Published by Often I’ll sit in bed and read the Bible so the Word of God is the last thing on my mind before I sleep. I also have an mp3 player that I put on a low volume next to my bed; sometimes I play commentaries or I select a straight reading of the Bible while I sleep.
I was enjoying the “good doctor’s” gospel when I inevitably ran into the story of Jesus telling Peter to let the nets down. Like all of us who are tired, we have this natural inclination to whine. “ Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing”, and then like Peter, we come to our senses; “Yet at Your word I will let down the net.” It wasn’t until the next two lines we see something incredible happen. “And doing this, they enclosed a great multitude of fish. And their net was being torn. And they signaled the partners, those in the other boat, to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they were sinking.” How often do we just brush past this simple incident, not thinking about the modern day ramifications?
There are a total of fifty-eight references to fish (according to the Esword program I have) between the Old and New Testament, almost equally split between the two. Jesus loved to teach about things from the natural we could relate to; heaven admittedly, is a broad concept and hard to grasp since we’ve got nothing other than Jesus’ words to relate to, however we can all understand fish.
As I read about the nets breaking and the boats sinking under the weight of such a catch, it hit me – the story that came out only days before the election claiming 90% of all edible seafood would be absent from our oceans by 2048 if we don’t start making serious changes in the way we treat this planet. I thought quietly to myself, “what would the Bible look like without fish?” I shuddered.
A Bible without fish means a couple of things. One of the most recognized teaching symbols would be gone. Two, many cars driving around with the fish emblem on the back wouldn’t make sense because people couldn’t relate to it. Three, it would mean we didn’t do a good job overseeing our charge as outlined in Genesis 1:26 – “…let them have dominion over the fish of the sea”. The Bible never said, “…let them have dominion over the sea and kill nearly everything in it”.
I’m not one of those radical activists who chain themselves to plows or trees, but I do think we’ve got some responsibility to this planet as stewards. There’s definitely a problem when man deliberately contaminates his own drinking water . Even if you don’t believe such and dismiss it as nonsense, it’s not as easy to dismiss reports of male fish bearing eggs due pollution affecting their delicate hormonal balance. I’m guessing the only one who’d be happy about this change would be Gloria Steinman, who in theory should be squealing with delight, “it’s MAN’S turn to have babies!” while ripping into a Maine lobster.
Even if the report of the fish population dying doesn’t impact you, the thought of eating a male fish producing eggs should. “Female fish lay eggs, and you eat them, right?” True, but a female fish is supposed to lay eggs; a male fish carrying eggs indicates toxicity.
Imagine the stories that wouldn’t have taken place: no coin in the mouth of the fish, no feeding of the four thousand or the five thousand, no fish at the seaside after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, and no Peter giving a confession all of us who first come to Jesus cling to: “ Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, Lord. ”
It would be awful and catastrophic to see a food source and a great symbol of remembrance disappear because man was too greedy and set in his ways to put a stop to it.
The Bible would look pretty empty without fish.
Other quazen.com articles by this writer can be found here , relijournal.com articles here , and picable.com photographic images here . If you enjoyed this article, consider digging it with others.
