This is not the start of a new series, but a multi-part tangent. As Easter approaches and lent comes to an end, we find ourselves in a place - a moment in time - that begs discussion. That place and time is Saturday, after Good Friday and before Easter Sunday. The Saturday without God.

This day is hardly mentioned in the gospels. In fact, the only mention of Saturday is in Matthew 27:62-66, and it is an account of the Romans putting guards at the tomb. The activities of the disciples are not mentioned at all. I think there is a reason for that, and that reason is very tangible for each of us. It is very human.

I believe the reason Saturday is not discussed is because the reflection and discussion of one’s lack of faith if a hard thing. If the failure were great enough, it would be easier to avoid than to relive.

We often forget the human element in Scripture. These were people - just as human as you and I.

I can only imagine the magnitue of their faith crisis on that saturday. Their lack of faith is displayed throughout the Gospels, yet Saturday is avoided accross the board. In that moment, what would you have done? Beyond that, after Sunday, how heavy would the guilt be? If you knew - had you only listened - had you only paid attention - your faith would not have wavered. For the disciples, the sweetness or the resurrection was blurred by the bitterness of their blindness to the truth before them, and the actions spawned from it. We get a glimpse of this in Peter’s denial, but what did Peter do next? Without the resurrection, it is all for naught. On Saturday - in that moment of naught - what happened in each of the disciples lives? What did their crushed faith produce on that Sabbath day - their dark night of the soul?

I will apologize ahead of time, as this will be the longest blog I have posted here. I assure you, however, that it is well worth your read.

The last aspect of these verses that I want to discuss is actually the cause of some controversy. It seems like these verses would be a strange place to find controversy, but leave it to man…

The concept I am referring to is the idea that the fig tree symbolizes the Temple, or even the Hebrew people themselves.

At first glance, this concept seems plausible as a stand-alone interpretation of these verses. It also seems harmless. However, a more critical analysis can begin to see its flaws and caustic nature fairly quickly.

If one were to look at the account of Christ rebuking the fig tree as a metaphor regarding the fate of Israel, the Jewish nation, or the Jewish Temple without taking into account the other factors going on in these passages, antisemitism is not far away. After all, why keep a good relationship or show love to a people who have been cursed by Jesus himself?

That is, of course, the most dangerous result of such an interpretation. A less dangerous, but equally controversial result is the unavoidable conflict between these passages and Paul’s writings on the subject. Paul goes into an exhaustive argument defending the Jewish people as the chosen people of God. This is not to say they are not the “builders who have rejected the capstone.” Paul addresses this in chapters 9 and 10 of Romans. It is in chapter 11 that we see the culmination of God’s love for his people.

Paul goes on to address the very attitude that the “fig tree passages” can produce in verses 16-27. He depicts Israel as a natural, groomed olive tree and gentile believers as wild branches crafted in by the hand of God. He puts the lofty christian in their place by reminding them of their position. He then warns us, “Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.”

I bring all this up to ask, if the verses in Matthew and Mark are indeed preaching condemnation for the Jewish people or the Jewish nation, who are we to believe? Clearly Jesus and Paul are in conflict if this is the case. Do we side with the scholars who suggest Paul a heretic? Do we side with the other scholars who question the validity of the Gospels?

Or, perhaps, do we recognize that this interpretation of the fig tree account to be inaccurate?

Indeed, in order to cling to this interpretation we would have to disregard all historical and cultural context relating to these passages.

So, am I suggesting there is no relation whatsoever between the fig tree passages and the Jewish people?

Not at all.

As I stated at the end of my previous entry, there was another construct of the time that was built on sin’s foundations. The construct I was referring to was that of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Wait a minute. Didn’t I just spend a little too much time debunking that interpretation?

Not entirely.

That interpretation, with no regard to the historical and cultural context of these verses, is caustic. However, there are some very important facts that we must look at if we are going to get the full picture these passages are painting.

See, at this time the city of Jerusalem was under Roman occupation. This is a big deal. The Romans were smart conquerors. They knew that in order to avoid a revolution they needed to give the Jewish residents of Rome a Hebrew figurehead. They installed a puppet leader for the Jewish nation. At the time of Jesus, this figurehead was Herod.

As many of you may know, Herod was on the Roman Empire’s payroll. What you may not know is that the leaders of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem were as well. There was a Temple tax that all males of age were required to pay. This was the reason there were moneychangers in the Temple.

In order to explain this, I will have to address the passage that occurs in the middle of Mark’s fig tree account. It is what we often hear called the “cleansing of the temple“. The thing we must take into account when reading this passage is what Jesus attacks. He overturns the tables of the moneychangers and the tables of those selling doves.

The obvious question is why, and that answer is (of course) found in the historical context of the time. You see, the moneychangers were present for one purpose alone: to facilitate the payment of the Temple tax. A tax, by the way, that went directly to the funding of Rome and its Imperial cult. By overturning the tables and driving these men out, Jesus was making a bold statement about the presence of the Roman Empire in the Temple of God.

But what about the doves? Why overturn those tables?

That answer is a little more complicated, but very important nonetheless. While there is no restriction on doves in the Levitical law, many sources detail the implementation of such restrictions by the Temple leaders in this time. While doves were never require to be without blemish before, the Temple leaders took it upon themselves to add this requirement. This becomes significant when we understand that these men held a monopoly on the purchase of sacrificial doves. You see, the men who oversaw the sale of doves to the poor were, according to nearly all historical accounts, the same men who oversaw the sacrifice of the doves. It was up to them to approve or turn down doves for sacrifice. By the time of Christ, it got to the point that any dove not purchased at the Temple would be rejected. Prices of doves had gone through the roof. The priests who were supposed to be serving the poor were instead robbing them. Hence turning a house of prayer into a den of robbers.

Where this gets really fascinating for me is when we look at the motivation behind these acts. The Temple was essentially under control Rome. By the time Jesus came onto the scene, the Temple was just another gear in the machine of the Roman Empire. It no longer served God, for Rome had become its new master.

Through this, we can see Mark’s framing of the moneychangers account with the story of the fig tree symbolized that the Temple was now a part of the Roman Empire that Christ was rebuking.

This is also the reason for Mark’s clarification that is “wasn’t the time for figs.” That line was a statement of declaration that the time of the Roman Empire was at an end. Not only that, but also that the Roman Empire’s stranglehold on the Temple of God was seeing its last days.

Again, we can see that this passage was a declaration of freedom to its readers. “The time of Rome is coming to an end! The Kingdom of God is at hand!”

This also relates to the variation between Matthew and Mark about how the fig tree withered. It is directly related to the time the books were written. I want to clarify, before I go into this, that I am in no way suggesting that the writers fudged their accounts to coincide with what was happening in Rome at the time. I am actually suggesting that the events of the time affected the authors’ memories of the situation in a way that made the message even stronger for the reader. In other words, I suggest the following is a byproduct of the Holy Spirit. lol.

As previously mentioned, Mark was written at least ten years prior to Matthew - specifically, some time around 58 AD. The Ficus Ruminalis started to whither in 58 AD (a process that took a number of years to finish). I would like to suggest that Mark’s description of the fig tree withering “from the roots up” was a nod to this event taking place. It was a message that “these things take time, and some times when they start you can’t see it happening yet, but have faith. Our God is faithful.”

Matthew was written a number of years after the Ficus Ruminalis withered, so in my eyes Matthew’s account tells its reader that the work had already begun - Rome had already started to crumble. Its grip on the Temple had been loosed, and its days were numbered.

In summation, these passages are speaking to three elements. The Evil Empire (in this case, Rome), the presence of sin in the world, and the corruption of the Church by the World (in this case, the Temple and Rome). Most importantly, it is a message of hope. Christ has dominion over it all. Through him, we have the power to overcome the seemingly invincible. Praise be to God! If that doesn’t put a smile on your face, I don’t know what would.

So that’s it for my analysis of fig trees within the context of Roman Imperialism and the New Testament. Again, I apologize for the long-winded entry. I hope you got plenty out of it nonetheless. I’ll be back soon to start a new topic. I’d tell you what it is, but I don’t want to spoil the surprise. Until then, walk with confidence in Christ.

Iconoclast out.

I know it took me a while to get to this post. My apologies. I have been working diligently on a few screenplays.

I have spent a great deal of time on fig trees within New Testament writings. Something that, hopefully, you got a lot out of. In this post, I will be addressing other views on the verses mentioned. There are a number of theories - both plausible and not - especially in regards to the verses in Matthew and Mark.

The first thing I want to acknowledge is the fig three as a symbol of the fall of man. It is, in my opinion, another layer to these passages. It is absolutely founded, and something that I feel adds to the metaphors we have already discussed. To explain this, I will be acknowledging the concept of “first mention”.

For those of you who haven’t read Velvet Elvis (or did a while ago and don’t remember this section), Rob Bell explains that there are “methods to help decipher all the hidden meanings in a text. One is called the principle of first mention. Whenever you come across a significant word in a passage, find out where this word first appears in the Bible.” (Velvet Elvis, p. 156) In doing so, you can often get a clearer picture of what is being discussed.

What is the first mention of fig trees in Scripture?

If you were thinking the fall of man in Genesis 3, you win a grape. In verse 6, the sin happens. Adam and Eve then immediately (I would imagine, since it is their first act post-sin) “sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.”

So we see there is an association with the fig tree and the shame of man and his sin. Because of this, another layer in all the verses I have discussed is the idea that sin itself is being rebuked. When Christ rebukes the fig tree, it can be understood he in turn rebukes the power of sin in the world. He thus warns sin, its days are numbered.

Now let us be clear, this in no way negates the historical context we have discussed thus far. It builds on top of it. Allow me to explain. Rome came to power through murder, destruction and thievery. They were idolaters who reveled in debauchery. Greed was the driving force of their economy, jealousy its fuel. It was an empire built on sin.

An empire that, it has been illustrated a thousand times over, is not all that dissimilar to our own.

Through this we can see that Christ is not only rebuking the fig tree, nor only the empire of Rome, but the very foundations of sin in the world. The empire of Rome was built firmly upon those foundations. It was not the only construct of the time built upon said foundations, but that will have to wait until next time.

I hope to be back on a few days to finish this epilogue. Until then, stay safe… and don’t wear fig leaves. Please.

So far in this study, I have examined passages in Matthew and Mark. I have pried into their historical and cultural context, and highlighted the themes of empirical oppression and Christ’s promise to free us from it. Essentially, I parallelled the fig tree in the passages to the Ficus Ruminalis of Rome, the mountain to the Palatine Hill, and Christ’s rebuke of said fig tree as a pronunciation of his power over the seemingly invincible empire.

Which, of course, brings me to the book of James.

I was reading James 3 at church two weeks ago, and I saw something come together in my head. Read the following verses with everything I have discussed in the back of your mind.

James 3:10-12
…from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a [grapevine] produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.

This passage is laced with subversively anti-empirical language. See, James is comparing a fig tree and its fruit to a fountain of bitter (salt) water. Think of it this way: if you were dehydrated and dying of thirst, what would happen if you drank from a fountain of saltwater?

You would become even more dehydrated, and (if dehydrated enough) quite possibly die.

Saltwater has every appearance of life-giving water at first glance. However, in reality it does the exact opposite of what freshwater does. So basically, freshwater = life and saltwater = death.

In the middle of the statement comparing cursing and blessing to saltwater and freshwater, James makes a few comparisons. Normally, these statements would be used to clarify the point of the metaphor. However, upon first glance they seem to be redundant, or even make it more confusing. The whole purpose of such metaphors is to compare something good to something bad, thus emphasizing the point of the argument.

However, James uses seemingly random forms of vegetation which hold no characteristics of “good” or “bad”.

Unless, of course, you take into consideration Biblical and historical context. He first asks if a fig tree can bear olives. Why?

Throughout the Pauline texts, Abraham’s lineage is referred to as an olive tree. This isn’t the case throughout much of scripture, but Paul focuses on the metaphor quite a bit.

This would normally not really matter, but we have to take into account when these texts were written. It is commonly believed that Paul’s letter to the Romans was written sometime in the mid to late 50s AD (54 AD, specifically), with the earliest possible date being 51 and the latest being 58. James, on the other hand, was most likely written some time closer to 60 AD, but before James’ death in 62.

There is, of course, question as to the authorship and time frame of the Epistle of James, but there is one aspect in particular that cements its history. Many scholars firmly believe that a number of passages in James’ Epistle are focused squarely on the writings of Paul in his letter to the Romans. There is a growing definition of Pauline Christians and Jamesian Christians, based on the understanding that James uses sections of his letter to expand on and clarify the theology Paul discusses.

Based on this, it is safe to come to an understanding that James is referencing Paul’s usage of the olive tree in said letter. Thus, if we take into account James’ place in history we see the full breadth of his imagery in this passage. He is indeed comparing something good to something bad.

In proper perspective we can understand that James’ first metaphor is asking if Rome is capable of producing the offspring of Abraham. In other words, is the Empire that produces death capable of producing righteousness?

He then asks if a grapevine can produce figs. Some deductive reasoning can determine that James’ reference to the grapevine is actually a reference to Christ.

You may think I am being presumptuous, but I assure you I am not. In fact, Christ refers to himself as the vine numerous times in the Gospel of John. Beyond that, he refers to the wine of passover as his blood. We also see reference to wineskins as metaphors for the covenants between God and man (focusing on that of Christ).

So here James is actually asking if the vine that gives life (Christ) can produce the fruit of death (figs, the “produce” of Rome).

So, to put the whole passage in that cultural context, we see that it could read:

…from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can Rome, my brethren, produce offspring of Abraham, or the blood of Christ produce death? Nor can salt water produce fresh.

In light of all this, we see that James is making a powerful statement about the tongue. He was essentially saying that when you do not control your tongue, you are becoming just like the evil empire that oppresses you. There is a lot more backing for this theology, but it will have to wait until I start to talk about Demons, Evil and Satan. That is, of course, for another time though.

I will be back soon with more on fig trees. Doesn’t that sound so appealing? I know you just wait for my posts like the latest episodes of Lost. Well don’t worry. We’ll talk more tomorrow. Until then, don’t drink any saltwater.

I just wanted to take a break from my posts about fig trees to wish you all a merry Christmas.

I’ll leave you with a brief thought. Each of the gospels opens with the coming of Christ in one form or another. Reading each of them can give us great insight into the intentions of the authors. In Matthew, Christ is framed as the “second Moses”. The book of Mark focuses on Christ as the Son of God. The book of Luke frames him as the “second Adam”. Lastly, the book of John focuses on his Godhood - specifically, Christ as the Word made flesh.

I hope you are all doing well, and that you have a wonderful Christmas.

Just a quick nod to my good friend Mathias Gloom, who designed a new banner for my other site, http://jonnyatlasinc.com. Go check it out, and check out his site to see more of his work. He’s amazing.

This place will soon be bursting with words, starting with an analysis of the fig tree as a metaphor within the context of the New Testament.

Thanks for stopping by.