How Jesus Turned Water to Wine (John 2:6)

How many jars of water were turned into wine at the wedding at Cana? Six

The Gospel of John famously records Jesus’ first miracle as changing water into wine (John 2:1-11). This transformation occurs at a wedding in Cana that predates Jesus’ public ministry (John 2:1-2). Jesus’ mother, Mary, alerts him that the supply of wine is exhausted, an egregious faux pas by the standards of the day (John 2:3-5). The text then interrupts the narrative to direct the reader’s attention to six water pots resting nearby (John 2:6).

Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. (John 2:6 NASB)

Translators describe these containers as “stone water jars” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV), “stone waterpots” (ASV, NASB), “waterpots of stone’ (KJV, NJKV), “stone jars” (RSV) or “stoneware water pots” (MSG).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) locates:

The jars stood there: this means either in the dining room itself (Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:274) or, perhaps more likely, in a passage near the courtyard where the well would be (Ritva H. Williams [b. 1960] 1997:685-86). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

This notification marks the preparation of the miracle phase of the story (John 2:6). Marianus Pale Hera (b. 1974) interprets:

The narrator...establishes the setting for Jesus to act. He tells the audience about the presence of six water jars there in the scene (John 2:6). The phrase “for the purification rituals of the Jews” explains why the jars are there (ἐκει). (Hera, Christology and Discipleship in John 17, 65)

Jesus instructs the servants to fill the six receptacles with water and then proceeds to transform their contents into wine (John 2:7-10). The story, unique to John’s gospel, concludes with a notation that this act marks the first of Jesus’ “signs” (John 2:11).

The specifications regarding the water pots stand out as they garner an inordinate amount of press (John 2:6). In fact, the only thing that John describes in detail at the entire wedding is these seemingly innocuous water receptacles. The reader is presented with far more information than would be thought necessary: their number, material, purpose and capacity.

Mark Frost (b. 1950) observes:

The story itself is brief [John 2:1-11]. The author is sparing in detail...except when he describes the water jars [John 2:6]. He focuses our attention on the jars long enough to point out considerable detail. Six–count them–six jars. Made of stone, not clay. The twenty-to-thirty gallon jumbo size. Most significantly, we’re told that they were the kind the Jews used for ceremonial washing. These jars were all about religious activity–exclusively so. Thus, the story implicitly poses the question, “What if someone could transform our religious activity into the exquisite joy of fine wine?” (Dave Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “He Always Had Some Mighty Fine Wine”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 100)

The water pots pique the reader’s interest. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) comments:

John...provides a piece of scenic detail with enough prevision to provoke speculation about intent. There were six stone [or stoneware, hard-baked clay] water jars unattended there in accord with the purification [rites] of the Jews with the capacity to hold up to two or three measure (John 2:6). (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

The tantalizing note has captured the attention of interpreters throughout the centuries (John 2:6). Mark Edwards (b. 1962) canvasses:

Bede [672-735] derives the purification as a Pharisaic rite like the washing of hands at Mark 7:3 (Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274] 1997:83). John Chrysostom [347-407] (Homily 21.2) objects that wine would never have been stored in such a vessel. Isaac of Stella [1100-1169] argues that, as the week contains the seventh day apart from the days of labour, so the six vessels represent the insufficiency of human striving; the two measures stand for the dual sense of Scripture, and the old wine for the wisdom of the Gentiles, which causes them to ‘reel like drunken men’ (1979:88, 85, citing Psalm 106:27). (Edwards, John Through the Centuries, 100)

Some have construed this detail as one of multiple evidences in John’s gospel of an eyewitness account. D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) notes:

The Gospel gives the impression of “things seen” [John 3:32] (details such as six water pots [John 2:6], the whip of cords [John 2:15], Jesus’ fatigue at the well [John 4:6], and others). (Smith, John Among the Gospels, 175)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) inventories:

Numerous minor details in the Gospel suggest eyewitness remembrance: the six water pots in Cana (John 2:6), the naming of Philip and Andrew (John 6:7), the barley loaves at the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:9), the detail that the disciples rowed out twenty-five to thirty stadia (John 6:19), the odor that filled the house when Mary anointed Jesus’ body for burial (John 12:3), Peter’s beckoning of the Beloved Disciple (John 13:24), the reaction of the soldiers to Jesus’ arrest (John 18:6), the name of the high priest’s servant (John 18:10), the weight of embalming spices (John 19:39), the knowledge of the disciples’ reactions (John 2:11, 24, 6:15, 61, 13:1), and the catch of 153 fish (John 21:11). These details do not prove that the author was an eyewitness, but they are consistent with such a view. (Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, 82-83)

This particular brand of specificity is typical of the fourth gospel. Paul N. Anderson (b. 1956) educates:

A[n]...aspect of spatial knowledge in the Fourth Gospel involves the use of measurements and references to particular distances and weights within the narrative. Before the sea crossing, the boat was twenty-five or thirty stadia from the shore (three or four miles; John 6:19); Bethany was fifteen stadia (just under two miles; John 11:18) from Jerusalem; the boat at Jesus’ postresurrection appearance was two hundred pēchōn from shore (a hundred yards; John 21:8); the six water jars held two or three metrētas each (twenty or thirty gallons; John 2:6). Likewise, the weight of the spices to embalm Jesus was one hundred pounds (John 19:39); the cost of the bread would be two hundred denarii (eight months of wages; John 6:7); and the cost of the perfume at the anointing of Jesus would be three hundred denarii (a full year’s wages; John 12:5). (Anderson, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John, 204)

The jars’ presence is in conjunction with “the Jewish custom of purification” (John 2:6 NASB). Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) acknowledges:

Why jars for purification are present is not clear [John 2:6]. They may have been used for cleansing of utensils in preparation for the wedding or filling basins for hand washing, in which case the number and size of the empty jars could be an index to the number of guests. John’s underscoring that these are according to Jewish practice may point to conformity to Judean practice in the Galilee and may signify a response to Southern polemic. Judeans thought that Galileans did not keep their high standards of purity. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) conjectures:

The half dozen represented a good store of water for carrying out the kind of purification of which we read in Mark 7:1-4. Before the meal servants would have poured water over the hands of every guest. If there was a large number of guests a good deal of water would have been needed. John does not elaborate, but says enough for his Greek readers to understand why so much was provided. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160)

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) connects:

In the context of a wedding feast, perhaps the ritual washing of certain utensils and guests’ hands is especially in view (cf. Mark 7:3-4; for the regulations on washing cf. Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] 1.695-705), but if so John sees this as representative of the broader question of the place of all ceremonial washings (cf. John 3:25). Their purpose provides a clue to one of the meanings of the story: the water represents the old order of Jewish law and custom, which Jesus was to replace with something better (cf. John 1:16). (Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary, 173)

The jars are comprised of stone (Greek líthinos, John 2:6). This stone composition, as opposed to earthenware, directly relates to the purpose of purification (John 2:6).

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) informs:

The jars were made of stone...because stone was not itself considered to contract uncleanness (Ronny Reich [b. 1947] 1995; cf. Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:29-34; John Christopher Thomas 1991b:162-65). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) explain:

Stone water jars were preferable for holding water for purification since clay pots had to be destroyed if they were contaminated by contact with the carcass of an unclean animal (Leviticus 11:33). (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 69)

Gerard Sloyan (b. 1919) surmises:

Stone jars (John 2:6) would have required less purification than jars of baked clay. Their non-porosity made a great difference to the laws of purity. (Sloyan, John (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 35)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) contrasts:

Clay pots could become unclean, and if this happened they must be destroyed (Leviticus 11:33). But some vessels did not become unclean (Mishnah Kelim 10:1; Mishnah Parah 3:2). (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160)

The caveat regarding the use of stone jars during purification stems from tradition and is not explicitly stated in the Old Testament. Jey J. Kanagaraj (b. 1948) clarifies:

The use of “stone jars” for purification is mentioned not in Leviticus 11:32-38, but in the Mishnah, a Rabbinic text of the second century that reflects the life situation of the late first century (Mishnah Kelim 5:11; Mishnah Besah 2:3). (Kanagaraj, John (New Covenant Commentary Series), 22)

C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) traces:

Stone, unlike earthenware, did not itself contract uncleanness. This is explicitly stated by Maimonides [1135-1204], and seems to be borne out of earlier evidence (see Hermann Leberecht Strack [1848-1922] and Paul Billerbeck [1853-1932] II, 406). Stone vessels are accordingly especially suitable for water used for purification purposes. (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 191)

Insight into these receptacles has deepened in recent times. James H. Charlesworth (b. 1940) studies:

Most commentators, intent on understanding the meaning of the pericope in which Jesus turned water into wine (John 2:1-11), have missed the importance of an oblique aside made by the evangelist: “Six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (John 2:6). Now, with the Temple Scroll, the longest of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, we possess a pre-70 C.E., firsthand insight into the regulations and specifications for purification. A house and everything within it, especially valuable commodities stored in pottery vessels, become impure when one who is ritually unclean enters...11QTemple 50:10-19...Excavations in the upper city of Jerusalem have unearthed large stone vessels, like the ones the evangelist notes in passing; all of them antedate the destruction of 70 and caused the excavator Nahman Avigad [1907-1992] to report, “we were astonished by the rich and attractive variety of the stone vessels.” Hence, the evangelist, who was most likely a Jew, and probably his fellow Jews–not only his sources–possessed considerable knowledge about Jewish purification rights. We now know from other areas of research that the stipulations for purification developed considerably from the time of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] in 37 B.C.E. until the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946] and C. Clifton Black [b. 1955], “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel according to John”, Exploring the Gospel of John: in honor of D. Moody Smith [b. 1931], 67-69)

The archaeological record is replete with specimens which corroborate John’s account (John 2:6). Carsten Claussen (b. 1966) apprises:

Archaeologists have found such jars at many Jewish sites in Palestine, Judea, Galilee, and the Golan. They appear during the reign of Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] and quickly disappear after 70 CE. While they are widespread in Palestine, they are almost absent in the Diaspora. Recently, a few small vessels have also been found at Khirbet Cana. The jars mentioned in John 2:6-7 can be identified with large vessels, which were turned on a lathe. They could contain about 100 liters each. The Mishnah calls them kallal. Jonathan L. Reed [b. 1963] rightly stresses that, due to their sophisticated production technique, they were “luxury items.” Such luxurious jars are virtually absent in peasant villages like Capernaum, but rather frequent in rich urban sites like Sepphoris. The reader is again impressed by this rather luxurious wedding feast, crowned by an incredible 600 liters of wine, of excellent quality, in rather expensive stone vessels. (James H. Charlesworth [b. 1940] and Petr Pokorný [b. 1933], “Turning Water to Wine: Re-reading the Miracle at the Wedding in Cana”, Jesus Research: An International Perspective (Princeton-Prague Symposia Series on the Historical Jesus), 95)

Archaeologist Nahman Avigad (1907-1992) recounts:

The discovery of stone vessels became a routine matter in our work, for whenever we approached a stratum of the Second Temple period, and a building which was burnt during the destruction of the city in AD 70 began revealing itself, they invariably made an appearance as well. Thus, even in the absence of other specific chronological cues, we were often able to date a structure as Herodian solely on the basis of the presence of even a single stone vessel—or even mere fragments. (Avigad, “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley”, Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962), 174)

The reason stone vessels can be used in the dating of artifacts is because they represent a very specific period in the evolution of liquid storage.

Hydrologist Francis H. Chapelle (b. 1951) chronicles:

There is no lack of archaeological evidence for the use of stoneware urns as water-storage devices in the ancient world. But there is documentary evidence as well, sometimes coming from unexpected sources. In the Gospel of John, for example, the first miracle that Jesus performs is turning water into wine at the wedding of Cana [John 2:1-11]...This passage gives just the briefest hint of the role that water-storing urns played in Jewish households, and it simply confirms what archaeologists find when they excavate sites in the Middle East...The urns of Cana are an example of one of the most important water-storing technologies in human history...The introduction of glassy glazes essentially perfected the oil-, wine-, and water-storing capabilities of stoneware. It was not long before the use of these glazes, however, led to the development of a brand-new material for storing liquids. The new material was glass. (Chapelle, Wellsprings: A Natural History of Bottled Spring Waters, 69)

In referencing the purification ritual, the Jews reenter the gospel’s focus (John 2:6). Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notifies:

For readers unfamiliar with Palestinian Jewish custom, the narrator...adds the explanatory aside that the these jars were there “in keeping with the cleansing ritual of the Jews [John 2:6].” (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96)

Raymond F. Collins (b. 1935) understands:

Keeping “the Jews” in his narrative space and time as he does, the Evangelist allows the reader to understand that the story about Jesus, with its denouement, takes place in “Jewish” space and time. His story is to be a Jewish story. The use of the phrase “of the Jews” in John 2:6 and John 2:13 does more, however, than simply identify Jesus’ story as a Jewish story. The usage allows the reader to gain a glimpse of the relationship between Jesus and Jewish space and time. The jugs that were available for the Jewish rites of purification are employed by Jesus as vessels in which Jesus makes available the abundance of first-quality wine that symbolizes the surfeit of gifts given at the (messianic) nuptials. (Reimund Bieringer [b. 1957], Didier Pollefeyt [b. 1965] and Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville [b. 1972], “Speaking of the Jews: ‘Jews’ in the Discourse Material of the Fourth Gospel”. Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel, 159-160)

Many scholars have connected the water jars with Judaism as a whole. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) introduces:

The mention of Jewish purification (required by law) may subtly reinforce the contrast drawn by the evangelist between the law given through Moses (John 1:17) and the new messianic provision by Jesus (Adolf Schlatter [1852-1938] [1948:69] cites John 13:10). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 97)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) expounds:

The water jars themselves may have been mentioned for symbolic reasons. C.H. Dodd [1884-1973], The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 299, believes that they “stand for the entire system of Jewish ceremonial observance — and by implication for religion upon that level, wherever it is found, as distinguished from religion upon the level of alētheia [“truth”]...Thus the first of [Jesus’] signs already symbolizes the doctrine [“the law was given through Moses; (deep) Grace and (deep) Truth came through Jesus Christ],” John 1:17. On the same page (note 2), Dodd cites Origen [184-253]’s Commentary on John, 13:62, 277-78: “And truly before Jesus the Scripture was water, but from the time of Jesus it has become wine to us.” C.K. Barrett [1917-2011], The Gospel according to St. John, 192, believes John intends symbolism in the jars: “This incident illustrates at once the poverty of the old dispensation with its merely ceremonial cleansing and the richness of the new, in which the blood of Christ is available both for cleansing (John 1:29) and for drink (John 6:53). If the initial reference to the water jars is to the supercession of Judaism, Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976] [120] is right [Barrett concludes] to generalize: the water ‘stands for everything that is a substitute for the revelation, everything by which man thinks he can live and which yet fails him when put to the test.’” Comparably, Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998], The Gospel according to John 1:105. Ernst Haenchen [1894-1975], John 1:179, gives a helpful summary: “In the older rites of purification man attempted to make himself clean before God. But now, in the ‘hour,’ comes the new, the new hour of God: man does not take his own impurity away; ‘the Lamb of God’ does [that] (John 1:29, 36).” (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 139)

This reading is far from unanimous. John A. Dennis (b. 1962) objects:

I take issue with Frédéric Manns [b. 1942]’s interpretation of the Cana symbolism: “Jean a l’intention de montrer l’imperfection de la loi juive” (L’Evangile à lumière du Judaïsme [Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta 33; Jerusalem: Franciscan Press, 1991], 103). This assessment is followed by Mary L. Coloe [b. 1949] , God Dwells with Us, 69: “At the wedding of Cana, the six jars of water point to the inadequacy of Israel’s religious institutions, an inadequacy now brought to perfection by the coming of the true bridegroom.” There is nothing in the text that would support this kind of over-expectation. The text, with its symbolism, simply argues that Jesus is bringing the expectations of the messianic age to their intended climax. There is a sense in which these Jewish expectations do not reach their intended fulfillment until the messianic age, which for John is the advent of Jesus, but this idea is not substantially different from other Jewish messianic expectations, namely, that only in the messianic era will the expectations reach their climax. The difference between John’s view and other Jewish views is clear: in Jesus the Messiah the hopes and promises engendered by the Prophets are being fulfilled. The language of “inadequacy” is misleading therefore. (Dennis, Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47-52, 166)

Peter-Ben Smit (b. 1979) advises:

It seems...preferable not to read too much into the apparent emphasis on the Jewish character of the six stone vessels in John 2:6, as it is part of John’s style to refer to anything Jewish as explicitly Jewish without necessarily characterizing it negatively. As neither “Jewishness” nor purification are of central importance in John 2:1-11, the note that these large stone vessels belong to Jewish rites, should be taken as explanatory. The same might be true of the note as a whole: its function is simply to explain why the vessels are there. (Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte [b. 1963], Smit and Arie Zwiep [b. 1964], “Alternative Patronage in John 2:1-11?”, Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer [b. 1947], 154)

Reading the ceremonial jars as representative of Judaism can even be dangerous. Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) cautions:

Some interpreters, focusing on the six stone jars for the Jewish rites of purification (John 2:6) have seen here a story about the changing of the water of Jewish ritual into the wine of the gospel. The theme of the rejection of Judaism and its replacement by Christianity (supersessionism), so common to much patristic biblical interpretation, has led to unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people through the centuries. In the text, “the miracle is...neither a rejection nor a replacement of the old, but the creation of something new in the midst of Judaism.” In today’s world, a supersessionist interpretation of the text is inappropriate, even inexcusable. (Williamson, Preaching the Gospel of John: Proclaiming the Living Word, 27-28)

If one chooses to connect the water pots with the religion they serve, it is worth remembering that Jesus does not destroy the jars but rather recommissions them (John 2:6-10).

Ian D. Mackay (b. 1936) characterizes:

John’s changing of water to wine reflects his more positive, fulfillment approach to the Jewish religion - the six purification water parts are not destroyed but filled with something ‘absolutely’ superior [John 2:6-10]. (Mackay, John’s Relationship with Mark: An Analysis of John 6 in the Light of Mark 6-8, 97)

The text also notes the quantity of the water pots: There are a half dozen of these vessels present at the wedding (John 2:6). This number represents an abundance.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) brief:

Most village families would have had no more than one such jar (which held about twenty gallons), hence the presence of six stone jars may indicate that others have been borrowed from neighbors for the occasion. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 69)

Kenneth E. Bailey (b. 1930) concurs:

If we reject allegory and assume an authentic detail in John 2:6, we would have there an illustration of jars gathered from the neighbors for the large gathering. The average family would have only one. (Bailey, Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke, 123)

C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) footnotes:

In early Christian art the six waterpots regularly balance the five, or seven, loaves in symbolic allusions to the Eucharist. (Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 224)

Some have read the number six allegorically. Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) mentions:

The number six may signify incompletion or labor. Six is the number of days God works before resting on the Sabbath [Genesis 1:1-31]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

When the numeral is associated with incompleteness it is also connected with Judaism. Leon Morris (1914-2006) discusses:

Some commentators find symbolism in the number six [John 2:6]. The Jews saw seven as the perfect number, and six accordingly was short of perfection and thus lacking, incomplete. The six pots are then held to symbolize Judaism as imperfect. There may be something in this, but a strong objection is that the narrative contains nothing that would symbolize completeness, which would surely be required to correspond to the incomplete. Jesus does not create or produce a seventh pot. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 160-61)

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) deliberates:

Along with many others, C.K. Barrett [1917-2011] rejects this suggestion, as he claims Jesus does not create a seventh jar to bring the number to perfection (The Gospel according to St. John, 191). This misses the point. The narrator merely wishes to indicate that Judaism, along with its rituals, falls short of fullness. On this, see Marie-Émile Boismard [1916-2004], Moïse ou Jésus; Essai de Christologie Johannique (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 84; Leuven: University Press, 1988) 56. The good wine (John 2:10) created by openness (John 2:5: the mother) and obedience to the word of Jesus (John 2:7-8: the attendants) provides that fullness. (Moloney, Belief in the Word: Reading John 1-4, 85)

Some have seen the entire story as pertaining to incompleteness (John 2:1-10). Joseph A. Grassi (1922-2010) connects:

These two verses [John 2:6-7] have a strong emphasis on filling or completion. The number six...is a familiar symbol of incompletion in the bible [John 2:6]. The jars themselves hold an enormous quantity of water, but they are still far short of their capacity. At Jesus’ order they are filled [John 2:7]. The execution of the command is carefully noted: “they filled them to the brim [John 2:7]”. Jesus brings them to overflowing capacity. The Greek of John 2:6 literally reads that the jars held from two to three measures [John 2:6]. The work of Jesus is to fulfill the Father’s design to give the Spirit without any measure: “It is not by measure that he gives the Spirit” (John 3:34). The Pentecostal account in Acts also emphasizes this filling by the Spirit: “They were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:4); they were filled or drunk with new wine (Acts 2:13); it is the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:17); it is an overflowing gift that goes out from the disciples to believers in the crowd; Peter tells them that if they repent and believe, they will receive the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). (David E. Orton, “The Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11): A Pentecostal Meditation?”, The Composition of John’s Gospel: Selected Studies from Novum Testamentum, 127)

Throughout the centuries, expositors have made use of the number six (John 2:6). Ray E. Atwood (b. 1966) documents:

An interesting interpretation that Bernard [of Clairvaux, 1090-1153] uses, typical of medieval preachers, is the symbolic meaning of the six stone water jars at the Wedding Feast of Cana (John 2:6). Bernard explains them in terms of six steps of repentance (since they were used for purification): (1) sorrow for sin; (2) confession of sin; (3) the generous giving of alms; (4) forgiving those who sin against us; (5) the mortification of our flesh; and (6) new obedience (Bernard, In Epiphania, Sermo V, 4)...In another sermon, this one for monks, Bernard interprets the water jars as symbolizing: (1) chastity, (2) fasting, (3) manual labor, (4) keeping of vigils, (5) silence, and (6) obedience (Bernard, In Epiphania Sermo VI, 7). (Atwood, Masters of Preaching: The Most Poignant and Powerful Homilists in Church History, 170)

The six stone water pots each have a capacity of two to three measures (John 2:6). This has been rendered “two or three firskins” (ASV, KJV) which most contemporary translations convert to “twenty or thirty gallons (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). Though the six vessels may not have been uniform, each represents a warehouse club size, larger than most modern kegs. This abundance might be characterized by the Coneheads as “mass quantities”.

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) considers:

It is not clear if the total volume is two to three measures or if each jar holds that amount, making the total twelve to eighteen measures [John 2:6]. A measure is about nine English gallons, so whatever the volume it is copious. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 57)

Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) calculates:

This segment of the story begins with a notation that there were present six large stone jars used in Jewish water purification rites, each capable of containing between two and three measures (John 2:6), each measure by calculation being roughly between eight and nine gallons. Each jar therefore contained somewhere between sixteen and twenty-seven gallons (the NIV “twenty to thirty gallons” in very close). Obviously these six jars could contain an immense amount of water (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 156)

The Greek term for measures is metrētēs (John 2:6). C.K. Barrett (1917-2011) develops:

In classical usage the μετρητής was a measure equivalent to the ἀμφορεύς, a liquid measure of ‘1½ Roman amphorae or nearly nine gallons’ (Henry G. Liddell [1811-1898] and Robert Scott [1811-1887] s.v. ἀμφορεύς). In the Septuagint μετρητής renders the Hebrew בת (bath) an almost identical measure. Each waterpot therefore contained 18-24 gallons; say 120 gallons in all. (Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 192)

Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) updates:

The combined capacity of the waterpots was about 150 gallons. Reckoning a half pint to a glass, these vessels would contain about 2400 servings of wine—certainly enough to supply a large number of people for several days. In quality and quantity the new-made wine more than satisfied the needs and taste of those who attended the feast. (Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief, 83)

These pots would be heavy when filled. A gallon of water weighs 8.34 pounds meaning that the jar’s contents alone measure between 166.8-250.2 pounds.

Robert L. Deffinbaugh (b. 1943) imagines:

We would have to agree that these stone waterpots would be heavy when empty, and even heavier yet when full (the weight of the water alone in a full pot would be about 200 pounds). It does not appear Jesus intended for the servants to carry these pots away, dump them, refill them, and then carry them back. They are far too heavy for this, especially when filled with water. (Deffinbaugh, That You Might Believe: Study on the Gospel of John, 66)

Given the brimming state of these water pots, the amount of wine produced is excessive (John 2:7). Gail R. O’Day (b. 1954) and Susan E. Hylen (b. 1968) reveal:

The quantity and capacity of the stone jars...is unusual, even for a large wedding, and their description enhances the extravagance of the miracle (John 2:6). Jesus turns an abundance of water into wine. (O’Day and Hylen, John (Westminster Bible Companion), 36)

The sheer volume could also serve to validate the miracle. Beauford H. Bryant (1923-1997) and Mark S. Krause (b. 1955) discern:

Their total content was...from 120 to 180 gallons [John 2:6]. Jesus had the servants of the feast fill them completely with water [John 2:7]. No one could therefore say that Jesus’ power was limited so that he could perform on only one or two of the jars. Likewise, he had each jar filled to its brim, so no one could assert that some magic potion was added by him to the water. When God performs a special work he does an adequate job of it! (Bryant and Krause, John (College Press NIV Commentary), 73)

Some have seen the vessels’ immense capacity as suggestive of the wealth of the wedding party. Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) suspects:

A large number of wedding guests must be accommodated for the course of an entire week of festivities. “The fact that there were servants, and more than one, indicates that the family was in at least comfortable if not opulent circumstances” (Lyman Abbott [1835-1922] 1879:30; cf. Roland Deines [b. 1961] 1993:25 n.39). (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 96-97)

Such excess is typical of John’s gospel which in modern parlance depicts Jesus exercising a “go big or go home” mentality. Robert Kysar (1934-2013) reads:

Their capacity suggests the enormity of the wonder about to be performed [John 2:6]. While John narrates fewer wonder stories than his canonical colleagues, each of his is remarkable by virtue of the extent of the wonder (e.g., the blind man of chapter 9 has been blind from birth [John 9:1, 2, 3]; in chapter 11 Lazarus has been dead for three days [John 11:17, 39]). (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 46)

Graham H. Twelftree (b. 1950) agrees:

The most obvious feature of the miracle stories in the Fourth Gospel is that they are few and take up little space. Yet they dominate the Fourth Gospel because they are spectacular and relatively uncommon. The Cana story of water into wine is a miracle of immense proportions: six jars of twenty or thirty gallons of water each are turned into wine (John 2:6). The paralytic at Bethesda had been paralyzed for thirty-eight years but was immediately made well merely by Jesus’ word (John 5:5, 9). The story of Lazarus is self-evidently stupendous, not least because he had been in the tomb four days (John 11:39). (Robert T. Fortna [b. 1930] and Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], “Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel and Synoptics”, Jesus in Johannine Tradition, 137-38)

Carsten Claussen (b. 1966) supports:

Six stone water jars full of the best wine are certainly more than one may deem necessary [John 2:6], and the fact that the disciples collected twelve baskets of leftover pieces from the five barley loaves suggests that this multiplication surely went over the top as well [John 6:13]. Similarly, the 153 large fish of John 21:11 was certainly more than the seven disciples and Jesus needed as their “daily bread”. Clearly, in the fourth gospel there is not only one “miracle in the service of luxury”—as David Friedrich Strauss [1808-1874] once commented on the wine miracle at Cana (1860, 2:585)—but at least three of them. (Francisco Lozada, Jr. [b. 1965] and Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], “The Role of John 21: Discipleship in Retrospect and Redefinition”, New Currents Through John: A Global Perspective, 63)

As is often Jesus’ habit, scarcity is answered with abundance.

The excess of wine has often been seen as an early indicator of Messianic fulfillment. Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998) reminds:

The prophets had foretold of an abundance of wine in messianic days; and the abundance of wine at Cana [John 2:6-7]...would bring these prophecies to mind and point to the messianic nature of Jesus’ mission. In this messianic framework the wine represents his wisdom and teaching. (Brown, The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary, 29)

Richard A. Burridge (b. 1955) annotates:

The prodigious amount has invited comparisons between Jesus and the Greek god of wine, Dionysus. Various stories are told of bowls being miraculously filled with wine in his temple at Elis, or of a fountain flowing with wine in his temple at Andros. In fact, we do not need to go so far afield for inspiration. The prophet Amos uses the images of ‘the mountains dripping with sweet wine and the hills flowing with it’ for the great Day of the Lord to come, and similar examples of wine as a sign of so-called ‘messianic abundance’ can be found in other Hebrew prophets (Amos 9:13; Hosea 14:7; Jeremiah 31:12). Isaiah looks forward to the Lord giving a huge party, ‘a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines’(Isaiah 25:6) and likens God’s rejoicing over his people to a wedding (Isaiah 62:4-5). Jesus uses this image of a wedding banquet for the kingdom of heaven in his parable of a marriage feast and those who refused the invitation (Matthew 22:1-10; Luke 14:15-24), and he likens himself to the bridegroom in Mark 2:19. All of this, says the fourth evangelist, is being inaugurated in the here and now as Jesus begins his ministry at this wedding feast in Cana [John 2:1-11]. (Burridge, John (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 48)

Mavis M. Leung (b. 1970) reinforces:

The act of Jesus miraculously converting six jars of water into choice wine (John 2:1-10), within a festive ambiance, evokes the Jewish hopes for a messianic era. In both biblical and extra-biblical Jewish traditions, profuse wine is a motif associated with eschatological bliss (e.g., Isaiah 25:6; Jeremiah 31:12; Joel 3:18; Amos 9:13-14; Hosea 14:7; Sibylline Oracles 3:620-23, 744-49). The image of copious wine appears in Jacob’s blessing to Judah in Genesis 49:8-12, a text that is read messianically in Second Temple Judaism (cf. 4Q252 V, 1-7; 1QSb V, 29; Targum Onqelos Genesis). In II Baruch 29:5-7, the messianic age is characterized by the delightful boon of abundant wine (cf. I Enoch 10:9). During the first and second Jewish revolts (66-70 CE, 132-135 CE), which were to some extent incited by royal-messianic ambitions, various symbols pertinent to wine (e.g., vine, grape, and wine cup/pitcher) were minted on Jewish coins. In view of the “wine” symbol’s messianic associations and John’s stated intent (John 20:30-31), the Cana “sign most probably has the function of authenticating Jesus’ messiahship. (Leung, The Kingship-Cross Interplay in the Gospel of John: Jesus Death as Corroboration of His Royal Messiahship, 82-83)

Jesus’ converting water into wine provides an early glimpse into his power (John 2:1-11). John characterizes it as a “sign” (John 2:11) and this marker points to Jesus’ true identity: the Messiah, the long awaited Christ.

If the wedding party is wealthy, what does this say of Jesus’ family’s social circle? In filling religious implements with wine is Jesus mixing the sacred and the profane? In doing so does he defile religious vessels? Why does Jesus produce so much wine? Did the wedding guests actually consume all of it? What is the greatest quantity of beverages you have seen at a celebration? What does transforming water into wine indicate about Jesus? As this miracle is borne out of circumstance, does Jesus intend symbolic meaning in its implementation?

In utilizing the stone jars, Jesus uses a “weapon of opportunity” (John 2:6). He does not simply produce wine out of thin air, an ex nihilo creation as in the creation of the world (Genesis 1:1-31). Instead, he takes what is there and works with it.

In doing this, Jesus transforms not only the contents of the water pots but also the purpose of the receptacles themselves. Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) contemplates:

The six stone jars which he uses had once been used for another form of re-freshment—Jewish purification [John 2:6]. In other words, for the cleansing of faults and impurities (John 2:6). Cleansing is no mean achievement, but it tends to focus on the negative. Jesus, is offering something that is overwhelmingly positive. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 172)

Lesslie Newbigin (1909-1998) applauds:

We are in the midst of an event which is under the law. Six great stone jars holding twenty to thirty gallons of water each stand there as a reminder of this fact [John 2:6]. The water is for the rites of purification required by the law—part of the whole ritual apparatus which is provided to keep Israel as a nation consecrated for the Lord in the midst of a world which is defiled by sin. Purification is a negative action. The water removes uncleanness but does not give the fulness of joy. What the law cannot supply Jesus will give—in superabundance. The action of Jesus is free, sovereign, and surpassing any mere rectification of a defect. It is the coming into experience of that which is really new—the “new wine” of the kingdom of God (Mark 2:22). It is an act of the overflowing majesty of the Creator. (Newbigin, The Light Has Come: An Exposition of the Fourth Gospel, 27-28)

This act has an effect on the way religion will be experienced. Michael A. Daise (b. 1956) analyzes:

During the wedding at Cana, the empty stone jars at John 2:6-7 show ritual purity at that juncture to be the result of a physical rite effected by water. But, by Jesus’ vine and branches metaphor in the Farewell Discourse, “cleanness” has become the result of a verbal act effected by Jesus’ speech – “You are already clean, because of the word which I have spoken to you” (John 15:3)...The dynamic in question may be what Catherine Bell [1953-2008] labels “ritual transformation”: not the creation of new rites ex nihilo (which Bell dubs “ritual invention” ), but the modification of traditional rites into new forms and aims. Applied to the Fourth Gospel, it seems that, in the liminal period that occurs between the first Passover, when the Jesus’ ‘hour’ is introduced [John 2:4, 4:21, 23, 5:25, 28, 7:30, 8:20], and the last Passover, when it arrives, Jewish rituals are being gradually transformed into metaphorized counterparts; and these, in turn, form the framework for a new, distinctly Johannine (ritual) system. (Daise, Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel, 174)

Jesus is a game changer on many fronts. In this instance, he begins to shift the way that religion is performed. In this regard, the method Jesus uses to change water into wine not only indicates who he is but what he has come to do. It is a fitting first sign (John 2:11).

Why does Jesus use this particular methodology when changing water into wine (John 2:6-10)? Why did Jesus not simply make the wine materialize or reuse the receptacles from the first batch of wine? What does it say of Jesus that he uses what is there as opposed to discarding it and creating something new? Would you rather fix something broken or simply replace it? When has an action epitomized the values of its actor?

“In the Talmud, it is specified how much water is needed for the rites of purification. Only about a cup of water was necessary to purify a hundred men. But here, in this story, there is well over a hundred gallons of water! That is enough water to purify the entire world!...Get it? Jesus is that purifying water which is available in enough quantity for the whole world.” - William H. Willimon (b. 1946), “Some Saw Glory”, unpublished sermon preached January 18, 1998, at the Duke University Chapel

Fishing for Taxes (Matthew 17:27)

Where did Jesus instruct Peter to go find money for the temple tax? Fish’s mouth (Matthew 17:27)

Just before his death, Jesus faces life’s other inevitability: taxes. As he and Peter travel through Capernaum for the final time together, a question arises as to whether Jesus is a tax dodger (Matthew 17:24-27). This is not wholly surprising as the temple tax was collected in or near a citizen’s place of residence and Jesus and Peter are based out of the fishing village.

Presumably Peter has already assumed his position as the disciples’ spokesperson as he is approached by tax collectors and interrogated: “Does your [plural] teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” (Matthew 17:24 NASB). Without consulting Jesus, Peter responds affirmatively (Matthew 17:25). Peter reads like the type of person who would answer quickly and confidently regardless of his knowledge base. It is debated whether the disciple is attempting to sound informed, covering for his boss or he actually knows with certainty that Jesus honors the tax.

In a sidebar with Peter, Jesus relates the superfluousness of his meeting the temple tax to a prince paying taxes to a king (Matthew 17:26). Even so, he then gives the disciple precise instructions as to how to procure the funds for the tax (Matthew 17:27).

“However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me.” (Matthew 17:27 NASB)

The story ends with this implausible command; no fulfillment passage is attached. There are other abnormalities in the pericope. Perhaps this is why Matthew is the only canonical gospel to include the story and it is overlooked in the Revised Common Lectionary. Those who subscribe to the traditional view that a tax collector penned the gospel (Matthew 9:9-13) note that it is not surprising that he would latch onto this tale.

The story is perplexing; Jesus’ solution reads like a parlor trick. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) exclaims:

This is the strangest miracle in the gospels, not only because it is never reported as happening but also because it seems to be “performed for relatively trivial and self-serving purposes,” namely, for paying the temple tax for Jesus and Peter. The purpose is undoubtedly to show that the royal Father continues to provide for the needs of his children. (Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 664)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) asks:

Jesus told them they were going to be fishers of men, not money (Matthew 4:19)! This is one of the most peculiar little stories in the whole New Testament. What on earth does it mean? (Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 16-28, 23)

The story is decidedly unique. D.A. Carson (b.1946) explains:

The miracle itself has no close canonical parallel. This is the only place in the New Testament where a fish is caught with a hook (nets were normally used)...Some scholars point out that the event (“miracle”?) itself is not described, but only the command: “We do not know what resulted. Given Peter’s track record of misunderstanding, it would be rash to hazard a guess” (Craig L. Blomberg [b. 1955] [NAC]; cf. R.T. France [1938-2012] [TNTC]). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 447)

W. F. Albright (1891-1971) and C. S. Mann (b. 1917) speculate:

The narrative in Matthew 17:27 is so highly condensed that it is more than likely a much-abbreviated summary of an actual catch of a fish with a coin in its mouth...Alternatively, the narrative may be the remnant of a parable, much on the lines of folk tales found in th rabbinic tradition of the lost-and-found-again variety. In this case, the parable remnant will have been attracted to its present position by the presence of Matthew 17:24-26. (Albright and Mann, Matthew (Anchor Bible), 213)

The account does not fit its immediate Matthean context any better than its larger canonical one. Larry Chouinard (b. 1948) acknowledges:

Why Matthew included this scene at precisely this point in the narrative is not easy to discern. However, if one observes that the issue of paying the temple tax is resolved by the principle of not needlessly offending (σκανδαλίσωμεν, skandalisōmen, Matthew 17:27) others, then the episode does prepare the reader for a major theme developed in Matthew 18. (Chouinard, Matthew (The College Press NIV Commentary), 318)

Even the passage’s genre is difficult to pinpoint. W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) designate:

This ‘reasonably stylish passage’, with its ‘comparatively elaborate use of participles, a wide range of vocabulary and a liveliness almost like Luke’s at his most free and individual’, may be labelled what Gerd Theissen [b. 1943] calls a ‘rule miracle’...The miracle itself, however, is not in fact recounted...so one might contend that, form-critically considered, the episode has as much claim to be classified a scholastic dialogue. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18 (International Critical Commentary), 738)

Most contemporary scholars agree that the tax in question is the temple tax. W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) submit:

Before one can proceed with the interpretive task, one must establish the identity of the τὰ δίδραχμα λαμβάνοντες and the nature of the tax collected. The broad consensus of modern commentators, a consensus enshrined in the paragraph headings of synopses and annotated Bibles, is that our text concerns the temple tax, the half-shekel levy believed to be prescribed by Exodus 30:11-16. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18 (International Critical Commentary), 738)

This reading has not always represented the majority opinion. Richard A. Horsley (b. 1939) chronicles:

This passage was traditionally understood, e.g., by Jerome [347-420], Ambrose [340-397], and Augustine [354-430] as referring to the Roman tribute, whereas most modern scholars assume that the tax being collected was the “half-shekel” paid to the Temple by adult Jewish males. (Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine, 279)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) rationalizes:

It has been suggested that the debate originally centered on a Roman or civil tax, but the point of the story (“Then the children [of God] are free” [Matthew 17:26]), as well as the monetary value involved, cohere with the controversial temple tax. (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 327)

The temple tax was a flat, annual tariff though its regulations were not concretized. David E. Garland (b. 1947) describes:

The half-shekel tax (substituted by two didrachma) was levied annually on all Jewish males over the age of twenty (Exodus 30:11-16) to fund the daily sacrifices in the temple. Some in Jesus’ day argued that they were free from the tax (priests, according to Mishna Šeqalim 1:3-5) or that they need pay only once in a lifetime (Qumran, 4q159). (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 189)

The temple tax was a hot button issue in Jewish religious circles, like the topic of homosexuality in many contemporary churches. M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) educates:

While in pre-70 Judaism it was generally assumed that loyal Jews would pay the two-drachma temple tax, precisely who should pay, how often, and how the tax related to Scripture were disputed issues. Originally derived from Nehemiah 10:32-33, where leading elements of the Jewish population take upon themselves a yearly obligation of one-third shekel for support of the temple cultus, the Pharisees later considered every male Jew throughout the world to be liable for half a shekel, and related it to Exodus 30:11-16. Strangely enough, Sadducees argued that the annual payment should be a voluntary gift rather than an imposed tax, from which priests were exempt. Josephus [37-100] and Philo [20 BCE-50 CE] indicate the diaspora Jews also (voluntarily) contributed their offering to the Temple. The Qumran community understood the requirement in terms of Exodus 30:11-16 as a one-time only contribution. Thus the question was a live issue in the spectrum of pre-70 Judaism concerning which Jesus might have been asked and to which he may have responded. (Leander E. Keck [b. 1928], Matthew, Mark (The New Interpreter’s Bible), 371)

R.T. France (1938-2012) infers:

This approach from the tax collectors suggests a suspicion that Jesus also might not accept this as an obligation. Their question is of the form that expects the answer Yes, and Peter takes that answer for granted, but the fact that they had to ask it is surely significant. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 664-65)

Whether intended or not, the seemingly innocuous inquiry is an ambush. Like the Internal Revenue Service auditing Al Capone (1899-1947) when the FBI could not charge him with his more notorious crimes, so Jesus is faced with questions about taxes while his adversaries’ theological provocations fall short (Matthew 17:24-27; Mark 12:13-17).

Taxes are merely a surface matter concealing far deeper issues. Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) exposes:

Like most taxes...this one was popular with few and actively resisted by some. Groups like the Pharisees supported the tax, but many other Jews found some way to claim an exemption, simply neglected to pay, or vigorously refused to pay as a matter of principle and an act of protest against the temple establishment...So the tax collectors’ question is not innocent. They want to know if Jesus is loyal to the temple or not. The tax collectors are not asking if Jesus’ current tax bill is paid up; rather, they are asking whether he is an establishment man or a tax rebel, a part of the mainstream Judaism or on the fringe. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 199)

Jesus’ stance on the temple tax has far reaching ramifications in terms of identity. His opponents are trying to put him in a box where they can more easily label him. They also present him with an either/or scenario forcing him to pick a side which will no doubt alienate advocates of its opposition. Jesus is in a Catch-22 and his response could necessitate a crisis in his ministry. Though this seems like an important enough issue for Peter to know his master’s stance, it is not surprising that he immediately answers for his teacher in favor of the questioners’ view.

Later, when Peter arrives home he is confronted by Jesus regarding who is deserving of tax breaks. Then, like now, some received tax exemptions. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) surveys:

Head- or poll-taxes (cf. Matthew 22:19-21) normally listed specific exceptions who would not have to pay; in Egypt, for instance , the Romans exempted the small minority of Roman citizens, urban Greeks, and some other high-class residents of Egypt (Naphtali Lewis [1911-2005] 1983: 169, cf. 177). Conquerors subjected conquered peoples, not their own subjects to taxation (Bruce J. Malina [b. 1933] and Richard L. Rohrbaugh [b. 1936] 1992: 116). Nero [37-68] “freed” Greece, that is, exempted them from taxation (for which the gods were pleased, one Greek writer remarked — Plutarch [45-120] Divine Vengeance 32, The Moralia 568A); Persian officials had earlier reportedly allowed Judeans “freedom” from tribute (I Esdras 4:49-50). Priests were exempt from the two-drachma tax cited here (Bo Reicke [1914-1987] 1974: 168; E.P. Sanders [b. 1937] 1990: 50); so in later times were rabbis (R.T. France [1938-2012] 1985: 268)...Most significantly, dependents of a king were naturally exempt from taxes (J.D.M. Derrett [1922-2012] 1970: 255). Jesus will soon tell a story of a king who settles accounts with his servants, tax farmers (Matthew 18:23-34); but here he speaks in the first-person plural with a disciple who has begun to understand some...mysteries of the kingdom as one of the king’s “sons” (cf. Matthew 28:10). Unlike some of their Jewish contemporaries, they do not depend at all on the temple or on the atonement some teachers claimed the temple-tax effected for them (William G. Thompson [1930-1996] 1970: 57-59). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 445)

Specifically, Jesus asks if monarchs obtain their taxes from their children or constituents and Peter accurately selects the outsiders (Matthew 17:26). This trend holds true in modern times as well. In the United Kingdom, the Queen and the Prince of Wales did not pay voluntary income tax until 1993 and then only in response to the Queen’s plummeting approval ratings. In the United States, presidents are tax exempt for life.

R.T. France (1938-2012) analyzes:

The analogy assumes that the temple tax...is similarly levied by a ruler from his subjects. But who is the ruler of the temple? No human could claim that title; the reference must be to God, and the Jewish people are his subjects. Who then are the “sons” who are exempt? The obvious reference in context is to Jesus himself, whose payment of the tax was the subject of the question, and who has recently been declared “Son of God” on the mountain (Matthew 17:5); the plural might then be explained as derived from the analogy rather than determining its application. But the plural raises the possibility that here, as in Matthew 12:1-8, his disciples are also understood to share in his privilege as (in that case) “Lord of the sabbath.” (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 669)

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) determines:

Because in secular life kings do not collect taxes from their own sons, one may infer that the king of heaven (i.e., God) doe not collect taxes from his own children. The temple tax is therefore illegitimate. Because it is very unlikely that Jesus opposed what Moses taught in Exodus 30:11-16, he probably opposed the interpretation that called for annual payment. Accordingly, Jesus’ view of the matter was probably the same as that held at Qumran (as seen in the excerpt from 4Q159). (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 327)

This temple tax was instituted to support atonement offerings (Exodus 30:11-16). Jesus did not need sacrifices of atonement to be offered on his behalf as he was the ultimate atonement sacrifice. If anyone was ever exempt from this tax, it would be Jesus.

After establishing his exemption, Jesus opts to waive his rights to boycott the tax (Matthew 17:27). Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) compares:

Jesus’ willingness to pay what he believes he really does not owe is consistent with his willingness to be baptized, “for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). The great church scholar Jerome [347-420]...commented “Therefore as the son of a king he [Jesus] did not owe tax, but as one who had assumed the humility of the flesh he has to fulfill all justice” (Commentary on Matthew 3.17.26 [on Matthew 17:24-27]). (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 327)

This text provides a rare glimpse into the rationale behind Jesus’ actions: He does not wish to “offend” (HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT), cause “offense” (ESV, NIV, NRSV, RSV), cause to “stumble” (ASV), cause “trouble” (CEV) or cause others to become “upset” (MSG).

The Greek verb is skandalízō, from which English derives the word “scandal”. W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) define:

What precisely does the verb...which is used again shortly in Matthew 18:6-9, mean here? It obviously does not mean ‘cause to sin’. Probably the best translation is ‘give offence’. What Jesus and his followers should avoid, if at all possible, is offending the devout people who, in collecting the temple tax, believe themselves to be serving God. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18 (International Critical Commentary), 746)

Donald Senior (b. 1940) observes:

Matthew is not clear about who it is that might be scandalized by failing to pay the temple tax. Presumably it is the Jewish community for whom the tax had important symbolic meaning. (Senior, Matthew (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 203)

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) recognizes:

Whether the point is an actual mission to the Jews, the conversion of individual Jews, or merely avoidance of unnecessary friction cannot be determined. (Schweizer, The Good News according to Matthew, 357)

Incidentally, Jesus seldom gives much consideration to public sentiments. Daniel M. Gurtner (b. 1973) questions:

Why is Matthew here concerned that his Jesus not offend people, when only a few chapters later such concerns are by no means obvious? Ulrich Luz [b. 1938] suggests the concern is to “compromise for the sake of peace and love” on matters that are not fundamental to faithfulness to the Torah. W. D. Davies [1911-2001] and Dale C. Allison, Jr. [b. 1950], however, capture more of Matthew’s view of the Temple when they assert that “Voluntary payment should be made in order to prevent others from inferring that Peter or Jesus has rejected the Temple cult.” (Gurtner and John Nolland [b. 1947], “Matthew’s Theology of the Temple and the ‘Parting of the Ways’, Built upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew, 137)

R.T. France (1938-2012) discusses:

The word for “cause to stumble” here is the same as for “scandalize” in Matthew 15:12. On that occasion Jesus seems to have had no qualms about “scandalizing” the Pharisees by his free attitude, so why is it different here? Probably simply because the saying which caused the “scandal” in Matthew 15:11 was a matter of fundamental principle for Jesus, and one which exposed the deep divide between his attitude to the law and that of the Pharisees, where here it is simply a matter of custom, where compliance, even if not necessary, will do no harm, and to flout it would serve no useful purpose. But Robert J. Banks [b. 1939] also notes the difference in the attitude of the people involved: here, in contrast with the settled hostility of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:1-14, we have simply people “seeking genuine information concerning his attitude to their customary practice.” Whatever the reason, the principle at stake is one which can and should be more widely applied: while there are times when a disciple must make an unpopular stand and so alienate others, many of the issues and practices on which we might legitimately differ from conventional assumptions are not worth fighting over. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 670)

Jesus is concerned not to offend this particular audience. David L. Turner (b. 1949) surmises:

Jesus did not mind offending the Pharisees on the matter of ritual hand washing (Matthew 15:12), but in the spirit of Matthew 12:19 (cf. Isaiah 42:2) he does not protest the temple tax. He has had cordial relations with the tax collectors at Capernaum, yet this only exacerbated his tension with the Pharisees (Matthew 9:9-11). Jesus generally treated sinners gently (yet cf. Matthew 15:21-28) and religious hypocrites more harshly, but his followers today tend to get this backward, treating religious hypocrites with much deference and protesting loudly against known sinners. Foregoing one’s liberties in order to avoid offense and further the kingdom’s testimony is also a Pauline teaching (Romans 14:13-23; I Corinthians 8:9-9:1, 9:19-23). (Turner, Matthew (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 430)

Though it is not always his custom to avoid offense, here Jesus chooses others’ feelings over his own rights. He also selectively picks his battles, realizing that he has bigger fish to fry. He is the embodiment of an actor playing the dual role of harmless dove and wise serpent (Matthew 10:16).

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) realizes:

Now was not the time, Galilee was not the place, and a minor tax-collector was not the person, for Jesus’ major protest to be made. Before too long he would be in the Temple itself, turning over tables, spilling coins to right and left (Matthew 21:12). For the moment it was better not to raise the alarm, not to let word out that his kingdom-movement was indeed aimed at challenging the authority of the Temple and its rulers. So the tax had better be paid. (Wright, Matthew for Everyone, Part 2: Chapters 16-28, 24-25)

The reason for Matthew’s inclusion of the story cannot be to illuminate the matter of the temple tax. Jesus does not pay for the other eleven disciples and since the temple was destroyed at the time of Matthew’s writing, paying the temple tax was no more relevant for the ancient reader than for her present-day counterpart.

Instead, John P. Meier (b. 1942) deduces that the text’s function is encapsulated in the word “offense”:

Since the temple tax was converted into a tax for the temple of Jupiter Capitoline after A.D. 70, and since Matthew’s church has broken its ties with the synagogue by the time of the gospel’s composition, Matthew retains the pericope not for its specific lesson but because it both underlines the role of Peter (giving answers to problems in the name of Jesus) and stresses the obligation of disciples to avoid giving scandal — a theme prominent in chapter 18. (Meier, Matthew (New Testament Message), 198)

In lieu of risking offense, Jesus poses a radical alternative to paying the temple tax. He sends the apostle to fish with the assurance that the proper coinage will appear the mouth of the first catch Peter hooks (Matthew 17:27). This nuance is part of Matthew’s interest to rehabilitate Peter who had experienced failure in the previous chapter (Matthew 16:21-23). His disciple got him into this mess and he is given the opportunity to get him out of it as well.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) scrutinizes:

The tax collectors asked only about Jesus’ payment. But he tells Peter to pay for himself as well as for Jesus. Why? To make Peter a model imitator of Jesus in paying the temple tax despite his and Jesus’ nonobligation to do so because of their membership in God’s royal family (compare Matthew 12:46-50) but for the purpose of not putting a stumblingblock in the way of Jews who might convert to the Christian gospel. (Gundry, Commentary on Matthew)

George T. Montague (b. 1929) denotes:

The role of Peter in this story is surprising. He is, of course, the spokesperson for the other disciples. But more than that, he and Jesus seem to have a particularly close relationship. The dialogue takes place in Peter’s house, and the one coin pays for both Jesus and Peter...This role of Peter fits with the prominence given him throughout Matthew’s Gospel, particularly in this ecclesiastical section. It also explains, perhaps, why the other disciples will not ask Jesus about ranks in the kingdom. (Montague, Companion God: A Cross-Cultural Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 212)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) recounts:

This was one of many miracles that Jesus performed for Peter. He healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-34), helped Peter to catch fish (Luke 5:1-11), enabled him to walk on the water (Matthew 14:22-33), healed Malchus’s ear (Matthew 26:47-56), and delivered Peter from prison (Acts 12:1ff). (Wiersbe, Matthew, Be Loyal, Following the King of Kings, 156)

Though Peter is often singled out, John Nolland (b. 1947) contends:

At the practical level, by having the (other) disciples come to Jesus in Matthew 18:1, Matthew is probably making room for other disciples not to have been there at the time (for reasons unspecified). Nothing here encourages the view that Peter is coupled with Jesus as the son of God in a manner not allowed for the other disciples. But he is the beneficiary of distinctive experiences. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 728-29)

Here, Peter uses his professional expertise on behalf of Jesus. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) applies:

Peter’s skill as a fisherman is now enlisted in an unusual way for the kingdom. Peter and the disciples will be fishers of men and women for the kingdom, and it is significant that they bring to that task their everyday skills. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 159)

Though Peter is a fisherman by trade this is not the net variety to which he is accustomed. In fact, this marks the only New Testament occurrence of the word “fishhook” (ánkistron) and the only biblical miracle involving a single fish.

John Nolland (b. 1947) construes:

Since Capernaum is near the Sea of Galilee, the possibility of fishing is immediately at hand. Elsewhere in the New Testament fishing is always with boats and nets; only here do we have fishing with a line and hook. But the limited catch involved fits fishing with a line. The active form ἀναβάντα is literally ‘comes up’, but it is often taken for the passive and so taken to mean ‘being brought up’, and that is, ‘caught’. It is probably better, however, to allow the force of the active and think in terms of the fish coming up from the depths to where the baited hook is dangling in the water. On this understanding the landing of the fish is passed over as implied, and attention moves at once to the directive to take up the first fish hooked in order to examine its mouth. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 728)

The precise species of fish is not noted though this has not prevented speculation. The musht fish and St. Peter’s fish (clarias macracanthus) have been considered. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (b. 1946) investigates:

In the Sea of Galilee there actually exists a fish...called chromis Simonis, the male of which species hatches the eggs in his mouth. When he expels them at length he has so grown used to having his mouth full of alien objects that he is said to substitute the eggs with pebbles and other things taken from the lake bottom. Thus, it is possible that Peter’s fish chanced upon a stray statēr. (Leiva-Merikakis, Fire of Mercy, Heart of the Word: Meditations on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Volume II, 598)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) relays:

J.D.M. Derrett [1922-2012] argues that the fish in mind would have been a catfish, which scavenges near landing places, is without scales, and thus is not to be eaten by Jews. It grows to a length of four feet or more. It has a large mouth and, according to Derrett, would be attracted by a bright disk, which when taken into the mouth “might easily be caught in the framework of the hinder part of the mouth” (p. 259). (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 455)

From the fish’s mouth Peter will acquire a statēr, translated “coin” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NRSV), “shekel” (ASV, ESV, NASB, RSV), “piece of money” (KJV, NKJV), “drachma coin” (NIV) or “large silver coin” (NLT). Michael J. Wilkins (b. 1949) identifies:

The coin found in the fish’s mouth was the stater, a common coin minted in Tyre or Antioch. It was the equivalent of the tetradrachma or didrachma, hence, one shekel...A treasure jar found at Qumran dating to around 10 B.C. was filled with Tyrian staters (shekels), which bore the laureate head of Baal Melkart portrayed as a Grecian Heracles: on the other side the Seleucid eagle strode fiercely toward the left with a palm of victory and the Greek legend: “Of Tyre and the Holy City-of-Refuge.” This is one of many indications that Herod the Great [73-4 BCE] originally had these coins minted in Jerusalem for use in paying the temple tax. It is estimated that the temple tax drew in silver alone the equivalent of 14.5 tons every year. Silver staters were most likely the coins paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (cf. Matthew 26:15). (Clinton E. Arnold [b. 1958], Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 111)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds:

A στατήρ was worth four drachmas and was thus equivalent to the temple tax for two men. “It was minted at Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia and in Tyre” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, II, p. 1022). It is mentioned in the New Testament only here. Richard Gutzwiller [1896-1958] comments: “God needs no one and nothing. If he gives, the giving is his right and his free choice. The tax-money in the fish’s mouth, rather than in the hand of man, shows God’s sovereign freedom: he takes where he will and gives to whom he will” (p. 202). (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 455)

The stater was valued at more than a day’s wages. More importantly, this currency was commonly used for a duo to collectively pay the temple tax since the didrachma was not in coinage at the time. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) connects:

The “stater” or “four-drachma coin” of Matthew 17:27 probably is a Tyrian stater, precisely enough to pay two persons’ temple dues (Michael Avi-Yonah [1900-1974] 1974/76a: 60-61). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 445)

The stater would be a good return for a day’s fishing much less one cast. The ancients followed a “finders, keepers” philosophy; “found” money did not belong to anyone and as such it was socially acceptable for finders to claim unattached property.

Finding prized items in fish is a common motif in ancient literature. R.T. France (1938-2012) surveys:

A number of ancient stories tell of finding something valuable in a fish that has been caught; the most famous is the recovery of Polycrates [d. 522 BCE]’s ring (Herodotus [d. 522 BCE] Histories 3.41-42), but there are similar Jewish stores in Babylonian Talmud Shabbat 119a; Genesis Rabbah 11:4, and other cultures provide numerous examples. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 671)

R.T. France (1938-2012) footnotes:

W. D. Davies [1911-2001] and Dale C. Allison, Jr. [b. 1950], 2:742, n. 18, mention a number of similar legends relating to medieval Christian saints. C. H. Dodd [1884-1973], Historical Tradition, 225, n. 7, adds an example from a newspaper story from Cyprus in 1961 and compares the Hans Christian Andersen [1805-1874] story of the Little Tin Solider. See also The Arabian Nights, tale of the 499th night. For other examples see Robert Eisler [1882-1945], Orpheus — the Fisher (London, 1921), 100-105; Richard J. Bauckham [b. 1946], Gospel Perpsectives 6:237-44. Such stories normally refer to the recovery of something previously lost, and the find is usually inside the fish rather than in its mouth (so William Horbury [b. 1942], in Ernst Bammel [1923-1996] and C.F.D. Moule [1908-2007] [editors], Jesus, 274), but these are hardly material differences. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 671)

This phenomenon is plausible as many fish are attracted to shiny objects.

Given the fantastic nature of the story, it is not surprising that since its early days many have chosen not to read it literally. John Nolland (b. 1947) edifies:

Various attempts have been made to understand Jesus’ saying non-literally: the fish could be sold for a stater (but what fish would be worth four days’ wages?); we have a statement of inability to pay, even to void offense (a quite unnatural reading of the words); ‘the fish’ is a wealthy convert who can act as a patron (nothing prepares us for this, and it would introduce a cynical note otherwise unmatched into the Jesus material); the present form is a secondary misunderstanding of an earlier statement which more clearly meant one of the above (but even with postulated changes of wording the above senses have little to commend them). (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 728)

Howard Clarke (b. 1929) debriefs:

Although Origen [184-253] allegorized this incident as Peter’s “catching” a convert, it was one example for David Strauss [1800-1874] of how folkloristic motif—a fish that swallows valuables—has infected the biblical narrative. Since it appears only here, many scholars regard it as, well, a fish story. To paraphrase Sportin’ Life in George Gershwin [1888-1937]’s Porgy and Bess (1935), this may be one example of how “the things that you’re liable/to read in the Bible,/They ain’t necessarily so.” (Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel, 152-53)

Origen (184-253) argues that Jesus is telling Peter to go catch a “whale”, a rich convert. This explanation is highly problematic as it presents Jesus objectifying and using a person. It would also set a horrible precedent of viewing people as potential sources of income rather than as individuals to be loved.

Others think that Jesus is telling Peter to take the fish from the water and liquidate the assets. R.C.H. Lenski (1864-1936) recalls:

Some think that Peter sold the fish. Friedrich Blass [1843-1907] arrives at this meaning by changing εὑρήσεις, “thou shalt find,” to εὑρήσε, the fish “will bring” when it is sold. But this involves an unwarranted change of the text. (Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel 15-28, 677)

Some interpreters have seen this imperative as an example of Jesus’ humor. This reading has a sarcastic Jesus making light of the situation and the misguided tax collectors who are missing the point like a modern church that exhausts great energy arguing over the color of its sanctuary carpet. Hugh Melinsky (b. 1924) figures that the quip “may have been a humorous way of saying, ‘Get on with your fishing and the tax will look after itself.’” (Melinksy, Matthew: The Modern Reader’s Guide to the Gospels)

R.T. France (1938-2012) believes the command to be an exemplar of Jesus’ sense of humor:

This seems to me more probable than the suggestion that Jesus meant that Peter should sell his catch and pay the tax with the proceeds (Jocahim Jeremias [1900-1979], New Testament Theology, 87) or even that he, as a “fisher of men,” should go out and make a rich convert! For a similar approach see M.D. Goulder [1927-2010], Midrash, 397: “The good Lord will provide: go and try with your rod, and the first fish you catch will have enough for two of us in its mouth! The suggestion is not meant to be taken literally.” Goulder, however, attributes the saying to Matthew rather than to Jesus. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 671)

If Jesus is attempting to avoid offense (Matthew 17:27), sarcasm would only serve to alienate his audience and defeat his purpose. In addition, Jesus’ disciples seldom properly interpret non-literal commands. Finally, an ironic gibe is not the natural reading of the text. The line’s specificity precludes the probability it is tongue-in-cheek. Just the opposite: The precise detail of the catch lends itself to a literal reading.

Jesus easily evades the charge of tax evasion, brushing off the accusation and potential scandal like a speck of debris. Capernaum is a fishing village and Jesus pays his taxes as do most of its residents: at the expense of a fish.

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) resolves:

This is irony of a sort: the king’s children can pay the tax because the king gives the money to do so (Daniel Patte [b. 1939] 1987: 247). Matthew encourages his missionary community that Jesus can take care of his people who walk close to him. (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 446)

Warren Carter (b. 1955) connects:

The gospel’s audience knows three previous stories about fish in the gospel; see Matthew 7:10, 14:13-21, 15:32-39. In each God overcomes impossible circumstances to demonstrate compassion and sovereign power by supplying fish. Peter’s procuring of the coin from the fish’s mouth to pay the tax at Jesus’ bidding emphasizes the same qualities. Fish are subject to God’s sovereignty. God ensures that it is caught. God supplies both fish and coin...This affirmation of God’s powerful sovereignty is profoundly significant in a world that believed the emperor’s numen or genius (personal power) influenced not only people but also birds, animals, and fish to recognize him as master of worship. Martial [40-102] (Epigrams 4.30.4-5) notes fish wishing to lick Domitian [51-96]’s hand, and Juvenal [First-Second Century CE], in parody, describes a large fish given to Domitian, “the ruler of lands and seas and nations,” because it “wished to be caught” (capi voluit). The fisherman’s motive for giving Domitian the fish attests Domitian’s (oppressive) sovereignty...But in Matthew’s story, the fish is subject to God’s sovereignty, not Rome’s. For God’s sovereignty over the sea, see Matthew 8:23-27, 14:22-33. (Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, 359-60)

The passage exhibits a theology of abundance. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) remarks:

Jesus, who will be charged with predicting the destruction of the temple (Matthew 24:1-12, 26:60-62), obtains the funds by chance in order to support the temple. The way the money to pay the tax is obtained is a display of God’s abundance. His payment is what the faith of a mustard seed looks like [Matthew 17:20]. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 159)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) applies:

We get these gifts—the money, the mercy, the patience, the food, the time, and the whatever else needed...Jesus promises, as unmerited gifts from God, something like finding an unexpected coin resting in the mouth of a fish that happens to swim by. Jesus is not talking about a magic trick or even a miracle in the typical sense; the coin in the fish’s mouth is a parable of the whole Christian life. When we put aside any thought that we have earned this and deserved that, when we think about our lives as children of the heavenly king, then we see that pulling wonderful unmerited gifts from the endless bounty of God’s merciful sea is the way everything comes to us—everything, every day. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 200-01)

In enlisting Peter’s prowess, Jesus is also testing his disciple; will Peter have the faith to take him at his word and cast his hook? There is no fulfillment passage but the miracle is implied. The story would not have been canonized had Peter not completed the task. The open ended passage encourages the reader to finish the story by fishing for her own taxes.

Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) challenges:

Christians rightly desire to do great things in service to God and in service to the world. But to often Christians think such service must insure the desired outcome. We simply do not believe that we can risk fishing for a fish with a coin in its mouth. Yet no account of the Christian desire to live at peace with our neighbor, who may...also be our enemy, is intelligible if Christians no longer trust that God can and will help us catch fish with coins in their mouth. No account of Christian nonviolence is intelligible that does not require, as well as depend on, miracle. Christian discipleship entails our trusting that God has given and will continue to give all that we need to be faithful. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 159)

The passage offers a glimpse into the inner workings of the kingdom of God. John Proctor (b. 1952) projects:

Whatever Jesus meant, this little saying matches a regular theme of the Gospels. With Jesus, creation acquires a new generosity—bread and fish for thousands, water becoming rich wine (John 2:1-11), miraculous shoals of fish (Luke 5:1-11; John 21:1-14), provision from God (Matthew 6:31-33). The kingdom is about glimpses of light and generosity breaking through from heaven. And this fish saying points to an event on the limits of normality, ‘a significant crack in ordinary experience...to enable us to glimpse...the dawning of the kingdom of God’ (Richard J. Bauckham [b. 1946], in Gospel Perspectives, Volume 6, editors David Wenham [b. 1945] and Craig Blomberg [b. 1955], Sheffield Academic Press, 1986). God, for whose Temple the tax was gathered, provides the wealth for his children to pay. (Proctor, Matthew: Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer, 149)

A fish with a coin lodged in its mouth provides a striking image reminding us to trust in God. It also gives hope that there might yet be coins in fish mouths for those willing to cast their hooks.

Are paying taxes a spiritual matter? What issue is used today to pinpoint a person’s theological or political position? When have you waived your rights to avoid a fight? When do you wish you had better picked your battles? Of all of the places a coin could be found, why is the stater discovered in a fish’s mouth? Why does Jesus not simply make the coin materialize? Why does Jesus send Peter as opposed to catching the fish himself? What everyday skills do you posses that can be used to serve God’s kingdom? At its most basic level, is Jesus’ method of paying taxes any different from the standard means, God’s grace? What does the relative ease with which Jesus pays his tax bill say to modern readers struggling to make ends meet? When have you seen someone miraculously come into money at just the right time? Who, if anyone, paid the other eleven disciples’ temple tax? Why does Matthew neglect to include a fulfillment passage leaving the story incomplete? What is the greatest leap of faith you have undertaken? How did Matthew’s original audience apply this story; what is the point?

The text presents a major ethical concern: If the story is read literally and fulfillment is presumed, this passage marks the only miracle where Jesus invokes divine power for his own ends. Also troubling is the notion that God provides a miracle when human initiative could have sufficed. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) admits:

The miracle with which the story ends is at first embarrassing. In the Temptations Jesus learned never to use miracles selfishly [Matthew 4:1-11], but at first glace this story’s miracle seems a convenience miracle. Rudolf Bultmann [1884-1976], 254, for example, believes that this is one of only two places in Jesus’ ministry in Matthew where legendary materials appear (the other is Peter’s walking on water, Matthew 14:28-31). (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, 204)

One mitigating circumstance is the degree of Jesus’ involvement. There are many questions as to the agency of how the coin finds itself in the fish’s mouth. Most assert that Jesus does not produce the coin but instead merely communicates its location. A.T. Robertson (1863-1934) classifies:

It was a miracle of knowledge, not power. (Robertson, Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, 199)

John Nolland (b. 1947) expounds:

The extent of Jesus’ miracle is to foresee that the coin will be found in the fish’s mouth. This is striking enough, but it belongs with other instances of Jesus’ uncanny knowledge...In any case, the stater is to be seen not as something that Jesus has conjured up miraculously, but as the Father’s provision to his sons. It is to be seen as a dramatic instance of precisely what Jesus has claimed is more generally true about how God deals with his own children. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 728)

Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) deflects:

The instructions Jesus now gives to Peter involve not simply mysterious foreknowledge (as in Matthew 21:2 or Mark 14:13) but a miracle of divine provision. This miracle is, however, unique in the New Testament in that Jesus performs it for his and Peter’s own convenience (in this sense it is more like the ad hoc miracle stories of the New Testament apocrypha). But like the miracle of the withering of the fig tree (Matthew 21:19), its primary function is to provide a “sign” to underline a theological truth: that God provides the fish (not a symbol of Christ, pace Neil J. McEleney [1927-2004]) with the coin in its mouth (which the fish had apparently seen shining in the water and taken for food). This serves to underline the truth of Jesus’ point that the children of the king do not themselves have to pay the tax. (Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Word Biblical Commentary), 512)

Jesus, who has forgone the privilege of tax exemption, is most definitely not being selfish. John A. Broadus (1827-1895) defends:

Jesus never wrought a miracle for his personal benefit. If he had procured the money for his purpose in an ordinary way, it might have obscured the fact of his extraordinary position as the Messiah. Matthew probably recorded this incident to show his Jewish readers on the one hand that Jesus felt himself entitled to the respect due to the Messiah, and on the other, that he was very careful to keep the law in all respects, so that no Jew had a right to stumble at him. Our Lord’s disposition to forego a privilege to which he was justly entitled, rather that the men should have an excuse for misapprehending him, was imitated by Paul (I Corinthians 9:1-27) and stands before us all as a part of the example of Christ. (Broadus, Commentary on Matthew, 380)

Jesus is actually funding the temple coffers that will soon be used to pay his betrayer, likely with the very same type of coin that Judas will receive as compensation for his treason (Matthew 26:16). Michael Green (b. 1930) coheres:

The temple tax would go into the treasury of the very Establishment that would betray him to death. Yet he did it. He refused to use his freedom as an excuse for claiming personal immunity and escaping obligation. Jesus set an example in the voluntary abnegation of his rights, and this provided a great challenge and stimulus in the developing life of the church. He did it, even though such obedience was part of the path which led him to the cross. (Green, The Message of Matthew (Bible Speaks Today), 189)

The stakes are far higher than the interrogators realize. The text’s structure underscores the significance of Jesus’ identity as its core is the exchange between Peter and Jesus (Matthew 17:25-26) and the completion of the miracle is not included as it is tangential to the real concern. The Messiah, whom Peter has professed Jesus to be in the preceding chapter (Matthew 16:16), need not pay the tax. As such, to pay the tax flies in the face of his very identity.

John Enoch Powell (1912-1998) studies:

To pay the tax would be to mislead, σκανδαλίζειν...as to Jesus’ true identity. It is not therefore paid by Jesus and Peter as taxpayers. (Powell, The Evolution of the Gospel: A New Translation of the First Gospel with Commentary and Introductory Essay, 154)

Jesus is placed in a catch 22. He needs to pay the tax without actually paying the tax. Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1928) concludes:

By providing for the payment of the tax in this way, Jesus took a course of action which made the payment inconsequential rather than a rite of allegiance on His part to religious cultism. Only as we see the miracle in this manner is it free from the offense of Jesus; using His power for selfish advantage. Again, a greater than the temple is here, the One who is Lord over His house. (Augsburger, Matthew (The Preacher’s Commentary), 200)

In having Peter collect the coin from a fish, Jesus pays the tax in a demonstrative, visible act which shows that he paid the tax but did not do so with his own money (John 12:6, 13:29). He protects his identity which is critical as Jesus’ nature is the most important subject in Matthew’s Gospel.

What should Jesus have done in this setting? Is there a better way to solve the problem than is presented by Jesus? Has your core identity ever been challenged? Who is Jesus to you?

“To him, all good things—trout as well as eternal salvation—come by grace and grace comes by art and art does not come easy.” - Norman Maclean (1902-1990), A River Runs Through It, p. 8