E KNOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
WHY THE FISHHOOK?
SUBMITTED TO DR. SAM LAMERSON
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
NT 502: NEW TESTAMENT SURVEY: GOSPELS, LIFE OF CHRIST, AND ACTS
BY
DOUGLAS ROTHAUSER
APRIL 27, 2022
WORD COUNT: 3933
The term fishhook is found in only a few places in the entire Bible[1] and just once in the New Testament (Matt. 17:27). Readers might tend to overlook the significance of what is seemingly a religiously neutral device used to catch fish. They know what a fishhook is and its purpose. No big deal, they might think, oblivious to the rich meaning behind the word, both literally and metaphorically. The intent of this paper is to take a closer look at this word as it is used in Matthew 17:24-27 and showcase its significance within the narrative.
The book of Matthew is the only book in the New Testament that mentions a fishhook[2]. It is used in the episode about Jesus and Peter and the temple tax found in Matt. 17:24-27[3]:
When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, “Does your teacher not pay the tax?” He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” And when he said, “From others,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast 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 me and for yourself.”
Though this pericope is only four verses, it reveals a quintessential Christological dimension in which the mysterious fishhook plays a vital role in the conclusion of the story (Matt. 17:27). However, before one can answer, “why the fishhook?” it is necessary to explore the religio-historical context of the story. First, it is important to understand why this story is uniquely Matthean and not included in the other Synoptics[4]. If Matthew is the author of this gospel, he was Levi, the tax collector. As a tax-collecting professional, this situation would undoubtedly interest him. Furthermore, many scholars believe he was writing for a Jewish audience knowledgeable about the Jewish law concerning the temple tax and why it was necessary.
To set the stage, Matthew begins the story with Jesus and the disciples arriving in Capernaum after several very significant events in which Peter is a primary actor. First, Peter declares that Jesus is the Messiah and Jesus warns them in no uncertain terms to keep that quiet (Matt. 16:16,20; Mark 8:29,30 par.; Luke 9:20,21 par.). Then on three occasions, Jesus tells his disciples he will be delivered into the hands of men, be killed, and on the third day, be raised to life (Matt. 16:21; 17:22-23 par.; 20:17-19 par.). On the first occasion, Peter rebukes Jesus for his lugubrious vaticination[5], after which Jesus returns the favor with a blistering attack labeling him “Satan.” Furthermore, he accuses him of having more concern with the things of man and not of God and for being a hindrance to him (Matt. 16:22-23). Note that the underlying Greek word for hindrance is σκάνδαλον [skandalon] (a stumbling block). This word will play a prominent role in unfolding the meaning of the fishhook later in the temple tax narrative (Matt. 17:27). Lastly, Jesus is transfigured, and again Jesus commands the disciples not to tell anyone what they saw until the Son of Man was raised from the dead (Matt. 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-8 par.; Luke 9:28-36 par.).
With these events and admonitions in view, the temple tax collectors in Capernaum approached Peter, knowing very well that he was one of Jesus’s disciples. They asked if Jesus pays the temple tax (Matt. 27:24). In typical Petrine fashion, Peter impulsively answers in the affirmative, perhaps in an effort to protect Jesus’s honor as a law-abiding Jew or that he had great faith in his master to come up with tax[6].
At this point in the story, it is essential to examine the history of the temple tax, what it represents, and its necessity. The temple tax finds its origins in pre-temple times as a census tax instituted as part of the Mosaic Law. Exodus 30:11-16 explicates the law as follows:
The Lord said to Moses, “When you take the census of the people of Israel, then each shall give a ransom for his life to the Lord when you number them, that there be no plague among them when you number them. Each one who is numbered in the census shall give this: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as an offering to the Lord. Everyone who is numbered in the census, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the Lord’s offering. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when you give the Lord’s offering to make atonement for your lives. You shall take the atonement money from the people of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may bring the people of Israel to remembrance before the Lord, so as to make atonement for your lives.”
The divine justification for this law cannot be understated. This tax represents what amounts to be no less than a ransom[7] and atonement[8] for one’s life[9]. It dictates that an Israelite man twenty years old and older must give an offering of half a shekel to the Lord. This offering represented a ransom for divine protection from plagues (God’s wrath and judgment of sin). The temple priests used this revenue for the upkeep and operations of the tent of meeting (tabernacle), whose primary purpose was to conduct ongoing sacrifices[10]. Implicit in the monetary ransom given to the tabernacle is the act of earning it. The Israelite man must work for the money in some fashion, which symbolizes a form of sacrifice or atonement.
Returning to Jesus and Peter’s conversation, Jesus, touching his divine nature, knew exactly what transpired between Peter and the tax collectors and before Peter could even say a word asked him a rhetorical question, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?” (Matt 17:25)[11]. At that time, the kings of the earth (e.g., Roman rulers) did not require their families to pay taxes. Peter answers Jesus, “from the others.”[12] Jesus validates Peter’s answer, responding, “So the sons are free.” The point Jesus was making is that the king nor his children pay taxes in kingdoms, but the others do. At the same time, Jesus was forecasting the way it would be in the kingdom he is inaugurating, but that time has not yet arrived in its eschatological fullness. (Perhaps that is one of the reasons Jesus exhorted the disciples not to tell anyone about the miraculous signs they had witnessed heretofore.) In asserting that sons are free, Jesus is illustrating that just like in an earthly kingdom whose king and family is exempt from paying tribute, so are the sons of the heavenly kingdom who are not related of blood (John 1:13) but through the blood of its king (Eph. 1:7,13, Col. 1:20). Although Peter had recently confessed that Jesus is the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16), it would not be until he employed a fishhook that he would begin to comprehend how sonship is wrought in the Heavenly Kingdom.
Jesus goes on to say, “However, not to cause offense to them, …, render the tax for the both of us” (Matt. 17:27). At this point in the narrative, it is critical to probe what Jesus meant by not wanting to cause offense and how that relates to the mysterious object that is the subject of this paper – the fishhook.
In the original Greek of this passage, the word for offense is σκανδαλίζομαι, which when transliterated is skandalizó, from which we get the English word scandal. The word means to lay a snare for, set a trap for, cause to stumble or fall, or give offense or scandal to anyone.[13]
Jesus knew that refusal to pay the tax would be scandalous. The time was not right for him to become a stumbling block to the Jews (1 Cor. 1:23), for he had not yet completed his messianic mission, which included fulfilling every jot and tittle of the Law (Matt. 5:17-18), even paying the temple tax (Ex. 30:11-16). Jesus, the only begotten of the Father, is certainly exempt from the temple tax, for he is the temple[14]. However, at this pre-resurrection stage of his ministry, that truth would not have been understood. If the disciples could not fully grasp Jesus’s person and mission, certainly the tax collectors and Jews could not be able to either. Nonetheless, it was not Jesus’s intent to “lay a snare” for the Jews and cause them to stumble into sin through their present ignorance and spiritual blindness. Jesus had another target in mind.
Jesus then gives Peter an assignment that would not only solve the immediate matter at hand but also teach him a lesson that mere words could never impart. He instructs him to go to the sea, cast a hook[15], take the first fish that comes up, pull the coin from its mouth, and use that to pay the taxes. In this way, rather than tripping up the people by truths that at that time were beyond their grasp, Jesus instructs Peter to trip up something else by means of the fishhook[16].
God providentially set up the environment necessary for Peter to apply his skills as a professional fisherman to toil for (i.e., work for, sacrifice, atone) the tax money (ransom)[17].
Throughout the gospels, Peter customarily employs a net to catch as many fish as possible at one time to maximize profit. However, this time Jesus instructs him to use a line and hook to catch a specific fish for a specific reason. To discover that reason, it is necessary to analyze the hook-fishing technique both literally and metaphorically.
The literal activity of hook-fishing generally involves spiking a piece of bait on a hook[18]. The hook’s true nature is concealed by the bait that is hung on it. The objective of both the fisherman and the fish is the same – a meal. When considered metaphorically, the fisherman represents a type of deceiver, the hook and bait represent a trap, and the fish represents a dupe. The objective of the deceiver and the deceived is the same – to obtain something it desires. The sea represents the context where the fishing drama takes place.
Using these metaphors, one can view the fall of man and his salvation as two allegorical fishing stories: one tragedy, the other comedy.
In the narrative of The Fall (Gen. 3), Satan, the adversary, manifests himself in the form of a serpent (Gen. 3:1)[19]. He takes on the role of a wicked fisherman using his deceptive craft to snatch for himself God’s good creation (Gen 1:25) by preying upon its crowning jewel, even Man (Gen. 1:27)[20]. To that end, he cunningly prepares his fishhook by affixing the bait of faux divinity upon the hook of sin, darkness, and death. Like a skilled angler coaxing a fish to his fatal hook disguised with juicy bait, he casts his fishhook into the Edenic tranquility of the Garden to deceive Adam and Eve (and by extension, their progeny) into believing his lie through the manipulation of their nascent free will. Man then freely takes the bait and finds himself enslaved to the forces of sin, death, and the adversary and tragically estranged from God.
The same allegorical fishing theme applies when considering how God reverses the effects of The Fall to deliver his people from the bondage to sin and its side effects. In this, we see the mysterious unity and diversity of the Godhead at work in the role of a fisherman who figuratively takes on the form of a fishhook tied to a line thrown into the sea. In Jewish categories, the sea represents a chaotic, shadowy underworld where Yahweh’s cosmic enemies dwell in the form of a sea serpent or dragon called Leviathan or Rahab[21]. As a metaphoric fishhook, Jesus’s human nature represents the bait, and his divine nature represents the hook. When seen together, the baited hook symbolizes the Cross of Christ. The fish represents Satan, that Leviathan only God can pull in with a hook (Job 41:1). Jesus’s atoning death and resurrection, symbolized by the coin regurgitated by the fish[22], is the ransom paid for the redemption of his enslaved children.
The fourth-century bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa (AD c. 335-395) used similar imagery in The Great Catechism[23] to formulate what became to be known as the “Fishhook Theory of Atonement”[24]:
For since, as has been said before, the opposing power did not have a nature [able] to come into contact with the unalloyed presence of God and to withstand his naked manifestation, so that the exchange for us might be easily grasped by him who sought [it], the divine was hidden by the veil of our nature, in order that, as in the case of greedy fish, the hook of the divinity might be swallowed with the bait of the flesh, and thus when life came to dwell in death and light shone in the darkness, that which is understood as the opposite of light and life might be utterly destroyed. For it is not in the nature of darkness to remain in the presence of light, nor death to exist where life is active.[25]
By taking on human flesh in the form of a humble servant (Phil. 2:6-8), Jesus became the ultimate snare and stumbling block for Satan. For in Satan’s eyes, this supposed Son of God was an impostor – a weak and disgraceful worm of a human (Ps. 22:6), with no power to save himself from the indignity of a crucifixion. Like the tax collectors and even the disciples before the resurrection, it was beyond Satan to fathom a Messiah whose weapon of warfare is sacrificial love[26]. It was also beyond Satan’s ability to resist exercising the wickedness so intrinsic to his nature. Consequently, he took the bait of Jesus’s humanity and found himself impaled on the hook of his divinity, unable to keep down He whom death could not hold (Acts 2:24).
Critics of this theory[27] are uncomfortable with the notion that God would use such backhanded tactics as deception and concealment and that such actions are inconsistent with his perfect, moral character. For example, they recoil at the view that Jesus would use deceit to conceal his true identity through such stealthy methods as commanding his disciples not to divulge that he is the Christ, by paying the temple tax even though he does not have to, and feigning human weakness during his passion, all as ploys to deceive the devil into believing he was not God. Those more favorable to the theory see it as God using his righteous wisdom to beat the devil at his own game and furthermore that his methods were prudent, fair, and perfectly consistent with His holy nature[28]. After all, it is Jesus who tells his disciples, “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” (Matt. 10:16).
To free his children from the grip of Satan, sin, and death God came to earth not as a conquering warrior and liberator in the mold of David or Judas Maccabeus but rather as a suffering servant (Isa. 53). Paradoxically, what appeared to Satan and the fallen world to be foolish, weak, and mortal was, in reality, divine wisdom, omnipotence, and everlasting love. It is this concept that Jesus labored hard to teach his disciples. Indeed, he was dead serious when he taught that to be his disciples, they must deny themselves, take up their cross and lose their life to find it (Matt. 16:24-25; Mark 8:34-35 par.; Luke 9:23-24 par.). This is the essence of the “fishhook strategy.” Those who follow Jesus will surely experience suffering akin to what it would feel like to be a skewered piece of live bait writhing on a barbed hook as they endure hostility, insults, mockery, and persecution[29] for the sake of the Gospel. Yet it is that very same hook (symbolized by the cross) that believers carry daily that incapacitates the adversary, leads others to salvation[30], and prepares for them an eternal weight of glory without comparison (2 Cor. 4:17).
One detail of the story that may go overlooked is the instruction Jesus gives Peter to take the “first” fish that comes up. In first-century Palestine, it is doubtful that Peter would hook one fish and throw it back. The underlying Greek word for “first” is πρῶτος (prōton) which is technically a superlative adjective meaning the first in a series involving time, space, or set[31]. Thus “first” implies that in addition to the coin-carrying fish, Peter would subsequently use the fishhook to catch other fish, no doubt to provide for and bless others. Applying this concept to the verse, Jesus represents the first person in all human history since the Fall to use the fishhook strategy to defeat evil, conquer the grave (Col. 1:18), and bring salvation to his people. Thus, Jesus’s sacrificial life of servitude and suffering, ignominious death, and glorious resurrection is the prototypical pattern of life for all those who follow him.
It is worth reiterating that it was the hook of Jesus’s intrinsic divinity that defeats Satan, and needless to say, divinity is not inherent to creatures. However, since the day of Pentecost, God dispenses the Holy Spirit to indwell in all those who by faith confess the name of Jesus. Consequently, each believer’s body is now the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19–20). The same Holy Spirit that empowered Jesus in his earthly body to endure the fishhook of the cross for the joy set before him (Heb. 12:2) is now the same power that enables the faithful to share in Christ’s sufferings and joyfully persevere in the Christian life.
There are varying opinions about the meaning of the fishhook in Matthew 17:27. Whether one accepts or rejects the symbolism behind the hook and bait or that God would use deception like in the Fishhook Theory of Atonement, the imagery of the fishhook is an effective way to view how Jesus emptied himself, becoming like a lowly worm in the world’s eyes, and suffered a humiliating death hooked on a cross (Phil. 2:7-8) to pay a ransom for many (Matt. 20:26-28, 1 Tim. 2:6).
It is uncertain whether Peter understood the symbolism behind his fishing assignment as he hooked that shekel-bearing fish. It would not be until after he witnessed the resurrected Jesus that any of this would make sense, as evidenced by his speeches and adventures in the book of Acts and his epistles. For example, in 1 Peter 4:12-13, we read:
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.” (1 Pet. 4:12-13)
After the resurrection, Peter finally understood what Jesus was laboring so hard to teach during his earthly ministry. The Book of Acts details how this understanding spread to the rest of the disciples and to the saints of the early church.
It is amazing that in God’s providence, He produced the drama of the temple tax for Peter to use a fishhook to teach him something that at the time might have been over his head, but in due time he would fully comprehend. Just as God commanded the prophets to act out prophecies symbolically, Jesus instructed Peter to literally exercise his vocation to teach him sacred truths that would serve him well not only in the present but also in his future ministry as an apostle.
(IGNTP), International Greek New Testament Project. Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament. Cambridge. Cambridge: The Codex Sinaiticus Project Board, 2012.
Arnold, Clinton E. Zondervan illustrated bible backgrounds commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019.
Bettenson, Henry. The Later Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Cyril of Jerusalem to St. Leo the Great. Translated by Henry Bettenson. Edited by Henry Bettenson. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970.
Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Bond, E. Ray Clendenen, Trent C. Butler, and Bill Latta, eds. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.
Constas, Nicholas P. "The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception in Greek Patristic Interpretations of the Passion Narrative." The Harvard Theological Review, Apr 2004: 139-163.
Denery, Dallas G. The devil wins: A history of lying from the Garden of Eden to the enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2015.
Easton, M. G. Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893.
Green, Ignatius. Catechetical Discourse: A Handbook for Catechists. Edited by John Begr. Yonkers, NY, 2019.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Vol. 2. Oak Harbor, WA, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.
Jethani, Skye. What If Jesus Was Serious? A Visual Guide to the Teachings of Jesus We Love to Ignore. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2020.
John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, Wendy Widder, ed. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.
Logos. Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. 2006. Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 2006.
Louw, Johannes P, and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.
Morris, Leon. Theories of the atonement by Leon Morris. n.d. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/atonementmorris2.html (accessed April 24, 2022).
Nyssa, Gregory of. Gregory of Nyssa: The Great Catechism. n.d. https://orthodoxchurchfathers.com/fathers/npnf205/npnf2038.htm#P3801_2491373 (accessed April 27, 2022).
Scanlin, Harold P., et al. "Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament), electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc." Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.
Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxation, Jewish." In Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, edited by Craig A. Evans, & Stanley E. Porter, 1166. Downers Grove, IL, 2000.
Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version. Edited by R. C. Sproul. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015.
Strong, James. The New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996.
Tan, Randle K., David A. deSilva, and Isaiah Hoog. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint. H.B. Swete. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012.
The Temple Tax Story: Understanding Yeshua's Sense of Humor. July 9, 2020. https://seekingspiritualitysite.com/2020/07/09/the-temple-tax-story-understanding-yeshuas-sense-of-humor/ (accessed May 11, 2022).
[1] Amos 4:2, Isa. 19:8, Hab. 1:15, Job. 41:1, Matt. 17:27
[2] Note that many English translations use the word “line” or “hook” and not fishhook. However, the original Greek manuscripts, e.g., Byzantine, Sinaiticus use the Greek word, ἄγκιστρον, meaning fishhook (Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. 2006. 2006) (Codex Sinaiticus: Septuagint and New Testament. Cambridge 2012).
[3] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from the ESV.
[4] Thus this pericope would fall into the hypothetical “M” source of the Oxford Hypothesis (B.H.Streeter) also known as the Two/Four Source Hypothesis.
[5] Prediction, prophecy
[6] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 49.
[7] Hebrew: כֹּפֶר kôpher, ko’-fer; When translated as ransom, it often means a price for a life. James Strong, The New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 3724.
[8] כָּפַר kâphar, kaw-far’; fig. to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel:— appease, make (an atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation). James Strong, The New Strong’s Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996), 3722.
[9] Life - Septuigant: ψυχῆς (psychē), soul, inner self, mind. Randall Tan, et. al., The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint (C Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012), 262.
[10] Note that when the people of Israel returned to Jerusalem from exile, they reinstituted the compulsory annual temple tax and lowered it to a third of a shekel (Neh. 10:32) The Reformation Study Bible commentary states that the difference could be from the use of a new monetary system under the Persians, or it could be a concession to the hard economic times. (The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version 2015)
[11] It is interesting that priests and rabbis were exempt from paying the temple tax. See Thomas E. Schmidt, Taxation, Jewish,” Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 1166. Also, the Sadducees (the Kohanim) were exempt from the tax. See Seeking Spirituality,” The Temple Tax Story: Understanding Yeshua's Sense of Humor”, https://seekingspiritualitysite.com/2020/07/09/the-temple-tax-story-understanding-yeshuas-sense-of-humor/ (accessed May 11, 2022). The thrust of the current temple tax narrative points towards how Jesus will turn this whole system on its head.
[12] Others – Greek: ἀλλότριοςb, α, ον: a person from another geographical or cultural region and/or one not known to members of the socio-political group in question— ‘stranger, foreigner.’
[13] Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1908), 547.
[14] In John 2:19-22, Jesus tells the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”. The disciples did not understand this until after Jesus’ resurrection. Also, John 1:14 states that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The word dwelt is translated from the Greek word, σκηνόω, which means tented or tabernacled alluding to the mobile nature of the Old Testament tabernacle or tent of meeting ( Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1964).
[15] ἄγκιστρον (agkistron), ου (ou), τό (to): n.neu.; ≡ Str 44—LN 6.10 fish hook, with, of course, a line on it for retrieving the catch (Mt 17:27+) James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
[16] In biblical times, fishhooks were curved or bent devices made of bone or iron tied to a line that fishermen cast into the water to catch fish (Brand 2003). The Zondervan Illustrated Commentary of the NT states “Interestingly, fishhooks were found beneath one of the upper pavements in the floor at the site of the ancient excavation believed to be Peter’s home in Capernaum. Although line and hook were used regularly for fishing on the Sea of Galilee, nets were the most effective means of commercial fishing.” (Zondervan Illustrated Commentary of NT 2019)
[17] It should be noted that some expositors of this narrative do not accept the view that a miracle took place. For example, see Seeking Spirituality,” The Temple Tax Story: Understanding Yeshua's Sense of Humor”, https://seekingspiritualitysite.com/2020/07/09/the-temple-tax-story-understanding-yeshuas-sense-of-humor/ (accessed May 11, 2022). This paper assumes the majority view that the catch of the coin-bearing fish was divinely orchestrated by God.
[18] A literal rendering of Mt 17:27 could be quite misleading, since it would imply that only the hook was thrown into the water. What was thrown into the water was a line with a baited hook on the end, and it may be necessary to be explicit in some languages in order to avoid misunderstanding. Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996) 53–54.
[19] In the ancient Near Eastern world, snakes were variously symbolic of life, wisdom, and chaos. Undoubtedly, this talking serpent is unique and, given his anti-God disposition, is no common snake. While Gen. 3:1 provides no explanation as to the origin of this extraordinary creature, later biblical writings reveal that this serpent is an incarnation of Satan, the adversary (Rev. 12:9; 20:2). See v. 15 note; “Satan” at Job 1:6. The existence of the serpent reveals that evil already existed prior to the disobedience of Adam and Eve. This may explain why Adam is instructed to “guard” the garden sanctuary (2:15) (The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version 2015).
[20] See The Parable of the Pearl Merchant (Matt. 13:48-49) - Some interpreters of this parable see the kingdom as a merchant who sold everything to possess the pearl of great value signifying Jesus giving up everything, including his life, to redeem his people.
[21] Daniel Sarlo, “Sea,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[22] See Matt. 12:38-45, “Sign of Jonah”.
[23] See Green, Ignatius. “Introduction.” In Catechetical Discourse: A Handbook for Catechists, edited by John Behr, translated by Ignatius Green, 60:18. Popular Patristics Series. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2019.
[24] Note that the “Fishhook Theory of Atonement” is one among many theories of atonement. Leon Morris summarizes some of them here - “Theories of the atonement by Leon Morris”, Monergism, https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/atonementmorris2.html (accessed April 24, 2022). Among them are The Subjective View or Moral Influence Theory, The Atonement as Victory, Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, Penal Substitution, Sacrifice, and Governmental Theory. The Fishhook Theory falls under the umbrella of The Atonement as Victory Theory.
[25] Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Discourse: A Handbook for Catechists, ed. John Behr, trans. Ignatius Green, vol. 60, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2019), 115.
[26] Greek: ἀγαπάω (agape) Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). In the act of sacrificially laying down his life via suffering on the cross, Jesus is setting the example for his disciples.
[27] Note that this theory has both critics and supporters. Nicholas P. Costas lists among its detractors J.A. MacCullough, Gustaf Aulén, George Florovsky, Reinhold Niebuhr, Cyril Richardson, Frances Young, Richard Jakob Kees, and Anthony Meredith. Among the supporters are Athanasius, John Chrysostom, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, as well as the Orthodox Church as attested to in its liturgical texts. Constas, Nicholas P., "The Last Temptation of Satan: Divine Deception in Greek Patristic Interpretations of the Passion Narrative." The Harvard Theological Review, Apr 2004: 139-163.
[28] Dallas G. Denery II, The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden Of Eden to the Enlightenment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015), 77.
[29] Note that persecution is never something sought by a Christian. It is the by-product of seeking first the kingdom of God rather than the privileges of the world. Skye Jethani, What If Jesus Was Serious? A Visual Guide to the Teachings of Jesus We Love to Ignore (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2020), 34.
[30] A classic example of the Fishhook Strategy is described in Acts 16:16-34 where Paul and Silas are beaten and thrown in prison for exorcising a demon from a fortune-telling female slave and rejoiced in their suffering after which an earthquake frees them but they stay for the sake of the jailer’s life and his salvation (and his family’s too).
[31] This same word is used in Acts 26:23 - first to rise from the dead. Another apropos example of where prōto is used is Col. 1:18 - firstborn from the dead. The Greek word for firstborn is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos) (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains 1996)