Mark 11:12-14

jesus saw a fig tree from far away. when he got there, he found there were no figs on the tree, because they weren't in season yet. so he banned the eating of figs forever.

i am interested in christian reactions to this passage. there must be a deeper meaning that i'm missing, because on the surface this story makes jesus look not only mortal, but rather feeble-minded.

"so he banned the eating of figs forever." First, you should read again.

Augie, it's a complex, contextually relevant, metaphor. ldo.

(You have to jump through some tortuous analytical hoops to get to the real meaning, apparently, but like everything else in holy writings, sense can be made of it if you try hard enough, here it is - Figtree)

lol

MB given your position in the other thread about the God(s) of Islam and Christianity being distinct how do you feel about the site you have just linked to?

Slightly confused about the URL but honestly I didn't think about it past that because it didn't matter to the Fig story issue.

In any case, I've never said that Islam and Christianity are completely distinct, they're clearly not and share many elements. What differences there are though, are significant.

fyp.

But ya, it is one of many passages where the main takeaway message just seems to be that it is weird. It really is a rather odd book, and while yes this passage kinda makes Jesus look like a petty and vindictive dick, I think I will just chalk it up as one more bizarre moment in a largely bizarre book

"And the disciples ignoreth the words of the Lord, for verily was he tripping balls"

^încidentally, what is the past tense of ignoreth, maketh, sayeth etc.?

I am actually interested in how someone of faith interprets a verse like this, so it would be nice to have an answer to the OP's question.

To me it doesn't actually seem that bad, something like "oh, well it's just saying that when Jesus calls, whether in season or out, you need to be prepared to bear fruit." Or, "oh, well, it is just a bit of rapturesque foreshadowing..." would work just fine. In other words, I can appreciate that, in the grand theme of things, a verse like this is versatile enough to fit nicely into an innocuous theology. What is really going on here though, how would you interpret it?

My first point was just what Uke then clarified. At the most, God banned eating from that one fig tree.

Without consulting any books, so purely shooting from the hip (and my study bible), Jesus has a habit of talking in parables, analogies etc. So judging from that, I wouldn't be too weirded out and assume that he's doing the same here in form of a symbolic action or something.

Given that, I might then look at my study bibles notes and find that they refer me to Jer 8:13 and tell me that the fruitless fig tree is a symbol for Israel that rejects God. I'd check Jer 8:13 and go "meh, w/e. Perhaps Jesus did indeed have this in mind, perhaps he didn't." If the verse then continued to bug me sufficiently (realistically, it wouldnt as it's at worst a recount of a fairly weird human impulse of Jesus) I'd likely look at some NT commentary.

Your first interpretation is probably pretty good, though, and it sort of meshes with what the supposed allusion to Jer 8:13 intends to bring out.

It's still sort of weird, though. Not the weirdest jesuanic parable, though.

(As you can probably see, my interest in NT exegesis is fairly limited. Usually, I don't bother much with the apocrypha to the OT. )

I would compare it to the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, or to Matthew 24:42: "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come"

That is, as an exhortation to prepare oneself and purify one's heart so that in the day the Lord visits you have borne fruit.

A few years ago, there was a big contest on the old SMP between BluffThis and NotReady. BluffThis, presenting the Hebrew side, condemned Christ Jesus for condemning the fig tree. Just an aside, things have changed a bit.

The "fig tree" or similar allusions were known in the ancient mystery centers as the initiation process in which a man was placed into a trance like state for three and a half days in which he gained knowledge of the spiritual world. Leaving his body behind, as in sleep, but conscious nevertheless in the world of the spirit he was able to gain this mystery knowledge. Upon return this knowledge was "imprinted" into his sleeping body as like a memory and then when in day time consciousness he would be able to bring his findings to his fellow man initiates and to the world at large.

The three and one half days is common throughout the ancient world, Persia, Egypt, Greece and even Rome up until our present times beginning in the 14th century. The post Atlantean cultural epochs were Old Indian, Persian, Egypto-Chaldean, Greco- Roman and our present fifth post Atlantean cultural epoch. these periods of time lasted about 2100 years each (given so that there is no mix up with present day geography).

Other allusions in the Bible such as "Jonah's Whale" and in the Buddhist perspective "Bodhi Tree" are speaking to the same initiatory process, known to others as the "Kingdom of God". Paul's initiation on the road to Damascus was that of a Christian Initiation without the mystery center or the twelve initiates who helped the hierophant to initiate the acolyte of old.

Christ Jesus is saying that the "old initiation" process was no longer viable and that the 'new" had appeared. Whereas the initiate in ancient times brought findings to his peers and to the people the new initiation was to be the entire human race. Initiation through Christ was to be the "way" and knowledge of Christ, in freedom, is the initiatory path.

Previously, the eye of the pyramid traveling downward with only a few able to reach this pinnacle and now all of mankind through the Christ Being, as Spirit of the Earth, bringing mankind to his home, a Spiritual Reality. All in Christ and consequently a breaking down of the old such as nation, race, gender and clan. Takes time and multiple lifetimes and in essence the Christ Being is also the "Lord of Karma".

There's more , but I'll stop.For those interested the book "Christianity as Mystical Fact" speaks to this. http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA008/...008_index.html

I always forget, but if you're feeling generous a donation to the site would be appreciated. I know, no soliciting but this is my guilt speaking.

Loled at the title. Maybe this is what the Westboro Baptist Church has been telling us all along and dyslexia is to blame for distorting their message.

Pretty simple parable, IMO. A follower of Christ should be known by his actions (fruit). If a Disciple does not bear fruit, he will be condemned.

Scrunchyconfusedface.gif I take it only Dereds clicked on the link I provided then. I thought that was likely to be a serious attempt to explain the parable.

The link seems fine to me. I hadn't looked at it previously. "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance"

My first reply to Augie came before you even posted that link, so I don't understand why you're confused. Given that the link was prefaced with "You have to jump through some tortuous analytical hoops to get to the real meaning, apparently" I couldn't bring myself to care what you dug up, tbh. Whether I agree with the link or not - it didn't seem likely you'd be genuinely interested in the reasons.

it didn't seem that tortuous to me, but perhaps I am just accustomed to it

Well, that's just simple given the "light" you've already received, but it's not really what Yeshua was getting at; specifically, it is not at the individual level, but in context of the passage in Mark, the criticism is primarily at the existing religious practice of Judaism during his time. It's actually "one tree" condemning another "tree" and there are so many levels, it's a major omission to just consider the individual level. Others have pointed out an allusion to Israel, but chapter 11 of Mark ( together with the parable of condemnation that follows in the beginning of the 12th chapter of Mark ) is really one of the best teachings in the gospel of Mark and presumably, Mark received this teaching from Kefa, who received this from none other than the Master himself, Yeshua the Messiah.

Such a teaching is so important and central, that to do any justice to what the author of this gospel ( and therefore, what Kefa = "Peter" and ultimately what the Divine Miltha~"Logos"="Word", Yeshua ) is trying to convey, I'll take some time to reflect and write something about this teaching. In the meantime, I'll wait until someone writes something that really gets the point of the passage and add what David Stern already wrote in his Jewish New Testament commentary ( which, IMHO, is an incomplete "teaching" ):

=======

"… If Yeshua's cursing and drying up the fig tree had been a petulant reaction to disappointment because he couldn't satisfy his hunger, it would be unworthy of anyone, let alone the Messiah. But Yeshua is making a point by means of prophetic drama, acted-out parable (possibly Lk 13:6-9). Tanakh examples include Yirmiyahu, who bought and broke a clay bottle (Jeremiah 19), and Yechezk'el, who made and then burned up a model of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4-5); for a later New Testament instance see Ac 21:10-11.

Even out of season a fig tree in leaf- it must have been in leaf to be seen in the distance (v. 12)- holds forth the promise of fruit. The normal early season for figs in Israel is June, but the early unripe fruit (Song of Songs 2:13) begins to show itself even before the spring leaves appear on the branches, often before Passover.

We know that Yeshua expects God's people to put forth the fruit of righteousness, and that unproductive branches are thrown in the fire (Mt 7:16-20; 12:33; 13:4-9, 18-23; Yn 15:1-8). Thus, the drying-up of the fig tree is an acted-out warning. In keeping with Proverbs 27:18 ('He who tends a fig tree will eat his fruit, and he who serves his master will be honored') Yeshua here is teaching his followers what it means to serve their master, God: it means simply to have the kind of trust that comes from God (v 22), and that they will wither away if they don’t. Yeshua neither acts from pique nor perform arbitrary miracles like a magician; every one of his supernatural acts has spiritual significance." (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., Clarksville Maryland, Fifth edition 1996], pp. 95-96)

=======

I don't think it's that important how "anyone" would interpret this, but rather, how would the Word of Life interpret this. At the Peshat (~superficial) level, it doesn't make sense that Yeshua would curse a fig tree in the presence of his talmidim(~"disciples") unless there was a significant symbolic teaching.

Yeah, it obviously follows that the broader community would be held to the same standard.

Um, because you posted your 'shooting from the hip' explanation after I'd posted a link to an explanation.

That was my first clue that you hadn't clicked on the link, not that you have to of course.

Why would that indicate a lack of interest, after all, I took the time to look it up and post the link. I think the first part was probably true though, that you couldn't bring yourself to care 'tbh'.

In actual fact, it does interest me although I strongly doubt that it's for the same reasons that it interests you. I'm interested in why and how people seek to interpret holy writings in the same way that I'm interested in how Haruspices made their divinations from animal entrails. I think both speak to how religion and spiritual beliefs influence, affect and motivate us.

That's not really the case with this three though. What is stated is that it is not yet "time of figs", which is (presumably) fig-harvesting season.

Yes, but if we are to bear fruit for christ because he has caused it to be our nature to do so, we can't pick and choose when it's convenient or favourable for us to do that. We should always be ready to bear fruit, thus proving that we are fruit bearers, or be condemned as a being that is not in fact a bearer of fruit.

After a while, the word 'bear' loses all meaning. That happens to me a lot.

I don't get it. Nothing is bad about a tree not bearing fruit out of season.