TWO FISH STORIES (LUKE 5:1-11; JOHN 21)

I was never much of a fisherman, but I remember one time as a boy when my father took my brother and me fishing. There were a lot of boats on the lake, but no one seemed to be having much luck. My Dad rented a boat and asked the man if he had any hints to give us as the best place for catching fish. He told us exactly where to put out boat and the results were amazing. We had lines with three hooks on each, and my Dad soon gave up fishing himself since he was so busy taking off the fish my brother and I were catching and baiting our hooks again. Finally, I realized that the fish were biting on the bare hooks without any bait at all. And I also didn't even bother reeling in my line until each of my hooks had a fish on it.

We soon reached our limit, and when I had time to look up at last, I noticed that the other boats on the lake were slowly surrounding us on all sides to see what was happening. I would have attributed it as a miracle if it weren't for the fact that I knew the man at the boat rental had been there long enough to know all the secrets of the lake. But no one but my father bothered to ask him.

So to a very small extent, I can understand the two similar incidents regarding miraculous catches of fish recorded in the gospels. The two episodes are so similar, in fact, that some scholars feel that they are just variations referring to the same original event. Thus, in each account:

    The apostles have been fishing at night.

    They have had no luck whatsoever.

    Jesus from on the shore tells them to cast their nets in a different spot.

    They obey him.

    They get so many fish that the net is filled to overflowing.

    Peter reacts immediately and dramatically to the event.

    There is a call to discipleship by Jesus to Peter which is accepted.

To these similarities, R.E. Brown adds the following:

    Jesus is called “Lord.”

    The other fishermen take part in the catch but say nothing.

    The catch of fish symbolizes a successful Christian missionary endeavor.

    The same words are used for getting aboard, landing, net, etc.

    The use of “Simon Peter” (only here in Luke)

    The presence of the sons of Zebedee.

Despite these parallels, there are also major differences between the two episodes. The most obvious concerns the timing of the narratives. Luke 5 is placed at the very start of Jesus' ministry and represents His initial calling of the Apostles while John 21 occurs at the end of His earthly ministry as a sort of re-commissioning of the Apostles, especially Peter. In this sense, these two stories serve as bookends for Jesus' whole career on earth.

The next major difference concerns Peter's relationship with Christ. When Peter witnesses the first miracle, his immediate response is, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinner!” But in start contrast, his first response when he realizes that it is the risen Christ who has just spoken to him (John 21) is to not even wait until the boat reached shore, but to jump off the boat and swim to Him. Most of us would probably have had the opposite responses: run to Jesus when we first encounter Him but be much more hesitant later when we fully realize the extent of our sinful condition in relation to His holiness. And if we had done what Peter had done fairly recently in denouncing Jesus, we would have have been doubly hesitant. However, by this time Peter knew that Jesus was a forgiving Lord and so he was not as fearful in approaching Him.

Brown, however, sees a thematic correlation between the two accounts in the above episodes:
Peter's 'Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord' and Jesus' 'Do not be afraid; henceforth you will catch men' may be interpreted as a scene of repentance, forgiveness, and rehabilitation.” Thus, it is parallel to Peter's rehabilitation to discipleship after his denials, as most commentators feel is the explanation of John 21:15-17.

So what do scholars make of the relationship between these two stories? One thing is certain; they do not at all agree.

    Brown says, “The similarities listed above make it reasonable to conclude that independently Luke and John have preserved variant forms of the same miracle story.”

    But Boismard argues that Luke wrote John 21 as a sort of later Appendix to that Gospel. However, Plummer lists 25 points of grammar and vocabulary confirming John as the author of that last chapter, and Blum similarly states that “the linguistic evidence does not support this notion [of a different authorship].”

    Also, a number of scholars, such as Guthrie, point out that there have been found no manuscripts of John's Gospel missing John 21.

    Others go in the opposite direction and state that John is the one who has captured the true setting of the one story while Luke moves it to an earlier spot in Jesus' ministry to make a theological point. Geldenhuys reviews additional conclusions reached by critical scholars who feel the two accounts stem from one original event. He shows how self-contradictory these opinions are.

Most evangelical scholars feel that there is nothing improbable about both accounts being historically true:

    Marshall: “While few scholars would allow that Luke has recorded a tradition separate from that incorporated in Jn. 21, there is no real evidence that forbids this possibility.” He also notes that most of the similar language in the two accounts has been greatly over-estimated.

    Morris: “I am not impressed by the efforts made by some scholars to derive the miraculous catch in Luke 5 from this story [John 21].”

Borchert: “I find that those who claim to regard the stories as arising from a single tradition have a significant burden of proof to contend with, and am convinced that they have not proven their case, since I find the differences still quite striking and not explained by either form developments or editorial enhancements.”