Chapter Fourteen

1–2. The anxieties of Herod Antipas.—3–12. The beheading of John the Baptist.—13–21. The return of the disciples and the feeding of five thousand people with five loaves.—22–33. Stilling the storm on the lake.—34–36. Return to the land of Gennesaret.

Matthew 14:1. At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the report about Jesus. (Cf. Mark 6:14; Luke 9:7). In this and the following verse the evangelist places what he should have placed after verse 12, if he were narrating in chronological order, because the words of verse 2 Herod could have spoken only after John had been beheaded. “The report about Jesus” and Herod’s remark serve the evangelist as a reason to recall the circumstances of the Baptist’s execution, which had not yet been recounted in the Gospel. Both other evangelists relate Herod’s anxieties much later than Matthew. In this the order of Mark’s narrative is the same as Matthew’s, but Luke’s is entirely different—he has no account of the Baptist’s execution. The evangelist Luke limits himself only to remarks about his death, similar to those of Matthew, but with the difference that (like Mark) he puts the words about the resurrection of John from the dead into the mouth not of Herod himself but of those around him; Herod only repeats the opinions about the Baptist expressed by them. In the essentials, however, the accounts of the synoptists agree. “At that time” here, as in many other places, is an indefinite indication of time. Mark and Luke relate the events to the time after the mission of the apostles (Matt 10:5), as a result of which the report about Christ was widely spread. “At that time Herod (literally) heard the report (τὴν ἀκοήν) about Jesus.” This was Herod Antipas, the full brother of Archelaus and son of Herod I, who killed the infants of Bethlehem, born of Malthace, a Samaritan woman. The portion of Herod’s kingdom, designated for Antipas in his father’s second will (in the first he was designated king), was Galilee and Perea, where he was confirmed by Augustus in the position of tetrarch. He was married to the daughter of the Arab king Aretas, whom he divorced on account of Herodias. The name Herod was originally a purely personal name, but later passed to two sons of Herod, Herod Boethus and Herod Antipas, and then to King Agrippa I and other junior members of the Herod family. The word “tetrarch” in Greek should be read τετράρχης, not τετράρχης, that is, without the elision of the first a (see Blass, Gram., § 28, 8). Instead of this precise title (Luke 3:1, Luke 9:7; Acts 13:1; Josephus Flavius, “Jewish Antiquities,” XVII, 8, 1; XXIII, 2, 3), Antipas is given in popular speech, as with other ruling Herods, the imprecise title “king” (Matt 14:9; Mark 6:14). A similar imprecision is found also in the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius (“Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 4, 3; “Life,” 1).

Matthew 14:2. And he said to his servants: This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him. (Cf. Mark 6:14-16; Luke 9:7-9). In Mark (Mark 6:14 ff.) King Herod heard about what the evangelist had related in the preceding verses, that is, about the preaching of the disciples sent out to preach, their casting out of demons, and other healings (Mark 6:12-13), not “about Jesus,” as is written (emphasized) in the Russian translation. Luke (Luke 9:7) speaks of this even more clearly: “Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was happening” (in the Synodal translation: “about all that Jesus did”—ὑπ´ αὐτοῦ is not authentic) with reference to the same circumstances pointed out by Mark. Incidentally, Mark adds: “for his name, that is, of Christ, had become known” (in the Synodal translation this text is placed in brackets). What the other synoptists relate in more detail, Matthew relates in abbreviated form in verses 1 and 2. In him Herod speaks to his “attendants” (that is, servants, or “his servants,” as in the Russian translation).

Matthew 14:3. For Herod had arrested John and bound him and imprisoned him on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip. (Cf. Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19-20). This verse is a return to what the evangelist Luke had related earlier (Luke 3:19-20). Chronologically it should be so, because John was already in prison for a relatively long time, and the evangelist now wishes to relate properly the death of the Baptist, attaching to his account explanations taken from the early history of the Baptist. The account here in Matthew is very brief. The explanation, equally brief, that Herod’s marriage was adulterous, is given in the following verse. Mark (Mark 6:17) adds: “because he had married her”; and Luke (Luke 3:19) adds that the Baptist rebuked Herod not only for marrying Herodias but “for all the evil things Herod had done.” Josephus Flavius points (“Jewish Antiquities,” XVIII, 5, 2) to Herod’s fear of political uprisings as a reason for imprisoning John. There is nothing surprising in the fact that along with political dangers, as the Gospels relate, was mixed Herod’s and Herodias’s displeasure at John’s denunciation of their illegal marriage.

Matthew 14:4. Because John said to him: It is not lawful for you to have her. (Cf. Mark 6:18). John Chrysostom asks: what then was that ancient law violated by Herod and so strongly upheld by John? And answers: that a woman whose husband died childless should marry the brother of the deceased (Deut 25:5). Since “Herod married the wife of his brother, who had a daughter, John rebukes him for this.” Theophylact, agreeing with Chrysostom, adds: “Some say that Herod took both the wife and the tetrarchy when Philip was still alive. But in any case, what was done was unlawful.” The illegality, of course, consisted precisely in this—that Antipas took for himself the wife of his brother, who was still living at the time, as can be concluded from the accounts of the evangelists. “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness. If a man lies with his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless” (Lev 18:16). To this should be added that Antipas’s first wife was alive and fled to her father upon hearing of his intention to marry Herodias. This is sufficient to show the genuine illegality of the marriage that took place, and there is no need to add that Antipas and Herodias were related to one another or in forbidden degrees of kinship, because Herodias was the niece of Antipas, the daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus. The Baptist recognized the old Jewish law and on its basis correctly said: “It is not lawful for you to take her.”

Matthew 14:5. And although he wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. (Cf. Mark 6:19-20). Euthymius Zigabenus interprets this place on the basis of Mark and says that Herodias was initially furious against John and desired to kill him. But Herod did not consent to this, knowing that John was righteous and holy. Therefore Antipas did many things, listening to him, and listened to him with pleasure.

Matthew 14:6. But when Herod’s birthday celebration came, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod. (Cf. Mark 6:21-22). As in this verse, so the entire narrative set forth in verses 6–12 is greatly abbreviated in comparison with Mark 6:21-29. “The daughter of Herodias, who danced before Herod,” is not named Salome in the Gospels. The information that Herodias had a daughter Salome, who married tetrarch Philip, is drawn from Josephus Flavius. The expression “before them” is somewhat inaccurate in Russian. In the original ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, “in the middle.” If we had only Matthew’s account, this word in itself would be little understood, because Matthew says nothing about a large gathering; about it one could only guess, if not for Luke’s account.

Matthew 14:7. Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. (Cf. Mark 6:23). It is supposed that the king had previously given something to Salome on festive occasions, and if so, this might have further encouraged her to please him. But such a supposition, of course, must remain only a supposition. The oath of the intoxicated king, although he might not have kept his word if the girl had requested something impossible, is psychologically quite understandable.

Matthew 14:8. She said: Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a plate. (Cf. Mark 6:24-25). Theophylact asks: “Why is ‘here’ added?” And answers: “Fearing that Herod, coming to his senses, would not repent afterward. Therefore she urges Herod, saying: ‘Give me here.’” The words “at her mother’s prompting” (προβιβασθεῖσα, cf. Acts 19:33) cannot be literally translated from the Greek. It is best to translate as “compelled” or “instructed,” deriving this word from βαίνω.

Matthew 14:9. And the king was grieved, but because of his oaths and those reclined with him, he commanded it to be given to her. (Cf. Mark 6:26). According to Theophylact, he was grieved on account of virtue, for even the enemy is amazed at virtue. Yet because of his oath he gave the inhuman gift. With Jerome, the words “the king was grieved” are referred to verse 8. Jerome says that Herod falsely displayed grief on his face, rejoicing in his soul. But in general in the Gospels the girl’s request appears completely unexpected for both the king and his guests. The addition “and those reclined with him” indicates that Herod desired to make the guests participants in his crime. According to Bengel, the king feared the guests and the guests feared him. They should have asked for John, but did not, and therefore became participants in his murder. Although at the beginning of verse 1 Matthew calls Herod a tetrarch, he now calls him a king. The word “oaths” in the Greek text is in the plural; apparently Herod repeated his oath several times.

Matthew 14:10. And sent and had John beheaded in the prison. (Cf. Mark 6:27-28). The entire narrative becomes quite clear if, accepting according to the testimony of Josephus Flavius about the imprisonment of the Baptist at Machaerus, we recognize that the banquet itself also took place there, and not in Tiberias (the residence of Herod) and not in Livias (Betharamtha), a city rebuilt and fortified by Antipas, lying on the eastern side of the Jordan and not far from Jericho. Machaerus was originally fortified by Alexander Jannaeus and then by Herod I, who established a royal palace there. It was on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, on the southern border of Perea. It was the strongest Jewish fortress after Jerusalem. Now the city lies in ruins. The place where it stood is known among the native Arabs by the name Mkour.

Matthew 14:11. And his head was brought on a plate and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. (Cf. Mark 6:28). Such deeds are not without examples in those barbarous times. According to Jerome’s account, Flaminius, a Roman commander, at the request of his mistress, who said she had never seen a beheaded man, had one criminal put to death at a banquet. Other examples see in Geikie, Life and Teaching of Christ II, 235–237. It is quite difficult to determine the exact time of the Baptist’s execution. Schürer (Geschichte), having carefully considered the opinions of Keim and Wieseler (I, 443 ff.), arrives at the following final conclusion: “In the end, we must, adhering to the testimony of the New Testament, place the death of Christ at Passover 30 AD (by our reckoning), the Baptist at 29, and the marriage of Antipas with Herodias at a somewhat earlier time, perhaps in 29 AD or a few years before.”

Matthew 14:12. And his disciples came and took away his body and buried it; and they went and told Jesus. (Cf. Mark 6:29). Concerning the announcement to the Savior of the Baptist’s death by John’s disciples, Mark does not speak.

Matthew 14:13. Now when Jesus heard this, he withdrew from there by boat to a desolate place privately; but when the crowds heard it, they followed him on foot from the cities. (Cf. Mark 6:30-33; Luke 9:10-11; John 6:1-2). The following narrative about the miracle of feeding five thousand with five loaves is found in all four evangelists. Here the evangelist John clearly approaches the synoptists for the first time. In Mark the Savior says to the disciples that they should go alone to a desolate place and rest a little. For many were coming and going, so they did not even have time to eat. In Matthew it is not said of the disciples but only of Jesus Christ himself. The reason for the withdrawal is clear from the Gospel of Mark. Therefore it appears incorrect the interpretation that he withdrew to the east bank or out of fear of death from the hand of Herod Antipas, or even in order to spare his enemies and prevent them from adding one crime to another. According to Luke, the events appear in the same connection as in the other synoptists, but the Savior withdraws to another shore after the twelve, having returned from preaching, told Christ what they saw. In John there is no mention of the reasons for withdrawal. From all this we can only conclude that there was not one reason for withdrawal but several, and nothing prevents us from combining them. The special reason indicated by Matthew is the report of John’s death. Ἐκει ῀θεν means “from there,” but the place from which the Savior departed is not exactly indicated. Perhaps the departure across the lake was from the place where the Savior received news of John’s death; perhaps from Nazareth (Matt 13:54), if we accept that the discourse Matt 13:54-58 is in immediate connection with this verse. Instead of ἔρημον τόπον (“a desolate place”) in Luke 9:10 is the city of Bethsaida. From the comparison of Luke’s expression “into a city called Bethsaida” (“into a desolate place near a city called Bethsaida,” this reading in Luke, as in the Russian translation, is not considered the best) with the accounts of Matthew and Mark, we can conclude that the place of withdrawal was “a desolate place” near Bethsaida, which, as is evident from the context, was on the other shore of the lake. Bethsaida was located on the northern side of the Sea of Galilee, a little above the mouth of the Jordan flowing into it. It was rebuilt by the tetrarch Philip, who, in honor of Augustus’s daughter Julia, named the city Julia. It was located on the eastern shore of the Jordan. Later it was given by Nero to Agrippa II. And now on the eastern edge of the plain of Butaiha travelers find a desolate place which answers all the requirements of the gospel narrative. As then, so at the present time it was desolate, because the land here is unsuitable for cultivation.

Matthew 14:14. And going out, Jesus saw a great crowd and had compassion on them, and he healed their sick. (Cf. Mark 6:34; Luke 9:11). The word “came out” (ἐξελθών) some, in agreement with Mark, interpret as “from the boat”; others as “from the desolate place.” Still others find both interpretations incorrect, because neither can be proved by anything, and all this leads to the thought that there is a gap in the synoptic tradition. But what is unclear in the synoptists is clear in John, who says that before the miraculous feeding of the people Jesus Christ went up the mountain and there sat with his disciples. ῟Εσπαλαγχνίσθη relates not to the sick but to the “people,” as does the subsequent αὐτῶν. It may be that Christ’s compassion was aroused by the sight of the people, which had many sick. But in Mark it is somewhat different: Christ’s compassion was aroused by the sight of the people, who were like sheep without a shepherd.

Matthew 14:15. When it was evening, his disciples came to him saying: This place is deserted and the day is now far gone; send the crowds away so that they may go into the villages and buy food for themselves. (Cf. Mark 6:35; Luke 9:12; John 6:5-7). According to John’s account, the Savior, seeing the crowd, asked Philip where to buy bread to feed the people. Matthew relates that first the disciples spoke to Christ asking him to dismiss the crowd so they could go buy themselves food in the nearby places. One may suppose, in agreement with Augustine, that only after these words did the Lord say to Philip what John mentions; Matthew and the other evangelists omit this last point. Therefore, according to Augustine, concerning these questions there is no need at all to be troubled, for here one evangelist reports what another omits. Some suppose that the disciples had previously procured themselves food. But such a supposition is contradicted by Matt 14:17 and parallel passages. The first Hebrew evening (ὀψία) came around 3 o’clock in the afternoon; ὀψία in verse 23 indicates already a late time, when night had fallen. Ἡ ὥρα παρῆλθεν ἤδη means “the hour”—the present time—“had already passed.” The sense is as follows: it was late time, when one must think about food for the people. The other synoptists express the same thought in various phrasings: ὥρας πολλῆς γενομένη (Mark), and: ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤρξατο κλίνειν (Luke). Here the apostles are called μαθηταί, disciples. The account of the synoptists is confirmed by that of the fourth evangelist, although in him the matter is presented in some places somewhat differently compared to the other evangelists (for example, John 6:8-9).

Matthew 14:16. But Jesus said to them: They have no need to go away; you give them something to eat. (Cf. Mark 6:37; Luke 9:13). This verse in Matthew is somewhat fuller than in the other synoptists. In the latter there are no words “they have no need to go away.” “You give them something to eat”—these words are the same (in the Greek text) in all three evangelists; only in Luke, perhaps more correctly than in Matthew and Mark, instead of ὑμεῖς φαγεῖν, as in Matthew and Mark, we have φαγεῖν ὑμεῖς. In John these words are omitted. According to Zigabenus, “they have no need to go away” is said in place of “they are not obliged to go away.”

Matthew 14:17. And they said to him: We have nothing here but five loaves and two fish. (Cf. Mark 6:37-38; Luke 9:13; John 6:8-9). It should be noted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of five loaves and two fish, but do not say that the loaves were barley. Only John mentions barley loaves. Regarding the boy who had these five loaves and two fish, we also read only in John. A similar miracle is in 2 Sam 4:42-44, except there are twenty barley loaves and a hundred people. See also Num 11:21-22.

Matthew 14:18. He said: Bring them here to me. Matthew 14:19. And ordering the crowd to sit down on the grass, he took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he blessed and broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowd. (Cf. Mark 6:39-41; Luke 9:14-16; John 6:10-11). Matthew’s account is shorter than that of all other evangelists. The narrative of Mark is more vivid and detailed. Luke adds that Christ commanded the people to sit down “in groups of fifty.” In Matthew and Luke it is not said about the distribution of fish, though the fact that Christ took the fish is mentioned; in Mark and John it is said about the distribution of fish also. John Chrysostom says: “When (Jesus Christ) forgave sins, opened paradise and led the robber in, when he had absolute power to repeal the old law, raised many dead, commanded the sea, revealed the secrets of hearts, opened eyes—at none of these actions do we see him praying. But when he intended to multiply the loaves, something far less significant than all the previously mentioned acts, he then looked up to heaven, as confirmation of his mission from the Father... and as instruction to us not to come to the table before offering thanksgiving to the Giver of our food.” Schürer says: “Among the Jews there was a beautiful custom—to say nothing without prayer (according to the commandment Deut 8:10).” It is unknown to Hilary where the loaves are multiplied—at the place of the meal or in the hands of those receiving them or in the mouth of those eating them. Others tried to determine the phenomenon more precisely and said that the multiplication occurred in the hands of the disciples, because not enough time would remain for Jesus Christ if he himself began to give pieces of bread and parts of fish to each of the 5,000 people. But the disciples who distributed the bread would, according to De-Wette’s calculation, have to distribute with both hands about 216 times. And if each of them stretched out his hand to receive bread and fish, then they would have stretched out their hands 432 times. Such calculations, if they are not superfluous, can only show that certain circumstances accompanying the miracle were not beyond the limits of what is possible or even usual. Jewish bread was ordinarily broad and thin, resembled flatcakes; probably for this reason we never hear in the New Testament of bread being cut, but only of bread being broken. Zahn notes that the detailed description of the distribution of bread by the disciples and the unanimous testimony of the evangelists concerning the number of baskets equal to the number of apostles, into which the uneaten and leftover bread pieces were gathered, strengthen the impression that the participation of the apostles in this entire action from beginning to end was essential to the narrative. The apostles were to first of all learn that they were to fulfill the commission to feed the people even when natural means were lacking.

Matthew 14:20. And they all ate and were satisfied; and they took up what was left over of the broken pieces, twelve baskets full. (Cf. Mark 6:42-43; Luke 9:17; John 6:12-13). The first sentence of the verse in Matthew is literally the same as Mark 6:42; in Luke 9:17 the word “all” is moved: “and they ate and were satisfied all.” John adds: “when they were satisfied, he said (says) to his disciples: Gather the leftover pieces, so that nothing is wasted.” This last command, which indirectly testifies to the reality of the miracle, for in a fiction it would seem strange, is not found in the other evangelists. But all of them unanimously say that 12 baskets of pieces were gathered (in Mark, besides bread pieces, there are also remnants of fish). “By the multiplication of loaves the miracle was not yet complete. The Lord caused there to be an excess, and an excess not in whole loaves but in pieces, so as to show that these truly were the remnants of those loaves and so that those who were not present at the performing of the miracle could know that it occurred” (St. John Chrysostom). To the question of where these “baskets” (κόφινοι) came from, the answer is that they were a common possession of Jews. Juvenal even speaks of them (Saturae, III, 14 and VI, 542: judaeis, quorum cophinus foenumque supellet). Jews often used them during travels. However, in the present case, there appear to be few baskets compared to the number gathered. What was put in them was probably spent on the way, and the baskets were already empty. Since the number of baskets is 12, they probably belonged only to the apostles.

Matthew 14:21. And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. (Cf. Mark 6:44; Luke 9:14; John 6:10). Luke and John speak of this earlier. In Mark it is simply “about five thousand men,” in Matthew “about five thousand people” (men, ἄνδρες), “besides women and children.” Origen considered this statement of Matthew “ambiguous” (ἀμφίβολον), because it is unknown whether only five thousand men and not a single woman or child were present at the feeding, or whether there were five thousand men apart from women and children. Some, according to Origen, interpreted this place to mean that neither women nor children were present at the multiplication of the five loaves and two fish. But if there were no women or children at all, why would the evangelist need to add this note? He could have expressed himself the same way as the other evangelists, who mention neither women nor children. One cannot agree with the opinion that Matthew is exaggerating, because the miracle itself does not appear any greater if women and children were among the men gathered. That the latter were present, Zahn considers “self-evident,” because with such a large number of men gathered chiefly to receive healing, women and children could also be present. Only the men were counted. There were probably few women and children, and they were not paid attention to in the count.

Matthew 14:22. And immediately Jesus made His disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of Him to the other side, while He dismissed the crowd. (Cf. Mark 6:45; John 6:14-15). Luke omits the entire following narrative. Mark adds that the Savior made the disciples go to the other side “to Bethsaida,” that is, as one must suppose, to the western Bethsaida near Capernaum. This is supported by John 6:17, which directly indicates Capernaum. If we had only Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts, the reasons why the Savior made his disciples go to the other side of the lake would be completely unclear. Both evangelists confine themselves to objective-historical exposition of facts, and their expressions, except for some individual words, are literally similar. John alone explains in his Gospel the reasons for the crossing of the disciples over the lake. Moreover, from the two verses John 6:14-15 only the latter part of John 6:15 somewhat coincides with Matt 14:23 and Mark 6:46.

Matthew 14:23. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone. (Cf. Mark 6:46; John 6:15-17). The evangelist John states clearly why the Savior withdrew to the mountain. The people, having seen the miracle, wanted to come and forcibly make Christ king, obviously an earthly king. Therefore Christ withdrew to the mountain. At this time night was already deep.

Matthew 14:24. But the boat was already many furlongs distant from the land, buffeted by the waves; for the wind was against them. Matthew 14:25. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus came to them, walking on the sea. (Cf. (Mark 6:48; John 6:19), with rather significant differences). Mark adds: “he would have passed by them.” The night watches and sentries were changed three times during the night among the Jews and Greeks. Among the Romans there were four watches, and from the time of Pompey this custom spread also to Palestine. The fourth watch is alluded to in Mark 13:35; Acts 12:4 and is directly spoken of here in Matthew and Mark. Four soldiers, who ordinarily made up a watch, were called a quaternion, and four quaternions were relieved during the night (cf. John 19:23). Since the feeding of the people was around the time of Passover (John 6:4), that is, in the latter half of March or the beginning of April, or around the time of the vernal equinox, when night equals day, the fourth watch of the night was about 3 o’clock in the morning. The storm itself continued during three night watches until the fourth. During nine hours the disciples with difficulty traveled 25 or 30 stadia (about 185 meters).

Matthew 14:26. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying: It is a ghost! And they cried out in fear. (Cf. Mark 6:49-50; John 6:19). The objectivity of the appearance is indicated by the expression in Mark “all,” that is, those who were in the boat, and in Matthew by the plural number in which the verbs and participles are placed (ἰδόντες, λέγοντες, ἐταράχθησαν, ἔκραξαν). The appearance could be considered a hallucination if here it were spoken of only one person. But several people do not have the same hallucination, as they do not have the same dreams.

Matthew 14:27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying: Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid. (Cf. Mark 6:50; John 6:20-21). The Savior revealed the error of the disciples, which caused them fear, by a categorical assertion that it is he. This meant that the phenomenon before the disciples was not a phantom, but a reality.

Matthew 14:28. Peter said to him in answer: Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water. The narrative of Peter’s walking on the water is not found in the other evangelists and is characteristic only of Matthew. Literally: “command me to come to you on the water.” By his faith, says Hilary, Peter surpassed the others. He is the first to answer Christ: “You are... the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16); the first to contradict Christ, considering his sufferings an evil (Matt 16:22); the first to solemnly promise to die with Christ and not deny him (Matt 26:33); the first to prevent his feet from being washed (John 13:8); he drew his sword against those who seized the Lord (John 18:10). Jerome says almost the same, only in more detail. The words “if it is you” some interpreted to mean that Peter’s words express not faith but doubt. But they can only indicate a sudden change in Peter’s soul, from a state of uncertainty and fear to a state of full faith that he was in the presence of the actual Person of the Savior, walking on the waters.

Matthew 14:29. He said: Come. And Peter, getting out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. Matthew 14:30. But seeing the wind strong, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out: Lord, save me! The expression “seeing the strong wind” is very characteristic. Peter, of course, did not see the wind but saw only the strong storm or heaving waters. The wind is here indicated as the cause of the upheaval, and the word is used to designate all the circumstances of the storm in general.

Matthew 14:31. Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, saying to him: You of little faith, why did you doubt? Instead of “caught” it is better “took” (ἐπελάβετο). The verb διστάζω expresses doubt, hesitation, divided mind, wavering opinion. Peter’s faith made him able to walk on the water; fear made him sink into the water (καταποντίζεσθαι). Chrysostom says that “this occurrence is more wonderful than the previous one, and it happened after. When Christ showed that he is the Master of the sea, he performs before the disciples another more amazing sign. Before he only forbade the winds, and now he himself walks on the water, and allows another to do the same.” Regarding Peter’s fear, John Chrysostom says: “It is thus useless to be near Christ for the one who is not near him by faith.”

Matthew 14:32. And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. Cf. Mark 6:51, where it is said only of the Savior that he entered the boat. In Matthew—plural (“they entered”). Mark speaks of the Savior alone, because he had previously related that only he was walking on the sea. John (John 6:21) says: “they wanted to receive him into the boat.” From this it was concluded that if the disciples wanted, then Christ himself did not want it, and together with Peter he walked far, to strengthen his faith, but when they approached the shore, they entered the boat.

Matthew 14:33. And those in the boat worshipped him, saying: Truly you are the Son of God. (Cf. Mark 6:51-52). Throughout the time Christ and Peter were walking on the water, the storm continued. It ceased only when they entered the boat not far from shore. In Mark it is inserted: “and they were utterly astounded beyond measure and marveled” (Mark 6:51). And further: “for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (Mark 6:52). The connection between these expressions is not obvious. According to Origen, the words “Truly you are the Son of God” were spoken by the disciples in the boat (cf. Matt 14:22; Mark 6:45).

Matthew 14:34. And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. (Cf. Mark 6:53; John 6:21). The evangelists do not precisely indicate the place of landing, saying that they landed in the land of Gennesaret, but not in Bethsaida (Mark) and not in Capernaum (John), to which the disciples originally intended to go. Most likely, the landing place was somewhat south of Bethsaida (western) and Capernaum. The word “Gennesaret” or “Genesar” designated not only the Sea of Galilee, which also bore the names “Sea of Galilee,” “Sea of Tiberias,” but also the western shore of the sea, which was once one of the most fertile places of Palestine, but is now completely wild. The ancient Hebrew names Kinnereth (Num 34:11), Kinnerot (Josh 11:2; 1 Sam 15:20) served to designate the sea (from the Hebrew “kinnor”—harp, which the sea resembles in external appearance), the city in the tribe of Naphtali (Josh 19:35), and the region near it.