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

Jonah’s Fish Story (Jonah 1:17)

Who was swallowed by a big fish? Jonah

One of the best known of all Bible stories is that of Jonah’s sojourn inside a large fish, commonly presumed to be a whale (Jonah 1:17). The tale has captured the imagination of children and adults alike for centuries. The reluctant prophet ignores God’s call to Nineveh and sets sail in the opposite direction for Tarshish (Jonah 1:2-3). When the vessel carrying Jonah encounters a devastating storm, it is determined that Jonah’s disobedience is the cause and he is thrown overboard, presumably left for dead (Jonah 1:4-16).

God has other plans for Jonah. In the last verse of the book’s first chapter the notorious fish engulfs the would be prophet (Jonah 1:17).

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. (Jonah 1:17 NASB)

Harold Shank (b. 1950) summarizes:

Jonah’s means of transport changes from a ship to a fish. One protected him from the storm and the other from the sea. One led him away from God, and the other brought him back to God. Inside the fish Jonah has a change of heart. (Shank, Minor Prophets, Volume 1: Hosea-Micah (The College Press NIV Commentary), 345)

The Hebrew text has slightly different chapter divisions than do English translations. John D.W. Watts (b. 1921) affirms:

This verse is at the beginning of chapter 2 in the Hebrew Bible. That chapter division recognizes that it belongs more to what follows than to what has passed. (Watts, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 82)

The large fish is the best known and most debated facet of the book that bears the prophet’s name. The creature is described alternatively as a “great fish” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT, RSV), “huge fish” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “big fish” (CEV) and “large fish” (NRSV). The common denominator is “fish”. Though not an impossibility, the text makes no reference to a whale. This common identification likely stems from the King James Version’s translation of Matthew 12:40.

The Hebrew word “fish” (dâg) is as broad as its English counterpart and can reference any aquatic creature (e.g., Genesis 9:2; Numbers 11:22; I Kings 4:33; Psalms 8:8).

James Limburg (b. 1935) elucidates:

What sort of “big fish” did the author have in mind here? The Greek translations have kētei megalō (kētous in Matthew 12:40) which may be translated “great sea monster,” while the Vulgate piscern grandem, “big fish.” The Hebrew “big fish” (the seventh of fourteen occurrences of gādôl, “big,” in the story) does not denote a specific species but leaves room for the imagination of the hearer or reader. (Limburg, Jonah: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 61)

Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) expounds:

Some of the versions try to be more precise on the identity of this “large fish.” The LXX uses to to kētos, and it is recalled as such in Matthew 12:40, in Josephus [37-100], and in the Arabic version’s hût. In Greek literature, however, the kētos is an aquatic animal that, as we follow its attestations chronologically, exhibits a progressively larger size, changing from Homer [800-701 BCE]’s “seal” to Pliny [23-79]’s “whale.” It is a fact, moreover, that Scripture has preserved no specific names for the many types of salt- or sweet-water fish known to the eastern Mediterranean. This does not mean, of course, that the ancient Hebrews were not able to distinguish among the area’s wide varieties of fish; it simply suggests that no biblical context seems to require a specific vocabulary for fish. This observation holds true even in the listing of animals deemed suitable for sacrifice or consumption; Scripture merely distinguishes between fish with scales and gills (acceptable) or those without (unacceptable), making no judgment on any aquatic animal with no vertebrae (Leviticus 11:9; Deuteronomy 14:9). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149)

The text is concerned with the creature’s size, not species. Sasson continues:

The text merely states that the fish was “large”...The adjective gādôl permits a play on the consonants it shares with dāg...but it also maintains an interest in aggrandizing objects (Nineveh and its evil, the wind, the storm, the sailors’ fear). For those who read Jonah on its most realistic level, the adjective “great” no doubt makes Jonah’s sojourn within the fish more plausible. It has to be said, however, that the miraculous in Jonah’s experience is also basic to the story...and a guppy would have perfectly suited (if not sharpened) this element. In fact, in another Jewish tale that features a “big fish” (and that, interestingly enough, has Nineveh among its settings), the size of the fish turns out not to be all that significant a feature. When a “huge fish...leaped out of the water and tried to swallow [Tobias’s] foot,’ only its internal organs proved useful: to ward off the attacks of evil demons and to cure blindness (Tobit 6:2). (Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 149-50)

There is even ambiguity regarding the fish’s gender. Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) relay:

Rashi [1040-1105] tells us that the fish is male. However, since Jonah is comfortable within, he does not think of praying while inside it, and God orders the fish to vomit him out. Subsequently, a pregnant female fish swallows Jonah. At this point, Jonah, crowded by all the fish eggs, is forced to pray. Rashi comes to this conclusion based on the word for “the fish” (hadag). In this verse, the word is masculine, so he reads it as “the male fish.” However, in the following verse, the author uses hagadah, a feminine form. Rashi thus reasons that there must be a second, female fish. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Jonah; A Modern Commentary, 23)

W. Dennis Tucker, Jr. (b. 1967) investigates further:

The feminine form of fish, הדגה, has elicited considerable discussion, particularly given that the masculine form appears in Jonah 2:1 and Jonah 2:11. Although there are several Hebrew words that may be either masculine or feminine דג is not one of them. Wilhelm Gesenius [1786-1842] suggests that Jonah 2:2 is example of a nomen unitatis, or a singulative, in which one gender expresses the collective unit, while the other appears to indicate a single component within the unit...Although such a phenomenon appears in Jonah 1:3 with the use of אניה...it does not explain the irregularity in Jonah 2:2. Jack M. Sasson [b. 1941 suggests an alternative explanation. Sasson notes that in the Hebrew the singular form of a word can be used instead of its plural form, providing that the number (singular vs. plural) is not the main point of the text...A similar phenomenon occurs with masculine words supplanting feminine words. (Tucker, Jonah: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, 49)

The great fish may hold meaning to the sailors who throw Jonah overboard (Jonah 1:15-16). John H. Walton (b. 1952) speculates:

In Canaanite beliefs there were various sea monsters who were associates of the sea god, Yamm, and sometimes even identified with him. If the sailors saw the fish, it is possible that they would have viewed it as a personification of the sea god. (Walton, The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 109)

For Jonah, the fish may be the embodiment of his worst fears. Phillip Cary (b. 1958) internalizes:

The great fish is a cosmic version of an ancient nightmare, the great monster of the deep that represents chaos and destruction, the flooding and undoing of the world. I saw the origins of this nightmare once when I stood with a small child at the seashore and watched the waves roll in, and he was frightened because he did not see what could keep them from rolling on and on and swallowing him up. For all who can feel the roots of that child’s fear, the LORD God brings assurance and order to the world, saying to the sea: “Thus far you may come and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed” (Job 38:11). The same setting of the boundaries to the sea is pictured on the third day of creation, when God separates land from water, making a place where human beings can dwell. After this, the first of the creatures that God makes to live and move under heaven are “the great sea monsters” (Genesis 1:21). This is a reversal of the view of ancient Near Eastern mythology, which bases the ordering of the world on a primal battle between a god like Baal and the monsters of the watery chaos. God does not first slay the monster of the deep and then order the inhabited world, but first orders the world in peace, then creates great and marvelous things even in the deep. (Cary, Jonah (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 79)

The text moves from tragedy to comedy as the nightmarish creature proves to be Jonah’s salvation. The great fish will serve as Jonah’s home for three days and nights (Jonah 1:17).

Marvin Alan Sweeney (b. 1953) investigates:

The notice that Jonah was in the “belly” (literally, “intestines”) of the fish for three days and three nights has prompted some discussion. It has been taken as a typical reference to a long period of time (cf. I Samuel 30:11-15), simply as an expression of the Hebrew fondness for the number three, or a mythological reference to the time it takes to descend to the netherworld. The span of time corresponds roughly to the “three days” it takes to walk across the city of Nineveh (Jonah 3:3), which would support the notion that it expresses a long period of time. It should be noted that a three-day journey expresses the length of time it takes to travel to YHWH’s presence for worship in the Exodus tradition (cf. Exodus 3:18, 5:3, 8, 23, 15:22). Insofar as Jonah expresses a desire to return to the presence of YHWH in the Temple, the reference to three days and nights in the belly of the fish also conveys the sense of separation from YHWH. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets; Volume 1 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 316-17)

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) wonders:

Why did God use this specific means of returning Jonah to his appropriate place of service? For some the purpose of the fish was solely allegorical. A.J. Glaze, Jr. states: “The literary apparatus rich in metaphors and poetic imagery indicates the broader purpose of the author, and the allusions are evident to the intended audience. The relationship to one of Jeremiah’s prophecies was clear: Israel, swallowed by Babylon, would be delivered.” In other words, the story had to present elements commensurate with the intended teaching lesson...More fitting of the context is the view that the fish provided time for instruction from the Lord. R.T. Kendall [b. 1935] says it well: “The belly of the fish is not a happy place to live, but it is a good place to learn.” (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 240-41)

The incredible aspects of the text have led many to believe that Jonah is an allegory at best or at worst, a fish story. This mode of thought has led to much inquiry as to the species that could sustain a human being for three days. There is an off cited urban legend of a James Bartley surviving fifteen hours inside of a whale off of the Falklands Islands in 1891. The vessel most commonly cited in connection to the incident, The Star of the East, did exist but was not a whaling ship. No ship’s log or testimony exists from the era.

Remarkably, Jonah emerges unscathed and resumes his mission (Jonah 2:10). Regardless of the species or size of the creature, divine intervention would be needed to endure gastric juices, the intestinal tract, etc. In short, Jonah experiences a miracle.

How would knowing the species of fish affect your interpretation of Jonah? Do you read Jonah literally or allegorically? Why? Would an allegorical reading diminish the text in any way? What are other incidences of God transforming tragedy into a comedy?

William P. Brown (b. 1958) asserts:

Whether a large fish—a whale is most likely what the author had in mind despite modern scientific distinction between marine mammals and fish—can actually swallow and sustain a person for three days is not an issue the author sets out to prove. Indeed, the incident itself is reported matter-of-factly. (Brown, Obadiah through Malachi (Westminster Bible Companion), 23)

Excessive interest in the sea creature developed as science became more prevalent in the nineteenth century. James Bruckner (b. 1957) traces:

Popularized by Rev. Edward B. Pusey [1800-1882]’s 1860 commentary, this relatively recent tradition focuses on the size and species of the fish/whale, the size of the fish’s larynx and stomach, the availability of breathable air, and so on. In this view Jonah is a litmus test of one’s belief in science as a means of proving the veracity of the Bible. This approach limits the message of Jonah to two verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:10] and a specific nineteenth-century view of reality...Preoccupation with the big fish...has had both a positive and negative effect on the interpretation of Jonah in communities of faith. Positively, the great fish has kindled imagination and interest in Jonah as a book. Negatively, however, the great fish has so dominated this interpretation that the discussion of the book has been limited to this question: “Was Jonah really swallowed bu the whale?” This question has served as a distraction from God’s Word. (Bruckner, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (The NIV Application Commentary), 21)

Thomas John Carlisle (1913-1992) fell into the trap of focusing on the fish. He confesses, “I was so obsessed with what was going on inside the whale that I missed seeing the drama inside Jonah (Carlisle, You! Jonah!, 21).”

Chasing the “whale” defeats the purpose of the text. T. Desmond Alexander (b. 1955) reminds:

The story of Jonah being swallowed by a ‘whale’ has undoubtedly fascinated generations of children. Recounted by narrators eager to capture youthful imaginations, it provides all the elements necessary for a truly gripping story. Unfortunately, however, childhood memories can colour call too easily our perception of the book. The original narrative says practically nothing about the great fish; its existence is noted in only three verses [Jonah 1:17, 2:1, 2:10]. (David W. Baker [b. 1950], Alexander & Bruce Waltke [b. 1930], Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), 47)

Elizabeth Achtemeier (1926-2002) concurs:

Certainly it is futile to argue over whether such a thing would be possible. The author is telling us a story in order to say some very important things about God, and all arguments over the fish tend to divert our attention from the main points being made. The important fact is that Jonah, despite his disobedience, inability to pray and acceptance of his just sentence of death, has been saved from a watery grave by the totally undeserved grace of God. (Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I (New International Biblical Commentary), 268)

Lloyd J. Ogilvie (b. 1930) refocuses:

The subject of the first sentence is not the great fish, but the Lord. The point the author wants to make is that God provided a way of delivering Jonah. The salient thing is God’s intervention to save Jonah and reconscript him with the original call to go to Nineveh. This point is often lost in the volumes of scholarship on the Book of Jonah. (Ogilvie, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (Communicator’s Commentary: Mastering the Old Testament), 410)

The verb connected with God in this verse is mânâh, translated variously as “appointed” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, RSV), “prepared” (ASV, KJV, NKJV), “provided” (NIV, NRSV), “arranged” (NLT), “assigned” (MSG) and “sent” (CEV).

Frank S. Page (b. 1952) interprets:

This gives the perception that God created a special creature for the specific purpose of rescuing Jonah and providing a place for his training in humility and submission. But an accurate translation would be “ordained” or “appointed.” The word is used four times in the Book of Jonah and always points to the Lord’s power to accomplish his will. Here it shows his sovereignty over the creatures of the sea; in Jonah 4:6 it shows his power over plants; in Jonah 4:7 it shows his power over crawling creatures; and in Jonah 4:8 it shows his power over the wind. While God may have prepared a special “fish” for Jonah, the text only indicates that God summoned the fish, common or special, to be at that place at the exact moment of need. (Billy K. Smith and Page, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (The New American Commentary), 239-40)

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) adds:

The wording of the first sentence is precise. Yahweh is in control; the fish simply does what it is told...The verb נהמ piel “designate; specify; appoint” does not imply that God had long in advance created a special type of fish or modified an existing one so that it could keep a person alive for seventy-two hours (cf. Robert Dick Wilson [1856-1930], Princeton Theological Review 16 [1918] 645-54). The story does not specify what kind of fish it was, how Jonah could have lived inside it, or the answers to any other such queries. Yahweh can easily toss the wind around to make a storm when he wants to. Miraculously rescuing someone from drowning via a fish is no great feat, either. But it is not, also a feat to be described analytically. The numerous attempts made in the past to identify the sort of fish the could have kept Jonah alive in it are misguided. How would even Jonah himself have known? Can we assume that he caught a glimpse of it as it turned back to sea after vomiting to shore?...How could he have understood what had happened to him when he was swallowed? These questions have no answer. To ask them is to ignore the way the story is told. What sorts of fish people can live inside is not an interest of the scripture. (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (Word Biblical Commentary), 474)

The use of the word “appoint” not only underscores God’s role in the scene but, in context, downplays the fish’s. John H. Walton (b. 1952) laments:

In a way, it is a shame that this most familiar part of the book has attracted so much attention, for such attention detracts from the purpose and message of the book. The use of the verb “provided” suggests the role of the fish should be viewed no differently from that of the sprouting vine (Jonah 4:6), the action of the parasite that devours the vine (Jonah 4:7), and the east wind that torments Jonah (Jonah 4:8)—for they are all similarly “provided” by God. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Daniel-Malachi (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 474)

The fish serves as a plot device. It is arguably not even most important animal in the book (Jonah 4:7). To focus on the fish and not the God who sent it is to major on the minor.

In the belly of the creature, Jonah hits rock bottom. And yet God retains the ability to rescue the prophet. This is the text’s emphasis.

Symbolically, Jonah is raised from the dead. This is how Jesus uses the story (Matthew 12:38-40). Later Christians followed suit.

Edmund Leach (1910-1989) documents:

This was a very early and very common Christian “type” for Christ’s resurrection and for the promise of future resurrection for mankind. It was frequently used as a decoration for elaborate Roman Christian sarcophagi (see Matthew 12:40). (Robert Alter [b. 1935] and Frank Kermode [1919-2010], The Literary Guide to the Bible, 597)

Leslie C. Allen (b. 1935) encapsulates:

The gracious gift of God is life. He does not abandon his servant to death, but snatches from its clutches the drowning man. To the thrill of the hearers the key figure is saved at the last moment from a seemingly inescapable plight. Yahweh mounts a special rescue operation: an enormous fish plays the astounding part of a submarine to pick up Jonah from the murky seaweed at the bottom of the ocean and transport him safely to the mainland. The fish stands for the amazing grace of Yahweh, which came down to where he was and lifted him to new life. (Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 213)

Jonah’s descent in the great fish is a reminder that we can hit no bottom so low, not even death, from which God cannot raise us. The Christian always has hope.

Does the fish serve primarily as shelter or punishment? When else have Christians majored on the minor? When have you hit bottom? When you did, what sustained you?

“The test of success is not what you do when you are on top. Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom. You’re never beaten until you admit it.” - General George S. Patton (1885-1945)

Fishing the Right Side (John 21:6)

According to John 21, on which side of the boat did Jesus instruct His disciples to throw out the net? The right side (John 21:6)

The epilogue of John’s gospel begins with seven disciples fishing on the Sea of Galilee (John 21:2-4). It seems that after Jesus’ death threw their lives into chaos, the disciples reverted to what they knew, namely fishing. After a long day, the disciples are at the end of their rope after having presumably tried everything without catching anything (John 21:4-5). From the shore, a man commands them to try fishing from the right side of the boat (John 21:6). Unbeknownst to his own disciples, the man is the resurrected Jesus (John 21:4). Despite this failure to recognize Jesus, the disciples inexplicably follow his instructions and their fortunes are reversed.

And He said to them, “Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch.” So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. (John 21:6 NASB)

Success was nearer than the disciples thought as the small adjustment made a large difference.

Jesus does what Jesus commonly does: asks his followers to do the opposite of what they are doing. He does not chastise his pupils for returning to their previous profession. He simply orders a minor alteration. Such adjustments are easier to follow but often harder to believe. How could such a minor modification affect change?

On the surface, Jesus’ suggestion is a long shot but it must not be totally preposterous as the seasoned fishermen do not object to it. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) describes:

The morning sea had been unfruitful and the seven disciples were frustrated. With sunrise they were finishing up when an unknown voice from shore called out, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some,” (John 21:6). To toss a cast net at random into the sea was virtually futile. Only a school captured by a trammel net could be picked up in this manner. But the stranger may have seen a large school of fish from the shore. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation, 159)

The text does not simply record that Jesus instructed his followers to cast on the “other side” of the boat but rather specifies the “right side” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV). To avoid confusion with the meaning “correct” some modern translations designate the “right-hand side” (NASB, NLT).

Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) rationalizes:

The command to cast the net on the right side of the ship may be interpreted in two ways. Either Jesus was testing their faith by recommending a procedure the Galilean fishermen never used, or he could discern the presence of a school of fish from the more advantageous viewpoint of the shore. (Tenney, John-Acts (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 199)

Jesus’ request is likely counterintuitive to the disciples as evidenced by the fact that they have not already attempted it. In nautical terms, the right side is the starboard side. The word comes from the Old English steorbord meaning the “side on which a vessel was steered”. Unlike modern craft that utilize centerline runners, the steering apparatus in first century vessels was placed on the right side of ships because most seamen were right-handed. Since the starboard side was the right side, it was impractical to position the right side of the boat against a pier when in port, hence the left side of the boat became known as the port side. First century fishermen would seldom have fished the right side of the boat because they might tangle the nets and consequently lose their catch.

Some have suggested that the right side was considered “lucky” but this connection would defeat the purpose of the text. Leon Morris (1914-2006) refutes:

Some commentators draw attention to passages in classical authors showing that the right side is the fortunate side, but it is difficult to understand what relevance this has to the New Testament. Obedience to Christ, not luck, is the important thing. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 761-62)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) sees a literary device in play:

The right side may have been regarded as lucky but that is not the cause of the change; “the success...is due entirely to...obedience to Jesus’ word” (Barnabas Lindars [1923-1991], 627). The fact that the obedient Peter and the disciples to the word should be linked to the right side makes sense: in the gospel’s only other reference to the “right,” the cutting off of what was right (the right ear, John 18:10) reflected Peter’s failure to hear the word. In other words, within the gospel the right side is connected with hearing; cutting it indicates a failure of hearing; using it shows a return to hearing. (Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 583-84)

The fact that Jesus’ suggestion is insignificant may be its significance. James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) asserts:

Why the right side? Because that was the side they were directed to by Jesus! If He had said the left side, there would have been fish there. They would have swarmed from every part of the Lake of Galilee, so anxious would they have been to be caught. (Boice, The Gospel of John, Volume 5: Triumph Through Tragedy (John 18-21), 347)

Why does John include this detail? What do you associate with the right? Do you value right over left? Why do you think the disciples were suddenly successful? Would the fish on the right have not eventually swum to the left? Are you working the right side of your personal boat? Are you more apt to make minor or major adjustments in your life? Why do the disciples take instruction from a person who, to them, was merely an unproven armchair quarterback?

One of the most shocking aspects of this text is the fact that professional fisherman alter their course based upon the unsolicited advice of someone who has not demonstrated expertise.

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

Although the right side of anything was widely considered in Greek circles to be a sign of good luck, it would be utterly trivial to think that this is why Jesus gave his command...or why the disciples heeded it. Why he gave the command is straightforward: he knew there was a great school of fish on the starboard side, as he had known it on another occasion (Luke 5:1-11). What is at first more difficult is why these fishermen should pay any attention. If they had already recognized the Master, their obedience would make sense, but not John 21:7, where recognition comes only after the catch; if they have not recognized him, why listen to the voice of someone calling in early dawn gloom from the shore of the lake? (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 670)

For casting right to have been an act of faith, the disciples would have had to known that it was Jesus who made the demand. As such others have seen the disciples’ action as an act of desperation: they simply have nothing to lose.

T.T. Crabtree (1924-2007) imagines:

The command of Christ may call for the unusual. The disciples’ net was usually let down on the left side of the ship. The command to lower it on the right side called for unusual action. “Anyway,” they could have reasoned, “we have been lowering the net not far from the place where you have commanded that we lower it now, so why should lowering it again make any real difference?” (Crabtree, Zondervan 2010 Pastor’s Annual: An Idea and Resource Book, 77-78)

Perhaps there is some faith entailed. In his book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell (b. 1963) informs that sometimes our instincts are correct because our subconscious has already discovered something that our conscious mind has yet to process. The scene in which Jesus is revealed in John’s epilogue is strikingly similar to the memory of the time that Jesus initially called the disicples (Luke 5:1-11). Perhaps the disciples comply with Jesus’ request because on some deeper level, they realize that the man speaking is the Lord.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) hints:

There may be some deeper significance in his direction to ‘shoot the net to starboard’ (NEB). In popular belief the right was the side of good luck, but the disciples would know this in any case, and it would be trivializing Jesus’ words to find this kind of meaning in them. We may take it that he knew there was an abundance on their starboard side; as for the disciples, the old instinct of implicit obedience asserted itself almost before they became fully conscious of his identity. (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 399-400)

Perhaps something deep inside of the disciples recognizes their master before they become fully conscious of his identity.

Do you think the disciples recognized Jesus on any level? What motivates the disciples to change course? Have you ever followed a command that made no sense or taken advise from someone who has demonstrated no expertise? Are you willing to change your methodology at Jesus’ directive? Are you letting Jesus guide you?

We live in a world that assumes that the quality of a decision is directly related to the time and effort that went into making it...But there are moments, particularly in times of stress, when haste does not make waste, when our snap judgments and first impressions can offer a much better means of making sense of the world.
- Malcolm Gladwell (b. 1963), Blink: The Power Of Thinking Without Thinking, p. 13

Andrew’s Contribution (John 6:8-9)

Which disciple brought the little boy with his lunch to Jesus? Andrew (John 6:8)

The feeding of the 5,000 is the only miracle recorded in all four canonical gospels (Matthew 14:15-21; Mark 6:31-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-14). John, the final gospel written, offers a more intimate telling, including several details not mentioned in the Synoptic gospels’ relatively vague accounts (John 6:5-14). John records Philip calculating the cost of feeding the multitude (John 6:7) and adds that it was Andrew who interjects himself into the conversation to draw attention to an unnamed boy’s meager provisions (John 6:8-9).

One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:8-9 NASB)

That the disciples individual personalties are drawn out by the fourth evangelist is not surprising as John is the only gospel to particularize their roles. John gives speaking parts to individuals whereas the Synoptics speak more often of the collective “disciples”.

D. Moody Smith (b. 1931) observes:

Some disciples (other than Peter) who are named play a larger role in John than in the Synoptics. This is particularly true of Thomas (John 11:16, 14:5, 20:24-28, 21:2), but also of Philip (John 1:43-48, 6:5, 7, 12:21-22, 14:8-9) and Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:40, 41, 6:8, 12:22). (Smith, The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions: Judaism and Jesus, the Gospels and Scripture, 88)

The narrator unnecessarily reintroduces Andrew as a disciple and as Simon Peter’s brother (John 1:35-42). John repeats the information to emphasize the question and its source. John Painter (b. 1935) coments, “Andrew, who is again introduced as the brother of Simon Peter (John 6:8 and see John 1:40) to remind the reader of the initial quest of Andrew, shows a glimmer of comprehension (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946], Critical Readings of John 6 (Biblical Interpretation, 22), 62).”

Andrew’s and Philip’s responses accent the inadequacy of the supplies and the disciples’ inability to respond to such a severe situation. This increases the magnitude of feeding the multitude. Robert Kysar (b. 1934) notes, “Both Philip and Andrew offer statements of the extent of the human need. The little boy...and his tiny lunch pose dramatic contrast with the abundance of food produced by Jesus’ act (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 91).”

Evidently, a young boy was the only person known to the disciples wise enough to bring food to the desert. But he came prepared to feed himself, not an army. John accents the sparsity of the lad’s provisions. Kenneth O. Gangel (1935-2009) registers:

Andrew...found a boy carrying a lunch consisting of barley loaves and fish. Like Philip, Andrew had no idea what use that pittance would be. John’s record offers so many interesting observations, not the least of which is that the two fish Andrew found were definitely small. The word apsarion is used only by John, and it emphasizes the insignificance of these tiny sardines. (Gangel, John (Holman New Testament Commentary, 118-119)

Thomas L. Brodie (b. 1940) adds, “His five loaves are of barley—poor quality apparently. And the two fish are described as opsaria—another double diminutive.(Brodie, The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 262),”

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) sees significance in the paucity:

Andrew...locates a young boy (paidarion) who can possibly help. This boy is carrying five barley loaves and two salted fish. Only John mentions that the bread is barley, which is a signal of the poverty of this crowd. Barley was considered the bread of the poor and this lad has five pieces of it—much like five round loaves of today’s pita bread. Luke 11:5 implies that three such pieces might make a meal for one person. These details are important because in II Kings 4:42-44 is another Old Testament miracle, where Elisha feeds a hundred men with twenty barley loaves and is assisted by a paidarion or young servant. As with the twelve baskets left after Jesus’ miracle, Elisha had baskets of food left over. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 144)

The situation is so bleak that the disciples are reduced to commandeering a child’s lunch, an act we associate with school bullies. And even so, obtaining this donation amounts to asking for loose change to help reduce the national deficit.

Just how Andrew became acquainted with the boy or how he convinced him to part with his lunch is not stated. Leon Morris (1914-2006) speculates:

It is possible that his knowledge of the lad came as the result of a reconnaissance with a view to finding out what food resources could be mustered, for he definitely relates the boy’s supply (evidently provisions for his own personal use) to the needs of the multitude. Or the boy may have offered his food to Jesus. (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 304)

Others have surmised that Andrew must have been a people person to have even acknowledged the lad. J. Ellsworth Kalas (b. 1928) boasts:

It was like Andrew, of course, to notice the small boy...Andrew was the kind of person a little boy could approach. While the other disciples were busy with bigger things, Andrew was chatting with a boy, patting him on the head, asking him where he had caught the fish—or did his mother buy them at market? A scruffy lad of no special promise, but Andrew—the brotherly type—visits with him and somewhat ridiculously thinks that his lunchbox will interest the Master. (Kalas, The Thirteen Apostles, 14)

Ancient commentator Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428) suggests that Andrew is merely trying to clear his name, showing that he has no plans of hoarding the little food to which he has access:

Andrew said this so that they might not think he was hiding the food for his own use. Indeed, Andrew was right in observing that those five loaves were nearly nothing for that great crowd. And he had no other food. (Commentary on the Gospel of John (Ancient Christian Texts), 61)

Many have seen Andrew’s bringing the lad to Jesus’ attention as indicative of the disciple’s personality. He is presented three times in John’s gospel and each time he is depicted as bringing someone to Jesus (John 1:40-42, 6:8-9, 12:20-22).

William Barclay (1907-1978) deduces:

Andrew is characteristically the man who was always introducing others to Jesus...It was Andrew’s great joy to bring others to Jesus. He stands out as the man whose one desire was to share the glory. He is the man with the missionary heart...Andrew is our great example in that he could not keep Jesus to himself. (Barclay, The Gospel of John, Volume 1, 105)

Greg Laurie (b. 1952) exclaims:

How we need more Andrews today! Every time we read of him in Scripture, he’s bringing someone to Jesus...If we had more Andrews, we would have more Simon Peters–one person bringing another to Jesus. So simple. So effective. So neglected. (Laurie, Breakfast with Jesus, 261)

Do you consider supernatural solutions to your problems? Do you take note of children? Why does Andrew bring the lad to Jesus? Who have you brought to Jesus? Who could you? Do we have an obligation to follow Andrew’s example? Is Andrew’s interjection an act of faith or doubt?

There is a natural comparison between Andrew and Philip. Both were from Bethsaida (John 1:44) which may account for why they appear together three times in John’s gospel (John 1:40-44, 6:5-9, 12:21-22). Philip calculates the demand (John 6:7) while Andrew evaluates the supply (John 6:9). Andrew works part to whole; Philip whole to part. Neither factor Jesus heavily in their analysis.

Herman N. Ridderbos (1909-2007) notes:

He [Philip] gets support from Andrew (with whom he is also linked in John 12:21ff; 1:44), who, without bothering himself about imagined amounts of money, limits himself to the actual supply of bread on hand: five loaves, and two (dried) fish. But what could one do with that, given so many mouths? (Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary, 211)

Andrew, like, Philip, responds in natural terms which naturally leads to despondency. Gerald L. Borchert (b. 1932) critiques:

Andrew, the helper, tried to solve the problem in another way. He began immediately to search for picnic resources in that barren place, but his search also ended in failure, according to his thinking. All he found was a boy in the crowd who had a lunch with barley loaves (the bread of the poor) and two small fish (emphasis on small, John 6:9). Andrew’s answer was also hopelessness. (Borchert, John 1-11 (New American Commentary), 253)

Despite being with Jesus from the beginning, Andrew and Philip have not yet developed a theology of abundance. They do not consider that Jesus could solve their predicament. Francis J. Moloney (b.1940) assesses:

Andrew joins Philip in pointing to the paucity of their supplies: a lad is at hand with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:8-9). Andrew and Philip have been with Jesus from the first days of the Gospel (John 1:43), but they have not learned from their master’s attempt to draw them beyond the limitations of their expectations (John 1:35-51), in this case the need for a large sum of money to buy quantities of bread. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 197)

Though they respond similarly, Andrew leaves looking better than Philip, at least making Jesus an offer. Merrill C. Tenney (1904-1985) explains:

The barest sketch of Philip and Andrew was given, yet it revealed the temper and faith of the men...Philip was a statistical pessimist...Andrew was an ingenious optimist. Philip’s information was given in answer to a question; Andrew’s was volunteered. Philip produced figures to show what could not be done; Andrew brought food, hoping that something might be done. His faith was wavering, for he added to his offer, “but what are these among so many?” (John 6:9)—but he had faith. Though rather quiet he must have had winning ways. Any man who can persuade a small boy to relinquish his lunch possesses a forceful character. (Tenney, John: Gospel of Belief, 113)

In some ways, Philip serves as a foil to Andrew. R. Alan Culpepper (b. 1946) observes, “As in John 1 an 12, Andrew is Philip’s companion and comes off better than Philip (Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (Interpreting Biblical Texts Series), 156).”

Andrew does show some initiative. In Mark’s gospel, Jesus puts out an APB for resources to feed his audience (Mark 6:38), but in John’s account, Andrew need not be asked. Andrew T. Lincoln (b. 1944) notes:

Whereas in Mark Jesus tells the disciples to find out how much food there is, here Andrew, also operating on the merely human level, locates a boy, a further addition to the Synoptic version, who has the five loaves and two fish and then draws the obvious despairing conclusion. (Lincoln, The Gospel According To Saint John (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 212)

Both faith and doubt are seen in Andrew’s response. Faith is seen in his initial statement and he would have come off marvelously well had he quit when he was ahead. But he apologetically adds, “but what are these for so many people?” (John 6:9 NASB). This lament reveals Andrew’s doubt.

Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) speculates that in the midst of Andrew’s doubts, his faith involuntarily bubbles to the surface:

Almost as soon as Philip came to the conclusion that it was humanly impossible to feed the crowd gathered on the hillside...Andrew...spoke up...(John 6:8-9). While Andrew seemed to agree with Philip about the impossibility of feeding so many, his approach to the need was more positive. Without even realizing it, his faith had found the key to the storehouse of God’s ample supply. When he offered Jesus a few loaves and fish, he was offering Jesus everything he had!...What do you have? Do you have a little bit of time? A little bit of love? A little bit of money? A little bit of faith? Don’t concentrate on what you lack, concentrate on what you have. Then give all of it to Jesus for His use. (Lotz, Just Give Me Jesus, 120)

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) concurs:

Andrew, by contrast, sees just a little hope and shows just a little faith by coming forward with a little boy and his little provisions...fora little while! And just a little faith is all that Jesus apparently, from all the Gospel reports, ever at first expects from anyone, and so it is all he ever minimally seeks from his always still-very-human disciples. (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 362)

Stephen Farris (b. 1951) instructs that though he demonstrates faith, Andrew need not be sainted for his performance in the desert:

Don’t make Andrew a hero of faith. He offers the fish and the loaves, but almost in the same breath he takes them back verbally, “But what are they among so many people?”...He doesn’t have very much faith. But not very much faith is not the same as no faith at all...He has the faith the size of a mustard seed. He has five loaves and two fish worth of faith. He has faith the size of a small boy’s lunch. That amount of faith, Jesus says, is able to move the mountain they’re sitting on. It may even be enough to feed five thousand. (David Fleer [b. 1953] and Dave Bland [b. 1953], “The Andrew Option”, Preaching John’s Gospel: The World It Imagines, 23)

Andrew contributes very little to the feeding of the 5.000 and what he offers, he gets from a small boy. He is only a middle man. Andrew brings Jesus much less than is needed. As do we. And like Andrew, though our offerings are not much, they can be significantly multiplied in the hands of Jesus.

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

Philip doesn’t know what to do. Andrew doesn’t either, but he brings the boy and his bread and fish to Jesus’ attention. The point is obvious, but we perhaps need to be reminded of it: so often we ourselves have no idea what to do, but the starting point is always to bring what is there to the attention of Jesus. You can never tell what he’s going to do with it – though part of Christian faith is the expectation that he will do something we hadn’t thought of, something new and creative. (Wright, John for Everyone: Chapters 1-10, 73)

What do their responses to the food shortage say of Philip and Andrew? What is Andrew’s contribution? If Andrew had not brought the boy, how would Jesus have fed the multitude? What can you bring to Jesus’ table?

“How lovely to think that no one need wait a moment, we can start now, start slowly changing the world! How lovely that everyone, great and small, can make their contribution toward introducing justice straightaway... And you can always, always give something, even if it is only kindness!” - Anne Frank (1929-1945)