shekel out of the fish

[Pamelasv]

Matt:24-27

Why do you think 1: Jesus made Peter go fishing for the sheckle, and 2: why do you think He used one coin for the both of them?(That kind of sounds like 'oneness' to me as in the gospel of John He talks about being one with the Father, and 'I in You, and them in me...'

[Guest shiloh357]

He was just fulfilling the social obligation to pay the two drachma per male, tax.  It is important that we not read too much symbolism into a text of Scripture.  If it is meant to be seen as symbolic, the text will let you know.

[gdemoss]

He was just fulfilling the social obligation to pay the two drachma per male, tax. It is important that we not read too much symbolism into a text of Scripture. If it is meant to be seen as symbolic, the text will let you know.

Agreed, this can be very dangerous indeed! I suffered greatly for partaking in such activity.

That said, I still have yet to see the instruction pertaining to how amd when to interpret after which manner from the scriptures themselves. The instruction always comes from a person who says things like you have said here. The text will let you know if it is meant to be seen as symbolic. I fail to understand this principle except at its most strict level of assuming that all symbology used is done overtly amd made plain by context.

Is this what you mean?

[Ezra]

Matt:17:24-27

Why do you think 1: Jesus made Peter go fishing for the sheckle [shekel], and 2: why do you think He used one coin for the both of them?(That kind of sounds like 'oneness' to me as in the gospel of John He talks about being one with the Father, and 'I in You, and them in me...'

By any measure, this incident should be recognized as miraculous, and indicative of the Deity of Christ. That the Lord knew that the first fish to come out of the water would have that shekel indicates that just as God sent the large fish or whale to Jonah, the Lord sent this fish to Peter. The temple tax was a half-shekel, therefore this one coin covered the tax for two people. 

 

As to "oneness" it was certainly there, but more importantly was the lesson being taught to Peter -- that we are to avoid giving offence eve though we are children of God.  Christ was fully under the Law of Moses as Jesus of Nazareth.  And Paul tells us that we are to give no offence to Jews, Gentiles, or the Church of God (1 Cor 10:32).

[Guest shiloh357]

Symbolism is usually found in prophecy and in visions.    You don't find symbolism that much historical narratives where the author is simply bearing out a set of events.    You will sometimes find allegory, such as in Gal. 4 or I Cor. 10. 

 

Where we get into danger is when we start assigning symbolism to everything.   I heard someone try to apply symbolism to the six clay pots that Jesus used to turn water into wine.  But the Bible doesn't tell us those things were symbolic.   When we start assigning symbolism into the text, we are essentially reading our own theology into the story and molding the Bible around us instead of letting the Bible change us.

[Ezra]

 

He was just fulfilling the social obligation to pay the two drachma per male, tax. It is important that we not read too much symbolism into a text of Scripture. If it is meant to be seen as symbolic, the text will let you know.

The text will let you know if it is meant to be seen as symbolic.

The text here certainly does not indicate any symbolism.  The Law of Moses governed Israel at this time, and Christ was indeed under the Law (Exodus 30:11-16; Gal 4:4) and every Israelite, rich or poor, was to pay the same tax --  "half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary". Evidently the Lord could rightly have made a case for not paying this tax, but He chose not to give offence.

[Pamelasv]

Well Jesus could have just pulled the Shekle out of from behind his ear, but Peter had to go and do something to get it. Kind of ironic, since Peter was a fisherman. lol. I just thought of that.

[gdemoss]

Peter opened his mouth and therefore became responsible to pay the tribute. He did not defer to Jesus. Jesus corrected him and sent him on an errand that would renind him that Jesus was the Master. That is what I see.

[Ezra]

Well Jesus could have just pulled the Shekle out of from behind his ear, but Peter had to go and do something to get it. Kind of ironic, since Peter was a fisherman. lol. I just thought of that.

Not really ironic since throughout Scripture we see that even when God intervenes He gives a task to those on who behalf He is intervening. We are always to be co-laborers with Christ.

[Ezra]

Peter opened his mouth and therefore became responsible to pay the tribute. He did not defer to Jesus. Jesus corrected him and sent him on an errand that would renind him that Jesus was the Master. That is what I see.

The narrative shows that Peter was approached and required to give an answer.  Since the Law was still binding he did give the correct answer within his limits.  At least this time, it was not Peter who was to blame.