John 21.11 – The 153 Fish, The Temple, and Our Eternal Return

This article contains links to a few books that have helped me understand the context and content of the scriptures. As an Amazon Affiliate, I do earn a small commission from qualifying purchases (at no extra cost to you). Click here to see all of my favorite books on Amazon.

John 21.11 reads:

ἀνέβη Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ εἵλκυσεν τὸ δίκτυον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, μεστὸν ἰχθύων μεγάλων ἑκατὸν πεντηκοντατριῶν καὶ τοσούτων ὄντων οὐκ ἐσχίσθη τὸ δίκτυον

Simon Peter went up and he took the net upon the land, it was full of great fish, 153 of them, and there were so many, yet the net was not torn (John 21.11, my translation).^[1]ὄντων οὐκ ἐσχίσθη denotes the state of not being torn or ripped. Here the author of John 21 is expressing the fact that this net δίκτυον, is in this state. The idea of … Continue reading

Okay, there is a lot going on with this number, and John may be playing with it to teach a spiritual truth. My take, though somewhat different from Raymond Brown’s holds some similarities. I believe that John’s readers were temple adepts. So, for this reason, I find much of what Raymond Brown writes to have possibilities, though he and I differ regarding the abilities of John’s readers at the end of his explanation. For this reason I want to start with Raymond Brown’s stuff, since he has done more work on this topic (the 153 fish) than I have. This is what he offers as a beginning of possibilities:

Although John frequently qualifies his numerals with “about” (John 1.39, 6.10, 21.8, etc.), the more convenient “about 150” is not employed here. The idea that the writer may have had a hidden, symbolic purpose in citing the exact numeral 153 has led to an enormous amount of speculation, “everything from gematria to geometrical progression” (Marrow), but nothing dispelling Augustine’s contention that the number is “a great mystery.” For a survey, see Kruse, art. cit. Let us mention some of the more significant theories.

A. In his commentary on Ezekeil 47.6-12 (PL 25:474C), Jerome tells us that the Greek zoologists had recorded 153 different kinds of fish; and so by mentioning this number John may have been symbolizing the totality and range of the disciples’ catch and symbolically anticipating that the Christian mission would bring in all men or at least all types of men. One could find a parallel in the parable of the kingdom in Matt 13.47 where the net thrown into the sea gathers fish “of every kind.” Nevertheless, Jerome’s interpretation supposes that the Johannine writer would have known the conclusions of the Greek zoologists. Moreover, Jerome cites as his authority “the most learned poet” among the zoologists Oppian of Cilicia (ca. A.D. 180); and as R. Grant, HTR 42 (1949), 273-75, has shown, the form of Oppian’s Halieutica that has reached us does not support Jerome’s contention. Oppian states that there are countless types of fish and actually lists 157. Pliny (Natural History IX 43) knew of 104 varieties of fish and crustacea. Grant suspects that Jerome was interpreting Greek zoology by way of John.

B. Augustine, In Jo. CXXII 8; PL 35: 1963-64, gives us the first instance of a mathematical approach to 153, wherein the number is seen as the sum of all numbers from 1 to 17. The symbolism that one may find in 17 varies, and much of what is proposed by Church writers is anachronistic for the Gospel (10 commandments and 7 gifts of the Spirit; 9 choirs of angels and 8 beatitudes). Hoskyns, pp. 553-54, takes the idea in a different direction: 153 dots can be arranged into an equilateral triangle with 17 dots on each side. Triangular numbers were of interest both to Greek mathematicians and to the biblical authors (see F. H. Colson, JTS 16 [1914-lSJ, 67-76). Thus, one may theorize that 153 is a numerical symbol for perfection, a symbolism helped by the fact that 17, the basic constituent, is made up by two numbers symbolic of completion, namely, 7 and 10, numbers important in contemporary Jewish thought (Pirqe Aboth v 1-11). Barrett, p. 484, backs up this suggestion by pointing out that a total of 7 disciples were mentioned in John 21.2 (although the writer calls no attention to this total) and that in the Book of Revelation 7 Is a symbolic number (see vol. 29, p. CXLD). The conclusion of all this would be that for John the perfect number 153 anticipated the fullness of the Church.

C. An allegorical approach is proposed by Cyril of Alexandria (In Jo. XII; PG 74:745) who breaks the number down into 100 and 50 and 3. The 100 represents the fullness of the Gentiles; the 50 represents the remnant of Israel; the 3 represents the Holy Trinity. For Rupert of Deutz, the 100 represents the married; the 50 represents the widows; and the 3 represents the virgins. These allegories reflect the theological interests of a later period; for example, the Johannine writer scarcely thought of the Holy Trinity as such.

D. Gematria finds some modem exponents. Kruse stresses that 153 represents the sum of the numerical value of the letters in the Hebrew expression for “the Church of love,” qhl h’hbh. One cannot deny that gematria was known to the Johannine school of writers (e.g., the 666 of Rev 13.18, where, however, the reader’s attention Is called to the gematria), but it is the sheerest speculation to base the gematria on an expression that never occurs in the Johannine writings. R. Eisler ingeniously points out that the numerical value of Simon is 76 and that of ichthys, “fish,” is 77.^[2]This connection, to me (Mike Day) is fascinating. You can see where Raymond Brown has put in his work on just analyzing the tradition of commentaries throughout history on just this singular point of … Continue reading Of more interest is the gematria proposed by J. A. Emerton. JTS 9 (1958), 86-89, based on the passage in Ezekiel 47 mentioned as the subject of Jerome’s remarks in theory (A) above, namely. the description of the stream of water that flows from the Temple toward the Jordan valley, ultimately to water the whole land of Palestine. This passage was known in Johannine circles, for it forma the background for Rev 22.1-2 (the river of life flowing from the throne of the Lamb) and perhaps for John 7.37 (the river of living water flowing from within Jesus). Now, in Ezekiel 47.10 we hear that, after the stream has watered the land and is teeming with fish of every kind, flshermen will stand by the sea from En-gedi to En-eglaim, spreading their nets. Emerton observes that the numerical value of the Hebrew consonants of (En-)gedi is 17, and that of (En)eglaim is 153! (Subsequently P. R. Ackroyd, JTS 10 [1959], 153-55, working with variant spellings in LXX mss., proposed that by gematria based on the Greek the names En-gedi and Eneglaim can yield a total value of 153. This was countered by Emerton, JTS 11 [1960], 335-36, who objected that the two spellings of the names on which Ackroyd made bis calculations never occur together in anyone Greek ms.) By way of interesting support for Emerton’s contention that the secret of the number 153 may lie in Ezekiel 47, we refer to J. Danielou, Etudes d’exégèse judéo-chrétienne (Paris: Beauchesne, 1966), p. 136. He remarks that in early Christian art Peter and John (the two prominent disciples in John 21) were portrayed next to a stream of water flowing from the Temple (which in turn may be connected with the rock of Jesus’ sepulcher).

One cannot deny that some of these interpretations (they are not mutually exclusive) are possible, but they all encounter the same objection: we have no evidence that any such complicated understanding of 153 would have been intelligible to John’s readers. We know of no speculation or established symbolism related to the number 153 in early thought. On the principle that where there Is smoke there is fire, we would concede to the above-mentioned interpretations the likelihood that the number may be meant to symbolize the breadth or even the universality of the Christian mission. But we are inclined to think that because this symbolism Is not Immediately evident, It did not prompt the invention of the number; for certainly the writer, were he choosing freely, could have come up with a more obviously symbolic number, for example, 144. The origin of the number probably lies in the direction of an emphasis on the authentic eyewitness character of what has been recorded (John 21.24). The Beloved Disciple is present. In John 19.35 he was seemingly the one who transmitted the fact that blood and water flowed from the side of Jesus; in John 20.7 he was the source for the exact description of the position of the burial wrappings; so here perhaps we are to think of his reporting the exact number of fish that the disciples caught. The number would have been retained in the story because it was so large; and when the account received a symbolic interpretation, the number would have been interpreted as a figurative indication of the magnitude of the results from the disciples’ mission.^[3]Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Doubleday, 1970, pages 1074-1076.

I disagree with the final statements made by Raymond Brown, for I see the readers of John’s gospel as temple visonary men and women. These people had great faith, and knew the temple. They had (many of them) seen visions, Jesus’ resurrected body, and knew of the great day of redemption. Much of what was incorporated into John’s gospel was written in such a way as to be encoded, so that those who were not able to see this message were protected from being accountable for some of the deeper meanings. With this in mind, and with some caution, I share the following. I do not believe these views are a definitive “answer” to the question of the 153 fish in John 21, but rather can be used as a starting point for further research and consideration. I do believe John was being deliberate when he put this in the text, and in his mind, this detail mattered. I see some symbols with the numbers 1, 5, and 3 – which I briefly discuss below.

One

The “one” can represent unity. God is “one” in the sense that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. Man and woman are to be “one” flesh (Gen. 2.24, Matt. 19.5). The church is to be “one,” and if they are not, they are not the Lord’s (D&C 38.27).

Pertaining to the oneness of the Church, the Apostle Paul states that the members are “one body” (see Ephesians 4.4–6). Similarly, “the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind” (Moses 7.18). The two sticks of Ezekiel are also said to be “one in [our] hand” (Ezekiel 37.17).^[4]Alonzo Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism, Deseret Book, 2012. I (Mike) see this text lending itself to an expression of both oneness and plurality when it says … Continue reading

Five

The “five” in fifty can represent the Atonement, the Grace of God, or even the nature of men to be either fallen or redeemed. Two main ideas are often associated with it: God’s grace and humanity in its fallen state. Contextual clues within scripture help to discern which interpretation is intended.

Regarding the symbol of God’s grace, Bullinger points out the prevalence of the number five in the Mosaic dispensation, particularly in relation to sacrifices and everything associated with the tabernacle, a powerful symbol of God’s grace among the Israelites at a time of intense vulnerability and dependence.^[5]Bullinger, Number in Scripture, p. 132-33 electronic version. He notes that “the tabernacle had five for its all-pervading number; nearly every measurement was a multiple of five… we ought to … Continue reading The incense were composes of five parts as well ^[6]Exodus 30.34. See also Bullinger, p. 136 electronic version.

In the Book of Mormon, Samuel the Lamanite prophesied that in five years, the ultimate grace of God would be manifested in the birth of the Messiah Jesus Christ (Helaman 14.2). This coming in five years would reveal both those who received and those who rejected Samuel’s witness of the true Messiah. You have to relax your eyes a bit to see it, but 5 could be both a negative and positive as seen in this story. Of course, the number five, the time of the prophecy, and Mormon’s inclusion of it in the text may just be coincidental, but I don’t think it is.

Another interpretation associates the number five with both God’s grace and the nature of fallen humanity. For instance, in the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25.1–13, the five wise virgins, prepared with oil in their lamps, symbolize those who have received God’s grace and righteousness. Conversely, the five unwise virgins represent those who, in their fallen state, have not prepared for the coming of Christ. So at least in this parable, we have the number five being manifest in both states in one story.

Similarly, the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17.40 highlights the potential combination of grace and fallen humanity. David’s selection of five stones for his sling signifies his reliance on God’s grace as he faced Goliath, ultimately emphasizing God’s intervention and David’s receipt of divine favor.

In the Book of Helaman, Nephi’s prophecy regarding the murder of the chief judge prompts five men to investigate, demonstrating characteristics of fallen humanity in their skepticism. However, upon witnessing the fulfillment of Nephi’s words, they ultimately recognize his prophetic calling. So, once again, we have the number five manifest in both ways, in the same account. This event leads to the conversion of many (Helaman 9.39-40 reads, “And there were some of the Nephites who believed on the words of Nephi; and there were some also, who believed because of the testimony of the five, for they had been converted while they were in prison. And now there were some among the people, who said that Nephi was a prophet.”)), highlighting the theme of divine grace despite initial doubt and skepticism.

I see these ideas connected to the apostles in the gospels, both seeing and doubting at the same time. However, in John 21, we see doubt, but it is not overtly manifest. John 21 reads:

After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher’s coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea. And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. (John 21.1-11).

Here we see the apostles doing what Jesus asks, not showing doubt. But later in the text we read of the Savior’s asking Peter if he loves him. Three times Peter responds in the affirmative. After each response, Jesus instructs Peter to feed his sheep (John 21.15-17). Elder Holland expressed the sentiment that perhaps Peter was not understanding his mission and so this was why Jesus had to have this conversation with him. Elder Holland explains:

Peter, why are you here? Why are we back on this same shore, by these same nets, having this same conversation? Wasn’t it obvious then and isn’t it obvious now that if I want fish, I can get fish? What I need, Peter, are disciples—and I need them forever. I need someone to feed my sheep and save my lambs. I need someone to preach my gospel and defend my faith. I need someone who loves me, truly, truly loves me, and loves what our Father in Heaven has commissioned me to do. Ours is not a feeble message. It is not a fleeting task. It is not hapless; it is not hopeless; it is not to be consigned to the ash heap of history. It is the work of Almighty God, and it is to change the world. So, Peter, for the second and presumably the last time, I am asking you to leave all this and to go teach and testify, labor and serve loyally until the day in which they will do to you exactly what they did to me.^[7]Elder Holland, “The First Great Commandment,” October 2012 Conference.

Three

The number three holds significant symbolism in scripture, appearing over 400 times in the Bible alone. Unlike the literal use of numbers, the repetition of “three” is often rhetorical, conveying deeper meanings.^[8]Maurice Farbridge writes, “An examination of these passages is bound to lead to the conclusion that the number “three” is not used literally, but rhetorically, and symbolizes a small total. In … Continue reading While the number one signifies unity, such as the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three emphasizes the distinctiveness of each member of the Godhead. Throughout Jesus’s three-year mortal ministry, key events repeatedly involved the number three, highlighting divine involvement. For instance, he was tempted three times by Satan, raised three people from the dead, and took three disciples with him to Gethsemane. The significance of three extends beyond Jesus’s ministry, seen in instances like God speaking to the Nephites three times, Abraham receiving three heavenly messengers, and Jonah spending three days in the belly of a fish. Under the law of Moses, the number three was prevalent in temple worship, symbolizing the perfection and divine nature of Christ and emphasizing the sacredness of temple ordinances. Thus, the repetition of three underscores the divine influence and significance of these events in scripture.

David Butler has done quite a bit of work to show that the Book of Mormon repeatedly uses images of a three-part space in the ascent towards God.^[9]See: Butler, Plain and Precious Things: The Temple Religion of the Book of Mormon’s Visionary Men and The Goodness and the Mysteries: On the Path of the Book of Mormon’s Visionary Men. I agree with Butler’s analysis and have done some videos on this subject that may be of interest to those wanting more information.^[10]See: David Butler and Mike Day – The Ancient Temple and The Sermon on the Mount, part 1. See also: Talking Scripture, episode 73, Plain and Precious Things.

So what is my take away? These numbers could represent God’s ability to bring us home through covenant, back to the ONE – his divine presence. The Father, Mother, and Son (the 3) bring us home through grace (the 5) back to their glory (the 1). I also see Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being the three. I know that there is a lot of discussion on the Holy Ghost and early interpretation of the Divine Mother being or playing that role, and I know what we have from early Christianity, their documents, etc. I will not settle that issue here, but I do see the “3” being my returning to my Heavenly Father, Mother, and divine Savior Jesus Christ. In my mind’s eye, this is how I interpret it today. I think John played with the images of divine mother and did so with a light touch^[11]See our podcast on John 1 here., so I am open to seeing this idea manifest in different ways.