The meaning of Matt 17:27 (Coin from the mouth of a fish)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This thread was split from Kings of the Earth (World or Israel).

This account is giving us a behind the scenes look into who has the ultimate spiritual authority on earth. Jesus only did what He saw the Father do. In this case, He provided the tax through supernatural means, in the mouth of a fish. The fish is a type of the "royal priesthood/kings and priests", who will rule and reign with Him in the 3rd Day. (the 153 pulled up in the net in Jesus' 3rd visit to the disciples after the resurrection).
It demonstrates the dominion over the earth, that the 1st Adam lost, and the 2nd Adam , Jesus Christ, had come to restore.
It is in the "mouth" of the fish, because it is the mouth of the Christ that holds the Sword which "smites" the nations of the earth.
It is through the " mouth" that the exchange takes place between the" dragon "and earth in the book of Revelation. (the only one that comes readily to mind right now, the account of the birth of the manchild in the 12th chapter of Revelation)

Richard...i mentioned earlier that I had found numerous confirmations in my studies on types and shadows on the Biblewheel. You know far, far more than I do about the wheel. How ' bout running the interpretation (two posts back) I gave on the temple tax provided in the fish's mouth, through the wheel and see what you get? I'll kick start it. I've never investigated this account on the B.W....so it's new to me.

You'll have to read the other post for the details...but will run a basic overview by you too...so the obvious correlations can be more clearly seen by others.

overview: It shows the dynamics of authority between the True Son(s) of God...King of King(s)....and the counterfeit or carnal king who reigns on the throne of the heart/mind of carnal man.
It reveals the restored dominion over the earth, given to the 2 Adam( Head and Body..or the corporate Christ..the King of Kings).
This restored dominion over the earth is revealed through the typology in the temple tax/fish account.(ability to do fish miracle is the manifestation of the Will of God "on earth as it is in Heaven")

OK...here are my first 3:
1. The account is in Matthew, which is on spoke 18 of the Biblewheel...it is the number that expresses opposite concepts. (such as divine/carnal..life/death righteousness/unrighteousness) In fact 18 is "righteousness" Tzaddi.

2. the 18th spoke is is the "Tzaddi" which is also the "fish hook" that pulls up the "first fish" to drawn to the surface.

3. 153 in gematria is "Sons of God". It is the 17th triagular number...17 being the Pey or mouth. (mouth of fish....mouth of God)

I should probably be explaining how the Hebrew alphabet relates to the 18 etc., for those who aren't familiar with the BW...but you could do this so much better than I , Richard...and it really is a wonderful study. Think this might be a fun way to discuss this?

Your turn

Hey there Kathryn,

Your two posts are very thick with assumptions, so I will need to lay them bare before going futher with the interpretation. I will answer them line by line:

This account is giving us a behind the scenes look into who has the ultimate spiritual authority on earth.
Where did that come from? I've read that passage many times, and it never occurred to me to interpret in that way. I don't see anything in the text that would suggest that is speaking of the "ultimate authority on earth."

The fish is a type of the "royal priesthood/kings and priests", who will rule and reign with Him in the 3rd Day. (the 153 pulled up in the net in Jesus' 3rd visit to the disciples after the resurrection).
I've always understood the 153 fish to be a type of believers who were "caught" in the "Gospel net." Now sure, Peter speaks of believers as a "royal priesthood/kings and priests" but I don't see why you chose to use that metaphor in this context. You could just as well have chosen to use the "living stones" metaphor, or the "sheep" metaphor, or any other metaphor. Why choose the "kings and priests" metaphor for this particular context? And why focus on the idea of "ruling and reigning?" It feels like you are imposing a preconceived pattern upon the text.

Now it's true that the 153 fish in John 21 can be seen as representing believers, but is there any reason to think that the fish in Matthew 17:27 represents believers? Not ever occurrence of "fish" in the Bible represents believers. Why did you make that assumption in this case?

It demonstrates the dominion over the earth, that the 1st Adam lost, and the 2nd Adam , Jesus Christ, had come to restore.
If that's true, then why doesn' every miracle represent the same thing? What is unique about this miracle that "demonstrates the dominion over the earth" as opposed to, say, feeding the 5000? Or casting out demons? Or any other miracle? So again, it feels like you imposing a pattern upon the text.

It is in the "mouth" of the fish, because it is the mouth of the Christ that holds the Sword which "smites" the nations of the earth.
This feels like a total non sequitur to me. The sword coming out of the mouth of Christ represents the "word of God." There is no such association with the coin in the mouth of the fish.

It is through the " mouth" that the exchange takes place between the" dragon "and earth in the book of Revelation. (the only one that comes readily to mind right now, the account of the birth of the manchild in the 12th chapter of Revelation)
This seems like another non sequitur. I can't see how the flood coming out of the mouth of the dragon has anything to do with the coin found in the mouth of the fish. Both the symbology and the context seem entirely different.

1. The account is in Matthew, which is on spoke 18 of the Biblewheel...it is the number that expresses opposite concepts. (such as divine/carnal..life/death righteousness/unrighteousness) In fact 18 is "righteousness" Tzaddi.
It is true that the Number 18 is linked in gematria to concepts of Life (Chi) and Sin (Chata) which both sum to 18, and these concepts are essentially "opposites" because Sin/Death is contrary to Life/Righteousness. But this idea of "relating opposites" has nothing to do with the Number 18 at all. It is a general characteristic of Gematria itself, not any particular number. For example, the Number 666 is connected with the opposite concepts of extreme holiness and extreme wickedness. It is both the Number of the Beast and the value of "God's secret place."

2. the 18th spoke is is the "Tzaddi" which is also the "fish hook" that pulls up the "first fish" to drawn to the surface.
This is correct. And I find it quite intriguing that we have "mouth" and "fish hook" in the last verse of Chapter 17 (Peh/Mouth) immediately preceding the first verse of Chapter 18 (Tzaddi/Fish hook).

3. 153 in gematria is "Sons of God". It is the 17th triagular number...17 being the Pey or mouth. (mouth of fish....mouth of God)
The numbers are correct, but the implication is not so obvious, and it's application to Matt 17:27 even less so. I have yet to see any reason to think that the fish with the coin in it's mouth is supposed to represent the church, the body of believers.

I hope my skeptical response doesn't dampen your desire to explore this passage. I'm not trying to be critical, but neither can I pretend to see things I don't see. I think it will be very interesting to dig deep into your interpretation of this passage and see if it can be set upon a justifiable foundation.

All the very best,

Richard

[kathryn]

This thread was split from Kings of the Earth (World or Israel).




Hey there Kathryn,

Your two posts are very thick with assumptionsI know you see them as assumptions Richard...but you have to realize that what I'm trying to convey takes a long time to explain in type and shadow. I have to build my "theory" line upon line, precept upon precept.(as I did learning it) I thought of your request to start a thread on this yesterday...and I didn't know where to begin. I thought this was a good way to do it as the biblewheel is non-biased. It has no personal interpretation placed on it. , so I will need to lay them bare before going futher with the interpretation. I will answer them line by line:

This account is giving us a behind the scenes look into who has the ultimate spiritual authority on earth.
Where did that come from? I've read that passage many times, and it never occurred to me to interpret in that way. I don't see anything in the text that would suggest that is speaking of the "ultimate authority on earth."To me it is obvious, and but if it isn't to you...again...have a bit of patience. When I can elaborate on the OT primary type in the book of Joshua , it might become a little clearer.

The fish is a type of the "royal priesthood/kings and priests", who will rule and reign with Him in the 3rd Day. (the 153 pulled up in the net in Jesus' 3rd visit to the disciples after the resurrection).
I've always understood the 153 fish to be a type of believers who were "caught" in the "Gospel net." Now sure, Peter speaks of believers as a "royal priesthood/kings and priests" but I don't see why you chose to use that metaphor in this context. You could just as well have chosen to use the "living stones" metaphor, or the "sheep" metaphor, or any other metaphor. Why choose the "kings and priests" metaphor for this particular context?Because it highlites the comparison with the" kings of the earth". And why focus on the idea of "ruling and reigning?" It feels like you are imposing a preconceived pattern upon the text. Because it denotes authority or dominion...in both the physical creation and the realm of spirit. Jesus begins the account with the kings of the earth, who are of course, authority figures. (as well as "royalty".)

Now it's true that the 153 fish in John 21 can be seen as representing believers, but is there any reason to think that the fish in Matthew 17:27 represents believers? Not ever occurrence of "fish" in the Bible represents believers. Why did you make that assumption in this case? The symbol of the fish can be established in scripture as a type of Christ. "Christ" is plural...it is both Jesus Christ, and the "Sons of God" (153) You'll find it in the data base. I won't get into the progression of it, until we can figure out how to do this

It demonstrates the dominion over the earth, that the 1st Adam lost, and the 2nd Adam , Jesus Christ, had come to restore.
If that's true, then why doesn' every miracle represent the same thing? What is unique about this miracle that "demonstrates the dominion over the earth" as opposed to, say, feeding the 5000? Or casting out demons? Or any other miracle?The miracles you quote do represent the same thing. Of course there were many "miracles" performed by the magicians, so there's obviously more to it than the ability and event itself. Adam's (man) dominion over the earth isn't redeemed until the Cross..and it is not until the "living" work of Christ has been completed or fulfilled in His Corporate son, that we see the full manifestation of it on earth. Everything Jesus does is also revealing something in type, of His "seed" or sons in whom He will do "greater things" . So again, it feels like you imposing a pattern upon the text. yes...but if you can just lay aside this "feeling" for awhile..?

It is in the "mouth" of the fish, because it is the mouth of the Christ that holds the Sword which "smites" the nations of the earth.
This feels like a total non sequitur to me. The sword coming out of the mouth of Christ represents the "word of God." There is no such association with the coin in the mouth of the fish. I was dealing with the mouth itself and why it was used in the type. Of course the coin has to make equal sense...but again, I was trying to keep it as brief as I could. We just began to discuss the concept of "debt" and how it applies to the coin in this account on the "tongues" thread. Again..we are dealing with a type that has many levels of meaning...and somehow have to establish a way we can search this out from the foundation up, in a non-biased way.

It is through the " mouth" that the exchange takes place between the" dragon "and earth in the book of Revelation. (the only one that comes readily to mind right now, the account of the birth of the manchild in the 12th chapter of Revelation)
This seems like another non sequitur. I can't see how the flood coming out of the mouth of the dragon has anything to do with the coin found in the mouth of the fish. Both the symbology and the context seem entirely different. again...this has to be established brick by brick and I was focusing on the "mouth" in typology. Gotta start somewhere.

1. The account is in Matthew, which is on spoke 18 of the Biblewheel...it is the number that expresses opposite concepts. (such as divine/carnal..life/death righteousness/unrighteousness) In fact 18 is "righteousness" Tzaddi.
It is true that the Number 18 is linked in gematria to concepts of Life (Chi) and Sin (Chata) which both sum to 18, and these concepts are essentially "opposites" because Sin/Death is contrary to Life/Righteousness. But this idea of "relating opposites" has nothing to do with the Number 18 at all.I haven't worded this properly. It's like discussing the intricate nature of a lock, with the locksmith, when all you're looking at is a key I'm not going to be able to articulate this to your satisfaction, until we progress a bit farther (if we can)All I am trying to point out now...is the very surface of the correlations on the wheel It is a general characteristic of Gematria itself, not any particular number. For example, the Number 666 is connected with the opposite concepts of extreme holiness and extreme wickedness. It is both the Number of the Beast and the value of "God's secret place.yes..and "666" is also I8 when added, is it not? I am completely ignorant in the field of mathematics Richard. You will get from me, a "right brained" response as I first begin to notice correlations visually. This will drive you to drink at the beginning...but again...I hope we can find some way to cross this barrier. All I can tell you, is that if we can, I believe I can demonstrate that the types/shadows and symbology of the bible has a foundational bone structure, that is not of private interpretation. "

2. the 18th spoke is is the "Tzaddi" which is also the "fish hook" that pulls up the "first fish" to drawn to the surface.
This is correct. And I find it quite intriguing that we have "mouth" and "fish hook" in the last verse of Chapter 17 (Peh/Mouth) immediately preceding the first verse of Chapter 18 (Tzaddi/Fish hook). well, I'm glad you found that intriguing. You can see a very tenuous connection then, to "18"?

3. 153 in gematria is "Sons of God". It is the 17th triagular number...17 being the Pey or mouth. (mouth of fish....mouth of God)
The numbers are correct, but the implication is not so obvious,no...all revelation of the 3rd day, in typology, is not obvious at all. It is hidden in scripture like a baby in a mother's womb. All of typology is expressed within the ultimate context of Love and relationship. The Bridegroom only reveals His intimacies to His "Lover" or the one who seeks to know/consumate with Him. I know that isn't what you want to hear..but either I can "let it all hang out" until I can articulate fully or I can't. and it's application to Matt 17:27 even less so. I have yet to see any reason to think that the fish with the coin in it's mouth is supposed to represent the church, the body of believers.

I hope my skeptical response doesn't dampen your desire to explore this passage. I'm not trying to be critical, but neither can I pretend to see things I don't see.no...neither can I. I wouldn't have you any other way. I just feel frustrated, when I can see something, but can't articulate it. Haven't a clue where to go from here I think it will be very interesting to dig deep into your interpretation of this passage and see if it can be set upon a justifiable foundation. my hope was that you could , for a period of time, lay aside the possibility that it is a wild assumption...and pretend for a moment, that it is true. On that basis...then take it to the biblewheel and search it out. How would you feel about that?

All the very best,

Richard

[kathryn]

I've been thinking on our conversation as I've been puttering around this aft. and I realized that my statement:
,no...all revelation of the 3rd day, in typology, is not obvious at all. It is hidden in scripture like a baby in a mother's womb. All of typology is expressed within the ultimate context of Love and relationship. The Bridegroom only reveals His intimacies to His "Lover" or the one who seeks to know/consumate with Him.
if taken the wrong way, would sound extremely arrogant. On further thought, I realized that without clarifying it...it is

I was speaking in the context of human relationships(because that is how it is symbolized in scripture)...not that you weren't earnestly seeking for the truth. My point was...we don't reveal anything intimate about ourselves, to those who don't want to truly know us. The bible has been written in a way that the casual observer, or the one who is simply intent on proving a point, won't get too far. (another "assumption"...I know)

[Charisma]

As a newbie here, I am really looking forward to this thread! I like the 'grass roots' feel of what is to come forth.


On the topic, to Richard, I would like to offer a few loose ends.

When Jesus was asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, He very swiftly gave His answer: give to Caesar that which has Caesar's image on it; give to God that which has God's image on it - ie your whole being.

The whole subject in that miracle is about who is in charge and what the implications are for those over whom charge is taken.

In rendering ourselves to God, we put ourselves under His care - or, authority.
To be fully under God's authority, we must willingly come out from under the authority of sin.


Silver is often about man rather than God.

In Matthew 17, there is only one piece of money, but it was to be given 'for me and thee'. Here Christ is identifying Himself completely with Peter.

In another place, Christ - looking at Peter - said 'Get thee behind me Satan'. In that moment, Peter was not identifying with Christ, but one day, Christ would identify not only with Peter, but with all mankind, on the cross.

(Much more could be said about the length to which Jesus went to make sure that Peter really could identify with Christ, and realise that Christ had forgiven him.)


The only other place I've found 153 is when Solomon's population had been counted:

2 Chron 2:17
And Solomon numbered all the strangers that [were] in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.

Now, what to do with the six hundred? Does it mean something helpful? I liked the fact that it was the 'strangers'. This seems to speak of those who were not naturally part of the commonwealth of Israel.

When Jesus said 'Follow me and I will make you fishers of men', He didn't distinguish which 'men' they would catch. Surely this would cross Peter's mind after the Holy Spirit fell in Cornelius' house?


About the 'mouth', isn't that supposed to be employed in giving proper praises to God - the sacrifice (tax?) of praise - the preserve of the priest separated to be directly in touch with God - allowed to use incense in his censor - prayer, a sweet-smelling savour - special robes denoting holiness and righteousness - working directly under the authority of God?


How these thoughts fit in with gematria I have no idea, but it may become plainer when you look at the numbers.

I've always understood the 153 fish to be a type of believers who were "caught" in the "Gospel net." Now sure, Peter speaks of believers as a "royal priesthood/kings and priests" but I don't see why you chose to use that metaphor in this context. You could just as well have chosen to use the "living stones" metaphor, or the "sheep" metaphor, or any other metaphor. Why choose the "kings and priests" metaphor for this particular context? Because it highlites the comparison with the" kings of the earth"

The authority of God in Jesus Christ because He was free from sin is seen in every miracle.

Bishops wear mitres (fish heads) as a sign of their earthly authority. I have never understood why, in the New Covenant church, this practice has been continued, except as a visual sign to the congregation. According to Paul, it is not pleasing to God for aman to have his head covered while he prays to God. I think some people feel it's because of the mixture in the church, and this is a sign not of godliness, but of ungodliness.


End of thoughts for today.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I've been thinking on our conversation as I've been puttering around this aft. and I realized that my statement:
,no...all revelation of the 3rd day, in typology, is not obvious at all. It is hidden in scripture like a baby in a mother's womb. All of typology is expressed within the ultimate context of Love and relationship. The Bridegroom only reveals His intimacies to His "Lover" or the one who seeks to know/consumate with Him.
if taken the wrong way, would sound extremely arrogant. On further thought, I realized that without clarifying it...it is

I was speaking in the context of human relationships(because that is how it is symbolized in scripture)...not that you weren't earnestly seeking for the truth. My point was...we don't reveal anything intimate about ourselves, to those who don't want to truly know us. The bible has been written in a way that the casual observer, or the one who is simply intent on proving a point, won't get too far. (another "assumption"...I know)

Well, I must admit that I didn't pick up on the "arrogance" of that comment. I just thought it was wrong.

I often thought of the Bible as designed to conceal God from those who didn't want to believe (so as not to force them) and to reveal God to those who were seeking him. I used to say that the Bible gives everything a believer needs to believe, and everything an unbeliever needs to not believe.

But now I realize that "belief" is not a virtue! It does terrible things to the human mind. It makes people into gullible fools who "believe" whatever they are told to believe. It makes strong minds weak and empowers ruthless dictators. It is the essence of every cult that has ever existed on planet earth. Now let's think about this - the essence of Christianity is the doctrine that you are saved from an eternal hell only if you say you believe something that cannot be proven. How is that different than any other cult like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology? Is Christianity different than all the cults that brainwash their believers? If not, why not? How is it different?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As a newbie here, I am really looking forward to this thread! I like the 'grass roots' feel of what is to come forth.

Very cool! Glad you will be participating.

On the topic, to Richard, I would like to offer a few loose ends.

When Jesus was asked whether it was lawful to give tribute to Caesar, He very swiftly gave His answer: give to Caesar that which has Caesar's image on it; give to God that which has God's image on it - ie your whole being.

The whole subject in that miracle is about who is in charge and what the implications are for those over whom charge is taken.

In rendering ourselves to God, we put ourselves under His care - or, authority.
To be fully under God's authority, we must willingly come out from under the authority of sin.

I understand the words, but I don't know how I could put them into action. I've watched tens of thousands of sincere people who desired to "put themselves under God" but ended up following people who often misled them. Indeed, institutional Christianity is a human organization with no sign that it is being led by God. And how would you know if you were "following God" and not your own ideas or the ideas you were taught by others? See - the words sound great, but they have no substance as far as I can tell.

Here's the deal - I've never seen anything that could distinguish between someone who was "under God's authority" from someone who was not. Even when Todd Bentley said that God told him to kick an old woman in the face with his biker boot, Christians came to his defense as someone who was "radically following God's command." And they attacked anyone who pointed out the Bentley's godless absurdity as "lacking faith" and as having a "religious spirit."

In Matthew 17, there is only one piece of money, but it was to be given 'for me and thee'. Here Christ is identifying Himself completely with Peter.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any justification for that conclusion. The coin could just as easily have been enough to cover the cost of two.

It has long been my opinion that such unfounded speculations are the primary source of the errors that saturate the history of Biblical interpretation.

In another place, Christ - looking at Peter - said 'Get thee behind me Satan'. In that moment, Peter was not identifying with Christ, but one day, Christ would identify not only with Peter, but with all mankind, on the cross.

(Much more could be said about the length to which Jesus went to make sure that Peter really could identify with Christ, and realise that Christ had forgiven him.)

Yes, the "identification" with Christ is central to the Gospel message.

I've always understood the 153 fish to be a type of believers who were "caught" in the "Gospel net." Now sure, Peter speaks of believers as a "royal priesthood/kings and priests" but I don't see why you chose to use that metaphor in this context. You could just as well have chosen to use the "living stones" metaphor, or the "sheep" metaphor, or any other metaphor. Why choose the "kings and priests" metaphor for this particular context? Because it highlites the comparison with the" kings of the earth"

The only other place I've found 153 is when Solomon's population had been counted:

2 Chron 2:17
And Solomon numbered all the strangers that [were] in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.

Now, what to do with the six hundred? Does it mean something helpful? I liked the fact that it was the 'strangers'. This seems to speak of those who were not naturally part of the commonwealth of Israel.

I could see how that could fit. Those saved had been "strangers" to the covenant of promise:

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

When Jesus said 'Follow me and I will make you fishers of men', He didn't distinguish which 'men' they would catch. Surely this would cross Peter's mind after the Holy Spirit fell in Cornelius' house?

Sure, it could have crossed Peter's mind. Or not. There's no way for us to know.

About the 'mouth', isn't that supposed to be employed in giving proper praises to God - the sacrifice (tax?) of praise - the preserve of the priest separated to be directly in touch with God - allowed to use incense in his censor - prayer, a sweet-smelling savour - special robes denoting holiness and righteousness - working directly under the authority of God?

That's a very creative chain of association. But is there anything in the text that would guide us in that direction? If not, how do we know if some other set of associations might be what "God" really meant? Or what if he didn't mean anything symbolic by the fish and the coin in this verse? How are we supposed to determine these things.

Great chatting!

[kathryn]

But now I realize that "belief" is not a virtue!I agree wholeheartedly. It does terrible things to the human mind. It makes people into gullible fools who "believe" whatever they are told to believe. It makes strong minds weak and empowers ruthless dictators. It is the essence of every cult that has ever existed on planet earth. Now let's think about this - the essence of Christianity is the doctrine that you are saved from an eternal hell only if you say you believe something that cannot be proven. How is that different than any other cult like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology? Is Christianity different than all the cults that brainwash their believers? If not, why not? How is it different?That's what I'm hoping we can search out in as non-biased a way as possible. I should have just left that comment out, as it served no purpose in the study . I'll try to keep this as lean as I can. .
I do find it fatiguing if I have to be on guard with how I word things. I have a dear friend who is provoked easily when speaking of the nation of Israel. I've known for years how she views certain topics, but often, when I try to bring something new into the conversation, I get the viewpoint again. What could be a fruitful exchange is often turned into another venting.

__________

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But now I realize that "belief" is not a virtue!I agree wholeheartedly. It does terrible things to the human mind. It makes people into gullible fools who "believe" whatever they are told to believe. It makes strong minds weak and empowers ruthless dictators. It is the essence of every cult that has ever existed on planet earth. Now let's think about this - the essence of Christianity is the doctrine that you are saved from an eternal hell only if you say you believe something that cannot be proven. How is that different than any other cult like Mormonism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology? Is Christianity different than all the cults that brainwash their believers? If not, why not? How is it different?That's what I'm hoping we can search out in as non-biased a way as possible. I should have just left that comment out, as it served no purpose in the study . I'll try to keep this as lean as I can. .
I do find it fatiguing if I have to be on guard with how I word things. I have a dear friend who is provoked easily when speaking of the nation of Israel. I've known for years how she views certain topics, but often, when I try to bring something new into the conversation, I get the viewpoint again. What could be a fruitful exchange is often turned into another venting.

__________

Hey Kathryn,

Believe me, "lean" is the way to go. Less is more! If you write too many words, the readers will often just skim over them and miss essential points, and then it takes even more words to clear up the confusion!

I hope I haven't come across as "easily provoked." I know that I am "venting" a bit but I try to keep my mind open to other points of view and indeed, that's what I'm enjoying so much now - I don't need to "defend" any doctrines or points of view! I can freely explore reality and speak as simply and clearly as possible without having to "protect the Bible" from those nasty skeptics. It feels great!

As for your friend who is "provoked easily when speaking of the nation of Israel." Has she been indoctrinated to hate "replacement theology?" I ask, because that is the most common indoctrination on that topic that I've seen out there. People are taught to have a visceral hatred of anyone who would deny the Dispensationalist doctrine concerning the distinction between Israel and the Church.

[heb13-13]

I've been thinking on our conversation as I've been puttering around this aft. and I realized that my statement:
,no...all revelation of the 3rd day, in typology, is not obvious at all. It is hidden in scripture like a baby in a mother's womb. All of typology is expressed within the ultimate context of Love and relationship. The Bridegroom only reveals His intimacies to His "Lover" or the one who seeks to know/consumate with Him.
if taken the wrong way, would sound extremely arrogant. On further thought, I realized that without clarifying it...it is

I was speaking in the context of human relationships(because that is how it is symbolized in scripture)...not that you weren't earnestly seeking for the truth. My point was...we don't reveal anything intimate about ourselves, to those who don't want to truly know us. The bible has been written in a way that the casual observer, or the one who is simply intent on proving a point, won't get too far. (another "assumption"...I know)

Hi Everyone,

I am still catching up with all the posts and learning so much from everyone. I was on a business trip since Wednesday out to the Bay Area and tried to keep up while I was gone but it was a big challenge. Found time to visit with some good friends and also an old Navy buddy of mine.

Kathryn, I really liked this and there is more truth in this sentence than we realize.

The Bridegroom only reveals His intimacies to His "Lover" or the one who seeks to know/consumate with Him.

Just as the children of Israel were instructed to "drive out the inhabitants of the land"

"And I will set thy bounds from the Red sea even unto the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert unto the river: for I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand; and thou shalt drive them out before thee" (Exo 23:31).

We are also instructed to drive out the inhabitants of the land. Notice the Lord says that "He will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hands AND YOU SHALT DRIVE THEM OUT BEFORE THEE".

The Land today is you and me. Our mind, will, emotions and body. And the Holy Spirit has set these boundaries (separation) to be consecrated to Him.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1)

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly;(1Th 5:23a)

And a scripture that Kathryn posted.

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" (2Co 10:3-5)

We are not to be brought into captivity, but rather we are to bring every high thing into captivity. Our mind, will and emotions are not to be controlled or influenced by anything or anyone but you and in harmony with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit though does not seek to control but to lovingly influence, and nudge. The Holy Spirit is not oppressive but an evil spirit is.

As Kathryn said, these imaginations are spirits (evil spirits, powers of darkness). Just as Jesus was spoken to in the wilderness.

When we first come to the Lord the Holy Spirit leads us to put to death the deeds of the flesh and teaches us to deny self and pick up our cross and follow Him. His goal of instruction includes the same instruction that He gave to Israel. To love the Lord our God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. And to come to Jesus with all of our heart and not be joined to anything else (other "nations", powers of darkness, evil imaginations) in our heart EXCEPT HIM. The Holy Spirit will reveal to us the idols (enemy, strongholds) in our life (inhabitants that have brought our mind, will and emotions into bondage). And the Holy Spirit teaches us that we are to drive them out and how to do it.

There are deeply intimate things about our Bridegroom and they will be shared progressively as we draw closer and closer to Him and farther and farther away from all that is not of Him.

Blessings to all,
Rick

[Charisma]

Here's the deal - I've never seen anything that could distinguish between someone who was "under God's authority" from someone who was not.

I can understand that, but the remedy is to continue looking for them. I'm not sure how many are in 'institutional Christianity' but it's surprising sometimes where God has placed His people. Do keeping looking!

About the coin in the fish's mouth, I would expect it to have been of the precise value they owed. Of course there could have been two coins - one for Christ and one for Peter, but that would have re-inforced the picture of man's separation from God.

Part of Christ's mission was to reach the alienated with the gospel. He brings this into both His teaching and His actions, and lastly, the High Priestly prayer in John 17 where He begins to expound upon a oneness between man and God which was hitherto unknown, and that did not actually happen until the day of Pentecost.

But you can keep all those thoughts in reserve, of course.