Making Sense of the Disciples’ Misunderstanding of Bread in Mark 6:52 (Part II)
The King’s Banquet in the Wilderness: The Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30–44)
In this first analysis of Mark’s use of bread in chapters 6–8, we will examine the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It is critical that you have read the introduction to this series since it establishes the scriptural framework for understanding the themes and motifs that Mark wove into his narrative.
--
Nota Bene: As a bit of an aside, whenever I quote or reference the Old Testament (OT), it will be from the Septuagint (LXX) rather than the Masoretic Text (MT). Even though I am using the RSV,—unless otherwise noted (KSV)—I “correct” it to the LXX when necessary, which is indicated by brackets [text]. If the Hebrew is pertinent, I will supply it.
--
Each pericope in the series will have my own accompanying translation to highlight prominent features in the text. I include translation notes, which help develop my thesis, and these comments include more technical details. This will then include breaking down the passage based upon the Exodus—the wilderness generation, specifically. It is also important to reiterate that Mark is not reliant on Exodus 16 alone, but he constructed this motif from other places in the Pentateuch and the Psalms.
Even though the heavenly bread is a focal point, it is crucial to remember that Mark is not restricted to just this account for developing his “Neo-Exodus” or “Deutero-Exodus” (New/Second-Exodus)—to give it a label. It is the nucleus of this typology, but, as we will explore, Mark was reliant on other accounts concerning the Exodus, which helped formulate this wilderness subtext in Mark 6–8 where characters are meant to be seen as a new/second wilderness generation. Now, as for which figure parallels Jesus,—Moses or God—that is to be developed and analyzed.
Enjoy.
Translation of Mark 6:30–44 | The Feeding of the Five Thousand
The Crowd Forms as Sheep without a Shepherd
|30|1 And the apostles2 returned to Jesus, and they reported to him everything3—as much as they did and as much as they taught. |31| And he said4 to them, “Come yourselves alone5 to a wilderness6 place and rest for a short while.” For those coming and going were many, and they had not the time to eat.
|32| And they went away in a boat to a wilderness place alone. |33| And many saw them as they were departing and recognized them, and they ran by foot from all the cities there and arrived before them.
|34| And after he disembarked he saw a large crowd, and he had compassion7 on them because they were like sheep who had no shepherd, and he began to teach them many things.8
The Need for Sustenance, Bread & Fish
|35| And when the hour grew rather late, his disciples approached him and were saying, “The place is the wilderness,9 and the hour is rather late. |36| Release them so that they might depart to the surrounding farms and villages and purchase for themselves something to eat.”
|37| And when he responded he said to them, “You10 give them something to eat.”
And they said to him, “Shall we depart11 and purchase two-hundred denarii worth of12 bread and give13 them something14 to eat?”
|38| And he said to them, “How much bread15 do you have? Go and see.”
And upon ascertaining16 the amount, they said, “five loaves of bread,17 and two fish.”
The Banquet in the Wilderness—Bread from Heaven
|39| And he commanded them18 to recline (at table)19 all in parties20 upon the green grass. |40| And they sat reclined (at table),21 group by group, by one-hundred and by fifty. |41| And he took the five loaves of bread and the two fish, looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the bread, and gave22 it to [his] disciples so that they might set it before them, and the two fish he divided to all.
|42| And all ate and were satisfied. |43| And they took up the broken pieces (of bread)23 and from the fish—twelve baskets worth.24 |44| And those who ate [the bread] were five thousand men.
Introduction
Upon first reading this narrative, there may seem to be only an opaque allusion to the manna from heaven account in Exodus 16—the reliance is far more explicit in John’s account (6:1–59).25 That said, this is the first pericope that displays the wilderness generation and establishes the typology through Mark 8.
The narrative is contingent on a juxtaposition of “kings” who have had a royal banquet.26 In this first story (6:14–29),—the previous narrative—Herod Antipas, the “king”27 (βασιλεὺς, basileus, v. 14) of Galilee, celebrates his birthday by serving John the Baptist’s head on a platter for his guests. In the second,—the Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30–44)—Jesus, the implied replacement king,28 provides his guests with a miraculous feast of bread and fish.29 The story of Herod’s celebration does not play into the Exodus motif directly, but it is critical for the heavenly bread account. The audience is meant to draw a comparison between Herod and Jesus and their banquets:
Notes on Graph30
The contrast with Herod will play a role in relation to the Feeding of the Five Thousand, and the pericope’s importance lies precisely in this incongruous parallelism.
In turn, the wondrous feeding is fundamental for establishing the wilderness generation framework in chapters 6–8.31 This motif takes shape around many of the elements that were discussed in the introductory entry, but there are two narrative details that are paramount in constructing the foundation for this typology: the crowd’s need for bread (ἄρτος) in the wilderness—resulting in satisfaction—and the crowd described as sheep without a shepherd (6:34).
The Wilderness Generation, a People without a Shepherd
The episode begins with Jesus retreating to a deserted place, not coincidentally, the wilderness (εἰς ἔρημον τόπον, vv. 31 and 32)—a location evoking the place of Israel’s 40-year sojourn32—for the purpose that he and his disciples might rest (ἀναπαύσασθε, v. 31) since the apostles have just returned from their independent ministerial work (6:7–13).33 Contained in vv. 31–32 are a number of features that establish the Deutero-Exodus in Mark 6–8.
Establishing the Wilderness Setting
First, “the wilderness” is commonly used in relation to the Exodus, specifically the location of where the fleeing Hebrews wandered before and after arriving at the Promised Land (e.g., Exod 16:2, 10; Num 14:22; Ps 78 [77]:19, 40; Ps 106 [105]:14). Each of these formative verses for Mark mention the wilderness, which helps construct the basis for the typology. The wilderness is where God sent heavenly bread to satisfy his people; where the Hebrews tested God; and where the Lord’s people saw signs and wonders. Mark adds “place” to the phrase rather than just stating “wilderness,” but this certainly does not disrupt the allusion. Afterall, ἐρῆμος (erēmos) is technically an adjective that can be used substantively—as in Exod 16:2—so its pairing with “place” is understandable. This alone is insufficient for proving Mark is working within this framework, but the word is repeated 3 times in this pericope (vv. 31, 32, 35), which indicates its significance.34
That said, the psalms help solidify this resonance. The author of Psalm 95 (94) exhorts his readers to worship and pay homage to the Lord, and the psalmist specifically appeals to the wilderness generation—an important parallel for later in Mark. In the closing lines, the psalmist claims that due to the Hebrews’ insubordination, God would not allow this generation to enter the Land of Promise, his rest:
Therefore I swore in my anger
that they should not enter my rest (LXX: κατάπαυσίν μου). (Ps 95 [94]:11, RSV)
Jesus wished to go to a wilderness place to rest (ἀναπαύσασθε, Mark 6:31), and the wilderness generation were not allowed to enter God’s place of rest (κατάπαυσίν), i.e., the Promised Land, because of their sin in the wilderness (cp. Ps 95 [94]:8). There are a few linguistic hangups here,35 but these differences ultimately do not shatter the lexical connection, since the root of both words is παυ- (pau-).36 The disciples have also just returned from their own missional journeys, which is arguably akin to the 12 spies sent out to explore Canaan (Num 13:1–33; Deut 1:22–40). That said, both the wilderness generation and Jesus are denied their rest. Jesus’s desire is thwarted because the crowd arrived before him (v. 33), and the wilderness generation is denied their rest due to a lack of faith—specifically, hardened hearts. Ultimately, both groups remain in the wilderness.
Although the wilderness setting is clear, currently the Exodus image is murky and out of focus. The narrative will provide ample connections, but these initial aspects prepare the reader for what follows. Mark has planted the typological seed.
Sheep without a Shepherd
Once Jesus and his followers have retreated for their wilderness seclusion—to rest—word spreads of Jesus’ movement. And so, the crowds congregate at the site. When Jesus sees the crowds, he tellingly likens the people to “sheep who [have] no shepherd” (v. 34), a reference to a common leadership metaphor in the Old Testament. This phrase underscores why the previous pericope is critical for the miraculous feeding—the comparison of kings. In this statement, there are crucial parallels because God, kings, leaders, and messianic figures37—even Gentiles—could all be described as shepherds and the people as sheep:38
God: Ps 23 (22):1; Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:11–16
Kings/Leaders/Messiahs: Num 27:12–14; 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7; 1 Kings 22:17//2 Chron 18:16; 1 Chron 17:6; Ps 78:71; Nah 3:18; Zech 13:7; Ezek 34:23
Only People as Sheep: Ps 95:7; Ps 100:3; Isa 53:6
--
Cyrus the Great: Isa 44:28
Holofernes (Assyrian general): Jdth 11:19
There is a blending of shepherding metaphors in the OT, for both God and men can lead the people as a shepherd. In the case of Ezekiel 34, God is first referenced as the shepherd (v. 15), and then later in the same chapter, a davidic figure will act in his place as a shepherd (v. 23).
To add further credence to the proposition above concerning rest being associated with Psalm 95 (94), v. 7 reads,
For he is our God,
and we are the people of his pasture,
and the sheep of his hand.
O that today you would hearken to his voice!39 (RSV)
In this one psalm, there are critical features that are paramount not only for the Feeding of the Five Thousand,—the wilderness (v. 8), rest (v. 11), and shepherding (v. 7)—but also for future themes in later pericopes—hardened hearts (v. 8) and testing God (v. 9). Since Psalm 95 (94) plays a significant role in developing the Wilderness Generation undercurrent for Mark 6–8, its presence here is not out of the question. That said, it is less likely that Psalm 95 (94) is the foundation for the shepherding metaphor here,—there are numerous potential passages—but it is worth noting the consistency of characteristics.
From this one line of Jesus’s inner dialogue, there are a number of echoes that will help solidify the wilderness theme.40
Moses Deposed, the Sheep Will Not Be Without a Shepherd (Numbers 27)
The first and strongest allusion is to Moses and the wilderness generation.41 In Numbers, the congregation will lack a shepherd because of Moses’s sin at Meribah—a name to remember—(Num 27:12–14; cp. coincidentally Ps 95 [94]:8).42 God, in turn, selects Joshua to be Moses’s successor, ensuring that the congregation will have a shepherd to lead them into the Land of Canaan:
καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἡ συναγωγὴ κυρίου ὡσεὶ πρόβατα, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν.
And the congregation of the Lord will not be as if (they are) sheep, to whom there is no shepherd. (Num 27:17, KSV)
ὅτι ἦσαν ὡς πρόβατα μὴ ἔχοντα ποιμένα
because they were like sheep who had no shepherd (Mark 6:34, KSV)
Similarly, Mark’s previous story presents Herod as a sinful, inadequate king; he breaks Jewish Law with his illicit marriage and murders John the Baptist.43 This reference to the people as sheep without a shepherd is meant to be a tacit indication that—in Mark’s mind—Herod is not fit to be their king, and a new leader is required. In the feeding that follows Herod’s birthday bash, Jesus miraculously multiplies bread to feed the crowd,44 which is meant to be viewed in contradistinction to what was served on a platter by Herod: a human head.45 Jesus fills the power vacuum, providing for his people as the new shepherd.46
God as the Shepherd of the Wilderness Generation (Psalm 78)
Moses is the shepherd of the wilderness generation in Numbers 27, but the Lord is commonly the sojourners’ shepherd in the psalms. In Psalm 78 (77), the author implies God is the shepherd and designates the wilderness generation as his sheep:
καὶ ἀπῆρεν ὡς πρόβατα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἀνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ποίμνιον ἐν ἐρήμῳ.
And he led his people away [from Egypt] like sheep,
and led them like a flock in the wilderness. (Ps 78 [77]:52, KSV)
Psalm 78 (77) will continually be referenced in Mark 6–8, so it is probable that it may be lurking behind the miraculous feeding of the five thousand. Although the wording is more similar to Numbers 27, the thematic appeal is significant. That said, the phrase “like sheep” (ὡς πρόβατα) resembles Mark, and the emphasis of the wilderness certainly gels with the Gospel’s account.
Should Psalm 78 (77) also be underlying the narrative, this leads to a typological complication: is Jesus likened to Moses or the Lord as the implied shepherd? Mark does not make a clear, definitive indication in this scene, but he certainly plays with the ambiguity. The most probable parallel, though, is with Moses, since Mark intentionally contrasted Herod and Jesus.
This resonance is not as solid as that from Numbers,—seeing as the previous resembles Mark both lexically and syntactically—but Psalm 78 (77) should not be discarded as a potential influence. Even if Mark does not have the psalm particularly in mind, it certainly does fit the tone of the passage, especially as Psalm 78 (77) becomes more prominent later.
The Deposed King of Israel, the Sheep that Have No Shepherd (1 Kings 22)
The third and final passage is 1 Kings 22—a narrative concerning a prophet, Micaiah, and a wicked king, Ahab. Ahab, the king of Israel, wishes to engage in battle along with Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, against the king of Aram. Prior to this conflict, Ahab seeks counsel from his prophets, who all agree Israel and Judah will be victorious in their conquest, but the prophet Micaiah objects, stating,
I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd (ὡς ποίμνιον, ᾧ οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν); and the Lord said, “These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.” (1 Kings 22:17, RSV)
Ahab rejects Micaiah’s message, which results in his own death, leaving the people without a shepherd. The parallel with Herod in the previous pericope is quite intriguing since the narrative implies that he is an insufficient king and must be replaced.47 Although Herod does not die within the narrative of Mark’s Gospel, the implication that Jesus will replace him—albeit ironically in the story with Jesus enthroned on the cross—is revealed through the parallelism of the two accounts.48
The choice between Numbers and 1 Kings is cumbersome, and the latter passage may even be dependent on the former. As M. Cogan notes,
Implied in Micaiah’s words is Ahab’s neglect of his people, since “shepherding” was the task of the righteous king (cf. 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7). Here it was Israel’s army that was destined to become the proverbial leaderless flock; cf., e.g., Num 27:17; Jer 23:1–2; Ezek 34:1–6; Zech 13:7; and the same image in a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian proverb collection: “A people without a king (is like) sheep without a shepherd” (Lambert 1960, 232, iv 14–15).49
The frequency of this imagery—a leaderless Israel expressed through shepherding metaphors—truly complicates the line in the Second Gospel.50 Suffice it to say, the thrust of Jesus’s internal dialogue is apparent, but narrowing down the exact reference is troublesome.51 In order to establish the probable reference, the surrounding context must be analyzed. Considering the amount of Exodus imagery in the narrative, it would seem most probably that Numbers 27 has the strongest resonance. Joel Marcus remarks concerning the shepherding allusion,
As Levenson points out, moreover (Death, 144), in the OT and later Jewish traditions, “two shepherds in particular, Moses and David, are noteworthy for the transition they made from the literal to the metaphorical forms of their vocation” (see e.g. Ps 78:70–72 and Exod. Rab. 2.2–3). Our passage thus strengthens the impression that Jesus is both the Davidic Messiah (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:23–46, in which the Messiah is termed a shepherd) and a Mosaic figure.52
In his mind—and I agree—there is a conflation of the two figures with an emphasis on the Mosaic here; Jesus is meant to be seen as both a davidic messiah and a Second Moses.
Additionally, there certainly may well be a confluence of ideas wrapped up into this one statement, for Mark dabbles in all of these themes throughout the Gospel: the wilderness generation, messianic expectations, and Jesus as a (davidic) king. The takeaway from this phrase is that the people are without a leader,—a king—and this power vacancy must be filled. Thus, Jesus is the tacit answer to this narrative problem.
The Wilderness Banquet
The stage has been set for the miraculous feeding. The scene is the wilderness; the protagonist is Jesus as the shepherd, Moses/God(?); and the actors are those in the crowd as sheep, the sojourning Hebrews. In order to assess the parallels with the Exodus, key features of the manna from heaven account (Exodus 16) must be established,53 then the assessment of the feeding of the five thousand can commence.
Manna from Heaven (Exodus 16)
At the outset of the Exodus story, the Israelites, who have just fled from Egypt, complain about their hunger:
If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots and ate our fill of bread (ἄρτους εἰς πλησμονήν); for you have brought us out into the wilderness (εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ταύτην) to kill this whole assembly with hunger (ἐν λιμῷ). (Exod 16:3, RSV)
In response, God tells Moses that he intends “to rain bread from heaven (ἄρτους ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ)” (16:4) so they might see “the glory of the Lord (δόξαν κυρίου)” (16:7) and “know that [He is] the Lord [their] God (ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν)” (16:12). At the end of the scene, the Israelites receive their “bread in full” (ἄρτους εἰς πλησμονήν)” (16:12)—a fulfillment of their complaint in 16:3—with every person gathering “as much as [each] needed” (16:18).
The event is meant to be revelatory of who God is; it is a display of his glory. The people are to know who he is based on this miraculous feeding. Not coincidentally, the sequence of events in Mark is similar: Jesus acknowledges the crowd’s hunger and feeds them miraculous bread, which is then followed by a revelatory, theophanic event—Jesus walking on water. As such, there are 4 critical details, which will play a significant role in the feeding of the five thousand:
The Wilderness (location)
Bread (from heaven)
The people having their fill (satisfaction)
Revelation of Glory (that YHWH is their God)
The Feeding of the Five Thousand and the Wilderness Generation
In Mark 6:35–36, Jesus registers the crowd’s hunger,—after teaching for some time—and his disciples tell him:
|35| “The place is the wilderness, and the hour is rather late. |36| Release them so that they might depart to the surrounding farms and villages and purchase for themselves something to eat.”
The wilderness setting is once again established by the disciples’ statement. Jesus responds instructing them to feed the crowd themselves, but they state that it would be prohibitively costly to supply enough bread (ἄρτους) to satiate this massive group (6:37). Jesus disregards their rebuttal and instructs the disciples to collect the food that is available—5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. The amount is clearly insufficient to fill such a large crowd, reminiscent of the lack in the wilderness during the Exodus.
Jesus then, takes the five loaves of bread (ἄρτους) and the two fish54 and looks up to heaven (οὐρανόν) before blessing (εὐλόγησεν), breaking (κατέκλασεν), and distributing the bread via the disciples (v. 41). The fish are almost an afterthought in the feeding since Jesus performs no special action associated with them—“...and the two fish he divided to all” (v. 41b).
Now, the wilderness setting has been well-established. As for the heavenly bread, there needs to be a more detailed analysis.
Numeric Symbology and the Bread
First, numeric symbology is a common literary device in the NT, and it appears to be here in this narrative. The number of leftover baskets—12—is significant,55 per Jesus (8:14–21), but the amount of bread is certainly critical, too. The number is most probably representative of the Pentateuch,—the first five books of the Torah—which could reflect Mosaic Law, especially when coupled with Jesus’s teaching.56 This fits within the framework of a Neo-/Deutero-Exodus in Mark 6–8, especially when there will be a discussion of Law later (7:1–23). Additionally, it further highlights the Moses typology, that Jesus is to be viewed as a second Moses.
Looking up to Heaven, the Source of the Bread
Although not direct, Jesus shifting his gaze heavenward is significant, since that is the source of the Israelites’ miraculous bread in the wilderness—“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you...’” (Exod 16:3).57 This connection, albeit subtle, is a detail that furthers the association.58 Additionally, since manna is described elsewhere as “heavenly bread” (e.g., Ps 78 [77]:24; 105 [104]:40b, ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ), the detail is significant. Seldom does Mark beat the reader upside the head with his intertextuality, so Jesus’s shift in gaze furtively suggests the source of the miracle, a tacit connection with Exodus 16.
Prayer for Heavenly Bread
It is also worth noting that Moses performs no such action of prayer or blessing just prior to the advent of life-sustaining bread. Moses instructs Aaron to tell the people that the Lord is going to provide them bread, and then it just happens:
|14| And when the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness (ἐρήμου) a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. |15| When the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them, “It is the bread (ἄρτος) which the Lord has given you to eat...” (Exod 16:14–15)
As such, there is not a clear association between Jesus’s actions and Moses’s—or God’s for that matter. If we look elsewhere, though, Josephus may provide an interesting parallel. In his Antiquities of the Jews—a retelling of Jewish history—Josephus recounts that Moses is marginally more involved in the descent of the bread:
ἀνέχοντος γὰρ τοῦ Μωυσέος τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ ταῖς εὐχαῖς δρόσος κατηνέχθη
For, after Moses lifted up his hands in prayer, the dew descended... (Ant. 3.1.6, KSV)
Although there is no lexical connection with Josephus,—Mark was most probably written prior to Josephus’s Antiquities—this development in the story may have been circulating in the literary history of first century Judaism. It is impossible for us to ascertain if this was purely an invention by Josephus, but it would not be preposterous to assume such a development had occurred.
The Wilderness Crowd’s Satisfaction
So, after the crowd had consumed their bread and fish, the narrative notes that all were satisfied (v. 42), which is a thematic connection with Exodus 16 rather than lexical:
καὶ ἠσθίομεν ἄρτους εἰς πλησμονήν
...and we ate our bread in full (Exod 16:3)
καὶ τὸ πρωὶ πλησθήσεσθε ἄρτων
...and in the morning you will be filled with bread (Exod 16:12)
καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν
...and all ate and were satisfied (Mark 6:42)
The wilderness generation was filled, but here the wilderness crowd is satisfied. Be that as it may, the associations are mounting: The wilderness has been established, the people have been provided bread from heaven,59 and the crowd has been filled/satisfied.
Additionally, though not in association with Exodus 16 but Numbers 27, Jesus established himself as the shepherd of this people with his heavenly feeding, for he supplies for the people whereas Herod is incapable.
Psalm 78 (77) & the Feeding of the Five Thousand
This final section will serve more as a foundation for later developments in Mark because the resonances are not as crisp in the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Mark certainly knew Psalm 78 (77), considering what role it will play in later chapters. There are many intriguing parallels that exist with this psalm, so that will be the focus here. The purpose of this exploration is to note thematic congruences rather than narrative dependence. I believe Mark is working with Psalm 78 (77) throughout chapters 6–8, but it is rather subtle in this pericope.
Reclining at Table in the Wilderness
Now, in conjunction with Numbers and Exodus, Mark constructed the wilderness thematic framework around Psalm 78 (77).60 The psalmist describes the history of Israel, emphasizing the “stubborn and rebellious generation” (v. 8) cursed to wander in the wilderness for their insubordination. The manna from heaven event is recounted in vv. 18–25, and vv. 18–20 are particularly vital for Jesus’ miraculous feeding:
They tested (ἐξεπείρασαν) God in their heart by demanding the food (βρώματα) they craved. They spoke against God, saying, “Can God [prepare] a table in the wilderness (ἑτοιμάσαι τράπεζαν ἐν ἐρήμῳ)?…
...μὴ καὶ ἄρτον δύναται δοῦναι ἢ ἑτοιμάσαι τράπεζαν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ;61
…Can he also give bread or [prepare a table] for his people?
The psalmist expresses how these acerbic inquiries led the Lord to anger for their lack of faith, yet he supplied the people with “[bread from] heaven” (ἄρτονοὐρανοῦ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, v. 24) so that this generation would not starve.62 Now, obviously there is no table set in the wilderness for the wandering Hebrews, but it is a poetic expression for the doubt the people had.
In the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus has correspondingly prepared a metaphorical table63 for the people in the wilderness by supplying them bread (ἄρτον) from heaven. Like in Psalm 78 (77), there is no physical table that Jesus has prepared for the people. That said, the way the scene is described prior to the blessing, breaking, and consumption of bread is significant:
καὶ ἐπέταξεν αὐτοῖς ἀνακλῖναι πάντας συμπόσια συμπόσια ἐπὶ τῷ χλωρῷ χόρτῳ. καὶ ἀνέπεσαν πρασιαὶ πρασιαὶ κατὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ κατὰ πεντήκοντα
|39| And he commanded them to recline (at table) all in parties upon the green grass. |40| And they sat reclined (at table), group by group, by one-hundred and by fifty.
A fuller discussion of these facets will come when discussing the Feeding of the Four Thousand (8:1–10), but I will make a few preliminary notes. First, the words used for “recline,” ἀνακλίνω (anaklinо̄) and ἀναπίπτω (anapiptо̄), are translated above a bit awkwardly, “to recline at table” and “sat reclined at table,” to underscore the implication of these words.64 They both have a sense of sitting down for a meal; the words can have a more weighted meaning than just “reclining” as one would in a park or on a university quad—see the notes on the provided translation.65
Secondly, the word for “in parties,” συμπόσιον (sumposion), is a loan word in English: “symposium,” a drinking party.66 The term can also be employed to indicate a “party” or “banquet,” i.e., a meal.67 In these three words, the author chose to convey a theme that will later develop in the Gospel, anticipating another meal in the wilderness and a final meal where a table is prepared and bread would also be broken—the Last Supper (14:12–25).68
Be that as it may, there is not conclusive evidence in the text that shows reliance on Psalm 78 (77). There is a thematic similarity, though, since both imply a banquet-type setting rather than dining in the wilderness. There is added credence to this point considering how the previous narrative describes Herod’s own dinner party, and the reader is meant to contrast the two events:
Καὶ γενομένης ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου ὅτε Ἡρῴδης τοῖς γενεσίοις αὐτοῦ δεῖπνον ἐποίησεν...
But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet/[dinner]... (Mark 6:21, RSV)
καὶ εἰσελθούσης τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος καὶ ὀρχησαμένης ἤρεσεν τῷ Ἡρῴδῃ καὶ τοῖς συνανακειμένοις.
For when Herodias’ daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and [those reclining (at table)]. (Mark 6:22, RSV)
The combination of dinner/banquet with the guests described as those reclining at table (συνανακειμένοις, sunanakeimenois) here underscores the wilderness banquet in the Feeding of the Five Thousand. Although the word in 6:22 for “reclining at table” differs from those in the heavenly bread account, they are all synonyms.69 This miraculous feeding is more than a desert picnic; it is a banquet in the wilderness. Again, this point will be developed in a later entry, so this will do for laying the foundation of the thought.
The Shepherds of Pss 23 (22) & 78 (77) | Sitting upon Green Grass and Preparing Tables
As for the “green grass” upon which they reclined, Boring notes a potential parallel with another shepherd,
Thus the shepherd of Ps 23, as understood in some streams of first-century Judaism, is the eschatological shepherd who will give ultimate “rest” (cf. the sought rest of v. 35 above and Heb 4:1–11), will lead in paths of righteousness by his teaching of Torah, will make the people recline on the green grass, and will prepare a table, that is, celebrate the eschatological banquet in the wilderness.70
Psalm 23 (22) resonates with Psalm 78 (77) since both contain shepherding metaphors (78 [77]:52). In fact, Mark is likely envisioning a conflation of the ideas. Psalm 23 assists with the shepherding of an eschatological figure—Messiah—that will come, teach the people, and have them recline on green grass (εἰς τόπον χλόης, ἐκεῖ με κατεσκήνωσεν, Ps 23 [22]:2a). There are images of a banquet, too,— “he prepared a table before me” (ἡτοίμασας ἐνώπιόν μου τράπεζαν, Ps 23 [22]:5a)—which helps develop the connection with Psalm 78 (77), for there a banquet is had in the wilderness for God’s wandering people. The image is a bit imprecise since the wilderness banquet in Mark lacks “enemies,”—they will arrive later in the narrative—but the resonance is not jarring. The author of the Gospel is blending images to create his Deutero-Exodus with the Christ.
Furthermore, this must be the case to some extent. If one believes the “green grass,” et al. here echoes Psalm 23 (22), then one must agree that there is a combination of allusions in the event. Mark in 6:3 is loosely quoting something, and minimally one has to choose between Num 27:17 and 1 Kings 22:17.71 But, I believe Mark is able to have multiple themes and motifs working in tandem. The shepherd imagery is established in 6:34, looking back to Herod (1 Kings 22), yet it also applies to the present narrative (Numbers 27). The typology can then anticipate 6:39 with a Psalm 23 (22) resonance.
It may appear to be a stretch at first, but what precludes an author from doing this? Too often commentators list possible allusions, yet will not settle on a singular citation. The blending of images here illustrates that multiple OT passages are in play in order to support simultaneously developing themes and ideas. Mark’s conflated shepherding image is not restricted to one passage, nor is it restricted to one typological shepherd—he appeals to davidic, eschatologically messianic, and divine shepherds here and throughout.
Both psalms, additionally, contain the preparation of a table, which will have strong similarities later (Mark 7:24–30; 14:12–25). So, the reader is not required to pick one psalm over another, when both are likely influencing the author’s depiction of the scene.72 These echoes with Psalm 78 (77) are not as prominent in the feeding of the five thousand,—more like whispers—but these aspects will become pronounced when discussing the rebellious generation more fully.
Bread and Satisfaction
The connection with bread is obvious, but Jesus has also satisfied73 the crowd just like when God “sent them [provisions] (ἐπισιτισμόν) in [full] (εἰς πλησμονήν)” (Ps 78 [77]:25).74 This has a clear resonance with Exod 16:3—for the psalm, both thematically and lexically. In the end, the crowd and the wilderness generation eat and are satisfied/filled:
καὶ ἐφάγοσαν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθησαν σφόδρα.
And they ate and were well filled. (Ps 78 [77]:29a)
καὶ ἠσθίομεν ἄρτους εἰς πλησμονήν
...and we ate our bread in full (Exod 16:3)
καὶ τὸ πρωὶ πλησθήσεσθε ἄρτων
...and in the morning you will be filled with bread (Exod 16:12)
καὶ ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ ἐνέπλησεν αὐτούς·
...and he filled them with bread from heaven. (Ps 105 [104]:40b)
καὶ ἔφαγον πάντες καὶ ἐχορτάσθησαν.
And all ate and were satisfied.75 (Mark 6:42)
An exact lexical association is not necessary to draw connections between Mark, Exodus, and the psalms.76 The lexical consistency in Exodus (16:3, 12) and the Psalms (78 [77]:29a; 105 [104]:40) makes the connection seem less plausible, but this feature should not be taken on its own. The compounding support of other themes and lexical ties to the Exodus bolster the claim that Mark is working within this constructed motif.
A Final Reflection on the Shepherding Metaphor—Moses or God?
In turn, the final detail in Mark 6 that relies on Psalm 78 (77) concerns v. 52:
καὶ ἀπῆρεν ὡς πρόβατα τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ
καὶ ἀνήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ποίμνιον ἐν ἐρήμῳ
Then [God] led out his people like sheep,
and guided them in the wilderness like a flock
If dependent on Psalm 78 (77), Mark has likened Jesus to God; both supply satisfying bread for his wilderness people and lead them as if they were sheep. Yet, as discussed above concerning Mark 6:34 and its likely reliance on Num 27:17, this pentateuchal association could simultaneously be echoing in the text—so, Mark has likened Jesus to Moses. Which figure, then, is it?
This is the great difficulty of determining what influenced Mark. For our current plight, Psalm 78 (77) is potentially dependent on Number 27 for this shepherding metaphor,—though, if that is the case, the shepherd has shifted from Moses to God—and Mark is most assuredly well acquainted with both texts. It is not out of the realm of possibility for him to have appealed to both throughout the narrative. This does not resolve the predicament, but it does reveal how Mark used the Hebrew Bible.
The interconnected nature of the Exodus texts that we have explored assists in establishing this base in Mark 6–8. As we explore the remaining pericopes, it will become more and more apparent that Mark constructed his narrative on these features. As of now, the foundational narrative is unclear, which leaves the reader with a blurry image,—like trees walking (Mark 8:24)—but as Jesus’s journey continues through chapter 8, the picture comes into focus, especially since Jesus cryptically details what he these aspects signify (8:14–21).
Conclusion | Establishment of the Wilderness Generation in Mark 6–8
The scene has been set to anticipate the parallels that follow; Jesus is cast as a confused amalgamation of both God77 and Moses and the crowd as the wilderness generation. In Exodus, the supernatural gift of bread reveals the glory of YHWH, the God who delivered them out of Egypt. In Mark, Jesus’s supernatural supplement of bread is a disclosure of a similar kind; it is a tacit revelation of Jesus’s divine power.78 This casting will become exceedingly more apparent in the pericope that follows, even if Mark does not spell this out explicitly.
But, at what point do numerous coincidences convince the reader that an actual echo is present in the text? Each of these verbal and thematic resonances taken individually might leave one skeptical, but when viewed holistically, it becomes apparent that Mark is working with this constructed motif.
It should not be shocking that the Second Evangelist has blended various OT texts to create his messianic typology. Mark wants people to see Jesus as this divine-empowered, Moses-like figure who is also the coming king and eschatological, davidic shepherd of a new wilderness generation.79 All these features are contained in this one pericope, and he achieved this end by referencing or alluding to multifarious stories, texts, and traditions—some of which we certainly have no record.80 If the reader needs a smoking gun to conclude what the author has done, then you will be sorely disappointed because that is not how Mark operates.
Key Features of the Wilderness Generation in the Wilderness Banquet
In turn, the picture of the wilderness generation is not exact in this one account because it develops over the course of three chapters. All the outsiders—those who are not Jesus or the disciples—collectively play the role of the wilderness generation; in fact, the disciples play their own role of misunderstanding just like the outsiders. There is not one pericope that embodies all the discussed qualities in the introduction, but the people, as a whole, contain these characteristics. Here, the crowd is not insubordinate, nor are they bemoaning their hunger. They do not test Jesus, nor do they beg for signs and wonders. There is no hint that they lack faith—though that did occur just previously in Nazareth (6:1–6), and the disciples do show some disbelief when they question Jesus about feeding the crowd. What is definitively established includes:
Bread (from heaven)
In the wilderness, desert
The satisfaction of the consumers/had their fill
Signs & wonders/marvelsRevelation of God’s gloryThis (rebellious) generation, peopleTesting/putting God to the testNot believing (despite witnessing God’s marvels); a lack of faithShepherd of the flock
Only three of the eight original significant features are clearly present here. The miracle is a sign and wonder in the Gospel implicitly, and it tacitly is a revelation of Jesus’s glory,—as it was for YHWH in Exod 16:7—but these elements are not explicit. These two points will develop more thoroughly in the Gospel, so they will not be counted here in the Feeding of the Five Thousand. But, this narrative added a feature of its own from Numbers 27: Jesus as the shepherd of the wilderness generation. In short, Mark has taken multiple passages about the Exodus and other eschatological images—e.g., shepherding metaphors, davidic expectations, etc.—and thrown them into a mixer in order to concoct his messianic cocktail.81
Jesus, the Second Moses
As a final note, Moses is especially significant in the Gospels—not only Mark—for formulating their Christologies because there was an expectation that one like Moses would rise up to lead the people anew.82 Deut 18:15–22 anticipates the coming of a second Moses:
|15| The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me (Moses) from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed... |18| I will raise up for them a prophet like you (Moses) from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
The historical context and purpose of this passage is etiological to explain the function and purpose of prophecy. The author of Deuteronomy is not detailing a specific, singular person that would take over eventually for Moses—such as a prophet-Messiah. Rather, the text is explaining why and how prophecy works in Israel. R. Nelson states,
“Like Moses” (vv. 15, 18) certainly does not mean “equal to Moses” (so that 34:10 represents no real contradiction), but indicates that this prophet will have the same relationship to the people and to Yahweh’s word as Moses did. A prophet “like Moses” describes a certain kind of prophet among other possibilities. He will be an authorized mediator, an intercessor (cf. 9:18–20, 25–29), and a teacher of the law.83
In the Second Gospel, we see the embodiment of this in Jesus where he serves as mediator/intercessor when he claims to have the authority to forgive sins (e.g., 2:1–12, the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins), and he is certainly a teacher of the law in this particular pericope (v. 34). Mark plays with Jesus’s identity throughout the Gospel where he likens him closely to Moses,—as in the above narrative—but then he exalts Jesus’s status in other pericopes—Walking on Water (6:45–52) and the Transfiguration (9:2–13). In turn, if Mark is working with this idea from Deuteronomy, he certainly disregards its historical context in order to apply it to Jesus.84
Later Moses traditions show harmony with the Gospel of Mark. For instance, in the Testament of Moses—a Jewish pseudepigraphical text on Moses’s final words, 1c. A.D.,—Moses “predicts” the history of Israel, and when discussing the return from Exile and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, there are key elements that show congruence with Mark,
|5| Then God will remember them because of the covenant which he made with their fathers and he will openly show his compassion (misericordiam). |6| And in those times he will inspire a king to have pity (miseratur) on them and send them home to their own land. (T.Moses 4.5–6)
Although not parallel to Moses himself, it is similar to other prophetic or apocalyptic texts that anticipate a king/messiah that would come during the exile to restore Israel/Judah. The Testament of Moses contains a fascinating—arguably unique—element: the anticipation of a compassionate king. Though it is impossible to show literary dependence on this pseudepigraphical work, the compassionate king certainly has a parallel in the feeding of the five thousand, since Jesus had compassion on the crowd (v. 34)—see the note in the translation on “compassion” for a detailed analysis—and he is an implied replacement king. Since the Greek is no longer preserved, lexical similarities cannot be definitively determined. Be that as it may, Mark has an interesting parallel with the Testament of Moses.
It may be mere coincidence, but it is intriguing that in Mark 6:34 Jesus has compassion on the people, and then internally reflects that the people were “like sheep who had no shepherd.” This thought, in turn, has both Mosaic and regal implications, as discussed. Morna Hooker notes concerning the shepherding language,
Moses, as well as David, was a shepherd before becoming leader of the nation, so the metaphor was an obvious one; various passages speak of the future Davidic leader as the shepherd of this people: Jer. 23:1–6; Ezek. 34:22f.; cf. Ps. Sol. 17:40f.85
Mark sees Jesus as a combination of these two messianic images: the coming davidic king and the second Moses. So, the confluence of these ideas—davidic messianism, second-Moses typology, and the compassionate king imagery (Testament of Moses)—certainly could lead one to speculate a deep connection in this one verse, but this only illustrates a potential vein of thought rather than literary dependency.
In any case, Mark has cast Jesus as the New/Second Moses in this scene. Jesus is the predicted leader and king—the Messiah/Christ—coming to save the Lord’s people and restore the kingdom (of God).86 As the motif develops in the following chapters, we will see Jesus emulate Moses, messianic figures, and God, making Mark’s christology quite fascinating.87
If you want to keep reading about the wilderness generation in Mark and more about the New Testament and its world, would you kindly subscribe?
The Greek text is from the NA28—Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.; Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Gk. ἀπόστολοι, those who were sent out. Even though the significance of this term develops into meaning those closest to Jesus, it does not appear to have that connotation here. They were sent out previously on their own ministerial work, so that is likely why the term is used here.
E Boring, Mark (Louisville: Westminster, 2012), 179 comments, “While the Twelve are a special group (see 3:13–19), it is not clear whether Mark uses ‘apostle’ in the titular sense or only in its generic sense of ‘one who is sent.’” M. Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (London: Continuum, 1991), 162 believes it is not an indication of status.
Technically, the Greek is plural, but “all the things” is just a meme.
Historical present, λέγει. I will not point out each instance of this occurring.
Possibly, “privately” or “in private” (so LSJ), as in v. 32. The idea is, Jesus wants to go away with them separately to seek solitude, which ultimately ends in failure.
LSJ ἐρῆμος A. desolate, lonely, solitary, 1. of places, “ἐς νῆσον ἐρήμην” Od.3.270; “χῶρος” Il.10.520; τὰ ἐ. τῆς Λιβύης the desert parts.
The adjective can also be a noun, which it is in Exodus 16. Here, it serves as an adjective, modifying “place,” τόπος. As such, I have chosen to translate it as “wilderness” in order to show the lexical connection with the wilderness generation, but normally I would have chosen “desolate” or “desert(ed).”
σπλαγχνίζω is not a common verb in the NT/LXX/OT Pseudepigrapha. In the NT,—only the Gospels—there are 11 occurrences. Mark has it here and in 8:2 (Feeding of the Four Thousand) and 9:22 (The Healing of a Boy with a Spirit, the Disciples’ Failure).
The term is commonly paired with having “mercy” (ἐλεέω) on someone in the OT Pseudepigrapha;—there are only 14 occurrences—notable instances include: Apoc. Mos. 27; T.Job 26.
It does not occur much in the LXX; in 2 Macc 6:8, it is a sacrificial term—an alternate meaning.
The Apostolic Fathers, like in the OT Pseudepigrapha, has it associated with God. The Shepherd of Hermas contains the majority of the occurrences—8 of the 9. The only other instance is in 2 Clem 1.7, which is again a pairing of compassion and mercy from the Lord:
ἠλέησεν γὰρ ἡμᾶς καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἔσωσεν...
For he showed us mercy, and, since he felt compassion, he saved (us)...
As for the nounal form, TDNT (p. 548) states, “The Noun. In early Gk. lit. the noun occurs almost always in the plur. It originally denotes the ‘inward parts’ of a sacrifice, and specifically the nobler parts as distinct from the ἔντερα, ἔγκατα, i.e., the heart, liver, lungs, and kidneys, which are separated in the sacrifice and consumed by the participants at the beginning of the sacrificial meal.”
It might be too bold to state that this is a potential, tacit disclosure of Jesus’s divine identity in the Gospel, but it is certainly intriguing how the term is mostly limited to God having compassion and mercy on someone.
Could also be temporal, “for a long while,” or “for much (time).”
This is not quite right, but I have chosen to translate the adjective as a noun in order to show the lexical connections. More literally, it should probably be rendered, “The place is deserted/desolate/lonely.”
The use of the pronoun with the verb is for emphasis. I refrain from using “yourself” because it sounds awkward. Instead, I italicized “you.”
Deliberative subjunctive—Sm §1805 “The deliberative subjunctive (present or aorist) is used in questions when the speaker asks what he is to do or say...”
Genitive of worth.
Here, future, though there are variants in the mss, e.g., subjunctive. Should the future be original, Sm §1916 a. “The deliberative future may occur in connection with the deliberative subjunctive.”
“Something” is not in the text, but it is implied. The word could also be “bread.” Both are antecedents, but I chose to follow Jesus’s words rather than the disciples’.
Here, like in v. 37, “bread” is plural, so many translate it as “loaves (of bread),” but I want to emphasize the word bread. When it is awkward to translate it as just “bread,” I will use “loaves of bread,” but know that the Greek has the word “bread.”
Lit., “come to know” or “learn.” This is a little free, but the alternatives are a bit too wooden for my liking.
The Greek only has “five,” so “bread” is implied.
Ambiguous antecedent. Is “them” the disciples or the crowd? Are the disciples being told to seat all the people, or is the crowd instructed just to recline? The grammar does not specify this.
This may sound awkward, but it is to emphasize the meaning of the Greek, which I will explain in the body below. “Table” is not in the Greek; it is potentially implied in the verb.
I intentionally do not use the word “groups” because the word is symposium. See BDAG: συµπόσιον, “a party of people eating together, party, group (so Plut., Mor. 157d; 704d) repeated, in a distributive sense (B-D-F §493, 2; Mlt. 97): συµπόσια συµπόσια in parties Mk 6:39.”
The idea is still, “reclined at table,” but a different word is used. I will discuss this more below in the body.
The tense is imperfect, as opposed to the aorist verbs before, so perhaps, “was giving.”
The Greek only has “broken pieces,” but this seems to indicate they are the leftovers of the bread since the fish is specifically mentioned later in the sentence.
Genitive of measure; see Sm §1326 “Under the head of measure belongs amount.
It is debated whether the author of John knew of Mark’s Gospel, but I believe he did. John’s account of this narrative appears heavily dependent on Mark, especially considering the description of bread from heaven after Jesaus walks on water. Contra J. Marcus, Mark 1–8 (New Haven: Yale, 2000) 414–415, who argues both have a pre-Gospel source, as does M. Hooker, Mark, 164.
This explanation by John underscores how he understood the event: |31| Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” |32| Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. |33| For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.”
On the parallels between the two accounts, see K. Corley, Private Women, Public Meals (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 94. A. Collins, Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 318 notes also temporal parallels, “Lexically, the statement, ‘they did not even have an opportunity to eat’ (οὐδὲ φαγεῖν εὐκαίρουν), recalls Herodias’s ‘opportune day’ (ἡμέρα εὔκαιρος) in 6:21.”
Herod Antipas was not truly a “king,” but Mark does this intentionally. See J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 398–99.
The kingship motif is tangentially pertinent for our study, so this topic will be neglected. Consult J. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (Louisville: Westminster, 1992). I have also mentioned this briefly in my topical outline of Mark’s Gospel. It is critical to note that Mark never explicitly calls Jesus “king” in the Gospel. It is by inference and subtlety that the reader draws this conclusion.
Consult C. Black, Mark (Nashville: Abingdon), 163 and R. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 260 who highlight this juxtaposition.
30: Although not explicitly stated, the fact that a “dinner” is being held with high ranking officers and a dancer is present implies it is indoors. The distinction is obvious that Jesus’s banquet is in the wilderness, while Herod’s is in a much more luxurious setting. R. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26 (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 34A, Dallas: Word, 1989), 332 notes, “The logistics of arranging for such a group in a festive setting has led most to assume the location, though unstated, to have been Tiberias where Herod had established the residency for his court.”
31: περίλυπος appears twice in the Gospel, here and in 14:34,
καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου·
And he said to them, “my soul is deeply sorrowful, to the point of death... (KSV)
This is just prior to his prayer in Gethsemane. As Marcus, Mark 8–16 (New Haven: Yale, 2009), 974–95 notes, “The first part of this statement fuses Ps 6:3 (‘My soul [hē psychē mou] is greatly harassed’) with the refrain from Pss 42:5, 11; 43:5 [41:6, 12; 42:5 LXX] (‘Why are you so very sad [perilypos], O my soul?’).”
32: Although ὀρχέομαι only indicates “dancing,” the implication is that the performance is provocative.
33: As A. Collins, Mark, 314 describes the scene, “The grotesque character of the girl’s request is mirrored by the gruesome report of its fulfillment in v. 28. The portrayal of the girl as an extension of her mother in vv. 24–25 is replicated in v. 28, as the girl receives the platter with John’s head on it and gives it to her mother.”
One could even argue “regret,” too, since Herod really did not wish to fulfill his oath.
34: There is also a perversion or opposite of the satisfaction found in Herod’s banquet. Herodias’s daughter’s dancing for Herod and his guests pleases (ἤρεσεν) them, which has the connotation of satisfaction. This satisfaction or pleasure, though, leads to disastrous results, which is counter to what Jesus’s crowd feels.
R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT, 2 vols., Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 1:345, 349–50 bracketed off 6:30–8:26 as a unit concerned about eating.
The wilderness is a common trope, serving multiple purposes, e.g., the Voice calling out in the wilderness (1:2–3). Here, P. Achtemeier, “The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae,” JBL 91 (1972), 280 believed that the unpopulated setting of the narrative was introduced by Mark and not original to his source. If that is the case, this adds further plausibility to Mark contriving a scene that resembles the wilderness generation in Exodus. J. Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Collegeville: Liturgical, 2002), 204 claims the phrase, “evokes the journey of the people of Israel in the wilderness (LXX erēmos) and the miraculous feeding there (Exod 16:1–35; Num 11:1–10; Pss 78:24; 105:40).” France, Mark, 263 states this should not be taken as the “wilderness” due to the “green grass” mentioned later in the narrative, but the lexical and thematic parallels with Exodus betray his conclusion. Additionally, M. Hooker, Mark, 166 comments that the description could be an indication of the messianic age where the desert will be fertile (Isa 35:1).
The structure of the narrative here is important. The first pericope has Jesus send out the disciples to perform their own mission (6:7–13). Then, Mark has Herod’s birthday celebration as a means of time passing while the disciples are off (6:14–29). The Feeding of the Five Thousand, in turn, begins with the disciples having returned from their own work (6:30–44). This is a narrative trick so that new information can be provided to the reader, while also simulating the passing of time with that same narrative.
E. Boring, Mark, 34 translates the word as “wilderness” throughout, justifying it stating, “Erēmos is an adjective, ‘deserted, uninhabited,’ as in 6:31, 32, 35. When it refers to the desert expanse that Israel had to traverse between Egypt and the promised land, or en route from the Babylonian captivity back to the Judean homeland, it has been traditionally translated ‘wilderness.’ This translation is preserved here in order to maintain its biblical connotations.” L. Farley, The Gospel of Mark (Chesterton: Ancient Faith, 2004), 98 remarks that the repetition of the wilderness in the early sections of the Gospel emphasize the importance of the Exodus.
These include,
In Mark, the word is a verb, but in Psalm 95 (94) it is a noun
Lexically, the words have a different prefix (ἀνα-; κατα-)
For point 1, this matters little for making a resonance. The root of the word is most critical. And, on the second point, the root is again the most important aspect. That said, in the recensions of Psalm 94 (LXX), both prefixes are present. Cp. A. Rahlfs, ed., Psalmi Cum Odis (vol. X; Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 246.
Donahue, Mark, 204 notes “rest” can also indicate the land of promise (Exod 33:1–14; Deut 12:9–10; Josh 1:13; Jer 31:2), which is akin to Psalm 95 (94). W. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 224 comments on the rest in the preaching of Isaiah and Jeremiah, predicated on that of Moses and Joshua (Isa 63:14; Jer 31:2). He comments that the disciples and this group are people of “the new exodus.” E. Boring, Mark, 179 connects rest with Psalm 23 (22) because of additional parallels with the miraculous feeding—e.g., the “green grass.”
That is, prophecies or statements of one who will rise up and be shepherd over the people.
How serendipitous that I am still developing this post on 2 February 2024—the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. Some of the readings for today concern shepherd metaphors, which is rather appropriate. 1 Peter 5:1–4; Ps 23:1–6; Matt 16:13–19.
Although not entirely relevant for this current study, it is intriguing that Jesus adopts similar language in John 10:1–21 about him being the Good Shepherd.
Jdth 11:19 could also be in play,
Then I will lead you through the middle of Judea, till you come to Jerusalem; and I will set your throne in the midst of it; and you will lead them like sheep that have no shepherd (ὡς πρόβατα, οἷς οὐκ ἔστιν ποιμήν), and not a dog will so much as open its mouth to growl at you. For this has been told me, by my foreknowledge; it was announced to me, and I was sent to tell you.”
There are numerous points of contact with our present narrative: Shepherding language and dogs (cf. 7:24–30), though I am not certain that this is actually in Mark’s mind. Be that as it may, Holofernes—the wicked ruler/general—holds a banquet soon after this statement is made (Jdth 12:10–20). The parallels are, at the very least, intriguing.
Cf. M. Beavis, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 106.
R. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 340 also suggests connections with the eschatological shepherd (Ezek 34:23). R. Aus, Feeding the Five Thousand (Lanham: University Press of America, 2010), 159 rejects Numbers 27 as a citation; rather, he suggests Ezek 34:8 is the reference lingering behind Jesus’s reflection. The parallels are intriguing since the text discusses a future shepherd who will feed his sheep, but the exodus parallels are stronger. There certainly are eschatological, davidic shepherd metaphors echoing in this pericope, but they are secondary to the Mosaic emphasis.
A. Collins, Mark, 319 remarks that sheep without a shepherd is frequently used “of a people without a king” (3 Kgdms 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Nah 3:18; Jdt 11:19), which certainly is the implication of pairing these two accounts. See also Boring, Mark, 182–83. Hooker, Mark, 165 notes the text implies a criticism of the current Jewish leadership failing to lead the people. France, Mark, 261–62, 65 cautions reading this tale as a militaristic endeavor. He also notes other instances of shepherd metaphors in reference to filling a power vacancy (1 Kings 22:17; Ezek 34:5–6; Zech 13:7).
Another potential parallel concerns 2 Kings 4:42–44, where Elisha feeds 100 men. Consult M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York: Scribners, 1935) and M. Hooker, Mark, 164). France, Mark, 262–63 notes a parallel with the manna account and Elisha. A. Collins, Mark, 319–20 has a fuller discussion on the parallels with 2 Kings. David also feeds a multitude after bringing the Ark to Jerusalem; see 2 Sam 6:19.
A. Collins, Mark, 324 remarks,
The singular of the repeated noun, συμπόσιον (lit., “drinking party”), is well understood as a “banquet.” The use of this word suggests that the meal hosted by Jesus is a kind of banquet. This connotation suggests a contrasting parallel with the festive dinner (δεῖπνον) or banquet given by Herod Antipas (v. 21). Whereas Herod presumably provided a lavish menu, Jesus provides a simple meal of bread and fish. Whereas Herod invited the nobles of Galilee, Jesus welcomes a crowd of ordinary people and meets their basic needs. The imagery of banqueting is reminiscent of the eschatological banquet of Isa 25:6–8.
There is one other reference to Jesus as a shepherd; see 14:27, quoting Zech 13:7. The metaphor of God sustaining his people via an intermediary is common in the Old Testament (Num 27:15–17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ps 95:7; Ezek 34:1–31; Jdt 11:19), as shown by Black, Mark, 158.
This dichotomy is further underscored when considering the purpose of shepherding metaphors. J. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale, 1993), 145 states, “The ancient image of the king as shepherd expresses the perennial idea that the ruler is to be the servant of his people: his exaltation above his subjects is inseparable from his selfless devotion to their welfare. It is indeed, precisely his service of the people that, differentiating between authority and domination, legitimates the king’s rule and enables his subjects to do him homage without loss of face.”
The narrative contains another striking feature that is not as directly relevant, but it may have a resonance later in Mark:
And Micai′ah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left... (1 Kgs 22:19, RSV)
--
And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mark 14:62, RSV)
The wilderness generation and the idea of God/the Messiah coming from the wilderness to claim the throne—i.e., be king—are intertwined in Mark. They are parallel typologies that do not exclude, but they work in tandem. This exploration, though, is only concerned with the wilderness generation.
M. Cogan, I Kings (New Haven: Yale, 2008), 491–492.
E. Boring, Mark, 183 notes, “Israelite and Judean kings were charged to represent God’s rule among the people, but human kingship failed; God is the true king/shepherd of Israel (Gen 48:15; 49:24; Pss 23:1; 28:9; 80:1; Isa 40:11) and will replace defective and perverse human shepherds (Jer 23:1–4; Ezek 34) by establishing his own kingship in power, either by coming himself or by sending an eschatological king/shepherd (Isa 40:11; 49:9–10; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:5, 8, 15, 23–24; Mic 5:1–4; Matt 2:6).”
M. Sweeney, I & II Kings (Louisville: Westminster, 2013), 260 notes that the portrayal of the people as scattered sheep has resonances with Ezek 34:1–31 and Zech 13:7. It is difficult for us to pinpoint exactly what the allusion is in Kings or what may have influenced the metaphor. It may be so commonplace, there is no particular reference in mind. As for Mark, the ideas of the wilderness generation, Moses, kings of Israel/Judah, and a coming messianic figure all influence his depiction of Jesus and the crowds. This complicates our analysis, but as I show, it appears that Moses and the wilderness generation have the greatest pull.
J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 406.
J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 415ff. discusses the potential parallels with 1 Kings 17:8–16 and 2 Kings 4:1–7, 42–44, but these similarities are not as strong as with the Exodus, especially considering the thematic thread that runs through chapter 8. He does, then, detail the Mosaic typology in the account, “Jesus proceeds to meet this hunger and hope, and the way in which he does so is part of the pronounced Mosaic typology of our passage and of this section of the Gospel (cf. the introduction to 6:6b–8:21); this typology also includes the repeated references to the wilderness location (6:31, 32, and 35), the description of the crowd arranged for the meal (6:39–40), and the numerical symbolism in 6:38, 40, and 43–44” (417).
The mention of fish may seem like a distraction from the significance of bread in the feeding accounts. Space does not allow a fuller exploration of why fish are mentioned alongside the bread if manna from heaven is the emphasis. In Num 11:4–6, the people complain that manna is insufficient to satisfy their hunger. They claim to desire fish in particular: “We remember the fish (τοὺς ἰχθύας) we used to eat in Egypt…” It then could be assumed that Jesus multiplies fish so that he in a way one-ups the miraculous feeding in the wilderness; he anticipates the desire for meat and preemptively supplies the people with fish.
The scholarly consensus holds that the 12 baskets represent the 12 tribes—e.g., M. Boring, Mark, 183; A. Collins, Mark, 326. I tend to follow this representation, which I will discuss further concerning the feeding of the four thousand (8:1–10), but note the number may also indicate the 12 spies sent into Canaan. This could parallel a previous speculation I had about the 12 disciples representing them. That said, even though this may appear to be an obvious answer, I believe there is a better interpretation, which I will reveal when discussing 8:19.
Many commentators note this, which seems probable: J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 407; M. Boring, Mark, 185 is sympathetic, but does not state it outright; R. T. France, Mark, 266 rejects any symbolic importance to the numbers.
As for the fish, one would think that there would be equivalent symbology here, but the significance is not apparent. Boring posits the symbology has been lost to time. Marcus has a similar evaluation, noting that bread is the significant feature of this story, whereas the fish is almost an afterthought. M. Hooker, Mark, 166 speculates the 2 fish could be representative of the two tablets, but then she inquires, “why should Jesus distribute the Law? It is unlikely that Mark saw any such significance in the numbers.”
Potentially relevant, “Judaism expected a second and eschatological miracle of manna: S. Bar. 29:8: ‘at that time stores of manna will again fall from above.’” (TDNT, 1:477).
Considering that later the Pharisees will ask for a sign from heaven (8:11), the line of thought is not a stretch.
If we read the account in John, he makes the connection explicitly. I do not believe this is purely an invention by John, but he read Mark’s Gospel and further developed the idea.
Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 336 notes the similarities to wilderness miracles, specifically citing Exod 16; Ps 78:18–30; 105:40.
Note, the Hebrew reads, “or provide meat for his people” (אִם־יָכִ֖ין שְׁאֵ֣ר לְעַמֹּֽו). I analyze this difference more in the introduction.
This is similar to Ps 105 (104):40, “They asked, and he brought quails, and [filled] them [with bread] from heaven (ἄρτον οὐρανοῦ ἐνέπλησεν αὐτούς).”
On a narrative level in Mark, there is a similar ordering of events:
Lack of Faith—Rejection of Jesus in Nazareth (Mark 6:1–6, specifically v. 6)
Supplement of Bread from Heaven—Bread from Heaven to Feed the Five Thousand (Mark 6:30–44)
Although there are a number of scenes in between, the idea still persists. There is a lack of faith followed by a miraculous feeding. This also illustrates how Mark constructs his narrative framework to construct the parallel. Even though those in the crowd do not lack faith and yet are fed, other outsiders in the Gospel illustrate this characteristic. The outsiders are meant to be viewed as a collective, which will be further developed later, but the reader is still meant to see the lack of faith as relevant here.
The miraculous feeding accounts anticipate the Lord’s Supper (Mark 14:12–25), specifically the disciples preparing the paschal meal where Jesus breaks bread. This will be developed further. France (2002: 260) remarks, “For those with eyes to see it, this will be a foretaste of the messianic banquet, an introduction to the communal life of the kingdom of God.”
LSJ ἀνακλίνω , A. ...cause to recline at table, Plb.31.4.5, Ev.Luc.12.37:—mostly in Pass.
LSJ ἀναπίπτω, A.5. recline at meals, like ἀνάκειμαι, Alex.293, Com.Adesp.638, PPar.51.4, Ev.Marc.6.40, Luc.Asin.23.
Note: LSJ even notes that this is the intended meaning in Mark 6:40. The Evangelist also calls the guests at Herod’s banquet, “those reclining,” τοὺς ἀνακειμένους (6:26).
The sitting in groups by number may also be significant, as R. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 341 notes,
In Exod 18:25 (Num 31:14) Moses arranged the Israelites in groups of 1000, 500, 100, and 10 under their respective leaders. The Qumran literature takes such groupings as an eschatological model for their own sectarian life (1QS 2:21–22; CD 13:1; 1QM 4:1–5:17; 1QSa 1:14–15, 28–29) and specifically for the messianic banquet (1QSa 2:11–22). Thus, the arrangement points back to the time of God’s miraculous provision for the needs of the people in the wilderness and hints at the eschatological moment in the gathering of God’s people into communities at the end time.
R. Aus, Feeding, 99 notes,
The great emphasis on the 5000 men’s “reclining” in Mark 6:39-40, with two different Greek verbs for this, is also due to the influence of Passover imagery here. Normally, no Jew of the time at a country picnic would recline on the grass unless extremely tired, but rather sit there. The banquet image of “reclining” in the feeding narrative is based upon the obligation to do so as a member of a haburah or company during the annual Passover meal.
See also Marcus, Mark 1–8, 407; he has a similar discussion on Passover imagery. M. Boring, Mark, 186 reflects on the Marcan community and eucharistic celebrations.
LSJ συμπόσιον, A. drinking-party, symposium. II. the party itself, the guests
Compare 3 Macc 5:36, Κατὰ δὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς νόμους ὁ βασιλεὺς συστησάμενος πᾶν τὸ συμπόσιον εἰς εὐφροσύνην τραπῆναι παρεκάλει.
Philo uses the word in connection with 14 Nisan, Passover, in Spec. Leg. 2.148. For more on the importance of this word as a banquet celebration, consult R. Aus, Feeding, 94ff.
M. Boring, Mark, 186–87 agrees, stating, “At the narrative level, the story thus looks backward to Israel in the wilderness, and to Isaiah’s prophecy of the new exodus, and forward to the Last Supper, the church’s eucharistic celebrations, and the ultimate future of the messianic banquet.”
M. Hooker, Mark, 164–65 claims it points to the eucharist, and John understood the passage to be eucharistic. R. France, Mark, 262 emphasizes the verbs in this passage anticipate eucharistic features of the Last Supper.
Interestingly—though I do not believe provable—E. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (New York: Scribner’s, 1922), 118 argues about the green grass, “This is a characteristic touch given by Mk. alone, with his eye for pictorial details, but it is more important than that to us; for the grass is green in Palestine, especially in this hot Jordan valley, only at the time of the Passover.” If true, this would add further support for anticipating the Last Supper.
As noted above in the translation notes, but also see TDNT 3:654–55.
E. Boring, Mark, 183. Later (187), when discussing the breaking of bread, he comments, “At the narrative level, the story thus looks backward to Israel in the wilderness, and to Isaiah’s prophecy of the new exodus, and forward to the Last Supper, the church’s eucharistic celebrations, and the ultimate future of the messianic banquet.” Hooker, Mark, 164–65 discusses the rabbinic hope of a Moses-like Messiah who would come and supply bread. She also postulates a connection with the Last Supper and the eucharist.
R. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 344 argues for Jesus being greater than Elijah or Elisha, and this miracle account coupled with the raising of Jairus’s daughter (5:21–43) reveals a connection with 1 Kgs 17:10–16, 17–24; 2 Kgs 4:32–37, 42–44. He concludes, “By providing food for them, Jesus shows himself to be God’s promised ‘servant David … (who) shall feed them and be their shepherd’ (Ezek 34:23).”
It will take more development in Mark 6–8, but these themes are not limited to just the Pentateuch and the Psalms. Philo, Spec. Leg. 2.161 includes many of these ideas in his discussion on the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Collins, Mark, 322–23 notes a possible connection with Psalm 132 because of the lexical connection with “satisfaction” and “bread.” This psalm is davidic, which may have some resonances here, but the connection with the wilderness generation is stronger.
Cf. Collins, Mark 326.
The NRSV has “filled,” but I have altered the translation to show that there is not a lexical parallel with Ps 78 (77). Donahue, Mark, 206 posits a potential echo of Exod 16:13–21.
Assuming John is working with Mark’s Gospel, he shifts the language to what is in Exodus 16, et al.: |11| Jesus then took the [bread] (τοὺς ἄρτους), and when he had given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας), he distributed them to those who were [reclined] (ἀνακειμένοις); so also the fish, as much as they wanted. |12| And when they had eaten their fill (ἐνεπλήσθησαν)... (John 6:11–12, RSV).
A. Collins, Mark, 326 also notes the thematic consistency with Psalm 78 (77); as for the lexical difference, she comments, “The use of the word χορτάζειν (‘to satisfy’), rather than ἐμπιμπλάναι (‘to fill quite full’), indicates the modest nature of the banquet hosted by Jesus. The expression ‘they ate and were filled exceedingly’ (καὶ ἐφάγοσαν καὶ ἐνεπλήσθησαν σφόδρα) prepares for the criticism of the people’s attitude in the following verses of the psalm.”
It is critical to note, Mark is exceedingly ambiguous on this relationship, as Moloney (2004: 129) remarks, “Mark does not identify Jesus with God.”
Cp. Boring, Mark, 182.
For more on the eschatological davidic shepherd, see R. Aus, Feeding, 155–160.
To assume we can capture every reference in the Gospels—the NT—is presumptuous and arrogant. There was a living, breathing culture in which they operated, and we do not have everything at our disposal. We are attempting to reconstruct a puzzle, and we are missing significant pieces. Yes, we have a firm literary base, but the oral traditions are more than likely lost to us on the whole, and the people did not think monolithically—we can see that in the various Jewish sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, the common folk, etc.).
This is not all that surprising. J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 419 notes, “Thus when Jews speculated about the eschaton, which they often imagined as a new exodus, they frequently looked for a renewal of the gift of the manna...”
Matthew in particular has a developed Moses typology in the Gospel; see D. Allison, The New Moses (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013). J. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 421 comments on expected Mosaic figures, “Josephus describes Moses- and Joshua-like prophets of a revolutionary bent who led their followers out to the wilderness and promised to work wonders there, apparently basing their hopes on the biblical prophecies of a new exodus (J.W. 7.437–442; Ant. 20.97–99, 167–72, 188; see D. Schwartz, “Temple”). M. Hooker, Mark, 164, comments, “The rabbis’ messianic expectation included the hope of a Messiah like Moses who would again give the people manna, an idea which certainly lies behind the discourse of John 6.”
R. Nelson, Deuteronomy (Louisville: Westminster, 2004), 235.
A. Collins, Mark, 319 remarks, “Joshua is appointed to succeed Moses, but the phrase in relation to Moses may also recall the promise that God would send a prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–18). From this point of view, v. 34 hints that Jesus is the eschatological prophet. The portrayal of Jesus as teaching the people here is compatible with either role, royal messiah or eschatological prophet.
M. Hooker, Mark, 165.
Exhibited by the conflation quotation at the beginning of the Gospel,
As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
who shall prepare thy way;the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight—” (Mark 1:2–3, RSV)
What is key, the OT is not devoid of instances of figures taking on divine attributes—e.g., shepherding or having compassion, as explored above. What sets Jesus apart from these characters, though, is his encroachment on divine actions, which will be shown in the next pericope.