Jesus Tells a Joke
A Fish(y) Tale
Matthew 17:24–27
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.
There aren’t a lot of sermons that use this passage and for good reason. To the pastor that values the plain reading of scripture as their main interpretive hermeneutic, it’s pretty weird. An interpretation that makes sense is elusive on the face of it.
First of all, when asked about the temple tax Peter responds that his teacher (which we assume is Jesus) pays it. That should have settled the matter, but when Peter goes inside the house, Jesus makes a point of illustrating that the sons of the king are not obligated to pay taxes — which I take to mean that His disciples, who are sons of God’s kingdom are not obliged either. But “not to give offense” Jesus offers a very curious solution to this non-problem: Go fishing and take the first fish that comes up — open it’s mouth and find a shekel — take that and give it to them.
An important clue in deciphering this four verse passage is the fact that it doesn’t record Peter actually taking the instruction seriously by packing up his fishing gear and heading out to catch some miracle fish. Every other place in the gospels that Jesus gives an instruction, the resulting action is carried out and recorded. Not this time. This fact gives me pause. Could Jesus have been practicing a bit of sarcasm and having fun with Peter, never intending that he actually complete the task? It’s possible.
Like all good jokes, an understanding of time and place is what makes them more meaningful and enables the recipient to “get” it. Understanding the provenance of stories and language is also an important exegetical tool in order to make our comprehension richer and hopefully more accurate. For instance, imagine trying to understand George Orwell’s book “Animal Farm” in some distant future, if you were ignorant of the cultural upheaval of the Russian Revolution and Stalinist era.
This is especially true of ancient literature, which includes the scriptures.
If you want an eye-opening experience, just read some ancient literature such as the Enuma Elish or the Epic of Gilgamesh that predates the writing of old and new testament scripture and see the parallels. Creation and flood stories that are eerily similar to the Hebrew writings abound. Many books have been written on that subject already so I am not going to attempt even a short version of that subject in this space. We are here to share a good laugh!
About 450 years before Jesus was born, the Greek historian Herodotus records a story about the tyrant of Samos, a fellow named Polycrates (he has his own Wikipedia page). Apparently, everything that Polycrates touched turned to gold, to coin a phrase. He was so successful in his life and dealings that his good friend, Amasis, recommended that he sacrifice something to countervail the scales of fate. You see, the Greeks had a belief that too much good fortune would eventually be balanced out by some bad luck or disaster. Amasis was concerned that his friend Polycrates’ incredible run of luck would be offset by an equal measure of bad luck and the only way to avoid it was to be proactive and balance the scales by giving up something that you hold dear.
Polycrates decided to heed his friend’s advise so he took his jewel encrusted ring, which he valued above all else, and threw it into the sea as an appropriate sacrifice to appease the gods, fate or whatever. A few days later a fisherman caught a large fish and wanted to share it with Polycrates. While the chefs were preparing it for him, they found the ring in the belly of the fish. As Vizzini in the “Princes Bride” would say — “Inconceivable!” Nevertheless, Polycrates was overjoyed and felt that the gods were eternally in his favor by returning his prized ring. His friend, Amasis, however was freaked out and distanced himself from Polycrates as a self-imposed defense against the expected repercussions.
That was not the end of the story, however. Polycrates was now so confident in his good fortune that a deception by an enemy was not recognized since he now considered himself impervious to tragedy. His arrogance was now so off-the-charts that he failed to heed his daughter’s warning of a possible trap when Oroetes, the governor of Sardis and a known rival, invited him to visit Magnesia on the pretense of giving him a large sum of money in return for refuge.
He was advised to take a large contingent of soldiers to guard him against the possibility of deception, but decided that his “proven” good fortune was an adequate deterrent to catastrophe and he only took a few men to accompany him on the journey. As a result, the overconfident and narcissistic Polycrates was captured and assassinated upon his arrival in Magnesia.
This is a story that people in the first century CE would have been familiar with, especially in Capernaum - a fishing village. The author, Herodotus, is commonly referred to as “The Father of History” and was a primary source for historical accounts. Because of this, there is a strong possibility that Jesus and his disciples had heard or even read the story of Polycrates and the account of getting inexplicable treasure from a fish would have struck a chord — good joke material, in other words.
Notice that this event took place right after Jesus’ transfiguration account and announcement to His disciples concerning His impending suffering and death, so maybe its insertion in the Matthew narrative was an attempt at a little levity in order to lighten the mood.
Could it also be an explanation of the use of the fish symbol by Jesus’ followers in the first century CE — a kind of inside joke and secret code? It should be noted that the Gospel of Matthew was generally a case for the divinity and messianic role of Jesus and His warnings concerning the fate of the Jerusalem Temple (see Matt 24, for example). This story would have harmonized perfectly with that narrative. Whatever the actual explanation for this passage, as a joke, the only thing that is missing to make my case is a moral, or punchline. A tacit understanding at the time, that message might have been: Think twice before accepting miraculous gifts from fish. Hahaha!!
