The Feeding of the Multitude. Mk. regards the disciples-' need of rest after their missionary labours as the occasion for retirement. The hostility of Herod may also have contributed to the decision to withdraw to a desert place. The pressure of the public on the time and energies of the disciple-band is, however, put in the foreground. The eagerness of the crowd defeats the purpose of Jesus. Though He has withdrawn to avoid them. He goes forth to welcome them. To Him they seem like the shepherdless flock described in Ezekiel 34. Their political and religious leaders are worthless, and their first need is teaching. Jesus is touched by the crowd's half-unconscious search for leadership. Mk. preserves (Mark 6:34) his tantalizing silence as to the content of Jesus-' teaching. He is more interested in the care of Jesus for men's physical hunger than in His concern for their spiritual and political dangers. For us the fact that Jesus was moved by compassion to meet both physical and spiritual needs is of great significance. But the story, as it stands, is not easy of acceptance. The resort to miracle here seems to conflict with the story of the first Temptation. Is there adequate occasion for the miracle? And yet a miracle it clearly is to Mk., not a last supper with the crowd nor a sacramental meal. The breaking of the bread is simply Jewish custom, not a peculiar feature of the Last Supper, while the lifting of the eyes to heaven comes into liturgical use from the story and not vice versa (see HNT and Well-hausen). Is it possible that Strauss (Life of Jesus, 1846 ed., i. 80, ii. 422) was justified in tracing the miraculous element in this story to the influence of antecedent expectations regarding the Messiah, such as are reflected in John 6:31? Or has 2 Kings 4:42-44 influenced the passage?
Two points need to be borne in mind. First, we must remember the attitude of Jesus towards hunger as revealed in the companion narrative (Mark 8:2), and in such passages as Mark 5:43; Matthew 6:11; Matthew 25:35. Is it going too far to say that Jesus was peculiarly sensitive to the evil of physical hunger? If so, the conflict with the story of the Temptation may be more apparent than real. He might have satisfied the needs of others by miracle, though He refused to make bread for Himself. Secondly, the Jews and the first Christians did not rigidly distinguish between the world of nature and the world of men. We, to-day, are inclined to believe in miraculous changes where human will and faith directly operate, and rigidly to limit the sphere of such changes. The first Christians were clearly of opinion that their Master, who could heal diseases, could also control nature. They held that famine could not baffle Jesus. This conviction needs to be pondered.
Mark 6:37. The reference to 200 pennyworth of bread is found in John 6, where the green grass is also mentioned. These coincidences deserve study. Does Jn. depend on Mk. or does he independently endorse Mk.? A penny was a labourer's daily wage. The whole sum might be reckoned at about £ 50 of our money. The green grass suggests spring, but does not allow any final deduction as to the time of year.
Mark 6:40. Mk. here uses a curious phrase comparing the companies to garden-beds. The resemblance lies in form, not in colour, since the word refers to vegetables rather than flowers.