Homily-Five Loaves and Two Fish

[Teelynn]

Guess I could get his email…but I am starting to come to the realization, through this and other red flags that have popped up, and other meetings he has attended, that it might be like trying to nail jello to the wall. I know that he and the Bishop have got each others back, so to speak, but I am considering writing to the Cardinal, for whatever that might be worth.

 

[buffalo]

Guess I could get his email…but I am starting to come to the realization, through this and other red flags that have popped up, and other meetings he has attended, that it might be like trying to nail jello to the wall. I know that he and the Bishop have got each others back, so to speak, but I am considering writing to the Cardinal, for whatever that might be worth.

Yeah, but this is right in the text. It is so obvious.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t see why the two ideas–that food already there was shared and that the food was miraculously multiplied–are mutually exclusive. When the disciples asked Jesus to send the crowd off, after all, he told them, “Feed them yourselves.” This gospel is absolutely about sharing. It is about giving all you have, realizing that God will make up the vast difference between what you have and what is needed, and that, in fact, you will wind up with more than you started with. This is how God does things!

The homily I heard also combined both ideas. It talked about the duty to look to the needs of others, but it also told stories from right now today where “common sense” says the food should have run out, but where there were literally prayers raised that brought this very story to the throne of Heaven. And yes, there were leftovers, and no, nobody refilled the buffet from what they had squirrelled away in their purses. The message was that the Gospel was not about a one-time incident from the past. God still works miracles for those who are still willing to trust. So maybe the difference in the homily I heard was that our pastor obviously believes that God still works miracles, beyond anything we could ever do.

The other thing that is sometimes not pointed out is that the entire crowd was there because they were seeking Jesus. Nobody had been expecting to get a free lunch. They came out into the desert with a deeper hunger, and Jesus felt compassion for them. He didn’t send them away because their physical needs came to the forefront. God cares about it all, and God takes care of it all. When we bring the needs to God, though, we need to realize that the miracle starts with a directive: Feed them yourselves. Healing starts with being willing to reach for the tassel of his cloak, to open up rooftops to get the sick person into the presence of God, if necessary. That is how faith works.

 

[Teelynn]

I don’t see why the two ideas–that food already there was shared and that the food was miraculously multiplied–are mutually exclusive. When the disciples asked Jesus to send the crowd off, after all, he told them, “Feed them yourselves.” This gospel is absolutely about sharing. It is about giving all you have, realizing that God will make up the vast difference between what you have and what is needed, and that, in fact, you will wind up with more than you started with. This is how God does things!

The homily I heard also combined both ideas. It talked about the duty to look to the needs of others, but it also told stories from right now today where “common sense” says the food should have run out, but where there were literally prayers raised that brought this very story to the throne of Heaven. And yes, there were leftovers, and no, nobody refilled the buffet from what they had squirrelled away in their purses. The message was that the Gospel was not about a one-time incident from the past. God still works miracles for those who are still willing to trust. So maybe the difference in the homily I heard was that our pastor obviously believes that God still works miracles, beyond anything we could ever do.

The other thing that is sometimes not pointed out is that the entire crowd was there because they were seeking Jesus. Nobody had been expecting to get a free lunch. They came out into the desert with a deeper hunger, and Jesus felt compassion for them. He didn’t send them away because their physical needs came to the forefront. God cares about it all, and God takes care of it all. When we bring the needs to God, though, we need to realize that the miracle starts with a directive: Feed them yourselves. Healing starts with being willing to reach for the tassel of his cloak, to open up rooftops to get the sick person into the presence of God, if necessary. That is how faith works.

This makes more sense to me. The sermon that was given was not the same connotation as this. But when I read this…when Jesus told them…“feed them yourselves”…he was asking them to reach out in faith and trust, and charity…and to give whatever little they might have had (they had been there for three days…couldn’t have had much if anything) and God would provide all that they needed and more…which ended up to be a great over abundance. God is always overly generous, as I have experienced myself.

The sermon I heard did not focus on the Divinity of Christ or how HE would feed US, through faith and trust… it seemed to focus on us feeding us…Fr. followed up with the social ills of our day, of bringing about the Kingdom of God here. Of the “collective sins of society.” “Universal sins” and how we as a people can move to overcome them. Well, I am going to see what happens from here. Possibly it was an off day for him. For the time being, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s going to be a wait and see thing. I will tell you one thing…I have my antenna up!

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Here’s the homily that our PV gave on Sunday.

18th Sunday of the Year (A)

---

Not long ago a woman reporter interviewed a young man from Argentina. He had been held prisoner by the military government there for six years without trial.

---

During this time the young man was tortured and was subjected to long hours in solitary confinement. The interviewer asked him if he was bitter about his suffering and the loss of six years of his life. He surprised her, saying: I don’t regard those six years as lost. I took advantage of them to strengthen my character and to deepen my relationship with God.

---

**The young man’s response illustrates beautifully what Paul talks about in today’s second reading. He writes: Who . . . can separate us from the love of Christ? Can trouble do it, or hardship or persecution or danger? Then Paul answers his own question, saying: Neither death nor . . . powers . … there is nothing in all creation that will ever be able to separate us from the love of God which is ours through Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

Paul’s point is clear. There’s no prison in the world so strong that God’s love cannot penetrate it. There’s no tragedy in life so great that God’s love cannot transform it into something good. There’s no trial in the world that’s so crushing that God’s love cannot use it to make us into better persons. As a matter of fact, the reverse is more often true. God uses tragedies and trials in our lives to prepare us to do things that we would never otherwise be able to do.

---

Our heavenly Father never takes something away from us unless he intends to give us something better in return. He never erases something in our lives unless he intends to write something more beautiful in its place.

---

A famous maker of violins once said that the best wood for violins comes from the north side of the tree. The reason is that the wood on that side has been seasoned by the cold north wind. And that seasoning gives it a special sound that no other wood can duplicate.

---

**The same is true of human beings. Some of the most beautiful music in our world has come from people who have been seasoned by suffering, by tragedies, and by trials. **

---

For example, Handel wrote his famous “Hallelujah Chorus” when he was poverty-stricken and suffering from a paralyzed right side and right arm. Beethoven was the son of an alcoholic father. He also lost his hearing at the age of 28. And when he conducted the first performance of his Ninth Symphony, he couldn’t hear the music as it was played. Nor could he hear the thunderous applause that followed the performance.

---

If God is to use the trials and the tragedies of our lives to help us grow in our relationship with him and as persons, we must do what the young man did. We must open our hearts totally to God. We must do what the Apostles did in today’s gospel. We must give Jesus our fives loaves and two fish and let him do with them whatever he will.

---

***Blessed Teresa of Calcutta states it this way - ***“We can’t do great things; we can only do small things with great love.” We are called to be the instrument that God will use to feed others. Blessed Teresa saw her role in life as that of giving her own few loaves and fish to Jesus and letting him do the rest. In other words, Mother Teresa follows the policy of Saint Ignatius of Loyola: “Work as if everything depends on you, but pray as if everything depends on Jesus.”

---

And so, the thing Mother Teresa had was the conviction, borne of faith, that we need not do great things. We need only do small things with great love. Jesus will do the rest, just as he did with the loaves and fish. In other words, one person doing something with great love is the instrument Jesus is looking for in today’s world.

---

Jesus is looking for us to be His instruments through which HE can work miracles. He is looking for us to have the faith and courage to do little things with great love. When he finds us willing to be that person, then miracles can happen—and do happen.

---

Every one of us has been gifted with a reservoir of spirituality. The Grace of God is within us. We are united to God through our baptism. We come to the sacraments of Eucharist and Penance to renew, restore and replenish this Grace, our union with the Lord Jesus. We come to worship, to reverence, to receive what we need so we can feed others.

And if we do this, we can be sure of one thing. He will multiply them beyond anything we ever imagined possible. The important thing is the open heart. The important thing is the trusting heart. The important thing is the believing heart. The important thing is the loving heart.

---

Jesus provides. He gave the disciples what they needed to feed the people. Do you doubt he will give us what we need as well? ****

 

[frommi]

Yes, a bonified miracle…not just a charismatic motivator that inspires them to "share ". I think Jesus is not to be compared to…let’s say…a political motivator …besides that…they have nothing to share anyway. The “sharing” message is a good one…but doesn’t even come close with the loaves and fish. The “Divine” Jesus…healing and feeding His Children miraculously, physically and spiritually as well.

True, but in the gospel reading from this past Sunday it doesn’t explicitly say how the miracle occurred.

I think too many people have an image in their minds of the Franco Zefferilli film “Jesus of Nazareth” where the fish are multiplied, etc.

Certainly a miracle took place there…but it seems wrong headed to assume that the homilist was trying to downplay the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Ruthie]

Frommi wrote:
*…it seems wrong headed to assume that the homilist was trying to downplay the divinity of Jesus.
*
It is certainly true that we cannot see into the homilist’s head. He may not have *intended *to downplay Jesus’ divinity. But it still had that effect.

He essentially said that Jesus did not perform a miracle, multiplying the loaves and fishes, but was just a good preacher. This is along the lines of those who say He didn’t really walk on water, but (insert explanation here).

This kind of thing eventually leads to explaining away the Resurrection, saying it didn’t really happen. Then the Host just becomes a cracker; the Precious Blood just fermented grape juice, and Our Lord just another preacher, albeit a good one.

No. Our homilists should not downplay Jesus’ miracles.

Ruthie

 

[frommi]

Frommi wrote:
*…it seems wrong headed to assume that the homilist was trying to downplay the divinity of Jesus.
*
It is certainly true that we cannot see into the homilist’s head. He may not have *intended *to downplay Jesus’ divinity. But it still had that effect.

He essentially said that Jesus did not perform a miracle, multiplying the loaves and fishes, but was just a good preacher. This is along the lines of those who say He didn’t really walk on water, but (insert explanation here).

This kind of thing eventually leads to explaining away the Resurrection, saying it didn’t really happen. Then the Host just becomes a cracker; the Precious Blood just fermented grape juice, and Our Lord just another preacher, albeit a good one.

No. Our homilists should not downplay Jesus’ miracles.

Ruthie

But…if that same priest is then at the altar consecrating the bread and wine, he clearly believes in the resurrection and the miracle that occurs every time mass is celebrated.

Maybe we all need reminding that Jesus was not just about parlor tricks to get his point across. The fact is that in the presence of Jesus, the multitudes were fed…was it because suddenly copious amounts of bread appeared? Did everyone simply take less? Did some give from what they had?

Why does it matter so much to people here?

Let’s say that Jesus Christ never performed a miracle of multiplying the loaves…does it really change diddly squat about the deposit of faith? Not enough to lead to a crisis of faith in any rational Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

But…if that same priest is then at the altar consecrating the bread and wine, he clearly believes in the resurrection and the miracle that occurs every time mass is celebrated.

Maybe we all need reminding that Jesus was not just about parlor tricks to get his point across. The fact is that in the presence of Jesus, the multitudes were fed…was it because suddenly copious amounts of bread appeared? Did everyone simply take less? Did some give from what they had?

Why does it matter so much to people here?

Let’s say that Jesus Christ never performed a miracle of multiplying the loaves…does it really change diddly squat about the deposit of faith? Not enough to lead to a crisis of faith in any rational Catholic.

Why does it matter? Because someone is fooling with the text. It clearly states the people were hungry and had no food.

 

[Sure]

But…if that same priest is then at the altar consecrating the bread and wine, he clearly believes in the resurrection and the miracle that occurs every time mass is celebrated.

Maybe we all need reminding that Jesus was not just about parlor tricks to get his point across. The fact is that in the presence of Jesus, the multitudes were fed…was it because suddenly copious amounts of bread appeared? Did everyone simply take less? Did some give from what they had?

Why does it matter so much to people here?

Let’s say that Jesus Christ never performed a miracle of multiplying the loaves…does it really change diddly squat about the deposit of faith? Not enough to lead to a crisis of faith in any rational Catholic.

Generosity or sharing is not a miracle. Feeding 5,000 people on five loaves and two fish IS a miracle. Saying that people “shared” is a lie and goes directly against scripture. Priests should not lie to their flock. I’m pretty sure that’s a bad sin.

 

[EasterJoy]

Generosity or sharing is not a miracle. Feeding 5,000 people on five loaves and two fish IS a miracle. Saying that people “shared” is a lie and goes directly against scripture. Priests should not lie to their flock. I’m pretty sure that’s a bad sin.

It does not say in Scripture that there was no sharing. To say that there was is not a lie, because certainly the five loaves and two fishes were shared, right? Frankly, if there were 5,000 men, plus women and children, sitting around looking so hungry that I thought we really needed to send them off before they fainted, and I had only five loaves and two fishes to share, and when we all got done eating there were twelve baskets of leftovers, I would consider that a miracle, and I don’t care if I did see somebody here and there sharing a hard roll out of *their *backpacks, too. No way you’re going to tell me that wouldn’t be a miracle.

Generosity, sharing, and trust are what the disciples did. The miracle is what God did. We’re disciples, and it is no lie to say we need to share generously and to trust. Excepting something along a repeat of Jesus’ remark that we would always have the poor with us, the only lie would be to say that God won’t make up the difference between what we have to give and what is needed. God is not dependent on us; we’re dependent on God.

When we are doing God’s will, it is for our sakes, in order that we might be conformed to Him and His ways, not so that God can get things done. God could turn the stones into bread, if He wanted to. Supplying even the five loaves and the two fish is required for our sakes, the trusting is for our sakes, not because God needs something to start from in order to see to our needs. We need to do those things because God has willed to give us free will, so that of all creatures, we might be so fortunate as to love and give Him glory by conscious choice. Only by acts of our free will can we open ourselves to God and the life He graciously made us for.

 

[Sure]

It does not say in Scripture that there was no sharing. To say that there was is not a lie, because certainly the five loaves and two fishes were shared, right? Frankly, if there were 5,000 men, plus women and children, sitting around looking so hungry that I thought we really needed to send them off before they fainted, and I had only five loaves and two fishes to share, and when we all got done eating there were twelve baskets of leftovers, I would consider that a miracle, and I don’t care if I did see somebody here and there sharing a hard roll out of *their *backpacks, too. No way you’re going to tell me that wouldn’t be a miracle.

Generosity, sharing, and trust are what the disciples did. The miracle is what God did. We’re disciples, and it is no lie to say we need to share generously and to trust. Excepting something along a repeat of Jesus’ remark that we would always have the poor with us, the only lie would be to say that God won’t make up the difference between what we have to give and what is needed. God is not dependent on us; we’re dependent on God.

When we are doing God’s will, it is for our sakes, in order that we might be conformed to Him and His ways, not so that God can get things done. God could turn the stones into bread, if He wanted to. Supplying even the five loaves and the two fish is required for our sakes, the trusting is for our sakes, not because God needs something to start from in order to see to our needs. We need to do those things because God has willed to give us free will, so that of all creatures, we might be so fortunate as to love and give Him glory by conscious choice. Only by acts of our free will can we open ourselves to God and the life He graciously made us for.

If you are saying that the 5 loaves and 2 fishes miraculously fed 5,000 - as in all 5,000 ate and that little bit of food never ran out, then I agree with you. If you are saying everyone pulled out their own food and shared, I am saying that is completely wrong. Scripture tells us it was a miracle. And “sharing” isn’t miraculous at all. This was a supernatural event, not a bunch of people being friendly.

To say that it was just sharing attacks the divinity of Christ, because implicit in that statement is that we could accomplish the same “miracle of sharing” without Christ. So, in a sense, we don’t need Christ, we just need ourselves.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you are saying that the 5 loaves and 2 fishes miraculously fed 5,000 - as in all 5,000 ate and that little bit of food never ran out, then I agree with you. If you are saying everyone pulled out their own food and shared, I am saying that is completely wrong. Scripture tells us it was a miracle. And “sharing” isn’t miraculous at all. This was a supernatural event, not a bunch of people being friendly.

To say that it was just sharing attacks the divinity of Christ, because implicit in that statement is that we could accomplish the same “miracle of sharing” without Christ. So, in a sense, we don’t need Christ, we just need ourselves.

I like to think that both happened, that when the disciples trusted Jesus enough to make what would have looked like a pitiful attempt at generosity, that those others who had their little bit pitched in, too, as a result of an outpouring of grace. I like to think of it that way because it becomes not just a multiplication of loaves, but an expansion of hearts. Not one or the other, but both, and both as a result of the abounding generosity of God. I think that this is how God works in the world.

That isn’t “just” sharing. That is a brave generosity, a generosity that risks being totally inadequate. I think that is what we are called to do. As Mother Theresa used to say, “I was not called to be successful. I was called to be faithful.” You do what God asks you to do with what you have, and *He *will then give you the means to do all that *He *intends to accomplish.

I’m saying that if there was sharing, if there were 50 loaves and 20 fish, feeding 5,000 plus the women and kids on that is still a miracle. But let me be clear: I don’t think this is a story with a secular explanation. It isn’t about the psychology of giving. It is about trusting that God will fill up our inadequacy, that God will send us help, sometimes from we know not where. He is not bound by the help of humans. All creation serves at His pleasure. When He chooses to do it in a way that has a physically explainable cause, though, we are still to say, “To God be the glory. We are fed from His hand.”

 

[Joe_5859]

OK - a lot of you have already been exposed to this interpretation, but for me, this is the first. Our priest gave a homily today on Matthew’s account of the Loaves and Fish.
Athough I am a cradle Catholic, I have not (until rededicating myself the last few years) had an extensive Catechesis (sp?) in younger years. (thus explaining my elementary knowledge )

He interpreted this gospel with an emphasis on the people feeding each other with what they already had. Because of my reconversion, IMMEDIATELY I saw all kinds of red flags. The essence of this was on “feeding the poor” and “charity”. WHAT?! I know that this gospel ties in with the Eucharist. What happened to that? What happened to the “Divinity of Christ”?
Does this alternative interpretation have any validity? For the last several years the every time I get this uneasy feeling is when the Holy Spirit seems to be hitting me on the head. Not that Charity and feeding each other is not according to the gospel, but what does it have to do with THIS gospel? My heart feels sick…and I’m not sure what for!?

I’ve come across that interpretation before:

“The real miracle was that Jesus moved the people to share.”

Hogwash!

Such a view just reinforces the idea in many people’s minds that the miracles of Jesus all have natural explanation, thus downplaying (or denying) his divinity. Dangerous territory to be sure!

 

[Teelynn]

I’ve come across that interpretation before:

“The real miracle was that Jesus moved the people to share.”

Hogwash!

Such a view just reinforces the idea in many people’s minds that the miracles of Jesus all have natural explanation, thus downplaying (or denying) his divinity. Dangerous territory to be sure!

That’s exactly what I came away with…that Jesus miraculously moved the people to share…now, saying that, I agree with Easter Joy that faith and trust and sharing is one element that Jesus wants us to have, and he will miraculously give us tons more than we need when we put them into action…but it is still Jesus that performs the miracle…and the miracle is not sharing nor have we caused it…Jesus has performed the miracle. That was not the essense of this homily that I heard last Sunday. As I said previously, it was as if Jesus was Charismatic enough to move people to share…would have made him nothing more than one of the politicians running for office that I know. The Divinity of Jesus was all but eliminated.

 

[EasterJoy]

That’s exactly what I came away with…that Jesus miraculously moved the people to share…now, saying that, I agree with Easter Joy that faith and trust and sharing is one element that Jesus wants us to have, and he will miraculously give us tons more than we need when we put them into action…but it is still Jesus that performs the miracle…and the miracle is not sharing nor have we caused it…Jesus has performed the miracle. That was not the essense of this homily that I heard last Sunday. As I said previously, it was as if Jesus was Charismatic enough to move people to share…would have made him nothing more than one of the politicians running for office that I know. The Divinity of Jesus was all but eliminated.

It is one step to go from “the loaves didn’t *actually *multiply” to “the man wasn’t really blind” and a short one from there to “He didn’t literally rise from the dead.”

As for the sharing and trusting part, that is what we are to do. It gets a short shrift sometimes, too, as if we can say, “God bless you and keep you” and everyone gets fed. In the long run, there should be both. Otherwise, who would ever think to ask for a miracle, when one is needed? Who would come forward with their pittance, when a miracle is needed? And wouldn’t we eventually land where you suggest, thinking it is this world that we are to make into a heaven, rather than the Kingdom of Heaven coming to remake this world, and us?

Still, I’ve heard good homilists choose to stress one point and not touch on the other, by turns. Maybe he’ll take the other tack on a future opportunity. Fifty-two weeks, plus Holy Days…he’ll have other chances to complete the picture, and to start all over again.

 

[Teelynn]

It is one step to go from “the loaves didn’t *actually *multiply” to “the man wasn’t really blind” and a short one from there to “He didn’t literally rise from the dead.”

As for the sharing and trusting part, that is what we are to do. It gets a short shrift sometimes, too, as if we can say, “God bless you and keep you” and everyone gets fed. In the long run, there should be both. Otherwise, who would ever think to ask for a miracle, when one is needed? Who would come forward with their pittance, when a miracle is needed? And wouldn’t we eventually land where you suggest, thinking it is this world that we are to make into a heaven, rather than the Kingdom of Heaven coming to remake this world, and us?

Still, I’ve heard good homilists choose to stress one point and not touch on the other, by turns. Maybe he’ll take the other tack on a future opportunity. Fifty-two weeks, plus Holy Days…he’ll have other chances to complete the picture, and to start all over again.

:yup: And I will listen carefully.

 

[palmas85]

I like to think that both happened, that when the disciples trusted Jesus enough to make what would have looked like a pitiful attempt at generosity, that those others who had their little bit pitched in, too, as a result of an outpouring of grace. I like to think of it that way because it becomes not just a multiplication of loaves, but an expansion of hearts. Not one or the other, but both, and both as a result of the abounding generosity of God. I think that this is how God works in the world.

That isn’t “just” sharing. That is a brave generosity, a generosity that risks being totally inadequate. I think that is what we are called to do. As Mother Theresa used to say, “I was not called to be successful. I was called to be faithful.” You do what God asks you to do with what you have, and *He *will then give you the means to do all that *He *intends to accomplish.

I’m saying that if there was sharing, if there were 50 loaves and 20 fish, feeding 5,000 plus the women and kids on that is still a miracle. But let me be clear: I don’t think this is a story with a secular explanation. It isn’t about the psychology of giving. It is about trusting that God will fill up our inadequacy, that God will send us help, sometimes from we know not where. He is not bound by the help of humans. All creation serves at His pleasure. When He chooses to do it in a way that has a physically explainable cause, though, we are still to say, “To God be the glory. We are fed from His hand.”

It also serves to diminish what happened by shifting the miracle from Christ squarely to the people, who, apparently, miraculously shared their food. when moved by what, the sight of a few others eating? That whole concept doesn’t make any sense any more than the modernist revision of the water into wine story where it turns out that the owner always did have the wine and Christ shamed him into producing it.

Now the story might work if food sharing wasn’t a common practice in those days in that area of the world, but, big surprise, I guess, it was and still is among the nomadic herders who still inhabit that area and others in the middle east. In fact this revisionist view would not work in most parts of the world at all. For instance, in the Philippines, to NOT share food would be the miracle or very uncommon… Sharing food is the norm as it is in many non western countries…

No the story is about a true miracle, where food came from where there was none available solely through the desire of Christ to feed the people.

What is so hard to accept about that?

 

[EasterJoy]

It also serves to diminish what happened by shifting the miracle from Christ squarely to the people, who, apparently, miraculously shared their food. when moved by what, the sight of a few others eating? That whole concept doesn’t make any sense any more than the modernist revision of the water into wine story where it turns out that the owner always did have the wine and Christ shamed him into producing it.

Now the story might work if food sharing wasn’t a common practice in those days in that area of the world, but, big surprise, I guess, it was and still is among the nomadic herders who still inhabit that area and others in the middle east. In fact this revisionist view would not work in most parts of the world at all. For instance, in the Philippines, to NOT share food would be the miracle or very uncommon… Sharing food is the norm as it is in many non western countries…

No the story is about a true miracle, where food came from where there was none available solely through the desire of Christ to feed the people.

What is so hard to accept about that?

Well, first off, I don’t not accept that nobody in the crowd had a crumb besides the five loaves and the two fish. It could have been that way.

Nevertheless, I think it is clear that everyone there came to that wasteland, not for a free lunch, but for Jesus. With 5,000 people there, it is unlikely that nobody had anything. If they really had gone out into the desert to hear him, then surely if they had anything to share, then out it came. I do believe that.

But, you know, maybe they had no idea how much he would have to give them spiritually. Maybe they weren’t ready for it to take that long. Or maybe these were people who were so poor that they figured they could starve as easily out there as closer in to town. Maybe they not only did not have a crumb to share, but having so hung on His every word that the time passed without their knowing it, they had been fasting. It could have been that way, too. If you made me guess, I’d say it was all of these, depending who you looked at. Whatever they did have between them, it was far, far short of what was needed. You are right…nobody dreamed that these people could be fed in that wasteland. That much is absolutely clear. The disciples weren’t worried that they had a selfish crowd on their hands. They were afraid people were going to start passing out. This is not a story about what people can do, if they share. This is a story about what God will do, if we believe.

Belief, though, is an action. God didn’t say, “No food? Oh, well, look here! A buffet!” No, Jesus said, “Feed them yourselves.” You have to put your pittance out there, when called upon to do so, believing that God will make up the huge gap between what you have and what He intends. Sometimes it will come from where you might have expected, but you have to have the kind of trust that believes that sometimes it will come from you can’t imagine where or how. That’s what I think this story is about, I think. Whether anyone put in some food from a non-miraculous source is besides the point. The generous provision was a miracle, and a miracle that would not have happened without Jesus.

At any rate, the Gospels are never about them, back then. It is about us, right now. That radical kind of trust is what we’re called to. Our pastor made that much clear, and for that I’m thankful. Now if only I could live that…

 

[palmas85]

Well, first off, I don’t not accept that nobody in the crowd had a crumb besides the five loaves and the two fish. It could have been that way.

Nevertheless, I think it is clear that everyone there came to that wasteland, not for a free lunch, but for Jesus. With 5,000 people there, it is unlikely that nobody had anything. If they really had gone out into the desert to hear him, then surely if they had anything to share, then out it came. I do believe that.

But, you know, maybe they had no idea how much he would have to give them spiritually. Maybe they weren’t ready for it to take that long. Or maybe these were people who were so poor that they figured they could starve as easily out there as closer in to town. Maybe they not only did not have a crumb to share, but having so hung on His every word that the time passed without their knowing it, they had been fasting. It could have been that way, too. If you made me guess, I’d say it was all of these, depending who you looked at. Whatever they did have between them, it was far, far short of what was needed. You are right…nobody dreamed that these people could be fed in that wasteland. That much is absolutely clear. The disciples weren’t worried that they had a selfish crowd on their hands. They were afraid people were going to start passing out. This is not a story about what people can do, if they share. This is a story about what God will do, if we believe.

Belief, though, is an action. God didn’t say, “No food? Oh, well, look here! A buffet!” No, Jesus said, “Feed them yourselves.” You have to put your pittance out there, when called upon to do so, believing that God will make up the huge gap between what you have and what He intends. Sometimes it will come from where you might have expected, but you have to have the kind of trust that believes that sometimes it will come from you can’t imagine where or how. That’s what I think this story is about, I think. Whether anyone put in some food from a non-miraculous source is besides the point. The generous provision was a miracle, and a miracle that would not have happened without Jesus.

At any rate, the Gospels are never about them, back then. It is about us, right now. That radical kind of trust is what we’re called to. Our pastor made that much clear, and for that I’m thankful. Now if only I could live that…

I think the story is about Jesus miraculously providing food for the people. Nothing more nothing less, mo great mystery, no real teaching moment, a miraculous event performed by Christ, one of many performed by Him.

Not by us.