Luke 9:17

‘And they ate, and were all filled. And there was taken up that which remained over to them of broken pieces, twelve baskets.'

And the result was that from those five loaves and two fishes that great crowd was fed, with twelve basketfuls remaining over and to spare. The ‘twelve' indicated continued sufficiency for the new Israel. We may compare the jar of meal and the cruse of oil in the time of Elijah, ‘the jar of meal shall not be spent and the cruse of oil shall not fail until the day the Lord sends rain on the earth' (1 Kings 17:14). And so it was with the bread and the fishes, they were not spent until all were filled.

The term for ‘basket' could denote the wicker basket (kophinos) carried regularly by Jews, and for which they were well known, so that they could take their own provisions with them wherever they went, undefiled by the world. Such baskets were indeed a popular joke among Gentiles. From where did the baskets come? They probably belonged to the disciples, although previously being empty. It should be noted that the broken pieces would not have been gathered from the grass. Poor people did not throw away food. What was put in the baskets was what was left over after the distribution. It was gathered so as to be eaten later by the disciples.

One significance of the twelve basketfuls left over was that God's supply was not only for the present but continued into the future. There was sufficient for the twelve tribes of Israel to go on being fed by Him.

It should be noted that taking the account at face value it is undoubtedly indicating that a remarkable miracle took place. The logistics are expressed in such a way as to bring this out. Whatever explanations others may find, the writers saw this as a miracle of provision. And we may also assume that they saw in it the guarantee that the Lord would from now on ‘feed' His people. The account appears in all four Gospels, coming from eyewitnesses, and demonstrating how important it was seen to be. Either they were telling lies, or it happened.

Note on Other Explanations.

Necessarily Atheists and Agnostics and those who deny the possibility of miracles cannot accept that it happened like this, but we should note that by doing so they go against the evidence. Rather than accept the truth they weave fairy stories. For in order to give an explanation that is what they have to do, ignore the evidence and what is written, and spin their own threads of gold. For the sake of completeness and to assist those who are troubled by such things we will consider one or two of these explanations.

1). The first is that what happened was that a young boy brought his dinner and gave it to Jesus who then told the disciples to share it with the crowds, and that those in the crowds were so moved by His action and the action of the little boy that they all shared their food that they had brought with them with others (or something similar). It is a nice idea. But it clearly goes contrary to what the four accounts say. And it ignores how long the crowds had already been away from home. They were not out on a picnic. Nor can we understand why if this was what happened a hint of the fact is not supplied by at least one of the eyewitnesses as a wonderful picture of the influence of Jesus. And certainly it would be strange that such a trivial happening as it would then be should be treated as so important by all four Gospel writers.

2). That what happened was that Jesus divided up the loaves into minute amounts which were then given to the crowds as a ‘token Messianic meal' and that this gave them such an uplift that their hearts were satisfied and they were ‘filled' and therefore did not for a while notice their hunger. This still requires us to drastically reduce the numbers involved, or increase the food available, and it is also to assume that the ‘meal' had a significance not made apparent in the first three Gospels. If this was what happened it is strange that the lesson to be drawn from it was totally ignored and that it was interpreted as just physical. It would also leave everyone still hungry and as much in danger of fainting as before.

3). That the story is simply an invention based on what Elijah did in 2 Kings 4:42. But if this were the case its importance as revealed by its presence in all four Gospels, in different presentations, is inexplicable. There is no avoiding the fact that all four considered the event extremely important and on the whole gave basically the same picture.

End of note.

Up to this point Luke has made constant use of Mark, but now he deliberately omits Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:26. This may partly have been because Luke did not want to introduce the clear but rather reluctant movement towards the Gentiles that it contained (especially with regard to the Syro-phoenician woman). For Luke the Gentiles have been in mind from the beginning, and it may be that he did not want any indication of reluctance in the matter. For Luke the major movement towards the Gentiles will come in Acts 10-11. Meanwhile he wants it to be recognised that there has been no bar to them.

But it may also have to do with Luke's presentation of his material. Having outlined the different indications of Jesus' ‘other world' powers, stilling the storm defeating a legion of evil spirits, and raising the dead, he leads on to the preaching of the Apostles going out in the same power and this is then intimately connected with the question, ‘Who is He?'. Who is this One Who does such things and sends out His emissaries to the world in this way? It is the question that is on everyone's lips. And it a question which puts Him in danger. As with John 6 Luke wants to follow the covenant meal with a recognition of the looming danger of the cross.

So this then results in Jesus privately calling His disciples to one side and results in a unique covenant meal which is deliberately stated to be ‘in the wilderness', and the question then arises for the second time, but this time more personally to His own followers, ‘Who am I'? And the answer is then given. He is ‘the Christ of God'.

So on the one hand the world is left hanging in the air, while on the other hand the disciples are brought into unique fellowship with Him and then learn the intimate secret of His coming death. In this sequence Mark 6:45 to Mark 8:26 would only be an unnecessary intrusion.

But following the covenant meal it is unquestionable that death is in the air. For not only does Jesus begin to prepare His Apostles for His death, but He also gives a clear warning of the possibility of death to all who follow Him. What follows can be interpreted in no other way.