Today on Fr. Mike Schmitz “Bible in a Year” podcast, Jeff Cavins in an introduction to the Gospel of John was talking about John 21:11

“So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them.”

He was explaining that the number 153 is the numerical total for the Hebrew phrase Ani Elohim, which means “I am God”.

The Church Fathers had a range of opinions on the significance of 153 since it seems an odd number for John to mention (Plus it is an odd number).

St. Jerome said that at the time there were 153 known species of fish according to Oppian’s Halieutica. This was written after the Gospel of John and does not even clearly provide such a list adding up to that number.

St. Augustine had a couple of interpretations. Focusing on seven apostles being present or the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit along with the Ten Commandments. Some inventive theological math – see Tractates on the Gospel of John (Augustine). Also noting that 153 is the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 17. He also has several more mystical interpretations.

St. Gregory the Great mentions that Seven and ten multiplied by three make fifty-one. So multiply that by 3.

My theory is that St. John was trolling future commentators by picking that number. Well, that is not really my theory, but there is just no really solid one.

What annoyed me with the talk about this on the podcast was how the Gematria technique of interpretation was presented. It would have been better to present it as a possible interpretation and not as “the” interpretation. I happen to like this interpretation especially with the high Christology of the Gospel of John.

This podcast follows Jeff Cavins timeline and they are at the point where they will be reading the Gospel of John and thus today’s introduction to this Gospel. Coincidentally today’s Gospel included this specific passage, which I don’t think was planned.

Some selections from St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Gospel of John”:

St. Augustine. (Tract. cxxii.) It is not then signified that only a hundred and fifty-three saints are to rise again to eternal life, but this number represents all who partake of the grace of the Holy Spirit: which number too contains three fifties, and three over, with reference to the mystery of the Trinity. And the number fifty is made up of seven sevens, and one in addition, signifying that those sevens are one. That they were great fishes too, is not without meaning. For when our Lord says, I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil, by giving, that is, the Holy Spirit through Whom the law can be fulfilled, He says almost immediately after, Whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. In the first draught the net was broken, to signify schisms; but here to shew that in that perfect peace of the blessed there would be no schisms, the Evangelist continues: And for all they were so great, yet was not the net broken; as if alluding to the case before, in which it was broken, and making a favourable comparison.

St. Gregory. (Hom. xxiv.) Seven and ten multiplied by three make fifty-one. The fiftieth year was a year of rest to the whole people from all their work. In unity is true rest; for where division is, true rest cannot be.

St. Augustine. (Tract. cxxii.) Mystically, in the draught of fishes He signified the mystery of the Church, such as it will be at the final resurrection of the dead. And to make this clearer, it is put near the end of the book. The number seven, which is the number of the disciples who were fishing, signifies the end of time; for time is counted by periods of seven days

As part of my parish bible study class, I have a role to provide some commentary on the Gospel for the upcoming Sunday. Usually, this means basically stealing good stuff from Brant Pitre’s Sunday commentaries, other commentaries, and of course the Church Father.

So I was reading part of the Gospel reading in John 20:22-23 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

This passage was fairly well-known to me and that it is the institution of the sacrament of confession.

“If you look at a thing 999 times, you are perfectly safe; if you look at it for the 1000th time, you are in danger of seeing it for the first time.” G.K. Chesterton

What I noticed for the first time was the context along with being more focused having just gone through the Triduum.

On Holy Thursday we have the institution of the new covenant priesthood. I would have assumed that then they received the fullness of what we now see as the effects of episcopal ordination.

What actually happened was that Jesus waited until he rose and for when all the Apostles were gathered together to breathe on them to be able to either retain or forgive sins. This seems pretty important to me that Jesus highlighted this sacrament with a separate action. I certainly do not have a grasp of all the implications concerning this. There are plenty of commentaries regarding the implication of Jesus breathing on them and how this relates to creation. I just have not seen discussed why Jesus broke out this sacrament from those conferred on Holy Thursday.

Or possibly I am just misunderstanding this.

Looking through Aquinas Catena Aurea, the Church Father quotes for this passage in John doesn’t mention this aspect.

I started thinking about how Mary would have reacted to the presence of the two thieves. She would not have been just a passive observer. She would have seen their suffering and have prayed for them. I think of St. Therese in the Story of a Soul, having read about a famous unrepentant murderer. Subsequently, she started to pray that he would show some sign of contrition before his execution. He did offer such a sign.

I have been thinking a bit about Mary’s role at the site of the crucifixion of her son. Specifically in regards to Dismas, the good thief. Whenever I thought about Dismas, it was always in the context of Jesus. I never really pictured Mary and the others there at the foot of the cross. My thinking about Calvary was odd as disconnected scenes.

I also wondered how another sword of sorrow for Mary was hearing the thieves reviling her son. Now there is some question as to whether both thieves reviled Jesus. Matthew and Mark seem to indicate they both did, while Luke infers only that the unrepentant thief did so. St. Augustine thought that Matthew was using a plural for the singular as done in Hebrews 11:33. Most of the Church Fathers interpreted that the repentant thief had initially reviled Jesus and was later converted. St. Ambrose thought that either interpretation was possible.

Either way, Dismas did have some conversion experience on his cross. Visually he would see Jesus suffering the same fate as himself. A man on his way to death. He would have seen Jesus’ reaction as totally different. Jesus was offering forgiveness to his persecutors. Ensuring his mother was taken care of by his disciple. He would have seen Jesus putting others as a priority. He would have recognized the reference to Psalm 22 as not a prayer of despair but the praise of God that it is. The good thief was open to seeing this in a way that the unrepentant thief did not. He admits to his sins and sees his punishment as just while reaching out to Jesus to be just remembered by him. An incredible act of faith. In such circumstances, to understand that Jesus was not only innocent but coming into a kingdom.

I can’t help but think that Mary played some role in her intercession for this man. When it comes to grace, it is always God that moves first. Dismas responded to that grace given him. God also allows us to play some role for others in how this grace might be accepted via our prayers. The interplay of grace, free will, and intercessions. Thus one was converted and the other not (as far as we know).

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen

“A dying man asked a dying man for eternal life; a man without possessions asked a poor man for a Kingdom; a thief at the door of death asked to die like a thief and steal Paradise. – Venerable

St. Augustine on Matthew 27:44.

(de Cons. Ev. iii. 16.) It may seem that Luke contradicts this, when he describes one of the robbers as reviling Him, and as therefore rebuked by the other. But we may suppose that Matthew, shortly alluding to the circumstance, has used the plural for the singular, as in the Epistle to the Hebrews we have, Hare stopped the mouths of lions, (Heb. 11:33.) when Daniel only is spoken of. And what more common way of speaking than for one to say, See the country people insult me, when it is one only who has done so. If indeed Matthew had said that both the thieves had reviled the Lord, there would be some discrepancy; but when he says merely, The thieves, without adding ‘both,’ we must consider it as that common form of speech in which the singular is signified by the plural.

St. Ambrose

But it must also be explained how the others, that is, Matthew and Mark, introduced two thieves reviling, while Luke, one reviling, the other resisting him. Perhaps this other at first reviled, but was suddenly converted. It may also have been spoken of one, but in the plural number; as in the Hebrews, They wandered in goat-skins, and they were sawn asunder; (Heb. 11:37.) whereas Elijah alone is related to have had a goat-skin, and Isaiah to have been sawn asunder. But mystically, the two thieves represent the two sinful people who were to be crucified by baptism with Christ, (Rom. 6:3.) whose disagreement likewise represents the difference of believers.