.
] not disceptabant (Grotius, Kypke, Kuinoel), but: they consulted among themselves, i.e . they deliberate ( ) over the matter within their own circle without saying anything to Jesus, who, however, from His being able to penetrate their thoughts, is quite aware of what is going on, Mat 16:8 . Comp. Xen. Mem . iii. 5. 1.
] not: recitative , but: (He says that) because we have not provided ourselves with bread . In Mat 16:8 it means: over the fact, that .
.] why , and so on, how meaningless and absurd it is!
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.
Ver. 7. It is because we have taken no bread ] Oh the dulness that is in the best to receive or retain heavenly mysteries! Surely, as owls see best by night, and are blind by day: so in deeds of darkness we are sharp sighted, wise to do evil; but in spirituals we are blinder than beetles, our wits serve us not, we are singularly stupid and stubborn.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7. ] = Mar 8:16 . This is an important parallelism to which I may have occasion to refer again.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 16:7 . : either each man in his own mind (Weiss), or among themselves, apart from the Master (Meyer). may be recitative or = “because”. He gives this warning because, etc.; sense the same. They take the Master to mean: do not buy bread from persons belonging to the obnoxious sects! or rather perhaps: do not take your directions as to the leaven to be used in baking from that quarter. Vide Lightfoot ad loc. Stupid mistake, yet pardonable when we remember the abruptness of the warning and the wide gulf between Master and disciples: He a prophet with prescient eye, seeing the forces of evil at work and what they were leading to; they very commonplace persons lacking insight and foresight. Note the solitariness of Christ.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
7.] = Mar 8:16. This is an important parallelism to which I may have occasion to refer again.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 16:7. , loaves) The mode of living in the family of Jesus was extremely simple and frugal. They thought that they should have to buy bread in the place to which they were now coming, and that there would not be a sufficiency of bread there, which could be ascertained not to have been subjected to the leaven of the Pharisees. Our Lord answers, that even if no other bread could be procured, yet that He would feed them even without the bread of the Pharisees or any of that whole region.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
they: Mar 8:16-18, Mar 9:10, Luk 9:46
It is: Mat 15:16-18, Act 10:14
Reciprocal: Mat 9:4 – knowing Mar 2:6 – and reasoning Luk 20:14 – reasoned
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
16:7
There is no logical connection between literal leaven and these sects as far as the disciples were considering it. But a guilty conscience sometimes interprets an unrelated statement as a rebuke and that is what they did about Christ’s remark.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 16:7. And they reasoned among themselves. In their own hearts and then with each other; not in dispute, but in earnest conversation.
It is because we took no bread. An unspiritual but not altogether unreasonable thought. As Jews they would naturally think about not eating bread with these sects; but this would imply separation from the whole nation, and separate provision for their wants, which they had forgotten. General anxiety about worldly things would follow.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 7
That is they supposed he might have meant that, by taking no supply, they had left themselves dependent, perhaps, upon the Pharisees and Sadducees for bread.