The multiplication of loaves is the most prominent miracle of Jesus' earthly ministry. It is the only miracle--other than his Resurrection--mentioned in all four gospels.
This even ranks the raising of Lazarus.
But despite this, we're subjected to countless homilies in which the priest seems bent on explaining away this grand miracle, in which Jesus fed 5,000 men (plus women and children) with just five loaves and two fish. Instead, we're told, it was just a "miracle of sharing" whereby Jesus encouraged people to share the food they had in secret selfish stashes.
I've written about it before, including comments from Pope Benedict and John Paul II, but here's the final, crushing, humiliating death-blow to the idea . . .
St. John Speaks
Let's look at the way the miracle is described in John 6. Here's how it goes:
[1] After this Jesus went to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiber'i-as. [2] And a multitude followed him, because they saw the signs which he did on those who were diseased. [3] Jesus went up on the mountain, and there sat down with his disciples. [4] Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. [5] Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a multitude was coming to him, Jesus said to Philip, "How are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?" [6] This he said to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. [7] Philip answered him, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to get a little."
Now enter the boy with the five loaves and two fish (note that we get the added detail that they're barley loaves):
[8] One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, said to him, [9] "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what are they among so many?"
So Jesus performs the miracle:
[10] Jesus said, "Make the people sit down." Now there was much grass in the place; so the men sat down, in number about five thousand. [11] Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted.
Got that?
Jesus distributed the loaves and the fish and people got as much as they wanted.
Since the whole point of this is that the people didn't want 1/1,000th of a loaf or 1/2,500th of a fish for their family to feed on, for Jesus to give them "as much as they wanted," he would need to multiply the amount of food (by, say, a couple thousand times).
So simply treating the text on its own terms points to a miraculous multiplication, not getting people to share. That just not the way the sentences are structured.
But we're not done yet . . .
Here Comes the Coup de Grace
The final, FINAL death-blow comes in the aftermath of the event:
[12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost." [13] So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves, left by those who had eaten.
Note that St. John identifies the source of the fragments. They weren't fragments from stuff people had in their secret stashes. They were fragments from the five barley loaves.
John isn't leaving us any rationalistic wiggle room here. This was a miracle, and he means us to know it.
Also note that the "fragments from the five barley loaves" filled twelve baskets.
The only way five barley loaves could produce twelve baskets worth of fragments would be if they were of brobdingnagian size (which they weren't) or if the amount of material had been multiplied.
So again, no rationalistic wiggle room.
Abandon all hope, ye who would seek to explain this away.
Look on His works, ye mighty of cleverness, and despair.
A Question of Faith
Of course, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
And so, though the miracle of free will, a person can still cling to the miracle of sharing nonsense.
But at what a cost!
You basically have to say that the Gospel of John is wrong.
Or you have to come up with some even more contorted rationalization to square the alleged historical basis of the story (Jesus prompted people to share their food) with the fact that the text presents this as a miracle--and not a miracle in the remote past but something that people who were then living had actually seen.
That is, frankly, implausible.
The Miracle of the Eucharist
It's understandable that a non-believer would dismiss what the Gospel of John says, just as a non-believer might be expected to dismiss anything the Bible says. But why would the people who preach homilies--Catholic priests and deacons--do so?
After all, the feeding of the five thousand is directly and, explicitly in John 6, oriented toward the Eucharist.
After feeding the multitude miraculously, Jesus goes on to tell of another, related miracle he will perform: Enabling us to consume his Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist.
The latter miracle is hidden in that it doesn't disrupt the apparent operation of nature the way that the multiplication of loaves did.
The multiplication of loaves is a manifest miracle. The Eucharist is a hidden miracle.
And Jesus is, as it were, offering us the manifest miracle as proof of the fact that he is able to perform the hidden one. (Just as he miraculously healed the paralytic--another manifest miracle--in order to prove his authority to forgive the man's sins--another hidden miracle; Matt. 9:1-8.)
If a priest or deacon believes in the Eucharistic miracle, why should he have trouble with the idea of Jesus performing the multiplication of loaves?
But then, people people didn't believe Jesus about the Eucharistic miracle even after the multiplication of loaves, leading to one of the saddest (and ill-omened) verses in the Bible, John 6:66:
After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Let's pray for our priests and deacons.
What do you think?
By the Way . . .
Incidentally, if you're interested in this type of information, you might want to check out my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
The very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is an “interview” I did with Pope Benedict on the book of Revelation. What I did was compose questions about the book of Revelation and take the answers from his writings.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Awesome Awesome, Jimmy. Thanks for this clarification. And I am an Opus Dei cooperator, so apparently Secret clubs are right up my alley! Ask Richie Cunningham!
I look forward to some awesome emails. Awesome.
God bless your day!
I’d be interested in a comparison to instances where Jesus spoke metaphorically, just to see the difference in the text.
So I read this information on manifest and hidden miracles to my 6 & 10 year old. Why not? THEY understand you & agree. Thought you should know & Thank you.
Jimmy - I agree completely; except rather than use the “lead a horse to water” analogy, it would be more appropriate (in this context) to use Dorothy Parker’s witticism; rendered when asked to use horticulture in a sentence.
Thanks for pointing out some arguments I had completely overlooked (and yet they’re so obvious!).
There is another element at work in this miracle, one related specifically to the loaves and fishes of the boy and to the baskets. People had brought food for the journey (thus the boy’s loaves and fishes and why there were baskets), and when the boy brought forth his own food, recognizing Jesus’ desire to feed all the people, Jesus took that offering and multiplied it so that no matter what each person or family might have brought (or failed to bring) to the gathering all had as much as they wanted and more than enough to fill 12 baskets at the end.
Great insight Jimmy! I think this confusion (and misreading of Scripture) was promulgated by many leaders of the post Vatican ll Church (especially theologians), who had a Protestant bent—-and were certainly PROTESTING many Church teachings, intent on changing the Church. All done in the spirit of “ecumenism”. Well THAT interpretation of the multiplication of the loaves, which you so adeptly undo, seems to me to be quintessentially Protestant. At least it is compatible with the common Protestant idea/ meaning of the Eucharist. But, truth be told, this way of thinking is an attack on the very heart of Catholic liturgical devotion.
I always knew that if the people had merely shared the food they brought with those who had none (and how many people would have brought food?) there couldn’t possibly be any food left over, never mind 12 baskets of it.
Also, why would Jesus ask his Apostles about feeding the people if many/most already had their own food? He would have known if they had any or not.
These Catholics that like to downplay the miracles of Our Lord in scripture are to be pitied, but also, we need to see their explanations as more incredible than the miracle written about. Why can’t they just read what’s there instead of trying to come up with all sorts of stuff to try to explain away the miracles? Because they really don’t believe, I guess.
T!he miracle of the loaves and fishes actually happened. I have seen food multiplied at a gathering of believers myself!
Joanp62—-Blame it on the Enlightenment. The source of many of Man’s spiritual problems today and his crippling lose of humility, this movement harkens back to Eden where PRIDE came before the FALL.
Jimmy, why, oh, why do we try to limit God and His Omnipotence into our little puny minds????? Surely God can do absolutely anything. He created everything - seen and unseen and us wretched creatures from NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!
St. John also makes the point a little later that the Jews wanted to make Jesus king. Why? Because he asked them to share their food? I don’t think so! And neither did the Jews. They had witnessed one astounding miracle.
If a priest or deacon believes in the Eucharistic miracle, why should he have trouble with the idea of Jesus performing the multiplication of loaves? Answer: because most deacons believe the Eucharist is only a symbol. Statistics show 75% of professed Catholics believe it is a symbol—-deacons and lay communion ministers are no different.
Whether literal or allegorical, the miracle of sharing does happen here. If anything, John highlights that the sharing is done through Jesus Christ and thanks to God’s infinite Grace and not through human logic.
Where are the Bishops who have the responsibility to insure the faith is correctly presented to their flock? As with other areas with the U.S. Bishops, they bury their head in the sand so as not to offend anyone. As a life long Catholic, I want to see the Church leadership, Cardinals,Bishops and Priests,demonstrate their authority by calling out these offenders and remind them of the vows they accepted and teach Catholic doctrine. You want to see the Church grow, then its leadership needs to show commitment to the Catholic way and if there are dissidents, remove them immediately. However, don’t hold your breath as many of the red hats enjoy the social life they live and do not want to offend.
While I believe the Lord Jesus as sovereign God, materialized more bread and fish, to move selfish hearts to generosity is also a miracle.
But there is something else here:
The crowds were so caught up in the words of Our Savior that for 72 hours, they felt no hunger.
Is this not a miracle as well.
I don’t doubt the miracle, but how do you explain the fact that the people brought 12 wicker baskets with them? Presumably they were not empty.
The truth of which you write aside, rather than answer your “what do you think” I ask of you.
Jesus was not a drama queen, and He did not use dramatics or smarminess in His teaching.
So, what do you think folks are going to think of your use of 666 in “(and ill-omened) verses in the Bible, John 6:66” in your period point?
The part you reference via 6:66 is not always 6:66 in all Catholic Church approved translations of the bible, much less than all translations.
Why do you feel the need to talk to your sycophants and not to those who truly need to be saved?
Why do you hardly ever quote the saints or magisterium?
Is it too much trouble for you to provide links to those Saints and the Magesterium which speak to the subject of your pieces?
The sin of Adam was of the ego of the intellect. How much different was his sin than “Catholic” bloggers and writers who so prominently place their image on their blogs and sites and preach to the world their wisdom?
AMDG
Our deacon, in one of his homilies, spoke quite frankly and pointedly that this was a true miracle and not just some sharing thing as some say. It was the whole focus of the homily in fact.
The first time I heard the “sharing” explanation was from Al Capp, creator of Lil’ Abner, and that was decades ago.
It’s nice to know that when somebody like Jimmy honorably tries to speak on behalf of Holy Church to the best of his ability, somebody like 9th Centurion will always be there to find fault, pick everything apart, accuse, scold, and make sure that no good deed goes unpunished.
And then sign AMDG to look super-pious! Congrats, 9th Centurion! You win this week’s Over the Top Tina Fey Eyeroll.
Password: eyes33. heh!
This is supercalifragilisticexpealidocious! No, it isn’t Latin but it
says it all anyway. What a fabulous post…just wish I had this couple
years ago when a visiting priest ruined my day with this corruption of
the great miracle of the loaves and fishes. Of course it was right there all the time in Holy Scripture. Thanks for bringing it to light so
succinctly and beautifully. We should all be grateful for John 6 and his
Bread of Life discourse. And to you too.
9thCenturion
{So, what do you think folks are going to think of your use of 666 in “(and ill-omened) verses in the Bible, John 6:66” in your period point?}
... Coincidence.
{The part you reference via 6:66 is not always 6:66 in all Catholic Church approved translations of the bible, much less than all translations.}
... Nonsense. The translation is the same… v63 “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” For unbelievers, v60 “On hearing it, many of His disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ ” Obviously someone who has not been given the “Holy Spirit of God” to see it.
{Why do you feel the need to talk to your sycophants and not to those who truly need to be saved?}
...Mistaken or misinformed.
... Sycophant defined is the classical Greek word sukophantes, which comes from sukon, a fig, and phainein, to “show a fig”. The Greek word meant an informer, or a false accuser. Then referring to the action of an informer figuratively giving the fig (thumb between two fingers) to the criminals he informed against.
In England in the sixteenth century it had this original meaning of an informer, but evolved into a sense of someone who tells tales to a person of higher status. This, the Oxford English Dictionary explains is “A mean, servile, cringing, or abject flatterer; a parasite, toady, lickspittle”.
I have not witnessed anything of the like on this blog. Therefore, you are mistaken in your surly assumptions.
{Why do you hardly ever quote the saints or magisterium?
Is it too much trouble for you to provide links to those Saints and the Magesterium which speak to the subject of your pieces?}
...This is a blog, not a theology internet classroom. It is neither expected nor required. If you are interested in that information, follow the directions: Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty. In the meantime, what do you think?
And lastly,
{The sin of Adam was of the ego of the intellect. How much different was his sin than “Catholic” bloggers and writers who so prominently place their image on their blogs and sites and preach to the world their wisdom?}
...Really? Ego of the intellect?
Made in the perfect image and likeness of God? Were they not intelligent beings already? Without malice, cunning or ego? Knowing the basic sense of truth and falsehood?
...The TREE is the problem here. It did not have the same knowledge that they had. It was a tree dripping with desires elevated to the highest level. It made them imbalanced and conscious only of their desires and nothing else.
With competing moral demands, truth vs feelings; stealing vs protection; killing vs saving; truth vs privacy, objective dilemma entered the world. Adam and Eve disappointed God. They did not use the capacity of their basic moral knowledge to obey God. Adam and Eve trusting their own will and not God’s will for them is the sin of man.
Ego and intellect? No, inexperience and personal desire won the moment. It can never be factored out of moral dilemma and choice.
Mary,
{The part you reference via 6:66 is not always 6:66 in all Catholic Church approved translations of the bible, much less than all translations.}
>>>... Nonsense. The translation is the same… <<<
Nonsense? You are wrong. http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=6&l=66#x
{Why do you feel the need to talk to your sycophants and not to those who truly need to be saved?}
>>>...Mistaken or misinformed. ... Sycophant defined is the classical Greek word sukophantes … This, the Oxford English Dictionary explains is “A mean, servile, cringing, or abject flatterer; a parasite, toady, lickspittle”. I have not witnessed anything of the like on this blog. Therefore, you are mistaken in your surly assumptions. <<<
Wrong again Mary, and you are very dishonest in your reaching for etymology. Here is the OED’s definition of sycophant: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sycophant (it’s the free version of the OED)
{Why do you hardly ever quote the saints or magisterium?
Is it too much trouble for you to provide links to those Saints and the Magesterium which speak to the subject of your pieces?}
>>>...This is a blog, not a theology internet classroom. It is neither expected nor required. <<
Actually Mary, Jimmy and many other’s hold themselves and their blogs out as Catholic Evangelists, which makes it very much a “theology classroom”. Furthermore, Christ instructed His followers to spread His Word not your interpretation. Given the Magisterium IS the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and the Saints have been officially recognized as living and teaching His Word better well enough to be named a Saint, their words are rightly placed above ALL living disciples. So Mary. Again, I ask, why would Jimmy or you or anyone spend so much time preaching their thoughts and “wisdom” and ignore the Church and Her Saints so consistently? Why if these Evangelists really seek the salvation of the souls who read and follow their blog, do they so infrequently ignore the very thing Christ promised Satan would not prevail against? Christ never promised that of Jimmy or any of the other Catholic Evangelical bloggers.
And lastly,
{The sin of Adam was of the ego of the intellect. How much different was his sin than “Catholic” bloggers and writers who so prominently place their image on their blogs and sites and preach to the world their wisdom?}
>>> ...Really? Ego of the intellect? Made in the perfect image and likeness of God? Were they not intelligent beings already? Without malice, cunning or ego? Knowing the basic sense of truth and falsehood? ...The TREE is the problem here. It did not have the same knowledge that they had. It was a tree dripping with desires elevated to the highest level. It made them imbalanced and conscious only of their desires and nothing else. With competing moral demands, truth vs feelings; stealing vs protection; killing vs saving; truth vs privacy, objective dilemma entered the world. Adam and Eve disappointed God. They did not use the capacity of their basic moral knowledge to obey God. Adam and Eve trusting their own will and not God’s will for them is the sin of man. Ego and intellect? No, inexperience and personal desire won the moment. It can never be factored out of moral dilemma and choice.<<<
“...The TREE is the problem here ” Wow, just wow. You are very lacking in formation of Catholic doctrine.
It was the PRIDE of their EGO to KNOW good and evil.
It was called The Tree of Knowledge - http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=2&l=9#x
And Satan used knowledge to tempt the woman: [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=3&l=4#x)
Your apologetics for Jimmy only prove my point regarding the Magisterium and Saints.
AMDG
OTOH, the account could be a theological construction - theology and Christian proclamation in the form of a story. The different accounts of feedings may be present in the different gospels not because they took place as actual events in history, but because telling a story which revolved around the multiplication made a theological point all the evangelists wanted to make. The gospels are not reports by the “meeja” - they are theological presentations & proclamations, each with its own character & emphases, of the Gospel of the One in Whom the various churches believed. Why event X narrated in the gospels actually happened is less important than its theological significance - that Jesus is the Messiah is more important than whether a supposed miracle showing Him to be Messiah happened. It could well be that the interpretation the article objects to so much is one of the causes of the story of the miraculous feeding. Miracles are far less important than righteous conduct that shows the presence of the Kingdom, such as feeding the hungry. The despised interpretation is far more profound and Christian & Biblical than silliness like “seeking signs and wonders”.
Why event X = Whether event X
Manticore: “Why event X narrated in the gospels actually happened is less important than its theological significance - that Jesus is the Messiah is more important than whether a supposed miracle showing Him to be Messiah happened.”
Actually it is rather important that these miracles were really performed by Jesus because the Old Testament prophecies spoke of the Messiah raising the dead, making the blind see and the lame walk. By performing these miracles, Jesus showed that he was indeed the Messiah and fulfilled the prophecies.
@Manticore…You have exposed yourself for the modernist you truly are and as such cannot claim to be a Catholic. I will not attempt here to refute the heresy of modernism of which your post reeks but it was most effectively denounced by every Pope since Pope Leo XIII who gave us the
most efficacious prayer to St Michael the Archangel after being given a
vision of the future church during Mass. This is a prayer that was said
by all the congregation (upon his order)at the foot of the altar after every mass said throughout the world until Vatican II. When we stopped
saying that prayer the evil in the Church broke loose. We need to get
back to St Michael and beg his intercession once more “against the wickedness and snares of the Devil who prowls about the world seeking the ruin of souls”.
Thirst for truth, I hate to pop your balloon, but the Prayer to St. Michael and the others generally called the Leonine Prayers had NOTHING to do with modernism.
They were originally composed as petitions for the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See over the Papal States, which was eroded and destroyed by the time of his predecessor, Pius IX. When the Roman Question, as it was called, was settled by the Lateran Treaty of 1921, their intention was changed to the “conversion of Russia.” They were never part of the Mass itself, and never were included in the altar missal.
Nor did Pope Leo XIII compose them as the result of a mystical vision he had of Satan arguing with God. This is nothing more than a pious (no pun intended) urban legend.
@ dixibehr: You have not “popped my balloon” sucessfully. Please go
to the ural below to correct your “modernist” viewpoint. It is true
the St Michael Prayer was added at the end of the mass, as I said, after
the final gospel, along with other prayers known as the Leonine prayers.
It is true they were not part of the mass itself but were said after the dismissal by the celebrant at the foot of the altar. Along with the St Michael Prayer,others were prayed for the conversion of Russia, etc as you said. HOWEVER, the origen of the St Michael prayer stands as I said. It is now said by those, like you, modernists to have been nothing more that a pious urban legend.(the prophetic visions of Pope Leo XIII) After Vatican II, when the Trindentine Mass was replaced with the Norvus Ordo, by Pope Paul VI, they were dropped as well as the final gospel. Nothing I said is not historically correct nor not held by the Church. You
have amended it by the notions promoted today by modernists who love to
point fingers at what they consider “pious piffle”! See below:
www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.dfm?id=1217
ThirstforTruth, you are historically wrong.
The site you mentioned is not always historically correct, either.
Also, there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny, either.
BTW, ThirstforTruth, I just went there, and there is no such site.
And there is no such thing as “pious piffle.” If it’s piffle, it’s by definition IMpious.
@dixibehr…Get your glasses cleaned! The website is there but you
obviously care neither for Truth nor church history..unless it is revised by you. A typical modernist! Cheap shots like yours are also typical of those who have neither faith nor reason. I know better than to deal with
your type which is fundamentally dysfunctional and most likely to be
found on the devil’s playground. Bye-bye!!
Thirstfortrurth, those who know me, which clearly excludes you, know I’m NOT a modernist.
I refer you to this article by the traditionalist priest Anthony Cedaka. He did some investigation into the history of the Leonine prayers, and found out a few things that will disagree with what you think.
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=16&catname=1#_ednref36
As far as getting my glasses cleaned, I cut and pasted the link you gave.
If the best you can do to refute what I say is to indulge in ad hominem arguments and name calling, all you do is increase my heavenly treasure. Keep it up!
\\After Vatican II, when the Trindentine Mass was replaced with the Norvus Ordo, by Pope Paul VI, they were dropped as well as the final gospel.\\
These were suppressed BEFORE the close of V2.
The Novus Ordo Missae, or Ordinary form (to use the preferred term of His Holiness) was promulgated in 1970, NOT 1964.
And you say **I** do not know church history?
The more *correct* word is *suppressed*, not *dropped* which in my haste
I erred in using. As for the rest, nit-picking, as my point and the point you were making were not so much historical dates but fact. I rest my
case which is as earlier stated. If you wish to continue the rant be my
guest. This combox is so far off topic now it more than likely will not return until the *religious trolls* exit ..
ThirstforTruth, the issue was not whether you used the word “dropped” or “suppressed.” The issue is your DATES are wrong. The Leonine Prayers and Last Gospel were suppressed BEFORE the release of the Ordinary form, and not in the OF itself, as you claimed.
And speaking of dates:
1. When did Leo XIII have this vision? 1880, 1884, or 1888? All three dates are applied to it. The Leonine Prayers were not promulgated until 1886, two years BEFORE he had this vision. some versions say.
2. What were the circumstances of this vision? Before Mass? After Mass? During a meeting with the cardinals? Again, all three have been reported.
3. Why is the FIRST mention of this vision NOT until 1933, with NO substantiation?
Another question: would you allow YOUR spouse to be tormented by Satan for 100 years? This is what this purported vision says that Christ allowed to happen to His Church. Nevertheless this 100 years is now up.
BTW—the various versions of the “three days of darkness” are equally inconsistent.
You can safely take off your tinfoil hat and stop worrying about chemtrails, too. The gobbulns are NOT going to get us.
God is still on the throne, and all power in heaven and on earth is STILL given to Christ Jesus, Who has not relinquished a drop of it.
Thanks for this Jimmy. Now will you please tackle the issue of those sinful towns-one of which was used to forever name a sinful act of debauchery- being destroyed by God because they were not hospitable? It sorta continues that “sharing” meme.
O olonejeco, etoqidid mazosa rub on Prosolution Pills Special Offer azawe olokub awaluwodig ek e. Casayonas evugogejon, neyokefepa qotojapay masofeyeke o ef evise axavawox oridax edatoviw fih.
You didn’t go far enough, Jimmy. More good stuff and further proof from later on in the chapter:
Chapter 6
24When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus. 25And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. 27Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life. .
So if the people wanted more bread and knew they’d supplied it themselves by sharing, why didn’t they do the same again instead of coming to Jesus for more?
Wait a minute . . . I have it! They knew that he, not they, was responsible for providing the bread. QED
@William: There’s another aspect to the Jews wanting to make Christ their king. Kings were war leaders. And back in the day, one of the most serious problems an army could have was running out of food. In fact, logistics—the science of keeping an army fed, sheltered, and equipped, especially on the move—remains an object of intense study to this day.
Remember, this was before preservatives, Pasteurization, and refrigeration, and it was hard to harvest and preserve enough food to get through the winter, even when you didn’t have to lug it all around in a supply train. But hey, if you have a dude who can get an army-sized group fed out of one kid’s lunch, then you know he can keep an army sufficiently well-fed to stay on the march, which is a huge strategic advantage.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.