Leavetaking of Mid-Pentecost

(de verb. Dom. Serm. 17) One kind of temptation leads to sin, with which God never tempts any one; (James 1:13.) and there is another kind by which faith is tried. (Deut. 13:3.) In this sense it is said that Christ proved His disciple. This is not meant to imply that He did not know what Philip would say; but is an accommodation to men's way of speaking. For as the expression, Who searcheth the hearts of men, does not mean the searching of ignorance, but of absolute knowledge; so here, when it is said that our Lord proved Philip, we must understand that He knew him perfectly, but that He tried him, in order to confirm his faith. The Evangelist himself guards against the mistake which this imperfect mode of speaking might occasion, by adding, For He Himself knew what He would do.

"But this he said testing him," not doubting; "for he himself knew what he was about to do." Therefore he said this to test him, and by testing to show that the money was lacking.

There is also a question about the truth of the text, because it says here: "But this he said testing him." Against this: James 1: "God tempts no one": whence in the same place: "God cannot be tempted." Likewise, temptation is a path to sin: but God inclines no one to sin. If you say that he tempts not by inclining to evil, but by proving, according to that saying of the Psalm: "Prove me, O Lord, and try me"; against this: it belongs to one who does not know man to prove or take experiment of him: therefore if God knows man, he neither tempts nor proves.

It must be said that there is a temptation inclining to evil, and this is from the flesh, the world, and the devil, not from God: and there is a temptation that proves, and this can be threefold: either so that it becomes known to the one proving, or so that it becomes known to others, or so that the one proved becomes known to himself.

In the first way God does not tempt, but man does: Sirach 13: "Through much speech he will try you." In the second way God tempts the perfect man as an example; Genesis 22: "God tempted Abraham." In the third way he tempts the imperfect man for the merit of humility, because a man is humbled when his weakness becomes known to himself: Psalm: "Prove me, O Lord, and try me."

Smallness of faith is the worst sickness and surpasses all evil. If God works or promises to do anything, then let it be believed in simple faith. Just because we are powerless to accomplish anything, we should not let God be accused by our inability to understand how he will accomplish things beyond our understanding.… What is then beyond our comprehension is received by faith and not by investigation. Therefore, just as one who believes is admired, so also one who doubts is not free from blame. The Savior himself testifies about this when he says, "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already."

What meaneth, "to prove him"? Did not He know what would be said by him? We cannot assert that. What then is the meaning of the expression? We may discover it from the Old Testament. For there too it is said, "And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Take thy beloved son whom thou lovest"; yet it doth not appear in that place either, that when He saith this He waited to see the end of the trial, whether Abraham would obey or not, (how could He, who knoweth all things before they come into existence?) but the words in both cases are spoken after the manner of men. For as when the Psalmist saith that He "searcheth the hearts of men," he meaneth not a search of ignorance but of exact knowledge, just so when the Evangelist saith that He proved Philip, he meaneth only that He knew exactly.

And if the miracle had been performed at once, without any introduction, the greatness of it would not have been seen. The disciples were made to confess their own inability, that they might see the miracle more clearly; And this He said to prove him.

Through his question to Philip, he intended to expose his disciples to doubt, so that they might observe more clearly the miracle he would do. Even though he appears to speak to one disciple only, his words concerned all for the common benefit. By explaining the purpose of that question the evangelist added: "He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he was going to do." "To test him," he says, but he means, rather, to provide the proof. Indeed, he first kept Philip in doubt and difficulty because of the shortage of food, but then, when Philip would see the miracle accomplished, he would learn that everything must always be committed to God and that he should never feel embarrassed because of any shortage.

He says this testing Philip, that is, wishing to reveal what faith he has. Without doubt, He asks Philip not because He Himself does not know his thoughts, but because He wishes to reveal them before the others. "For the Lord Himself knew what He was going to do."

Or to show others it. He was not ignorant of His disciple's heart Himself.

Our Lord's intention is given when he says, He said this, however, to test him. Here the Evangelist raises one difficulty in answering another. For we could wonder why our Lord asked Philip what to do, as though our Lord himself did not know. The Evangelist settles this when he says, for he knew what he would do. But it seems that the Evangelist raises another difficulty when he says, to test him. For to test is to try out; and this seems to imply ignorance.

I answer that one can test another in various ways in order to try him out. One man tests another in order to learn; the devil tests a man in order to ensnare him: "Your enemy, the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he can devour" (1 Pt 5:8). But Christ (and God) does not test us in order to learn, because he sees into our hearts; nor in order to ensnare us, for as we read in James (1:13): "God does not test [i.e., tempt] anyone." But he does test us that others might learn something from the one tested. This is the way God tested Abraham: "God tested Abraham" (Gn 22:1); and then it says (v 12): "Now I know that you fear God," i.e., I have made it known that you fear the Lord. He tests Philip in the same way: so that those who hear his answer might be very certain about the miracle to come.

Wherein he shows his dulness: for, had he perfect ideas of his Creator, he would not be thus doubting His power.

(de Con. Evan. l. ii. c. xlvi) The reply, which is attributed to Philip by John, Mark puts in the mouth of all the disciples, either meaning us to understand that Philip spoke for the rest, or else putting the plural number for the singular, which is often done.

"Philip answered him: Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, that each one might receive a little something": and thus a great sum was necessary, and they themselves were poor and did not have even a small amount; for they had left all things, according to what Peter said in Matthew nineteen: "Behold, we have left all things and followed you," etc.; and Acts three: "Silver and gold I have not."

Feebly again does Philip advance, not to the power of Jesus to do all things, and that easily, but on hearing Whence shall we buy said to prove him, forthwith he catches at it, and looks at the means by money alone, not conceiving that the nature of the thing may be accomplished otherwise than by the common law, and that practised by all, to wit, prodigality of expenditure. Therefore as far as regards the disciples' uncare for money and their possessing nothing, and Philip's own apprehension, which did not as yet with perfect clearness view the exceeding dignity of our Saviour, liberality towards the multitudes is turned into an impossibility. But it was not so, the will of the Saviour conducts it to its completion. The impossible with men is possible with God, and the Divine Power proves on all sides superior to the natural order of things with us, strong to accomplish all things wondrously, even what overleap our understanding.

"Master, we can find only five barley loaves; No one of us brought anything into the desert, But a child is here who has them. O Lover of man, no other resource is possible for us. For an enormous and boundless number of people, O Man of pity, How can these five loaves be sufficient? In addition, he has two fishes. But hurry and nourish them, since Thou art The heavenly bread of immortality." When Christ heard these words of His disciples, He answered them in this way: "You are mistaken if you do not know That I am the Creator of the universe; I provide for the world; I now know clearly what these people need. I see the desert and that the sun is setting; Indeed I arranged the setting of the sun; I understand the distress of the crowd which is here; I know what I have in mind to do for them. I myself shall cure their hunger, for I am The heavenly bread of immortality.… "Even though you consider carefully, can you as mere men secure nourishment, Or can you, though you are worried, feed the people? Or, Life' you cannot feed them, have you the power to keep silent? I, alone, as Creator take thought for all. I exist as good, God before the centuries. And I provide every kind of food for all people; But you, on beholding the multitude, are worried, And you do not consider the One who provides abundantly, As I am set before all, offering The heavenly bread of immortality. "I know in advance what you are thinking and what you are saying to each other, As you see the people, the means of provision, and the hour. You are reasoning, 'Who will feed the entire crowd in the desert?' Well, know clearly, friends, who I am. I fed Israel in the desert; I gave them bread from Heaven; In a region without water, I made water to flow from a rock; … Since I am The heavenly bread of immortality.

Thus tried by our Lord, Philip was found to be possessed with human notions, as appears from what follows, Philip answered Him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

Now we have the answer of the disciples. First, the answer of Philip; then that of Andrew (v 8).

With respect to the first, note that Philip was slower in learning than the others, and so he asks our Lord more questions: "Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us" (below 14:8). Here, according to the literal sense, Andrew is better disposed than Philip, for Philip does not seem to have any understanding or anticipation of the coming miracle. And so he suggests that money is the way by which they could feed all the people, saying: Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice for each to have a little bit. And since we do not have that much, we cannot feed them. Here we see the poverty of Christ, for he did not even have two hundred denarii.

In the mystical sense, wisdom is a symbol for spiritual refreshment. One kind of wisdom was taught by Christ, the true wisdom: "Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). Before Christ came, there were two other teachings or doctrines: one was the human teachings of the philosophers; the other was the teachings found in the written law. Philip mentions the first of these when he speaks of buying: Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice, for human wisdom must be acquired. Now the number one hundred implies perfection. Thus two hundred suggests the twofold perfection necessary for this wisdom: for there are two ways one arrives at the perfection of human wisdom, by experience and by contemplation. So he says, Two hundred denarii worth of bread would not suffice, because no matter what human reason can experience and contemplate of the truth, it is not enough to completely satisfy our desire for wisdom: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, nor the strong man in his strength, nor the rich man in his riches. But let him who glories glory in this: that he knows and understands me" (Jer 9:23). For the wisdom of no philosopher has been so great that it could keep men from error; rather, the philosophers have led many into error.

(de Con. Evang. ii. c. xlvi) Andrew's suggestion about the five loaves and two fishes, is given as coming from the disciples in general, in the other Evangelists, and the plural number is used.

Here is noted the fourth occasion, namely the insufficiency of food for the feeding of so great a multitude. For since there were five thousand, they had only five loaves; and this is noted in Andrew's response. Therefore he says: "One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, says to him," namely to the Lord, who was asking Philip about the feeding of the crowds.

Andrew is in the same perplexity that Philip is; only he has rather higher notions of our Lord: There is a lad here which hath five barley loaves and two small fishes.

This passage confounds the Manicheans, who say that bread and all such things were created by an evil Deity. The Son of the good God, Jesus Christ, multiplied the loaves. Therefore they could not have been naturally evil; a good God would never have multiplied what was evil.

Andrew, however, seems to sense that a miracle is going to take place. Perhaps he recalled the miracle performed by Elisha with the barley loaves, when he fed a hundred men with twenty loaves (2 Kgs 4:42). And so he says, There is a boy here who has five barley loaves. Still, he did not suspect that Christ was going to perform a greater miracle than Elisha: for he thought that fewer loaves would be miraculously produced from fewer, and more from a larger number. But in truth, he who does not need any material to work with could feed a crowd as easily with few or many loaves. So Andrew continues: but what are these for so many? As if to say: Even if you increased them in the measure that Elisha did, it still would not be enough.

It is Andrew who mentions the second kind of teaching, that of the law. He does not want to buy other bread, but to feed the crowd with the loaves of bread they had, that is, those contained in the law. And so he was better disposed than Philip. So he says: There is a boy here who has five barley loaves. This boy can symbolize Moses, because of the imperfection found in the state of the law: "The law brought nothing to perfection" (Heb 7:19); or the Jewish people, who were serving under the elements of this world (Gal 4:3).

This boy had five loaves, that is, the teaching of the law: either because this teaching was contained in the five books of Moses, "The law was given through Moses" (above 1:17); or because it was given to men absorbed in sensible things, which are made known through the five senses. These loaves were of barley because the law was given in such a way that what was life-giving in it was concealed under physical signs: for the kernel in barley is covered with a very firm husk. Or, the loaves were of barley because the Jewish people had not yet been rubbed free of carnal desire, but it still covered their hearts like a husk: for in the Old Testament they outwardly experienced hardships because of their ceremonial observances: "A yoke, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10). Further, the Jews were engrossed in material things and did not understand the spiritual meaning of the law: "A veil is over their hearts" (2 Cor 3:15).

The two fishes, which gave a pleasant flavor to the bread, indicate the teachings of the Psalms and the prophets. Thus the old law not only had five loaves, i.e., the five books of Moses, but also two fishes, that is, the Psalms and the prophets. So the Old Testament writings are divided into these three: "The things written about me in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the Psalms" (Lk 24:44). Or, according to Augustine, the two fishes signify the priests and kings who ruled the Jews; and they prefigured Christ, who was the true king and priest.

But what are these for so many? for they could not bring man to a complete knowledge of the truth: for although God was known in Judea, the Gentiles did not know him.

What, then, think we that five loaves signify? As far as the meaning which commends itself presents itself to my mind, the five loaves are the five books of Moses. With reason are they not wheaten, but barley loaves; because they belong to the Old Testament. And ye know that barley is so formed that we hardly get at the marrow of it; for that marrow is clothed with a coating of husk, and the husk itself is tenacious and coherent, so that it is stripped off with difficulty. Such is the letter of the Old Testament; clothed with the coverings of carnal sacraments: but yet if we get at its marrow, it feeds and satisfies.

A certain boy, then, brought five loaves and two fishes. If we inquire who this boy was, perhaps it was the people of Israel, which, in a childish sense, carried the food, and ate not. For that which they carried, was a burden to them while closed; but when opened, was food for them. Moreover, the two fishes seem to me to signify those two sublime persons of the Old Testament, who were anointed for sanctifying and ruling the people, the Priest and the King. And at length came in the mystery He who was signified by them, He who was pointed out by the marrow of the barley, He who was concealed under the barley's husk. The same came, one person sustaining the two characters, of Priest and of King.

(lib. lxxxiii. Quæst. q. 61. in princ.) The five barley loaves signify the old law; either because the law was given to men not as yet spiritual, but carnal, i. e. under the dominion of the five senses, (the multitude itself consisted of five thousand:) or because the Law itself was given by Moses in five books. And the loaves being of barley is also an allusion to the Law, which concealed the soul's vital nourishment, under carnal ceremonies. For in barley the corn itself is buried under the most tenacious husk. Or, it alludes to the people who were not yet freed from the husk of carnal appetite, which cling to their heart.

(lib. lxxxiv. Quæst. qu. 61) The two fishes again, that gave the pleasant taste to the bread, seem to signify the two authorities by which the people were governed, the Royal, viz. and the Priestly; both of which prefigure our Lord, who sustained both characters.

(Tr. xxiv. 5) The boy who had these is perhaps the Jewish people, who, as it were, carried the loaves and fishes after a servile fashion, and did not eat them. That which they carried, while shut up, was only a burden to them; when opened became their food.

(Hom. in Luc. c. vi.) Barley is the food of cattle and slaves: and the old law was given to slaves and cattle, i. e. to carnal men.

Or, by the two fishes are meant the saying or writings of the Prophets, and the Psalmist. And whereas the number five refers to the five senses, a thousand stands for perfection. But those who strive to obtain the perfect government of their five senses, are called men, in consequence of their superior powers: they have no womanly weaknesses; but by a sober and chaste life, earn the sweet refreshment of heavenly wisdom.

(Aug. xxiv. 5) And well is it said, But what are these among so many? The Law was of little avail, till He took it into His hand, i. e. fulfilled it, and gave it a spiritual meaning. The Law made nothing perfect. (Heb. 7:19)

"There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish": so many loaves, he says, we have, but they are not sufficient; therefore he says: "But what are these among so many?" In this is noted the remarkable poverty of the Lord and the disciples, that they had few loaves and of poor quality; whence they also frequently suffered hunger with the Lord: Matthew twelve: "Jesus went through the grain fields; and his disciples, being hungry, began to pluck ears of grain and to eat."

Morally, the five loaves, which the boy has, are the five refreshments of the affections, which have their origin from five considerations of the intellect: from the consideration of one's own sin, the bread of compunction, concerning which in the Psalm: "You will feed us with the bread of tears." This is the bread of which Judges 7 says: "There appeared to me something like a cake of barley bread baked under ashes."

From the consideration of the passion of Christ, the bread of affliction: Deuteronomy 16: "For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread of affliction, because in fear you went out of Egypt, that you may remember the day of your departure from Egypt"; Lamentations 3: "Remember my poverty and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall."

From the consideration of the failings of the brethren, the bread of compassion: Ecclesiastes 11: "Cast your bread upon the passing waters," namely, of tribulation. Without this, no one ought to be placed in authority: Isaiah 4: "I am not a healer, and in my house there is neither bread nor clothing: do not make me a ruler of the people."

From the consideration of eternal punishment, the bread of trembling: Tobit 2: "He ate bread with mourning and trembling," remembering that word which the Lord spoke through Amos the prophet: "Your feast days shall be turned into lamentation and mourning."

From the consideration of the delay of the reward, the bread of devotion, which is found in the perfect: the Psalm: "My tears have been my bread day and night, while it is said to me daily: Where is your God?"

He both thinks and reasons akin to Philip, and is convicted of having a kindred apprehension of the Saviour Christ. For neither considering the power, nor yet led by the greatness of His preceding works unto Jesus' being able for all things, and that most easily; he points out what the lad has, but is evidently weak in faith: for what are these (he says) among so many? Albeit (for we must say it) in no unready way but resolutely rather ought he to go forth to the memory of those things which had been already miraculously wrought, and to consider that it was a work by no means strange or foreign from Him Who had transformed into wine the nature of water, had healed the palsied and driven away so great an infirmity by one word, that He, I say, should create food of that which had no being, and multiply Divinely the exceeding little that was found ready to hand. For the Authority that wrought in the one, how should it not be able to work in the other? Wherefore the pair of disciples answered more feebly than was meet. But herein we must consider this again. For those things which appear to have been little falls in the Saints, are oftentimes not without their share of profit, but have something wrapt up with them, helpful to the nature of that in regard to which is the charge of their apparent infirmity. For the above mentioned holy disciples, having considered, and openly said, one, that Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them that every one may take a little, the other, of the five loaves and two little fishes, that what are these among so many? raise the marvel to its height, and make the Might of the Saviour most marked, indicating by their own words the multitude that but now was to be filled, and the strength of their unbelief is converted into good testimony unto Christ. For in that they confessed that so large money would not suffice the multitude for even a slight enjoyment, by this very thing do they crown the Ineffable Might of the Host, when He, while there was nothing (for, as Andrew says, what were the lad's supplies among so many?) very richly outdid His work of love towards the multitude.

The like littleness of faith we shall find in the wilderness in the all-wise Moses too. For they of Israel were weeping and, excited to a foul lusting after the tables of Egypt, were picturing to themselves unclean dishes of flesh, and turning aside after most strange pleasure, of onions and garlic, and the like unseemly things, and disregarding the Divine good things, were attacking Moses their mediator and leader. But God was not ignorant, for what the multitude were eagerly groaning, and promised to give them flesh. But since the promise of liberality was made in the wilderness, and the thing appeared hard of accomplishment, as regards man's understanding, Moses came to Him crying out, The people among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen, and THOU saidst, I will give them flesh, and they shall eat a whole month: shall the flocks and the herds he slain for them, and shall it suffice them? And what said God to these things? Will the Lord's Hand suffice not? For unto what can God be powerless?

Therefore one may well say to the words of Philip and Andrew also, Will the Lord's Hand suffice not? And let us too taking the nature of the thing by way of example, hold that littleness of faith is the worst of sicknesses and surpasses all evil, and if God work or promise to do, be it full surely received in simple faith, and let not the Deity be accused, from our inability to conceive how what is above us shall happen, by reason of our own powerlessness unto ought. For it becomes the good and sober-minded and him that hath his reason sound, to consider this too in his mind, how the bodily eye too sees not surely as far as one would like, but as far as it can, and as the limit of our nature permits. For the things that are situated at too great a height, it cannot distinguish, even if it imagine them, with difficulty snatching even the slightest view of them. So do thou conceive of the mind of man also, so far as the bounds given it by its Maker it attaineth and stretcheth forth, even if it be wholly purified; for it will see none of those things that are beyond, but will give way, even against its will, to what is above nature, wholly unable to grasp them. The things then that are above us are received by faith, and not by investigation, and as he that so believes is admired, so he that falls into the contrary is by no means free from blame. And this will the Saviour Himself testify, saying, He that believeth on the Son is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already.

Now having once taken up the discourse upon the duty of not mistrusting God, come, let us again showing forth somewhat out of the sacred writings, put it forward, and blazon forth the punishment of the unbelief for the profit of our readers. Therefore (for I will go again to the hierophant Moses) he was once bidden, in the wilderness, when the people were oppressed with intolerable thirst, to take Aaron, and smite the rock with his rod, that it might gush forth fountains of water. But he, not wholly believing the words of Him Who bade Him, but fainthearted by reason of human nature, saith, Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock? And Moses lifted up his hand and with his rod he smote the rock once and again, and much water came out: and the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed Me not, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. Is it not hence clear to every one, how bitter the wages of unbelief? And if Moses so great as he was, was reproved, whom shall God spare, upon whom will not He who thus respecteth not persons, inflict His wrath for their unbelief, since He would not spare even that Moses, to whom He had said, I know thee above all, and thou didst find grace in My Sight.

The five barley loaves signify the five books of Moses, that is, the whole law which gives as it were a coarser type of food.… But the fish signify good food attained through the fishermen, that is, the more delicate books of Christ's disciples. Within the latter, there are two distinct types, the preaching of the apostles and the proclamation of the evangelists, which shine forth among us.

But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, and does not harmonize with their system, nor is suitable for a typical manifestation of the things in the Pleroma, [yet has a wide prevalence,] will be proved as follows from the Scriptures. Soter is a name of five letters; Pater, too, contains five letters; Agape (love), too, consists of five letters; and our Lord, after blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord; and, in like manner, five were styled foolish.

But John saith also, that they were "barley loaves," not mentioning it without object, but teaching us to trample under foot the pride of costly living. Such was the diet of the prophets also.

"Andrew, Simon's brother, said, There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?" Andrew is higher minded than Philip, yet had not he attained to everything. Yet I do not think that he spake without an object, but as having heard of the miracles of the Prophets, and how Elisha wrought a sign with the loaves; on this account he mounted to a certain height, but could not attain to the very top.

What follows also expresses great weakness. For after saying, "hath five barley loaves," he addeth, "but what are they among so many?" He supposed that the Worker of the miracle would make less out of less, and more out of more. But this was not the case, for it was alike easy to Him to cause bread to spring forth from more and from less, since He needed no subject-matter. But in order that the creation might not seem foreign to His Wisdom, as afterwards slanderers and those affected with the disease of Marcion said, He used the creation itself as a groundwork for His marvels.

(Hom. xlii. 2.) And let those of us, who are given to pleasure, observe the plain and abstemious eating of those great and wonderful men.

And therefore he would remember the passage concerning the eating of our Lord, where it is written of Him that, "He made the festival, and ate the passover;" or where it is said that, "They set before Him a piece of broiled fish and a piece of honeycomb;" or where again it is written, "They had fishes and bread." And these and such like things doth the glutton bring forward as proofs when he wisheth to eat everything freely, and the rule of the freedom of Christ, Who like God was above laws and commandments, doth he set forth to be a stumbling-block to his life, and he understandeth not the reason of that rule and conduct, and he perceiveth not that other types were inscribed therein.

Having tested Philip as to whether he had faith, and having discovered that he was not yet free from human weakness, He finds Andrew to be the same, although his understanding was somewhat higher than Philip's. Philip said that "two hundred denarii worth of bread would not be enough." Andrew points to "five barley loaves and two fish," perhaps having recalled the miracles of the prophets, such as when Elisha performed a miracle with loaves when Samaria had reached the point of utter destruction (2 Kings 4:42–44). However, it turns out that Andrew also had a thought that was in no way worthy of the Lord. He says, "but what is this for so great a multitude?" He thought that the Lord would perhaps multiply these loaves, but that if there had been more of them, the multiplication would have been greater. Clearly, his thinking was not correct, for the Lord could have created loaves out of nothing in a number sufficient for the people. However, lest anyone think that creation is alien to His wisdom, He uses creation itself as an instrument for performing miracles, and taking the loaves as a kind of material occasion, He thus manifests the miracle. Let the Manichaeans be put to shame, who say that bread and all created things are the product of an evil god, and therefore, if someone offers them bread, they do not take it from his hands but order him to throw it from afar, while they themselves stand and curse the one who offered it: "May he who sowed you (bread) himself be scattered! May he who ground you himself be ground in body!" and other such things. Let them be put to shame, then, when they hear that Christ, the Son of the Good God, multiplied the loaves. For if they were an evil creation, the Good One would not have multiplied evil, not to mention that He Himself would not have eaten bread. Perhaps someone will ask: "Is this miracle of the loaves one and the same as the miracle described in the Gospel of Matthew?" (Matt. 14:15–21) It is one and the same. If there the disciples approach and remind Him about the crowd, that He should dismiss them, while here Jesus Himself asks how to feed the crowd, one should not be surprised at this. For probably both things happened: first the disciples reminded the Lord about dismissing the crowd, and then the Lord asked Philip how to feed them.

His not making new loaves, but multiplying what there were, means that He did not reject the Old Testament, but only developed and explained it.

For who now feeds the whole world, but He who out of a few seeds creates the harvests? He wrought, therefore, as God. For by the same power whereby He multiplies the stores of grain from a few seeds, did He multiply in His hands the five loaves. For power was in the hands of Christ, and those five loaves were as seeds, not indeed committed to the earth, but multiplied by Him who made the earth.

(Tr. xxiv. s. 1.) He multiplied in His hands the five loaves, just as He produces harvest out of a few grains. There was a power in the hands of Christ; and those five loaves were, as it were, seeds, not indeed committed to the earth, but multiplied by Him who made the earth.

(Tr. xxiv. s. 5) By the act of breaking He multiplied the five loaves. The five books of Moses, when expounded by breaking, i. e. unfolding them, made many books.

(lib. lxxxiii. Quæst. qu. 61) Our Lord by breaking, as it were, what was hard in the Law, and opening what was shut, that time when He opened the Scriptures to the disciples after the resurrection, brought the Law out in its full meaning.

Here the multiplication of the loaves is touched upon, which was obtained through the giving of thanks and completed in the distribution of the loaves. Therefore he says: "Jesus therefore took the loaves," in order to multiply them: for his hand is one of power; whence in Numbers 11 the Lord said to Moses: "Is the hand of the Lord weak? Now you shall see whether my word shall be fulfilled." "And when he had given thanks," in order to sanctify; 1 Timothy 4: "Nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer." "He distributed to those reclining," namely for eating, through the Apostles, so that they might give to different people according to their will: Esther 1: "The king had appointed, setting over each table one of his princes, so that each person might take what he wished." "Likewise of the fishes, as much as they wished," that is, unto fullness: Exodus 16: "In the evening you shall eat flesh, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread."

The question is raised concerning the multiplication of the loaves. For if the Lord wished to manifest his power, and it is of greater power to create loaves than to multiply them, because the former is from nothing, the latter from something, and both were equally easy for the Lord: therefore why multiply rather than create? It must be said that both belong to infinite power. Nevertheless, he multiplied rather than created, in order to shut the mouths of heretics who say that these visible things belong to the God of darkness, not to the God of light. Therefore, in order to show that he himself was the one who had created all visible things, he willed to multiply what had already been created.

Whether, however, God multiplied the loaves by adding new matter from elsewhere, or by creating it, or by extending it, seems doubtful. Without prejudice, however, it must be said that there was multiplication without creation and without extrinsic addition; nor was it merely an extension of matter, as occurs through the power of a natural agent, but there was simultaneously an increase in matter and form through infinite power; and this has no parallel in nature, just as neither does creation.

It is also asked: since the Lord, above in chapter two, made the finest wine, whence is it that he distributed barley bread, lowly bread, to the crowds? It must be said that the reason was literal, from the fact that above he transmuted water into wine and gave it the finest form; here he multiplied and increased; therefore, with the form remaining, he gave a perfect quantity, because beyond necessity, twelve baskets. The spiritual reason is: because by the five loaves the five books of Moses are understood; but the teaching of Moses is rough and hard; and therefore he multiplied barley loaves.

Likewise Chrysostom asks: why in performing this miracle did he give thanks, when in others he did not do so? He seems to have shown weakness in himself. The response is that he did not do this in order to obtain the miracle, but on account of the custom he had of giving thanks at the beginning of a meal and blessing the food: in which he instructed us that we ought to take food with thanksgiving and prayer.

There is an activity of God displayed throughout creation, a wholesale activity let us say which men refuse to recognize. The miracles done by God incarnate, living as a man in Palestine, perform the very same things as this wholesale activity, but at a different speed and on a smaller scale. One of their chief purposes is that men, having seen a thing done by personal power on the small scale, may recognize, when they see the same thing done on the large scale, that the power behind it is also personal – is indeed the very same person who lived among us two thousand years ago. The miracles in fact are a retelling in small letters of the very same story which is written across the whole world in letters too large for some of us to see...

Every year God makes a little corn into much corn: the seed is sown and there is an increase, and men, according to the fashion of their age, say "It is Ceres, it is Adonis, it is the Corn-King," or else "It is the laws of Nature." The close-up, the translation, of this annual wonder is the feeding of the five thousand. Bread is not made there of nothing. Bread is not made of stones, as the Devil once suggested to Our Lord in vain. A little bread is made into much bread. The Son will do nothing but what He sees the Father do. There is, so to speak, a family style...

When He fed the thousands He multiplied fish as well as bread. Look in every bay and almost every river. This swarming, pulsating fecundity shows He is still at work. The ancients had a god called Genius – the god of animal and human fertility, the presiding spirit of gynecology, embryology, or the marriage bed – the "genial bed" as they called it after its god Genius. As the miracles of wine and bread and healing showed who Bacchus really was, who Ceres, who Apollo, and that all were one, so this miraculous multiplication of fish reveals the real Genius.

Dr Pittenger contrasts my view with that which makes miracles a sign of God's action and presence in creation. Yet in chapter 15 I say that the miracle at Cana manifests "the God of Israel who has through all these centuries given us wine" and that in the miraculous feedings God "does close and small... what He has always been doing in the seas, the lakes and the little brooks". Surely this is just what Dr Pittenger wanted me to say, and what Athanasius says (De Incarnatione xiv. 8, edited by F. L. Cross, 1939)?

So very mystically the five loaves are broken by the Savior, and fill the crowd of the listeners. For great is the crowd that keep to the things of the senses, as if they were the only things in existence. "Cast your eyes round, and see," says Plato, "that none of the uninitiated listen." Such are they who think that nothing else exists but what they can hold firmly with their hands; but do not admit as in the department of existence, actions and processes of generation, and the whole of the unseen. For such are those who keep by the five senses. But the knowledge of God is a thing inaccessible to the ears and other organs of the senses with this kind of people.

He gives thanks, as an ensample to us and a pattern of the piety which ought to be in us: and attributes again as Man the Power of the miracle to the Divine Nature. For this was His custom, both helping by an example of piety, as we have said, those to whom He was manifested as a Teacher of what is most excellent, and by an economy concealing yet His God-befitting Dignity, till the time of His Passion should be at hand: for it was His earnest care that it should be hid from the prince of this world. For this reason, doth He elsewhere too use words befitting men, as a Man, and heals again the understanding of His hearers, sometimes making most wise alluring as in the words, Father, I thank Thee that Thou heardest Me. Seest thou in how human guise His speech, and well calculated to trouble the understanding of the more simple? But when He says this, as Man, then again He straightway unfolds the mode of the economy, and the object of His will to lie hid, by most excellent arrangement fortifying the mind of the more simple which had received a shock. For I knew (He saith) that Thou hearest Me always. Why then dost Thou speak these things? Because of the multitude which stood by I said it, that they may believe (saith He) that Thou sentest Me. Is it not then hereby plain, that with a view manifoldly to assist us, and to fulfill, as befitted Him, the secret economy with Flesh, He sometimes speaks more lowlily, than He really is? As therefore in that passage, I thank Thee, is taken economically, so here too. [He blessed is understood of the bread.]

But we must observe that instead of gave thanks, Matthew has said, blessed, but the edition of the saints will in no wise differ. For Paul will show that they are both one, saying that every meat 9 of God is good, and nothing to be refused: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. But that which is sanctified through the prayer in supplication, which we are wont ever to make over the table, is surely blessed..

But since it is fit that nothing profitable be left uninvestigated by us; come let us say a little of the five loaves which the lad had and of the two little fishes: for both the species itself, and besides the numbers are replete with mystery. For why (will some more studious person say) were not the loaves rather five, and the fishes three? why not five, and the fishes four? what occasion was there at all for recounting the number found, and why did not he rather say more simply and absolutely that the innumerable multitude of them that followed Him were fed off exceeding few chance things? But the fact that the blessed Evangelist recounted very diligently these things too, gives us something surely to think of, which we must needs search into.

He says then that the loaves are five, and they of barley, and the fishes two, and with these Christ feedeth them that love Him. And I think (and let the lover of wisdom look out for something better) that by the five barley loaves are signified the five-fold book of the all-wise Moses, that is, the whole Law, bringing in as it were coarser food, that by the letter and history. For this the barley hints at. But by the little fishes is signified the food got through the fishermen, that is, the more delicate books of the disciples of the Saviour; and these two (he says), the apostolic and Evangelic preaching, shine forth among us. And both these are draughts and spiritual writings of the fishermen. The Saviour therefore mingling the new with the old, by the Law and the teachings of the New Testament nourishes the souls of them that believe on Him, unto life, plainly eternal life. That the disciples were of fishermen, is (I suppose) plain and clear: and though all were not so, yet since there are some such among them, our argument will not recede from truth in what has been said.

Five loaves are then set before the multitude, and broken. While the apostles are dividing them, a succession of newly created portions passes—they cannot tell how—through their hands. The loaf which they are dividing does not grow smaller and yet their hands are continually full of the pieces. The speed of the process baffles the sight. You follow with the eye a hand full of portions, and in the meantime you see that the contents of the other hand are not diminished. And all the while the heap of pieces grows. The carvers are busy at their task, the eaters hard at work at theirs. The hungry are satisfied and the fragments fill twelve baskets. Neither sight nor any of the other senses can discover how such an amazing miracle happened. What did not exist was created; what we see passes our understanding. It only remains for us to believe that God can do all things.

(iii. de Trin. c. 18) Five loaves are then set before the multitude, and broken. The broken portions pass through into the hands of those who break, that from which they are broken all the time not at all diminishing. And yet there they are, the bits taken from it, in the hands of the persons breakingd. There is no catching by eye or touch the miraculous operation: that is, which was not, that is seen, which is not understood. It only remains for us to believe that God can do all things.

That wine, which was produced by God in a vineyard, and which was first consumed, was good. None of those who drank of it found fault with it; and the Lord partook of it also. But that wine was better which the Word made from water, on the moment, and simply for the use of those who had been called to the marriage. For although the Lord had the power to supply wine to those feasting, independently of any created substance, and to fill with food those who were hungry, He did not adopt this course; but, taking the loaves which the earth had produced, and giving thanks, and on the other occasion making water wine, He satisfied those who were reclining [at table], and gave drink to those who had been invited to the marriage; showing that the God who made the earth, and commanded it to bring forth fruit, who established the waters, and brought forth the fountains, was He who in these last times bestowed upon mankind, by His Son, the blessing of food and the favour of drink: the Incomprehensible [acting thus] by means of the comprehensible, and the Invisible by the visible; since there is none beyond Him, but He exists in the bosom of the Father.

But why when He was about to restore the paralytic did He not pray, nor when He was raising the dead, or bridling the sea, while He doth so here over the loaves? It was to show that when we begin our meals, we ought to give thanks unto God. Moreover, He doth it especially in a lesser matter, that thou mayest learn that He doth it not as having any need; for were this the case, much more would He have done so in greater things; but when He did them by His own authority, it is clear that it was through condescension that He acted as He did in the case of the lesser.

"And He gave to them that were set down, and they were filled." Seest thou how great is the interval between the servants and the Master? They having grace by measure, wrought their miracles accordingly, but God, who acteth with free power, did all most abundantly.

They saw a man, blind from his birth, proclaiming to them the God who had restored his sight. They saw a paralytic, who had grown up, as it were, and become one with his infirmity, at His bidding loosed from his disease. They saw Lazarus, who was made an exile from the region of death. They heard that He had walked on the sea. They heard of the wine that, without previous culture, was ministered; of the bread that was eaten at that spontaneous banquet; they heard that the demons had been put to flight; the sick restored to health. Their very streets proclaimed His deeds of wonder; their roads declared His healing power to those who journeyed on them.

Christ had brought to Him the five loaves of bread, And straightway, lifting His eyes to the Father, He said: "I am doing Thy deeds; for I am Thy Son; For in the beginning, I created the whole world Together with Thee and the Holy Spirit; for I am The heavenly bread of immortality." Behold how the masters, the servants of Christ, were arranged and attended The Servant, Jesus; and they found Him at once. For the Lord blessed the five loaves of bread, Speaking to them as follows in spiritual fashion: "Grow and multiply perceptibly, And nourish now all who are assembled here." And immediately the loaves obeyed the Lord; They multiplied invisibly As Christ spoke to them, for He is The heavenly bread of immortality.

Having taken the loaves, He gives thanks. By this He shows that before partaking of food one ought to give thanks to God. And since the crowd was there, He gives thanks in the presence of the crowd also so that all might know that He came by the will of God, that He is not an opponent of God, but refers all things to the Father. When He works signs in private, He does nothing of the sort, even though He performs a greater miracle. But when He works wonders before the face of many, then He lifts His eyes to God. And that He does this not out of weakness, but with the intention we have stated, is evident from the fact that He performs greater miracles with sovereign authority and absolute power. According to some, He gives thanks in order to hide from the prince of this world until the time of His suffering, so that the latter would not regard Him as God by this action, but would be deceived and deluded, and thus would be put to death by the cross.

Then (v 11), the Evangelist presents the feeding of the crowd. First, we see the attitude of Christ; secondly, the food used; thirdly, that the people were satisfied. As to the attitude of Jesus, both his humility and his giving of thanks are mentioned.

We see his humility because he took the bread and gave it to the people. Now although in this miracle Christ could have fed the people with bread created from nothing, he chose to do so by multiplying bread that already existed. He did this, first, to show that sensible things do not come from the devil, as the Manichean error maintains. For if this were so, our Lord would not have used sensible things to praise God, especially since "The Son of God appeared to destroy the works of the devil" (1 Jn 3:8). He did it, secondly, to show that they are also wrong in claiming that the teachings of the Old Testament are not from God but from the devil. Thus, to show that the doctrine of the New Testament is none other than that which was prefigured and contained in the teachings of the Old Testament, he multiplied bread that already existed, implying by this that he is the one who fulfills the law and brings it to perfection: "I have not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it," as we read in Matthew (5:17).

We see that he gave thanks, when he had given thanks. He did this to show that whatever he had, he had from another, that is, from his Father. This is an example for us to do the same. More particularly, he gave thanks to teach us that we should thank God when we begin a meal: "Nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim 4:4); "The poor will eat and be satisfied; and they will praise the Lord" (Ps 21:27). Again, he gave thanks to teach us that he was not praying for himself, but for the people who were there, for he had to convince them that he had come from God. Accordingly, he prays before he works this miracle before them, in order to show them that he is not acting against God, but according to God's will.

We read in Mark (6:41) that Christ had the apostles distribute the bread to the people. It says here that he distributed it because in a way he himself does what he does by means of others. In the mystical sense, both statements are true: for Christ alone refreshes from within, and others, as his ministers, refresh from without.

Their food was bread and fish, about which enough has been said above.

Finally, those who ate were completely satisfied, because they took as much as they wanted. For Christ is the only one who feeds an empty soul and fills a hungry soul with good things: "I will be satisfied when your glory appears" (Ps 16:15). Others perform miracles through having grace in a partial manner; Christ, on the other hand, does so with unlimited power, since he does all things superabundantly. Hence it says that the people had their fill.

Baskets are used for servile work. The baskets here are the Apostles and their followers, who, though despised in this present life, are within filled with the riches of spiritual sacraments. The Apostles too are represented as baskets, because, that through them, the doctrine of the Trinity was to be preached in the four parts of the world.

"They gathered therefore and filled twelve baskets": behold, a measure and a full measure. Chrysostom: "I admire not only the multiplication of the loaves, but the certainty of that which was left over, and that the baskets were equal in number to the Apostles, signifying that the teaching of the Apostles was to be distributed throughout the whole world from the remnants of the teaching of Christ." "They gathered," I say, "and filled twelve baskets of fragments from the five barley loaves, which were left over by those who had eaten." He had these remnants collected so that the abundance might be apparent: whence in the Psalm: "In your remnants you shall prepare their countenance."

Allegorically, one boy had five barley loaves and two fishes, which were multiplied into twelve baskets of remnants. This boy is Moses, the bearer of the Law, who is called a boy because he was a servant: Hebrews 3: "Moses was most faithful in all his house," as a servant.

Bread is the instruction of the word: Deuteronomy 8: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The five loaves, therefore, are words, of which the Apostle speaks in First Corinthians 14: "I would rather speak five words with my understanding"; Jerome: "The five words are the five books of Moses, of which the Apostle speaks." These loaves are multiplied when their manifold understanding is opened by the Lord: Luke, last chapter: "Beginning from Moses, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things that were about him."

From the multiplication of these there remain twelve baskets of fragments, that is, the teaching of the twelve Apostles, who were dispersed throughout the world, according to that verse of the Psalm: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth"; and Mark, last chapter: "Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature."

Again, there is a question: since everything superfluous is to be avoided, and the Lord made all things in a certain weight and measure: therefore it seems that he ought not to have multiplied the loaves beyond sufficiency. It must be said that although they were beyond necessity, they were not however beyond usefulness; indeed the usefulness was for refreshment and for our instruction: refreshment, because afterwards the disciples ate; instruction, so that we may know that God is able and prepared to give beyond our need; that we may also know that the miracle was true; and that from the certain number of remaining fragments we may understand the doctrine of the Apostles and its abundant fruit.

And these things shall be said for profit from the narrative. But since we taking what has been said in a spiritual sense (for so we ought, and not otherwise) said that by the five barley loaves the book of Moses was hinted at, and by the two little fishes, the wise writings of the holy Apostles: in the gathering together of the fragments too, I suppose we ought to perceive some mystical and spiritual conception, agreeing with the order of the account. The Saviour then commanded the multitudes to sit down, and having blessed, He distributed the bread and the fishes, i. e., through the ministry of the disciples: but when they that had eaten were miraculously filled, He commands them to gather together the fragments, and twelve baskets are filled, one (it seems) for each of the disciples: for so many were they too. What then shall we understand from thence, save surely this, and truly, that Christ is the President of them that believe on Him, and nourishes them that come to Him with Divine and heavenly food? doctrines plainly of the Law and Prophets, Evangelic and Apostolic. But He does not altogether Himself appear as the Worker of these things, but the disciples minister to us the grace from above (for it is not they that speak, as it is written, but the Spirit of the Father which speaketh in them) yet not without reward to the holy Apostles shall be their labour therein. For they having dispensed to us the spiritual food, and ministered the good things of our Saviour, will receive richest recompense and obtain the fullest grace of bounty from God. For this and nothing else, I think, is the meaning of the gathering together of a basketful by each at the commandment of Christ, after their toils and the service expended upon the feasters. But there is no doubt, that after them the things typically signified will pass also to the rulers of the holy Churches.

Initially the disciples were reluctant to feed the hungry, but seeing this, the Savior gave to them in abundance from the fragments. This teaches us as well, that we, by expending a little for the glory of God, shall receive richer grace according to the saying of Christ, "a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap." Therefore, we must not be slothful regarding the communion of love toward our brothers and sisters but rather put away from us, as far as possible, the cowardice and fear that lead to inhospitality. Thus we might be confirmed in hope through steadfast faith in the power of God to multiply even our smallest acts of goodness.

And that these things were done for their instruction is plain from what is said afterwards, when He reminded them, saying, "Do ye not yet understand-how many baskets ye took up?" And for the same reason it was that the baskets of fragments were equal in number to the disciples; afterwards, when they were instructed, they took not up so many, but only "seven baskets." And I marvel not only at the quantity of loaves created, but besides the quantity, at the exactness of the surplus, that He caused the superabundance to be neither more nor less than just so much as He willed, foreseeing how much they would consume; a thing which marked unspeakable power.

The fragments then confirmed the matter, showing both these points; that what had taken place was no illusion, and that these were from the loaves by which the people had been fed. As to the fishes, they at this time were produced from those already subsisting, but at a later period, after the Resurrection, they were not made from subsisting matter. "Wherefore?" That thou mayest understand that even now He employed matter, not from necessity, nor as needing any base to work upon, but to stop the mouths of heretics.

In the Psalms it is written of Joseph, "His hands had served in baskets." And the disciples of Jesus, the Twelve, I believe, gathered up twelve baskets of the remainder of the broken bread. These baskets were not half filled but full. And with the disciples of Jesus, as the teachers of the multitudes, now and until the end of the world, remain the twelve baskets of fragments of the living Bread that the multitudes could not eat.

Such was the greatness of his miracle that he willed the slender supply of food not only to be enough but even to prove superabundant. Here he followed ancient precedent. For in the same way during the famine in Elijah's time, the scanty and final meal of the widow of Zarephath was multiplied by the blessing of the prophet through-out the period of the famine.… O Christ, even in your novelties you are old!

One must marvel not only at the fact that there was a remainder, but also at the number of the remainder. He arranged it so that the baskets of leftovers were neither more nor less, but equal to the number of the disciples, so that all would carry them, and Judas would not be left without a share, but would have in this miracle as well an indication that his Teacher is God, and from this would have derived benefit; although, because of his malice, this turned into greater condemnation for him, since he betrayed the One Who made so much remain that even he had a basket. Not without purpose did He command the apostles to carry the baskets, but so that they, as future teachers of the universe, would always remember the miracle. For the people did not expect to receive any important benefit, and immediately forgot about the miracle — so foolish they were! But the disciples were to receive a benefit, and not merely an incidental one. From this incident we learn not to lose heart in the straits of poverty, not to shrink from hospitality and the giving of alms, but to believe that even if we have but one loaf, He who from five loaves produced such an abundance of leftovers will multiply it. In the allegorical sense: when the Lord departed from Jerusalem, according to what is said by the prophets, "I have forsaken My house; I have left My heritage" (Jer. 12:7), then He goes away to Galilee of the Gentiles and receives the Gentiles, and much people follows Him. He ascends "the mountain," either onto the cross, in order to draw all to Himself, or into heaven, to the honor and glory befitting God. For since we, after His ascension into heaven, glorify Him as God and not as a mere man, it is said that He went up onto the mountain. By the mountain is signified the lofty thought concerning Him. He gives us, who are subject to the five senses, five rational loaves, for to each sense He gives a fitting loaf or teaching, as Paul also says: "in the church I would rather speak five words" (1 Cor. 14:19), that is, words serving to correct the five senses. Yet we cannot eat all these five words, but a remainder is left over. For none of us can contain the entire mystical teaching. That which is incomprehensible and indigestible for us, who are dull, the apostles contain in their righteous souls, as if in certain baskets. Baskets are made from palm branches, and the righteous shall flourish like a palm tree (Ps. 91:13).

His disciples obeyed him faithfully; hence he says, They therefore gathered and filled twelve baskets with the leftovers. Here we should note that the amount of food that remained was not left to chance, but was according to plan: for as much as Christ willed was left over, no more and no less. This is shown by the fact that the basket of each apostle was filled. Now a basket is reserved for the work of peasants. Therefore, the twelve baskets signify the twelve apostles and those who imitate them, who, although they are looked down upon in this present life, are nevertheless filled with the riches of spiritual sacraments. There are twelve because they were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the four parts of the world.

Their faith being as yet weak, they only call our Lord a Prophet, not knowing that He was God. But the miracle had produced considerable effect upon them, as it made them call our Lord that Prophet, singling Him out from the rest. They call Him a Prophet, because some of the Prophets had worked miracles; and properly, inasmuch as our Lord calls Himself a Prophet; It cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. (Luke 13:33)

Now those men having seen the miracle, said, "This is truly the prophet that is coming into the world:" for perhaps this prophet was meant as one in the nature of Moses. For the Lord had said to Moses, "A prophet will I raise up to them from among their brethren like unto thee." Like, namely, in respect of the flesh, not of majesty. And, indeed, this saying of Moses will be found more fully explained in the gospel, when our Lord spoke of His own words being unbelieved: "If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me." It was then, "like unto thee:" Moses fed the people in the desert with manna: this prophet fed the people in the desert with bread; and more bread. The miracle was increased, the prophecy was approved.

(Tr. xxiv. s. 7) Christ is a Prophet, and the Lord of Prophets; as He is an Angel, and the Lord of Angels. In that He came to announce something, He was an Angel; in that He foretold the future, He was a Prophet; in that He was the Word made flesh, He was Lord both of Angels and Prophets; for none can be a Prophet without the word of God.

When the multitude saw the miracle our Lord had done, they marvelled; as they did not know yet that He was God. Then those men, the Evangelist adds, i. e. carnal men, whose understanding was carnal, when they had perceived the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world.

Above were described the antecedents to the wondrous feeding and the accompanying circumstances: here are described the consequences, which are four, namely the devotion of the crowds to honor Christ; the hiding of the Lord to flee honor; the descent of the disciples to cross over; the coming of Christ to bring aid.

The first consequence of the aforesaid miracle, then, was the devotion of the crowds to honor Christ, and this by recognizing him through the sign he had performed: whence he says: "Those men therefore, when they had seen the sign that Jesus had done," that is, had considered the greatness of the sign, "said: This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world," that is, Christ, who was awaited as the Lord of the whole world. They said this on account of the signs: below in chapter seven: "When the Christ comes, will he do more signs than these which this man does?"

It is asked here whether the crowds speak truth or falsehood when they say of Christ: "This is truly the Prophet." That it is true seems apparent, because it is said in Deuteronomy 18: "The Lord will raise up a Prophet for you"; and the Gloss says that it understands this literally of Christ. But to the contrary: Prophecy does not belong to comprehensors, who see in clarity, but rather these see in a mirror; if therefore Christ was a comprehensor, then he is not a prophet.

It must be said that "prophet" is said in two ways: either by reason of interior inspiration and revelation, and thus it implies an accompanying ignorance; one is also called a prophet by reason of infallible and truthful proclamation. By reason of the first, Christ is not called a prophet, but by reason of the second, because he spoke truth in all things and infallibly.

They marvel at the sign who know how to approve things God-befitting, and regulate themselves by human reason rather than are diseased with unreason befitting the beasts, as were the blasphemous Jews, who, when they ought to have profited by the publicity of the things wrought, lost even the power of right judgment. For they deemed that Jesus ought now to be stoned also, because He so often appeared as a Worker of miracles. Superior then, and that in no small degree, to the folly of those men, are they who marvel, soberly persuaded by this one great miracle, that He it surely was Whose coming into the world as a Prophet was foretold. But observe, how great a difference hence appears, I mean, between the race of Israel, and those situate out of Judaea; for the one, although they were spectators of many things, and those not unworthy of admiration, are not only hard of heart and inhuman, but also desire unjustly to slay Him Who was zealous to save them, driving Him with their wild folly from their city and country: while they who dwelt away from Jerusalem, and hence signify the race of aliens, from one miracle alone glorify Him, and nobly determine that their conceptions of Him should be received with faith unhesitatingly. From all these things, was Israel shown to be self-condemned and self-invited to her final just rejection, and that it was due to the Gentiles to obtain at length their share of mercy from above and love through Christ.

Thus, when they were satisfied, they saw that he had fed them in the wilderness, as Moses [had done] with prayer, and they cried out, saying, "This is the prophet about whom it was said that he is coming into the world." They were repeating the [prophecy] of Moses that "The Lord will raise up a prophet for you," not someone ordinary, but rather "like me," who will fill you with bread in the desert; "like me," he walked on the sea, and appeared in the cloud. He set his church free from circumcision, and he appointed John, the virgin, in place of Joshua son of Nun. He entrusted Mary, his church, to him, as Moses his flock to Joshua, so that this [prophecy] "like me" would be fulfilled.

"And the multitudes said, that this is of a truth The Prophet." Oh, excess of gluttony! He had done ten thousand things more admirable than this, but nowhere did they make this confession, save when they had been filled. Yet hence it is evident that they expected some remarkable prophet; for those others had said (to John), "Art thou that Prophet?" while these say, "This is that Prophet."

Look how the people love their belly. While Jesus performed countless and most astonishing miracles, they were not amazed. But because of food they say, "This is that Prophet." They no longer accuse Him of breaking the Sabbath, they no longer seek revenge for violating the law, but because of the loaves they consider Him so great that they not only call Him a prophet, but also deem Him worthy of kingship.

Above, the Evangelist told us of the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Now he shows the threefold effect this miracle had on the people. First, its effect on their faith; secondly, on their plans to honor Jesus; thirdly, how it led them (and the disciples) to search for Jesus.

With respect to the first, we should note that the Jews said in the Psalm: "We have not seen our signs; there is now no prophet" (Ps 73:9). For it was customary in earlier days for the prophets to work many signs; so, when these signs were absent, prophecy seemed to have ended. But when the Jews see such signs, they believe that prophecy is returning. Accordingly, the people were so impressed by this miracle they just saw that they called our Lord a prophet. Thus we read, Now when these people, who had been filled with the five loaves, saw that Jesus had worked a miracle, they said: This is truly the Prophet. However, they did not yet have perfect faith, for they believed that Jesus was only a prophet, while he was also the Lord of the prophets. Yet, they were not entirely wrong, because our Lord called himself a prophet.

Here we should remark that a prophet is called a seer: "He who is now called a prophet was formerly called a seer" (1 Sam 9:9). Further, seeing pertains to the cognitive power. Now in Christ there were three kinds of knowledge. First of all, there was sense knowledge. And in this respect he had some similarity to the prophets, insofar as sensible species could be formed in the imagination of Christ to present future or hidden events. This was especially due to his passibility, which was appropriate to his state as a "wayfarer." Secondly, Christ had intellectual knowledge; and in this he was not like the prophets, but was even superior to all the angels: for he was a "comprehensor" in a more excellent way than any creature. Again, Christ had divine knowledge, and in this way he was the one who inspired the prophets and the angels, since all knowledge is caused by a participation in the divine Word.

Still, these people seemed to realize that Christ was a superior prophet, for they said: This is truly the Prophet. For although there had been many prophets among the Jews, they were waiting for a particular one, according to: "The Lord your God will raise up a prophet for you" (Dt 18:15). This is the one they are speaking of here; thus it continues: who is to come into the world.