Riches in Fishes?

Mammon in salmon? In Matthew 17:24-27, Jesus tells Peter to go “cast a fishhook” on a boat and that in the first fish’s mouth there will be a tetradrachma (4-drachma or stater) coin, the equivalent of about four days’ wages, for them both to pay the temple tax.

In Luke 5:1-10, Jesus tells Peter and the other fishermen to move the boat to another location and cast the net one more time even though it had been previously fruitless. They do it, and are blessed with more fish than they can handle, ripping their net.

Similarly, in John 21:4-11, Jesus tells the fishermen and Peter to cast the net on the other side of the boat. When they do, they are blessed with more fish than they can handle, but without the net ripping this time.

Lessons on Matthew 17:24-27:

• Instructions to do a task Peter was already thoroughly, routinely familiar with.
• It was the first fish caught, not particularly hard work.
• The coin paid for not just Jesus but for Peter as well. Thus, Peter financially benefited from just one fish.

Lessons from the Luke and John narratives:

• Instructions to do a task they were already thoroughly, routinely familiar with, but to do it again per his instructions.
• They were financially blessed with more than they could handle, but not enough to make them rich.

So, in all cases, instructions were given that were not hard and did not require any training, they just required humility. Financial blessings followed, but not enough to make them rich.

This then adds context to John’s assurance that “for this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.”—1 John 5:3; see also Deuteronomy 30:11.

Fishy Miracle in Matthew?

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament alerts us to the fact that

Some try to get rid of the miracle by calling it a proverb or by saying that Jesus only meant for Peter to sell the fish and thus get the money, a species of nervous anxiety to relieve Christ and the Gospel of Matthew from the miraculous. “All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words” (B. Weiss). It is not stated that Peter actually caught such a fish though that is the natural implication.

The last statement is humorous, for the absence in the narrative of Peter following Jesus’ instructions to retrieve a valuable tetradrachma to pay the temple tax is most conspicuous!

What may be used as a basis for questioning its historicity is this note from The Jewish Annotated New Testament regarding “fish”: “Rabbinic literature speaks of fish containing riches (b. Shabb. 15a).” (Shabb. is the Talmudic tractate Shabbat, and b. abbreviates Babylonian, as in the Babylonian Talmud.) However, the citation to 15a seems to be a mistake for 119a:5. 15a does not mention fish, but 119a:5 relates this parable:

The gentile went and sold all of his property, and with the money he received he bought a pearl, and he placed it in his hat. When he was crossing a river in a ferry, the wind blew his hat and cast it into the water, and a fish swallowed it. The fish was caught and removed from the water and it was brought to shore adjacent to nightfall on Shabbat eve. [The fisherman then ignorantly sells the fish to a Jew named Yosef.] He ripped the fish open and found a pearl inside it. He sold it for thirteen vessels filled with golden dinars.

Then this verse appears to give the moral of the story by saying: “One who lends to Shabbat, Shabbat repays him.”^[1]

With this background in mind, an example of trying to remove the miraculous from Matthew 17:27 is this next more-recent quote, which employs the above tractate Shabbat to support its skepticism (note though it uses the same erroneous reference to 15a from the earlier Jewish Annotated NT):

Jesus’s instruction for Peter to go fishing is a delicious snippet of ancient Hebrew lore that doesn’t translate well into modern English. It is one part hyperbole, one part Jewish wisdom saying, and several parts Jesus of Nazareth. Logic, both modern and ancient, tells us that the fish wouldn’t have a coin in its mouth; nor would the market value of one fish be enough to pay the Temple tax for two men. Rabbinic literature (b. Shabb. 15a) pairs fish with riches. So, Jesus’s point was probably a simple observation that an afternoon of fishing was more valuable than an afternoon of arguing with tax collectors.^[2]

First, there is an apparent failure to fact-check the Jewish Annotated NT reference to 15a when 119a:5 was evidently meant. Secondly, the statement that “logic, both modern and ancient, tells us that the fish wouldn’t have a coin in its mouth” is incorrect based on the following notes from the following study Bibles:

The ESV Archeology Study Bible states:

The only types of fish native to the Sea of Galilee that can be caught by a baited hook are the barbel (a kind of carp) and the hafafi, both of which feed on mollusks, snails, and sardines at the bottom of the lake. It is likely that either one of these picked up the shekel coin at the bottom of the sea that Peter presumably harvested for his and Jesus’ temple tax. Fishing hooks dating back to the first century AD have been found at Bethsaida.

And the HCSB Study Bible pointedly adds: “Several ancient texts refer to fishermen discovering valuable items inside fish.” So the discovery of a valuable coin in a fish is not a “fish story.” Thus, it may not have had to be a counterfeit either, just a stater coin that someone had previously lost to the unforgiving waves—but even if it was divinely counterfeited, it would hardly disrupt the local economy that was doomed for destruction in 70 CE anyway. (By way of comparison, Elijah was miraculously provided with meat, bread, and even a jug of water at one point.—1 Kings 17:2-7, 19:5, 6)

Thus, we have both the means for a fish to be able to have a coin in its mouth, and the historical backing for fish swallowing precious items. We also have the physical artifacts of first-century Palestinian fishhooks—removing any potential of doubt for an anachronism on Jesus’ lips.

Lastly, it seems for this reference to the Babylonian Talmud to have any weight, one would have to prove its popularity in first-century Palestine. Barring that, this claim of removing the miraculous should not be swallowed hook, line and sinker.^[3]

Footnotes:
^[1] Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.119a?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&lang=bi
^[2] Jack W. Page Jr. Y’All Come: An Invitation to G-D’S Neighborhood Issued by a Jew from Nazareth (under The Temple, Taxes, and Caesar) (WestBow Press, Dec 19, 2016).
^[3] As one scholar stated: “The appearance of a tradition even in an authoritative work, such as the Babylonian Talmud, does not guarantee that it was universally excepted among the Sages, much less among contemporary Jews in general.”—Darrell D. Hannah, Michael and Christ: Michael Tradition and Angel Christology in Early Christianity, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, Dec 31, 1999), 94.

Credits:

• Opening picture from Jesus—The Way, the Truth, the Life page 148.

See also:

• “Love of God” (1 John 5:3)—Some Comments, by Edgar Foster.
  fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/09/love-of-god-1-john-53-some-comments.html.

What you missed in the Josiah drama

The theatrical drama The Story of Josiah: Love Jehovah; Hate What Is Bad is currently playing at the 2019 Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If you have not yet seen it, then you are safe to continue reading, as this is not a spoiler.

Ones who have seen it will find this crystalizes one scene for them, and ones who have not seen it yet will be better prepared to understand the significance of this one scene: a reenactment of events described in 2 Kings 23:14.

When attacking a temple of Baal, what appears to be nondescript monoliths are demolished. These were tall and thick, and appear roughly like this:

I think these are supposed to be depicting Baal stelae, like this one called Baal with Thunderbolt, which is 142 centimetres (56 in/over 4 and-a-half feet) high, 50 centimetres (20 in/over a foot and-a-half) wide, and a whopping 28 centimetres (11 in) thick. It is a slab of white limestone and was found in 1932 near a temple of Baal. If so, then the producers of this film spared the audience of all the Baalic details (sacred poles also appear rather nondescript).

This film will deepen your appreciation of what King Josiah set out to accomplish!

Watch the trailer.
Read more about the Baal with Thunderbolt stele: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_with_Thunderbolt

The Trinitarian Hammer

For illustration sake, say you were putting a desk together by reading the instructions that came with the parts. However, you quickly notice some quirks in the instructions. For instance, you notice after scanning though it that it relies heavily on the hammer tool, even for screws, for it directs you to use its claw to turn the screws. Your eyes then look back to the introduction, and you see that all it shows is the hammer for suggested tools, even going so far as to say that “a hammer is the only tool you will need to build this desk.” Looking at the parts to assemble the desk, you see not only screws, but also cams, nuts and hex bolts. Clearly, the author of the instructions is lying by saying that ‘all you’ll need is a hammer,’ and may also be ignorant of the range of tools available and how the parts function together. He is therefore an amateur and his instructions are unprofessional and near useless. In utter disgust, you may even wonder if he ever graduated from high school and seriously doubt that he ever stepped into a technical institute to receive the proper education needed to write these instructions. Clearly, you are on your own for building the desk, relying on your own God-given common sense.

I find that the same situation exists when reading an anonymous pamphlet, The Trinity.^[1] The Trinity presents the bread and butter of Evangelical Trinitarian theology and reasoning, and it would be fair to assume then that its author received the highest education Trinitarian scholarship has to offer, and also that it would be honest, and certainly never present a single lie. Indeed, presenting just one single lie in defending your theology is unthinkable for any Christian!—Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20.

Reading this pamphlet, on page 1 it displays a classic Scutum Fidei (“shield of the faith”), commonly celebrated as the “Shield of the Trinity” diagram, and then declares: “Early Christians used this diagram to explain the Trinity.” (See Figure 1 below.)

Figure 1
~click to enlarge~

“Early Christians” is meant to convey the idea of first Christians. This is made clear when Irenaeus is called an “early church leader (A.D. 177)” and when “early” is defined as being before 300 CE: “early church leaders and/or writings all defended the doctrine of the Trinity long before A.D. 300.”^[2] It then gives a list reaching back to 90 CE, with the claim that the Didache document teaches Trinitarianism. However, this claim about the Didache is so laughably wrong as to be a blatant lie.^[3] The author of this pamphlet is not aware of the range of reading-comprehension tools at his disposal, for he is only familiar with his Trinitarian hammer. This right here destroys the credibility of The Trinity, just as the hypothetical author of those instructions has destroyed his credibility with his “hammer.”

Another Trintarian teacher even declared that the Scutum Fidei is “an ancient symbol.”^[4] Is this claim of it being “early” and “ancient” also a blatant lie? The excellent scholar of Christian art, Robin M. Jensen, knows nothing about the Scutum Fidei in early Christianity, even up to the fourth century. There is no mention of it in her books Understanding Early Christian Art (2000) and Face to Face: Portraits of the Divine in Early Christianity (2005). Alarming us further is another source stating that it derived from the Medieval Tetragrammaton-Trinity diagram of three circles and the Triquetra of three interlocking circles, thus:

The Shield of the Trinity diagram is attested from as early as a c. 1208–1216 manuscript of Peter of Poitiers’ Compendium Historiae in Genealogia Christi, but the period of its most widespread use was during the 15th and 16th centuries, when it is in found in a number of English and French manuscripts and books … The diagram was used heraldically from the mid-13th century, when a shield-shaped version of the diagram (not actually placed on a shield) was included among the c. 1250 heraldic shields.^[5]

This is entirely in the domain of Medieval Christians, which are nowhere near the same chronological zip code as “early” (not to mention “ancient”).^[6]

Is this pamphlet right on page 1 then stating an outright lie to be sensational? Placing something Christian in the “early” category naturally conjures up the domain of the first few centuries, as the pamphlet defines “early.” Likewise, calling something Christian “ancient” is obviously meant to identify it as originating with the first Christians—even Jesus himself. A professional and honest historian however would never describe something Medieval in this way, as “early” or “ancient.” That would be entirely misleading. I just don’t see any wiggle room here for these Trinitarian teachers. I find it hard to believe that the actual Medieval origin was unknown by them. Even though I am inclined towards being charitable, I sadly am left with little choice but to see deliberate lying here with the motivation to be sensational. This is no small matter. Lying about your theology with the aim of substantiating it would place them in the category described in Revelation 21:8, of being “cowards and those without faith,” “and those practicing spiritism (or “those who practice magic arts” NIV) and idolaters and all the liars.”

This would naturally extend to anyone using the Scutum Fidei “Shield of the Trinity” as ones practicing deception—for Jesus never instructed us to make such a diagram! It is a lie and akin to casting a magic spell of deception.

This type of “Trinitarian hammer” reasoning sadly reared its ugly head when an otherwise credible and well-respected astronomer, Hugh Ross, in a Facebook post presented a Scutum Fidei with the standard Trinitarian misreading of Genesis 1:26, 27 and Elohim.^[7] These are misreadings due to failing to consider other tools of reading comprehension, and using the hammer of Trinitarian interpretation to the exclusion of other tools. I explained this in “Skeptical About Trinitarianism.”^[8] Trinitarianism then makes its adherents into simpletons who fail at basic reading comprehension of their own scriptures, as well as liars. This level of ineptitude is sustained by the logical fallacy of the Lonely Fact followed by the fallacy of Hasty Generalization—that is, isolating one fact to the exclusion of others and then forming a conclusion based on that artificial restriction on the available facts. It’s a bad and abusive theology, with the remainder of The Trinity reading like a comic book of Mad Magazine proportions. It’s intellectually and spiritually disgusting.

Footnotes:
^[1] Rose Publishing (1999)
^[2] Pages 9 and 4.
^[3] Didache 7:1, 3 provides directions for baptism including the Matthean formula “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Exposing the claim that this teaches Trinitarianism as a blatant lie is the obvious fact that it is not stating that these three are persons of one God. The Didache ironically condemns the author of The Trinity by saying “you shall not bear false witness.”—2:3.
^[4] Michael Patton and Tim Kimberley. Credo House, Apologetics Boot Camp, Part 4: The Deity of Christ. 32:55, in a video presentation when displaying the Scutum Fidei. Tim Kimberley specifically made that claim with Patton’s support. The quote in context is: “This is an ancient symbol. You say, ‘Ok well how do I conceive of God…’” Michael: “It’s not ancient, I just made it on Photoshop today.” (Laughter) “Well, you plagiarized it pretty heavily though. [laughter] I’ve seen something like this before in Latin.” (Laughter) Thus, this claim was not corrected, and this is no laughing matter and nothing to take lightly.
^[5] Wikipedia, “Shield of the Trinity.”
^[6] Additionally, Yale historian of Late Antique and Medieval art, Felicity Harley, stated regarding the origin of the Scutum Fidei: “I am not aware of any visual or archaeological evidence that places its origins in an ancient Christian context – I would suspect it was medieval.” (Personal correspondence, October 4, 2019.)
Lastly, after this entry was posted I found this reference: Depictions of the Trinity in Early Christian Art Between 200AD and 400AD by Shawn Patrick Thomas (A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Talbot School of Theology Biola University, December 2018). There, he informs us that “abstract icons … were not found until the Middle Ages with the Scutum Fidei (or Trinity Shield).” (Page 80)
^[7] July 31, 2019. www.facebook.com/RTBHughRoss/photos/a.313268935417884/2356536847757739/?type=3&__tn__=-R. This Scutum Fidei was presented with the outer three circles blank, as if intended for teaching children to fill them in—which in my estimation amounts to spiritual child abuse.
^[8] jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/08/skeptical-about-trinitarianism.html

Further reading:

• Trinity Modeling Kit!
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/trinity-modeling-kit-make-your-own.html
• What a tangled web we weave...
  jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-tangled-web-we-weave.html

Recommended videos:

• Hugh Ross accuses the NWT of changing the text at John 8:58
  youtu.be/7WB3kI8D0_Y
• Hugh Ross accuses the NWT of changing the text at John 8:58 and Jeremiah 23:6
  youtu.be/H5mUhDjjft8