Lesson 1: Peter and the Fish

The first of the 30 Lessons, "Peter and the Fish," is the first lesson usually taught to students, and here is where Providence teachers subtly establish the basis for Providence's method of allegorical interpretation, where certain biblical texts are reinterpreted as a metaphor of what happened, rather than the actual description of the event. Once this loose, flexible style of interpretation is accepted, all Providence doctrine can be supported by reinterpreting Scripture in their favor. Many cults that use the Bible employ a similar technique to support their teachings.

For the lesson, Providence uses the story of Jesus instructing Peter to catch a fish with a coin in its mouth in order to pay their taxes:

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"
"Yes, he does," he replied.
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"
"From others," Peter answered.
"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him.
"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."
(Matthew 17:24-27, NIV)

What Providence teaches:

• This event is metaphorical, not literal. When Jesus called Peter to be His disciple, He told him, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men" (Luke 5:10, NIV). Fish in this example is a metaphor for humans, correct? So when Jesus tells Peter to catch a fish, He is employing the same metaphor He used before.
• "Peter understood what J meant. It was so hard to meet J because there were always crowds around him. The first person that Peter 'caught' would naturally offer to pay the tax to meet J personally. Who wouldn't pay 4 drachmas to have personal time with J?" (30 Lessons)
• In Matthew 13:47-50, Jesus gives the Parable of the Net, another example where a fish is a metaphor for a person.
• "J spoke in this way because Peter was an ex-fisherman and fishing was the main economy in the region. Naturally, fishing terminology would be used to express all kinds of things; in this case, evangelism." (30 Lessons)
  
• The real miracle is saving a life by getting a man to hear the words of Jesus, far more important than catching a fish with money. If Jesus could really fill fish mouths with money, why wouldn't he do it more often and be rich so he wouldn't have to live as a poor man?
• Therefore, our belief should not be based on miracles, but rather on the words.

Implications of this teaching:

• Certain parts of the Bible, despite appearing to be a literal narrative, are actually metaphors of what really happened. This hidden truth can only be seen by the one that God chooses to reveal this truth to.
• Literal miracles are foolish to believe, which is the mistake that unthinking Christians make. The real miracle is in the words. Spiritual miracles are far more impressive and important.
  
• The messiah is not revealed by his miracles or power, but by what he teaches.
• All the physical miracles Jesus performed (healing people, walking on water, etc.) are metaphors of spiritual miracles (saving souls, teaching spiritual truth).

Problems with this teaching:

Genre of the Gospel of Matthew

To establish a metaphorical view of Jesus' miracles, Providence teachers may point to obvious metaphors in parts of the Bible as support for misinterpretation of passages that are otherwise considered literal. Passages such as "You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth" (Ezekiel 39:18, NIV) and "my roots spread out to the waters, with the dew all night on my branches" (Job 29:19, NIV) are obviously not literal, and Providence teachers make a connection between those metaphors and Matthew 17:24-27.

However, books such as Ezekiel and Job are prophetic works and poetic dramas, where metaphors are used as vivid illustrations to powerfully convey their messages, such as God's hatred of sin or the depths of Job's agony. Matthew, on the other hand, is a historical narrative, like Exodus, Joshua, and I/II Kings, which gives a detailed historical account of actual events, containing mostly literal language. Although the books of the Bible contain a mixture of literal and metaphorical language to some extent, there is nothing in the context of Matthew 17:24-27, or in the passage itself, to hint at the catching of the fish delineating from literal narrative.

It's worth noting that when most people read this passage, they assume the catching of the fish with a coin in its mouth to be a literal miracle, whereas the earlier referenced passages in Ezekiel and Job are assumed to be metaphor. A person's reasoning mind makes the logical deduction that the Ezekiel and Job passages must be a metaphor, while the passage in Matthew must be a literal event.

Interpreting the Bible

As for discerning when a passage should be considered literal or metaphor, the proper interpretation should be arrived at by logical means, through reviewing factors such as the genre of the writing, the author's intent, the context of the passage, etc. When dealing with the Bible and other texts (and all language in general), a literal interpretation should be taken unless a figurative interpretation would be more logical and appropriate. This is the approach we generally use in real life to interpret conversations, figures of speech, novels, poetry, etc.

For example, if a young child were to say "I could eat a cow right now," a literal interpretation would not make much sense. We would recognize that this phrase is an illustration of the child's great hunger. "I am going to eat a medium-rare slice of steak with a fork" clearly makes sense and would be taken literally by the listener.

Author's intent

The author of the Gospel of Matthew is generally accepted to be Matthew the apostle. Why would he record the event in the form of a metaphor? No reader under normal circumstances would read that passage and understand the fish miracle as Peter finding a man to pay taxes for himself and Jesus in exchange for one-on-one time with Jesus.

As one of the twelve apostles, Matthew would know firsthand if the Providence interpretation was what really happened. If that's the case, why didn't he explain what actually happened after Jesus gave his metaphorical instructions? He would have known that the real meaning of the passage would be lost if he failed to describe it.

The details of the miracle

Perhaps a better case could be made for the fish miracle to be a metaphor if it were vague and brief, similar to other figures of speech in the Bible. However, we can see that Jesus' instructions to Peter are specific and rather detailed.

"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." (Matthew 17:27, NIV)

Jesus tells Peter to "go to the lake," "throw out your line," "take the first fish you catch," "open its mouth" to find a coin, and "take it and give it to" the tax authorities. Nothing in these instructions would suggest to Peter that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. Nothing in the context suggests that Peter went to a man to get money. Matthew explained nothing after the instructions of Jesus, inferring that Peter followed Jesus' directions to fish and that Jesus' words came to pass.

The Parable of the Net (Matthew 13:47-50)

In this passage alluded to in the lesson as support for the Providence view, Jesus gives a parable where fish are a metaphor for people. Notice how by reading the context of this passage, it is clear that Jesus is telling the disciples a series of parables, and it is clear that one should interpret this as a metaphor. In addition, Jesus is using this parable to teach, not to give a command as He does in Matthew 17:24-27.

Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to catch fish

See Luke 5:1-11 and John 21:1-14

In neither of these examples does anyone, including those in Providence, believe that the fish referred to here represent people. What in the context of Matthew 17:24-27 suggests that instruction was any different?

Other instances of Jesus instructing His disciples to evangelize/teach

See Matthew 10:1-15, Luke 10:1-12, and Mark 16:14-18

In all of these examples where Jesus gives the actual instruction to evangelize and teach, Jesus gives explicit directions. Jesus' parables are used to teach, but His commands are given in literal language.

Other interesting notes

• Fish in the Sea of Galilee do sometimes have coins in their mouth. So it's possible that God did not create a coin in the mouth of a fish. It is still a miracle in the sense that Peter catching a fish with a coin in its mouth with the correct denomination and amount is best explained by divine intervention.
  

In Conclusion

There is no context in the passage which reasonably suggests that the fish of Matthew 17:24-27 is a man. The only explanation Providence can offer is that Jung received special revelation from God. Jung's teachings are only supported by his claim to be the messiah, and his claim to be the messiah is only supported by his teachings.

For More Information

Practical Hermeneutics: How to Interpret Your Bible Correctly