Luke 9:10-11

1 st. Luke 9:10-11. The Occasion.

According to Luke, the motive which induced Jesus to withdraw into a desert place was His desire for more privacy with His disciples, that He might talk with them of their experiences during their mission. Mark relates, with a slight difference, that His object was to secure them some rest after their labours, there being such a multitude constantly going and coming as to leave them no leisure. According to Matthew, it was the news of the murder of the forerunner which led Jesus to seek solitude with His disciples; which, however, could in no way imply that He sought in this way to shield Himself from Herod's violence. For how could He, if this were so, have entered the very next day into the dominions of this sovereign (Matthew 14:34; comp. with Mark and John)? All these facts prove the mutual independence of the Syn.; they are easily harmonized, if we only suppose that the intelligence of the murder of John was communicated to Jesus by His apostles on their return from their mission, that it made Him feel deeply the approach of His own end (on the relation between these two deaths, see Matthew 17:12), and that it was while He was under these impressions that He desired to secure a season of retirement for His disciples, and an opportunity for more private intercourse with them.

The reading of the T. R.: in a desert place of the city called Bethsaïda, is the most complete, but for this very reason the most doubtful, since it is probably made up out of the others. The reading of the principal Alex., in a city called Bethsaïda, omits the notion, so important in this passage, of a desert place, probably because it appeared inconsistent with the idea of a city, and specially of Bethsaïda, where Jesus was so well known. The reading of א and of the Cureton Syriac translation, in a desert place, is attractive for its brevity. But whence came the mention of Bethsaïda in all the other variations? Of the two contradictory notions, the desert and Bethsaïda, this reading sacrifices the proper name, as the preceding had sacrificed the desert. The true reading, therefore, appears to me to be that which is preserved in the Syriac version of Schaaf and in the Italic, in a desert place called Bethsaïda. This reading retains the two ideas, the apparent inconsistency of which has led to all these alterations of the text, but in a more concise and, at the same time, more correct form than that of the received reading. It makes mention not of a city, but of an inhabited country on the shore of the lake, bearing the name of Bethsaïda. If by this expression Luke had intended to denote the city of Bethsaïda, between Capernaum and Tiberias, on the western side of the lake, the country of Peter, Andrew, and Philip, he would be in open contradiction to Matthew, Mark, and John, who place the multiplication of the loaves on the eastern side, since in all three Jesus crosses the sea the next day to return to Galilee (into the country of Gennesareth, Matthew 14:34; to Bethsaïda, on the western shore, Mark 6:45; to Capernaum, John 6:17). But in this case Luke would contradict himself as well as the others. For Bethsaïda, near Capernaum, being situated in the centre of the sphere of the activity of Jesus, how could the Lord repair thither with the intention of finding a place of retirement, a desert place? The meaning of the name Bethsaïda (fishing place) naturally leads us to suppose that there were several fisheries along the lake of this name. The term Bethsaïda of Galilee, John 12:21, confirms this supposition; for this epithet must have served to distinguish this Bethsaïda from some other. Lastly, Josephus (Antiq. 18.2. 1; Bell. Jude 1:3; Jude 1:3.10. 7) and Pliny (Luke 9:15) expressly mention another Bethsaïda, situated in Gaulonitis, at the north-east extremity of the sea of Galilee, near the embouchure of the Jordan. The tetrarch Philip had built (probably in the vicinity of a district of this country called Bethsaïda) a city, which he had named, after a daughter of Augustus, Bethsaïda- Julias, the ruins of which Pococke believes he has discovered on a hill, the name of which (Telui) seems to signify mountain of Julia (Morgenl. ii. p. 106). There Jesus would more easily find the solitude which He sought.

The term ὑπεχώρησε, He withdrew, does not inform us whether Jesus made the journey on foot or by boat. Luke doubtless did not know; he confines himself to reproducing his information. The three other narratives apprise us that the journey was made by water, but that the crowds which, contrary to the intention of Jesus, knew of His departure, set out to follow Him πεζῇ, on foot (Matthew and Mark), by land, and that the more eager of them arrived almost as soon as Jesus, and even, according to the more probable reading in Mark, before Him. The bend of the lake at the northern end approximates so closely to a straight line, that the journey from Capernaum to Julias might be made as quickly by land as by sea.

The unexpected arrival of the people defeated the plan of Jesus. But He was too deeply moved by the love shown for Him by this multitude, like sheep without a shepherd (Mark), to give them anything but a tender welcome (δεξάμενος, Luke); and while these crowds of people were flocking up one after another (John 6:5), a loving thought ripened in His heart. John has disclosed it to us (Luke 6:4). It was the time of the Passover. He could not visit Jerusalem with His disciples, owing to the virulent hatred of which He had become the object. In this unexpected gathering, resembling that of the nation at Jerusalem, He discerns a signal from on high, and determines to celebrate a feast in the desert, as a compensation for the Passover feast.