Do the Nature Miracles of Jesus have any Evidential Value? Part 2

In our previous column, we examined Jesus’s first miracle, turning water to wine at Cana of Galilee, and His stilling of the tempest to determine if His nature miracles served a legitimate purpose, such as convincing their witnesses that Jesus is the promised Messiah. In this month’s column, we will continue this process, turning our attention to the miraculous feedings of the 5,000 and of the 4,000 and to Jesus’s walking on water following the first miraculous feeding. 

The Miraculous Feedings 

(Matthew 14:13-21; 15:29-38; Mark 6:30-44; 8:1-9; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-14) 

Objections to the feedings of the 5,000 and of the 4,000 are legion. We will focus on the three major claims or questions: 

There was only one feeding, and years of tradition turned the event into two separate incidents. 

There was no miracle performed, just a spontaneous sharing of scarce food to feed the crowd. 

If there were two separate feedings, why did the disciples ask where they could get enough bread to feed the crowd (Mark 8:4) the second time, after witnessing the feeding of the 5,000? 

Responding to objection one, the differences between the two feedings are sufficient in number and type to assure us we are dealing with two distinct events.  

First, and most obvious, Jesus spoke of both events after the fact (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:18-21)!  

Second, both Matthew and Mark record both feedings. While Luke and John only mention the feeding of the 5,000, it was common for the Gospel writers to select events which fit the purpose of their work and ignore others. An obvious example is Matthew and Luke including the birth narratives (though differing from each other in some details) and Mark and John excluding them. 

Third, the feedings were of two different groups in two different places. The 5,000 were Jews who followed Jesus around the Sea of Galilee to the city of Bethsaida (Luke 9:10-11). The 4,000 were Gentiles who came to hear Jesus in the Decapolis region (Mark 7:31).  

Fourth, the feedings happened at different times of the year. The 5,000 took place in the spring, near the time of Passover (John 6:4). Jesus had the people sit down on the green grass to eat (Mark 6:39; John 6:10). The 4,000 took place later in the summer, requiring the people to sit on the bare ground (Matthew 15:35; Mark 8:6).  

Fifth, the quantity of food was different in each feeding. At the 5,000, the disciples were given five loaves of bread and two fish, donated by a boy in the crowd (John 6:9). At the 4,000, the disciples had seven loaves and a few small fish in their possession (Matthew 15:34).  

Sixth, after the feedings, the disciples collected twelve small baskets of leftovers from the 5,000 (John 6:13). From the 4,000 they collected seven large baskets of leftovers (Mark 8:8).  

Seventh, and finally, the 5,000 were fed by Jesus on the same day they came to hear Him (Luke 9:12-17). The 4,000, however, were listening to Jesus for three days before they were fed (Mark 8:1-6). 

After noting some scholars consider these two events to be just “a literary doublet to emphasize a point,” Mark Moore concludes, “However, there are enough differences between the two feedings that the most natural reading of the texts suggests two separate events. The similarity between the events shows how Jesus ministered comparably to both the Jews and the Gentiles during this portion of His ministry.”i 

The second objection claims the “miracle” was the change of heart exhibited by the 5,000. According to this view, there were many people in the crowd who had food with them, as the boy did. When they saw him share his meager lunch, they were motivated to do the same, and the multitude was fed! 

This explanation overlooks several key points. One, before the feeding commenced, Jesus asked Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, that these may eat?” John adds, “And this He was saying to test him; for He Himself knew what He was intending to do” (John 6:5, 6). In other words, this wasn’t just about meeting the physical needs of the multitude. There were spiritual lessons to be learned as well, and Jesus was preparing to work a miracle to illustrate those lessons. 

Two, all four Gospel accounts indicate there were twelve small baskets of food left over. If they were simply sharing the limited amount of food a few brought with them, how was it possible to have enough leftovers to feed the disciples another meal? 

Three, after the feeding, John notes the response of the crowd: “When therefore the people saw the sign (σημεῖον) (semeion) which He had performed, they said, ‘This is of a truth the Prophet who is to come into the world’” (John 6:14). Semeion is a common New Testament Greek word for a miracle performed as proof or evidence of the miracle worker’s authority. In John 2:18, the Jews challenged Jesus, saying, “What sign (semeion) do You show us as Your authority for doing these things?” The point is John clearly says Jesus performed a miracle to feed the 5,000, and they took this as a sign that He was the Messiah.ii 

The third objection asks, after witnessing the feeding of the 5,000, why did the disciples ask where they could get enough bread to feed the second crowd (Mark 8:4)? They could hardly have forgotten such an event just a few months earlier. Several reasonable replies have been suggested.  

One, as we mentioned earlier, the 4,000 were Gentiles. Jesus’s Jewish disciples were probably not accustomed to eating with and providing for Gentiles. 

Two, they were in a remote place. Where could they find provisions for such a large group? 

Three, Jesus did not always perform miracles. When He visited Nazareth a second time (Matthew 13:54-58), He did not do many miracles there because of the citizens’ unbelief. This does not suggest a weakness in Christ’s power but rather a reluctance to reveal His identity to skeptics. Earlier, in Matthew 12:38-42, Jesus refused to perform a sign for some scribes and Pharisees because of their insincerity. The only sign they would receive would be the “sign of Jonah” (Jesus’s resurrection). 

In the end, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fish just as He had done for the 5,000 and fed the 4,000. His ministry to the Gentiles, including healing many who were lame, blind, or mute, resulted in their praising the God of Israel (Matthew 15:31). 

Walking on the Water 

(Matthew 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:15-21) 

Like the stilling of the tempest, which we discussed last month, this incident involves the power of Jesus over the elements. In fact, the event consists of three miracles: Jesus and Peter walking on water, stopping the wind, and immediately bringing the boat to the shore. 

John 6:15 tells us that after the feeding of the 5,000, the crowd wanted to force Jesus to be their king. To prevent this, and to keep His disciples from being swayed by the crowd, He sent them on ahead by boat to the other side of the sea, dispersed the crowd, and withdrew to the mountain alone to pray (Mark 6:45-46). 

John 6:16 says it was already evening (about 6:00 p.m.) when the disciples set out in the boat. They encountered a strong headwind, and by the “fourth watch of the night” (between 3:00-6:00 a.m., Mark 6:48) they had only rowed three or four miles (John 6:19). At that point, Jesus “came to them, walking on the sea” (Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:19). 

The disciples’ first reaction was that a ghost was stalking them (Matthew 14:26)! However, Jesus reassured them, saying, “Take courage; it is I, do not be afraid” (Mark 6:50). At that point, Matthew records that Peter asked Jesus to prove His identity by commanding Peter to walk on water (14:28)! The Lord summoned Peter; he left the boat and walked to Jesus until the wind made him afraid, and he began to sink. At that point, Jesus pulled Peter up from the water, they climbed into the boat, and the wind instantly stopped (Matthew 14:29-32). John adds that the boat immediately came to shore once Jesus came into the boat (John 6:21). 

As we have seen before, there are three major issues raised by critics of this account: 

Walking on water is impossible, so there must be a naturalistic explanation. 

Matthew alone records Peter’s walk on the waves, which makes it even more difficult to accept. 

Matthew’s and Mark’s conclusions seem diametrically opposed to each other. Matthew says the disciples worshipped Jesus and declared, “You are certainly God’s Son!” (Matthew 14:33), while Mark says, “they were greatly astonished, for they had not gained any insight from the incident of the loaves, but their heart was hardened” (Mark 6:51-52). 

It is no surprise that naturalistic explanations abound. The simplest is to label the account pure fiction—a ghost story! However, the fact that three of the four Gospels record the event makes it difficult to dismiss so easily. 

Another proposed explanation is that Jesus actually walked on the shore, and in the darkness, the disciples thought He was walking on water. However, this “explanation” ignores Peter’s stroll on the water and the sudden cessation of the wind. 

Similarly, a third proposal claims Jesus walked on an underwater reef or on submerged rocks to reach the boat. In other words, Jesus was deceiving the disciples, and it worked! 

The most unusual explanation, however, was suggested by a group of Israeli and U. S. scientists in 2006, who claimed that a rare cold spell created very thin ice flows on the lake, allowing Jesus to walk across.iii The theory, to my knowledge, has not gained many serious followers, either in the scientific community or among Bible scholars, nor has it explained the other details of the Gospel accounts. 

Mark Moore has an apt summation of this event. “The texts clearly say what they intend. Either they are literary inventions with theological purposes, deliberate lies, or God breaking into natural law. We must accept them or reject them. But to explain them away is not intellectually honest.”iv 

The second issue is interesting but not overly critical. Why does only Matthew mention Peter’s request to walk on water to his Master? We should note only Matthew records Peter’s mistakes and failings on multiple occasions. Jesus rebuked Peter for failing to understand a parable (Matthew 15:15-16). After Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, Peter was rebuked again for misunderstanding Jesus’s impending death (Matthew 16:13-23). At Capernaum, Jesus gets Peter out of an embarrassing situation by providing the coin in the fish (Matthew 17:24-27). Finally, Matthew relates Peter’s naïve answer to the question of how often he should forgive his brother’s sin (Matthew 18:21). 

I don’t believe Matthew recorded these events out of any hatred or jealousy of Peter. These were important events in Peter’s life, leading up to his greatest moral failure, the denial of Jesus (which was recorded in all four Gospels). However, we should remember Peter recovered from all these failings and became a major leader in the early church. 

It is plausible Mark, who was an apprentice of Peter, omitted these details out of respect for Peter’s legacy. John, writing many years later, may have omitted them for the same reason or because the story was so well known by then. 

Turning to the final issue, how do we explain the stark differences between Matthew’s and Mark’s conclusions? I suggest both were true. I would reconstruct the scene thus: 

1) Jesus and Peter enter the boat, and the wind immediately ceases (Matthew 14:32). 

2) The disciples fail to realize what is happening because they still did not understand the miraculous feeding (Mark 6:51-52). 

3) Jesus miraculously brings the boat to shore (John 6:21). 

4) The disciples worship Jesus, finally realizing what had just happened (Matthew 14:33). 

And so, we see that once again, a series of nature miracles performed by Jesus became an important faith-building exercise for His disciples. 

To be continued.