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.