Finders keepers: losers weepers.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Can we talk about that coin in the fish's mouth? I think I understand the main point, but did catching the fish give new ownership of the coin? Actually, the scripture (Matthew 17:24) doesn't say that Peter actually caught the fish, but that Jesus told him to handle the taxes that way.

So what's the point of the story?

And what does this have to do with bi-vocational ministry?

[Randy Wise]

Can we talk about that coin in the fish's mouth? I think I understand the main point, but did catching the fish give new ownership of the coin? Actually, the scripture (Matthew 17:24) doesn't say that Peter actually caught the fish, but that Jesus told him to handle the taxes that way.

So what's the point of the story?

And what does this have to do with bi-vocational ministry?

I don't know what to say and have no deep insights to give. It seems to me Jesus overheard or knew by other means that Peter stated Jesus paid that tax. So when Peter came in where Jesus was Jesus cleared up the issue with Peter. Also it was a miracle so why not add the event to the testimony.

Randy

[Dennis M. Scott]

What specifically do you see as the miracle?

[Jon Twitchell]

Recently, I read that in Israel, the tilapia is called "Peter's Fish."

Apparently, tilapia are "mouth-brooders," which means that they carry the eggs (and later, their infant young) in their mouths. When it's time for her to wean the fish from mouth brooding, she will pick up a shiny object and put it in her mouth to keep the fish from coming back.

That has nothing to do with the deep theological questions... I just thought it was interesting! :)

[Randy Wise]

What specifically do you see as the miracle?

27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

[Crystal Lutton]

I have thoughts on the first question (as for ownership, I think everyone belongs to the Lord!) The information about the tilapia is very interesting to me.

Can you expound on the second question about bi-vocational ministry? I'm not sure I understand where you're going with that. I keep having thoughts but realize they are all based on guessing what you mean :)

[Dennis M. Scott]

27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Barclay - who admittedly is seen by some as constantly trying to explain away a miracle - points out that the scripture doesn't say that Peter did what Jesus "told" him to do. The scripture narative merely says that Jesus told him to go fish to resolve the tax issue. That part is pretty clear: Jesus told him to do it, and it is not a report of something Peter actually did. It's not much of a step to also say that the record does not say a fish actually had a coin in its mouth.

One more time, the important thing seems to be to discover the meaning of what Jesus said. Barclay suggests that Jesus was saying to Peter - the fisherman - "Go fishing, using the abilities you have, and the fishing will provide you the resources to pay your taxes and mine." Interesting that Jesus didn't say to Peter, "Go over there and look under that rock, where you will find a four drachma coin to pay the tax." That would have been less complicated, and no less a miracle. Peculiar that he said to a fisherman, "Go fish." And we still don't have record of whether Peter obeyed.

Either way, Jesus said the needs would be met. In either case - whether there would have been a coin in the mouth, or in the fishing endeavor the need would have been met - Jesus' primary point would have been made: "Your needs shall be met."

Jesus also could have said, "Pass the offering plates around the people here, and perhaps someone will put into the plate money enough for our needs to be met." I suppose He could have said anything he wanted, and it still would have been a miracle. But to Peter the fisherman, he said, "You go do what you know you can do, and the need will be met."

My own experience is that Jesus still tells us our needs will be met. In my day, I have snagged a few fish - but none with a coin in their mouth. I also have listened as Jesus has said to me, "Go do what you know to do, and your needs will be met." That has been a miracle: fish or no fish, coin or no coin.

So was Jesus speaking in another parable, or with hidden meaning? He had a way of doing that.

I believe in miracles. I have no problem thinking Jesus could put a coin in a fish's mouth, even if it required that he manufacture such a coin. Seems like if that was what he wanted to do, He might have put such a shiny, new object in Peter's pocket, too. Maybe he could have simply opened his hand and had the coin appear. He could have. No more, or no less a miracle by putting it in the mouth of a fish.

I guess if we really believed Jesus was saying, "The way I want to fund my ministry is for my people to regularly check in the mouths of fish," we would see more clergy snorkling in every available pool of water. In the US, a whole lot more coins come from the mint than from fish.

I would struggle thinking Jesus was saying, "In the fish's mouth is a coin someone has lost." That's the "finders keepers, losers weepers," part that seems a little out of character. Frankly, it's more of a stretch to interpret this passage that way than to think Jesus had the fish manufacture the coin. Jesus doesn't rob Peter to pay . . . oops, that won't work. Whatever.

I tend to think that Jesus was telling Peter to do what he knew to do that material needs should be met. I guess it's no surprise that a bivocational pastor would come up with such an application of this passage. But I value the insights of naznetters.

[Randy Wise]

Dennis, thanks for that reply. It seems to me that Barclay, (I don't know that name), and others try to make much more from that testimony then was given. Jesus stated, "so that we may not offend them", was the reason He went through with paying that 2 drachma tax. I don't see from that a teaching that Jesus will meet my needs. I do read elsewhere where the Lord taught us to pray "give us this day our daily bread" and I believe the Lord is faithful in that regard. It is reasonable to me to believe that Peter carried out the Lords instruction. Wouldn't we who believe in Him do so as well?

Randy

[Jon Twitchell]

I should have provided a reference for my little tale of the tilapia.

It came from The New Manners & Customs of Bible Times (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080245965X?&camp=212361&linkCode=wey&tag=jontwitchell-20&creative=380733). I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't give a page number... but it would be easy enough to look up. There are also several websites that affirm this statement. I don't know how far in history the fish has been called that.

(This is Off Topic now... There's a flounder/flatfish in one of the bodies of water that might be the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds. It's dark on one side and light on the other. The locals call that a "Moses' Fish" because they say that it was split in half when the sea was parted. (Walking the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060838639?&camp=212361&linkCode=wey&tag=jontwitchell-20&creative=380733) by Bruce Feiler) I just thought that those interested in Biblical fish might appreciate this!)

[Crystal Lutton]

I would struggle thinking Jesus was saying, "In the fish's mouth is a coin someone has lost." That's the "finders keepers, losers weepers," part that seems a little out of character. Frankly, it's more of a stretch to interpret this passage that way than to think Jesus had the fish manufacture the coin. Jesus doesn't rob Peter to pay . . . oops, that won't work. Whatever.I guess it's just as easy for me, since we're guessing how it got there, to think that a pagan water worshiper threw their money into the water and made a wish and Jesus redeemed it for something useful to his ministry.

I do see the connection between Peter being a fisherman and Jesus telling him to fish--but is that bivocational or is that using his natural giftings and skills in a way to teach him something? Or is it a way of showing us that our giftings and skills will always be used of the Lord for our ministry?

[Dennis M. Scott]

I do see the connection between Peter being a fisherman and Jesus telling him to fish--but is that bivocational or is that using his natural giftings and skills in a way to teach him something? Or is it a way of showing us that our giftings and skills will always be used of the Lord for our ministry?

Well, there are a couple both/and things in that. There needn't be disparity between being dual-professional and being taught something naturally. It seems appropriate to me that the Lord would use gifting and skills in ministry and providing material support. Curiously, I've had more than one clergy person (DSes in particular) suggest that bivocational pastors' secular job should not rely on people skill use at all. One of those had worked as a butcher, and said he couldn't see any connection at all between that and Christian ministry, nor that there should be.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Christ created the water and the fish, so maybe He created the money in his mouth, also.

[Scott Hilton]

It seems to me that on a just plain reading of the text as it is relayed to us, Peter was told to go throw a hook in the water and the first fish he caught, to open its mouth and the tax payment to the Jews would be in there. I personally feel to start contemplating on the text meaning that Peter was off fishing and selling or that it was a "finders keepers, losers weepers" situation is kinda missing the point of the text.

27 "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

To me, if those were the teachings from the text that we were meant to get, I believe the writer would have portrayed the text differently. The text says Jesus told Peter to open the mouth of the fish and the shekel would be in there. If Jesus can make one fish and some bread feed thousands, I tend to believe He can put a coin in a fish as well. I think their is more of a teaching on how money is nothing for God to supply to us, than anything else. I also think Calvin points out a very good point in verses 24-27 in that Jesus is showing how he is walking as a servant in these circumstances to Jewish laws when He doesn't have to.

John Wesley's notes and John Calvin's notes both seem to lend that they also believed it was as the text reads and not something more. I agree with Randy in that I think we are trying to get much more out of this passage than is intended.

I am not seeing a bi-vocational teaching in here other than simply using the gifts of God to work in the world. I think that applies in all situations though.

blessings

[Dennis M. Scott]

It seems to me that on a just plain reading of the text as it is relayed to us, Peter was told to go throw a hook in the water and the first fish he caught, to open its mouth and the tax payment to the Jews would be in there. I personally feel to start contemplating on the text meaning that Peter was off fishing and selling or that it was a "finders keepers, losers weepers" situation is kinda missing the point of the text.



To me, if those were the teachings from the text that we were meant to get, I believe the writer would have portrayed the text differently. The text says Jesus told Peter to open the mouth of the fish and the shekel would be in there. If Jesus can make one fish and some bread feed thousands, I tend to believe He can put a coin in a fish as well. I think their is more of a teaching on how money is nothing for God to supply to us, than anything else. I also think Calvin points out a very good point in verses 24-27 in that Jesus is showing how he is walking as a servant in these circumstances to Jewish laws when He doesn't have to.

John Wesley's notes and John Calvin's notes both seem to lend that they also believed it was as the text reads and not something more. I agree with Randy in that I think we are trying to get much more out of this passage than is intended.

I am not seeing a bi-vocational teaching in here other than simply using the gifts of God to work in the world. I think that applies in all situations though.

Again, the text simply reads that Jesus told Peter to do that, and is not any sort of record that Peter did it. To assume that reads more into the text than is there. Mark was pretty big on reporting Jesus' miracles as they took place. Here, he chose to merely report what Jesus said, and not that what he said eventually occurred.

I suppose one would have to superimpose meaning to say that what Jesus was wanting subsequent hearers of this to know was that God would provide for financial needs. If a literal meaning only was intended, one might expect to see Jesus' followers to this day regularly increase fishing activity as tax day approaches. Maybe that's what He wanted.

On the other hand, there appears to be no more reason to assume that Peter ever complied with the Master's directive than to think He might have had more meaning than simply that there was a gagging fish waiting to be relieved of its financial burden. At least in this instance He didn't say something like, "He who has ears to hear, listen."

We each approach the scripture with our own baggage . . . er, perspective. He or she who has a specific call to dual professional ministry might have a different slant than one who has experienced a call to pastor a mega church, or denominational leadership positions that include a fully funded ministry. Perspective has its impact. If those with a fully funded slant are looked to for interpretation and incorporation into the stated norm for the church, that so-called norm likely will present differently than had those the Lord has specifically called to not rely on the church for financial support been consulted.

Just for the record, I'd probably not point to this passage to validate dual professional ministry. It is interesting that William Barclay brought it up. As far as I know, he was not dual professional.