Luke 9:16

Luk 9:16 . εὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς , He blessed them (the loaves), and by the blessing made them sufficient for the wants of all. In Mt. and Mk. εὐλόγησεν has no object. This is the only trait added by Lk. to enhance the greatness of the miracle, unless the position of πάντες after ἐχορτάσθησαν be another = they ate and were filled, all ; not merely a matter of each getting a morsel.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3 d. Luk 9:16-17. The Repast.

The pronouncing of a blessing by Jesus is an incident preserved in all four narratives. It must have produced a special impression on all the four witnesses. Each felt that this act contained the secret of the marvellous power displayed on this occasion. To bless God for a little is the way to obtain much. In Matthew and Mark, εὐλόγησε, He blessed, is absolute; the object understood is God. Luke adds αὐτούς, them (the food), a word which the Sinaïticus erases (wrongly, it is clear), in accordance with the two other Syn. It is a kind of sacramental consecration. John uses the word εὐχαριστεῖν, which is chosen, perhaps, not without reference to the name of the later paschal feast (eucharist). — The imperfect ἐδίδου in Luke and Mark is graphic: “He gave, and kept on giving.”

The mention of the fragments indicates the complete satisfaction of their hunger. In John it is Jesus who orders them to be gathered up. This act must therefore be regarded as an expression of filial respect for the gift of the Father.

The twelve baskets are mentioned in all the four narratives. The baskets belonged to the furniture of a caravan. Probably they were what the apostles had provided themselves with when they set out. The number of the persons fed is given by Matthew and Mark here. Luke had mentioned it already in the 14th verse, after the reply of the disciples; John a little later (Luk 9:10), at the moment when the companies were being seated. What unaccountable caprice, if these narratives were taken from each other, or even from the same written source!

The criticism which sets out with the denial of the supernatural is compelled to erase this fact from the history of Jesus; and this miracle cannot, in fact, be explained by the “hidden forces of spontaneity,” by the “charm which a person of fine organization exercises over weak nerves.” It is not possible either to fall back, with some commentators, on the process of vegetation, by supposing here an unusual acceleration of it; we have to deal with bread, not with corn; with cooked fish, not with living creatures. The fact is miraculous, or it is nothing. M. Renan has returned to the ancient interpretation of Paulus: Every one took his little store of provisions from his wallet; they lived on very little. Keim combines with this explanation the mythical interpretation in two ways,—imitation of the O. T. (the manna; Elisha, 2Ki 4:42), and the Christian idea of the multiplication of the Word, the food of the soul. With the explanation of Paulus, it is difficult to conceive what could have excited the enthusiasm of the people to the point of making them instantly resolve to proclaim Jesus as their King! The mythical interpretation has to contend with special difficulties. Four parallel and yet original narratives wonderfully supplementing each other, a number of minute precise details quite incompatible with the nebulous character of a myth (the five loaves and the two fishes, the 5000 persons, the ranks of fifty, and the companies of a hundred, the twelve baskets),—all these details, preserved in four independent and yet harmonious accounts, indicate either a real event or a deliberate invention. But the hypothesis of invention, which Baur so freely applies to the miracles recorded in the fourth Gospel, finds an insurmountable obstacle here in the accounts of the three other evangelists. How is criticism to get out of this network of difficulties? When it has exhausted its ingenuity, it will end by laying down its arms before the holy simplicity of this narrative.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He gave God thanks for these loaves and fishes, and withall prayed him to feed this so great a multitude with so small a quantity, and to be short, that this whole banquet might be to the glory of God.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 16. Then he took the five loaves] A minister of the Gospel, who is employed to feed souls, should imitate this conduct of Christ:

1. He ought to exhort the people to hear with sedate and humble reverence.

2. He should first take the bread of life himself, that he may be strengthened to feed others.

3. He ought frequently to lift his soul to God, in order to draw down the Divine blessing on himself and his hearers.

4. He should break the loaves - divide rightly the word of truth, and give to all such portions as are suited to their capacities and states.

5. What he cannot perform himself, he should endeavour to effect by the ministry of others; employing every promising talent, for the edification of the whole, which he finds among the members of the Church of God. Under such a pastor, the flock of Christ will increase and multiply. See Quesnel.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

16. brake, and gave] The ‘brake’ is in the aorist, and the ‘gave’ in the imperfect, and although it is a useless presumption to enquire into the mode of this most remarkable miracle, these two words give us this detail only,—that it took place between the act of breaking and the continuous distribution. But “Falleret momento visum...Est quod non erat; videtur quod non intelligitur” (Hilary). The marvel lay in the Doer, not in the deed. Aug.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 Gill on Mat 14:20.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

16 Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude.

Ver. 16. {See Trapp on "Luk 9:13"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. Blessed them—It was customary with the Jews at every meal to offer a prayer commencing with the thankful words “Blessed be God.” Hence the Hebrew to bless, which originally had for its object God as the author of the meal, took as its objective case the food itself, and thence arose the phrase to bless the food, or to ask a blessing on the food.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed them, and brake, and gave to the disciples to set before the multitude. The blessing was the usual introduction of a pious Jewish family to a meal. It was pronounced by the head of the household. An ordinary formula was, "May God, the Ever-blessed One, bless what he has given us!" The Jewish barley loaves were broad, thin cakes; these were usually broken, not out hence the expression, "and brake." In SS. Mark and Luke the tense of the verb rendered "gave," in the original Greek, is an imperfect, and signifies, "he gave, and kept on giving." This supplies a hint as to the way of working the miracle. Each disciple kept coming to him for a fresh supply of bread. It was, however, as it has been well said, a miracle of the highest order, one of creative power, and is to us inconceivable. The evangelists make no attempt to explain it. They evidently did not care to ask. They beheld it, and related it to us just as they saw it in its simple grandeur. Neither disciples nor crowds seem at first to have grasped the stupendous nature of the act. St. John tells us of its effect on the crowds, who, when they came to see what had been done, wished to take him by force and make him king. For a brief space they were convinced that in the poor Galilee Rabbi they had found King Messiah none but he could have done this great thing. They were right.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. κατέκλασεν καὶ ἐδίδου. The ‘brake’ is in the aorist and the ‘gave’ in the imperfect, and although it is a useless presumption to inquire into the mode of this most remarkable miracle, these two words give us this detail only,—that it took place between the act of breaking and the continuous distribution. But “Falleret momento visum … Est quod non erat; videtur quod non intelligitur” (Hilary). The marvel lay in the Doer, not in the deed. Aug.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16.] On the symbolic import of the miracle, see notes on Joh_6.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

16. Here Mt. Mk. and Lk. are almost verbatim the same. All three mention the taking the loaves and fishes, the looking up to heaven, the blessing, and the breaking, and the giving to the disciples. For εὐλόγησεν Jn. has εὐχαριστήσας. This blessing or thanksgiving is the usual grace before meat said by the host or the head of the house. The Talmud says that “he who enjoys aught without thanksgiving is as though he robbed God.” We are probably to understand that this blessing is the means of the miracle. Comp. Joh 6:23; and of feeding the four thousand (Mat 15:36; Mar 8:6); and of the eucharist (Mat 26:26; Mar 14:22; Luk 22:17, Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:24). The manner of the miracle cannot be discerned: it is a literal fulfilment of Mat 6:33. Lk. alone mentions that Jesus blessed the loaves, εὐλόγησεν αὐτούς. The preceding articles, τοὺς πέντε ἄρτους καὶ τοὺς δύο ἰχθύας, mean those which had been mentioned before in ver. 13, where the words have no article.

ἐδίδου τοῖς μαθηταῖς. “Continued giving them to the disciples.” The imperf. in the midst of aorists is graphic. Comp. 24:30; Mar 8:6, and contrast 22:19; Mar 14:22.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Brake and gave [κατεκλασενεδιδου] . Note the two tenses, as in Mr 6:41, and see note there.

To set before [παραθειναι] . Lit., to set beside, since the table was at the side of the guest. A common word for serving up a meal. Compare Luk 10:8; Act 16:34. From the sense of placing beside, comes that of putting in charge, committing (Luk 12:48; Luk 23:46; 1Ti 1:18). Hence the kindred noun paraqhkh (2Ti 1:12), a deposit : that which I have committed.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.