PDA

View Full Version : The fig tree, the vine, and the olive branches.



theleast
Jul 5th 2008, 08:34 PM
Let us begin with scripture...

Amos 4:9 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Amos+4:9&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Amos+4&version=9)
I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

Habakkuk 3:17 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Habakkuk+3:17&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Habakkuk+3&version=9)
Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:
James 3:12 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+3:12&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+3&version=9)
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

So what exactly are the fig tree, the vine, and the olive branches?

Before I speak on them I would like to give others the chance.

Discuss.

ShirleyFord
Jul 6th 2008, 12:41 AM
So what exactly are the fig tree, the vine, and the olive branches?


The vine and its branches;

Jn 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jn 15:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

Jn 15:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Jesus is the vine.

Two types of branches:

1. True branches on the vine abide in the vine and bear fruit
2. False branches on the vine don't and don't bear fruit

The Father cuts the false branches off the true vine so the true branches can grow and sprout more and bear more fruit:

Branches


Jesus is the root of the good olive true

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.


Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.

DadBurnett
Jul 6th 2008, 06:10 AM
The vine and its branches;

Jn 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Jn 15:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

Jn 15:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Jesus is the vine.

Two types of branches:

1. True branches on the vine abide in the vine and bear fruit
2. False branches on the vine don't and don't bear fruit

The Father cuts the false branches off the true vine so the true branches can grow and sprout more and bear more fruit:

Branches


Jesus is the root of the good olive true

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.


Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Rom 15:12 And again, Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.
Seems to be a big leap here, unless I'm missing something. I can find nothing that says anything about branches being false or true. The comparison for branches is that some bear fruit and some don't.
In your quotes, the word "false" does not appear and "true" is used only with reference to the vine. I'm left wondering how these scriptures can be made to say something other than what they say? What am I missing here?

ShirleyFord
Jul 6th 2008, 01:25 PM
Seems to be a big leap here, unless I'm missing something. I can find nothing that says anything about branches being false or true. The comparison for branches is that some bear fruit and some don't.
In your quotes, the word "false" does not appear and "true" is used only with reference to the vine. I'm left wondering how these scriptures can be made to say something other than what they say? What am I missing here?


What about the words of Jesus Himself Burnett?


John 15
1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.


Matt 7
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

DadBurnett
Jul 7th 2008, 12:33 AM
What about the words of Jesus Himself Burnett?

Thanks.
I have no problem with any of the words of Jesus. What I reacted to in the earlier post was the appearance of someone putting words into Jesus’ mouth, implying that He said something that is not anywhere written in these verses. What I saw written in that post was:

“Two types of branches:
1. True branches on the vine abide in the vine and bear fruit
2. False branches on the vine don't and don't bear fruit”

Jesus did not say that the branches were either false or true, He spoke only of branches bearing (or not bearing) fruit. The word true was used only with respect to the vine and the word false is not anywhere therein mentioned.
I wondered why the simple straightforward words Jesus were not enough. Why was it necessary, or even appropriate, to add something to, or reinterpret, what Jesus specifically and purposefully said of the branches?

BroRog
Jul 7th 2008, 01:35 AM
Let us begin with scripture...

Amos 4:9 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Amos+4:9&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Amos+4&version=9)
I have smitten you with blasting and mildew: when your gardens and your vineyards and your fig trees and your olive trees increased, the palmerworm devoured them: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.

Habakkuk 3:17 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Habakkuk+3:17&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Habakkuk+3&version=9)
Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:
James 3:12 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+3:12&version=9) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=James+3&version=9)
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

So what exactly are the fig tree, the vine, and the olive branches?

Before I speak on them I would like to give others the chance.

Discuss.

In the passages you quote, I believe each plant is just a plant and not symbolic for anything.

theleast
Jul 8th 2008, 12:40 AM
Let us take another look at scripture with this parable...

6He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

7Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Now we know that Christ is the true vine for scripture tells us so.

Scripture also tells us what fruit is...

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

So fruit is the good works that people do which brings people to God and Christ.

Can we at least agree on what the vine is and what fruit is before we continue?

Teke
Jul 8th 2008, 02:40 PM
So what exactly are the fig tree, the vine, and the olive branches?



They are metaphors.

Things God created (dirt, seeds, plants, animals) are used in metaphors to relate spiritual concepts. It is a theme throughout scripture. :)

Esperanza32
Jul 8th 2008, 03:05 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a long stretch to say that the "vine" mentioned in the Amos passage has anything to do with Jesus calling himself the "vine" later in John.

The first is a literal viney plant--which God afflicted with blight, mildew, and insects to cause the people to turn to him (which they didn't). The second is a powerful metaphor Jesus used to describe how we (his followers) get all our sustenance from him and can't live without him.

There's no need to stretch scripture beyond what it says. Sometimes a vine is just a vine.

(But tell me if I missed the point--that happens sometimes.)

theleast
Jul 9th 2008, 05:10 AM
Much of what happens in OT scripture is a foreshadowing of things to come.

In that particular verse, the palmerworm is also important, but that's probably a debate for a whole other thread.

You don't find it telling that the vine and the fig tree parallel each other often in scripture?

Here is another reference with the figs, olives, and vine.

7And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.
8The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
9But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
10And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
11But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
12Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.
13And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
14Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. 15And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

Coincidence? I think not.

We know what the vine is for Christ said it was him, and we know what the olive branches are through revelation.

So what is the fig tree? Bear in mind that it has fruit. :D

RabbiKnife
Jul 9th 2008, 02:12 PM
In the passages cited in the first post (Amos, Habukkuk, and James), the fig, olive, and vine are just that. Plants.

Nothing symbolic at all and a gross error to attempt to extrapolate anything on top of the plain language of the text.

theleast
Jul 9th 2008, 02:21 PM
In the passages cited in the first post (Amos, Habukkuk, and James), the fig, olive, and vine are just that. Plants.

Nothing symbolic at all and a gross error to attempt to extrapolate anything on top of the plain language of the text.

Then I guess we are just going to have to disagree.

The vine, the olive branches, and the fig tree, are a consistent theme together throughout scripture. They are very often together. This is not coincidence. To write them off as nothing more than plants is the gross error in my opinion.

Christ tells us exactly what the vine is, and revelations tells us exactly what the olive branches are. The fig tree is in the middle of the vineyard in one parable, and is being shaken by a mighty wind in yet another, so that the bad fruits fall off of it. In other scriptures there are also leaves that fall off of the vine. In another scripture the fig tree that bears no fruit Christ touches so that it dries up.

Every single piece of scripture there is has a deeper meaning than what first appears.

Including this one...

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

RabbiKnife
Jul 9th 2008, 02:25 PM
Every single piece of scripture there is has a deeper meaning than what first appears.



Poppycock and balderdash. Ninnyhammers.

The Scripture says exactly what is says and what it meant to original hearer or reader and absolutely nothing else. Only when we understand what the original audience understood can we then attempt to make a parallel application to our lives in our cultures.

But there is no "deeper meaning". Period. Esoteric postmodern gobbledygook.

Teke
Jul 9th 2008, 07:41 PM
Much of what happens in OT scripture is a foreshadowing of things to come.

In that particular verse, the palmerworm is also important, but that's probably a debate for a whole other thread.

You don't find it telling that the vine and the fig tree parallel each other often in scripture?

Here is another reference with the figs, olives, and vine.

7And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.
8The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
9But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
10And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
11But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
12Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.
13And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
14Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. 15And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.



Foreshadowing? Those words speak to the mockery of kingship not anointed by God. The words speak of what is happening with Abimelech seeking to be king.

theleast
Jul 9th 2008, 09:18 PM
Foreshadowing? Those words speak to the mockery of kingship not anointed by God. The words speak of what is happening with Abimelech seeking to be king.

That's it eh?

Then why did he speak in a parable instead of clear words?

There is all sorts of foreshadowing in scripture. For example...

1And it came to pass, when the king sat in his house, and the LORD had given him rest round about from all his enemies;

2That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth within curtains.
3And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee.
4And it came to pass that night, that the word of the LORD came unto Nathan, saying, 5Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?

Now David then proceeds to build the temple of the Lord. But what other temple did David build? The temple of Christ. And God dwelled within the temple of Jerusalem, but what temple does he dwell in now? The temple of Christ.

Foreshadowing.

History repeats itself.

And there is foreshadowing in that parable too.

threebigrocks
Jul 9th 2008, 11:51 PM
Nobody sees it? :hmm: It's so very symbolic!

Simply, it's selfrighteousness.

Genesis 3



6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.



Representative of covering their nakedness for the righteousness they had before sin was gone after having eaten the fruit. So THE MADE their own covering. Fig leaves.

We then have a few short verses later God made them animal skins to cover themselves with. I'll betchya those animals were dead by the time they wore them. :lol: God killed - sacrafice - to be yet another covering for their "nakedness".

Mark 11


12On the next day, when they had left Bethany, He became hungry.
13Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again!" And His disciples were listening.



Nothing but leaves. Self righteousness does not bear any fruit. The Jews depended on seasons and times to cover their self righteousness through sacrafice and sin offering. But we (those under grace and the righteousness of Christ) are commaned to produce fruit in AND out of season.

Matthew 24


32"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; 33so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door.



Again, leaves - no fruit. Again, when the sacrafices resume when the temple is rebuilt it is to cover themselves in self righteousness. He does not desire sacrafice and blood offerings - He desires our heart! Any other covering or sacrafice aside from Christ is from ourselves and has no redeeming factor.

theleast
Jul 10th 2008, 12:54 AM
Nobody sees it? :hmm: It's so very symbolic!

Simply, it's selfrighteousness.

Genesis 3



Representative of covering their nakedness for the righteousness they had before sin was gone after having eaten the fruit. So THE MADE their own covering. Fig leaves.

We then have a few short verses later God made them animal skins to cover themselves with. I'll betchya those animals were dead by the time they wore them. :lol: God killed - sacrafice - to be yet another covering for their "nakedness".

Mark 11


Nothing but leaves. Self righteousness does not bear any fruit. The Jews depended on seasons and times to cover their self righteousness through sacrafice and sin offering. But we (those under grace and the righteousness of Christ) are commaned to produce fruit in AND out of season.

Matthew 24


Again, leaves - no fruit. Again, when the sacrafices resume when the temple is rebuilt it is to cover themselves in self righteousness. He does not desire sacrafice and blood offerings - He desires our heart! Any other covering or sacrafice aside from Christ is from ourselves and has no redeeming factor.

Finally!

Thank you so much for this post.

I agree with you completely on your analysis of Genesis. But the scripture doesn't say they were covered with animal skins....just skins. ;)

You bring up a good point there about that parable in Matthew 24. I hadn't really had that parable in mind with this discussion, but it is relative. I'll check that out tonight.

O.K. threebigrocks. Here is a good verse for you then.

Jeremiah 8

12Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among them that fall: in the time of their visitation they shall be cast down, saith the LORD.
13I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.

No fruit. :)

Also the word abomination is consistent with false religion, but that's a discussion for another thread perhaps.

threebigrocks
Jul 10th 2008, 01:03 AM
Finally!

Thank you so much for this post.

I agree with you completely on your analysis of Genesis. But the scripture doesn't say they were covered with animal skins....just skins. ;)

Okay, well, ya got me there. But skins only come from mammals - dead ones! As Adam and Eve were the only two humans and neither of them were killed by God - don't leave much room for any other option but an animal. ;)



Also the word abomination is consistent with false religion, but that's a discussion for another thread perhaps.

Ah, yeah... definately another thread.

Teke
Jul 10th 2008, 03:14 PM
Then why did he speak in a parable instead of clear words?

.

Because it's a nicer way of reasoning than telling someone outright they are wrong. :)

threebigrocks
Jul 10th 2008, 08:50 PM
Because it's a nicer way of reasoning than telling someone outright they are wrong. :)

:hmm: Well, Jesus overturned tables in the temple, told the Pharasees and Sadducess they they were vain, hypocrates, lovers of self. He did tell people they were outright wrong.

Christ taught in parables, and that was not the same as rebuke. Purpose being that those who could understand it would have it revealed to them not by their own understanding, but of heavenly knowledge and truth.

Teke
Jul 11th 2008, 04:29 PM
:hmm: Well, Jesus overturned tables in the temple, told the Pharasees and Sadducess they they were vain, hypocrates, lovers of self. He did tell people they were outright wrong.

Some people need tough love and to be confronted with purpose. Kindling doesn't burn without the spark/flame put to it.


Christ taught in parables, and that was not the same as rebuke.
Parables aren't necessarily rebukes.
A parable can be like a sermon that makes one think. Sound reasoning can lead to conviction, not from another, but from the one who reasons with their self the meaning of the words.

Jhn 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Jhn 8:13 ¶ The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.

Jhn 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, [yet] my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Jhn 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Jhn 8:16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

Jhn 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Jhn 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Jhn 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.



Purpose being that those who could understand it would have it revealed to them not by their own understanding, but of heavenly knowledge and truth.

That we see "purpose" is needful for us. We also need understanding to understand spiritual truths. We open the door of our heart or we don't.

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

threebigrocks
Jul 11th 2008, 05:12 PM
Some people need tough love and to be confronted with purpose. Kindling doesn't burn without the spark/flame put to it.

But I thought you were saying that Jesus was just being "nice"?




Parables aren't necessarily rebukes.
A parable can be like a sermon that makes one think. Sound reasoning can lead to conviction, not from another, but from the one who reasons with their self the meaning of the words.


Well, that's pretty much what I said, that parables were for teaching, not rebuking. If we are willing to be taught and seek the things of God, the Spirit will work in us and teach us things that we cannot understand through revelation. Scripture and Spirit will lead us into all knowledge and understanding. Yes, we may need to let it roll around in our heads, ponder them, but revelation of truth will come if we continue to honestly and humbly seek.

threebigrocks
Jul 11th 2008, 05:16 PM
Fig leaves Teke. It's a symbolic and literal meaning throughout scripture. It does apply to Israel and her broken state, and anyone who stands under the self righteousness they have chosen to cover themselves with.

Self righteousness doesn't bear fruit because that is not of the Spirit. Standing under the righteousness of Christ and not our own is of the Spirit.

BroRog
Jul 11th 2008, 06:39 PM
It appears that a principle of Biblical interpretation underlies the discussion here, namely, the principle of "First Mention". According to this principle, once the Bible uses a term or a phrase to mean something, it continues to have that same meaning throughout the rest of the Bible.

So, for instance, if God uses a vine to represent Jesus, any time a vine is mentioned after that, it always refers to Jesus.

I disagree with this principle, siding with those who think symbols should be taken on a case by case basis.

As an example, compare Jesus parable of The Sower in which birds eating seed represent Satan's activities, with the parable of the Mustard Seed and the Large Tree in which the birds represent something good and wholesome, not evil.

The principle of First Mention does not hold up in this case and I doubt it holds up at all.

RabbiKnife
Jul 11th 2008, 06:43 PM
Agreed, BroRog...sometimes a fig is just a filling for a Newton...

Teke
Jul 11th 2008, 07:15 PM
But I thought you were saying that Jesus was just being "nice"?


Whatever He does is "nice". To say otherwise would be esoteric.


Well, that's pretty much what I said, that parables were for teaching, not rebuking.

Parables are also for response. Teachings can have many different responses.


If we are willing to be taught and seek the things of God, the Spirit will work in us and teach us things that we cannot understand through revelation. Scripture and Spirit will lead us into all knowledge and understanding. Yes, we may need to let it roll around in our heads, ponder them, but revelation of truth will come if we continue to honestly and humbly seek.

Indeed. :)

Teke
Jul 11th 2008, 07:38 PM
Fig leaves Teke. It's a symbolic and literal meaning throughout scripture. It does apply to Israel and her broken state, and anyone who stands under the self righteousness they have chosen to cover themselves with.


A bit ethnocentric eh....

I don't see Adam as Israel. I don't see Adam as self-righteous. That they "covered" themselves shows their ability to recognize their shame. It is shame that is being covered. As God's children they behaved shamefully. It's not about being "broken".
Christians should get the message that it is shameful for God's children to act shamefully. And if they do there are consequences to face responsibly (repentance and or penance).

WELL
Jul 11th 2008, 07:41 PM
Let us take another look at scripture with this parable...

6He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none.

7Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?
8And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Now we know that Christ is the true vine for scripture tells us so.

Scripture also tells us what fruit is...

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

So fruit is the good works that people do which brings people to God and Christ.

Can we at least agree on what the vine is and what fruit is before we continue?

Yes I agree! I think some people try and spiritualize too much.

Teke
Jul 11th 2008, 07:42 PM
It appears that a principle of Biblical interpretation underlies the discussion here, namely, the principle of "First Mention". According to this principle, once the Bible uses a term or a phrase to mean something, it continues to have that same meaning throughout the rest of the Bible.

So, for instance, if God uses a vine to represent Jesus, any time a vine is mentioned after that, it always refers to Jesus.

I disagree with this principle, siding with those who think symbols should be taken on a case by case basis.

As an example, compare Jesus parable of The Sower in which birds eating seed represent Satan's activities, with the parable of the Mustard Seed and the Large Tree in which the birds represent something good and wholesome, not evil.

The principle of First Mention does not hold up in this case and I doubt it holds up at all.

Many a sermon has used this technique. The conditioning begets cliche.

WELL
Jul 11th 2008, 07:45 PM
It appears that a principle of Biblical interpretation underlies the discussion here, namely, the principle of "First Mention". According to this principle, once the Bible uses a term or a phrase to mean something, it continues to have that same meaning throughout the rest of the Bible.

So, for instance, if God uses a vine to represent Jesus, any time a vine is mentioned after that, it always refers to Jesus.

I disagree with this principle, siding with those who think symbols should be taken on a case by case basis.

As an example, compare Jesus parable of The Sower in which birds eating seed represent Satan's activities, with the parable of the Mustard Seed and the Large Tree in which the birds represent something good and wholesome, not evil.

The principle of First Mention does not hold up in this case and I doubt it holds up at all.

Good point!
Do you know of any particuliar denomination that uses this "first mension" principle?

Ta-An
Jul 11th 2008, 07:48 PM
Every single piece of scripture there is has a deeper meaning than what first appears.
.You are 100% correct!! 4 levels of interpretation indeed :idea:

Ta-An
Jul 11th 2008, 07:51 PM
Poppycock and balderdash. Ninnyhammers. Not everyone appreciates language like this on a Christian Message board :rolleyes:


The Scripture says exactly what is says and what it meant to original hearer or reader and absolutely nothing else. Only when we understand what the original audience understood can we then attempt to make a parallel application to our lives in our cultures.

But there is no "deeper meaning". Period. Esoteric postmodern gobbledygook. Firstly scripture says exactly what it says.... face value, correct..... but there is more to it than what meets the eye ;)

Ta-An
Jul 11th 2008, 07:52 PM
Nobody sees it? :hmm: It's so very symbolic!

Simply, it's selfrighteousness.

Genesis 3



Representative of covering their nakedness for the righteousness they had before sin was gone after having eaten the fruit. So THE MADE their own covering. Fig leaves.

We then have a few short verses later God made them animal skins to cover themselves with. I'll betchya those animals were dead by the time they wore them. :lol: God killed - sacrafice - to be yet another covering for their "nakedness".

Mark 11


Nothing but leaves. Self righteousness does not bear any fruit. The Jews depended on seasons and times to cover their self righteousness through sacrafice and sin offering. But we (those under grace and the righteousness of Christ) are commaned to produce fruit in AND out of season.

Matthew 24


Again, leaves - no fruit. Again, when the sacrafices resume when the temple is rebuilt it is to cover themselves in self righteousness. He does not desire sacrafice and blood offerings - He desires our heart! Any other covering or sacrafice aside from Christ is from ourselves and has no redeeming factor. Well Done!!! You are eating my reps :rolleyes:

WELL
Jul 11th 2008, 07:53 PM
Regarding parables:Well, in a sense, they can be a form of rebuke, like
King James Version Luke 16

1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed.

4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.

5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?

6 And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.

7 Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore.

8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

10 He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

11 If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?

13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Just to add to the conversation, it's interesting!
The Pharisees were in a sense rebuked , were they not?

threebigrocks
Jul 11th 2008, 07:58 PM
Agreed, BroRog...sometimes a fig is just a filling for a Newton...

Well, if you can find me a Fig Newton in scripture I'll rethink what the Spirit and study has shown me.

There are inumerable patterns throughout scripture that will blow ones mind when they are seen. Nothing in scripture stands on it's own. When rightly divided they are revealed as knowledge is given to understand. Took me a time to put aside the fact that scripture can indeed be that simple. It is, and yet so incredibly deep.


Well Done!!! You are eating my reps :rolleyes:

Good! After the cookie thing and weeding the garden - I'm hungry! :D

WELL
Jul 11th 2008, 07:59 PM
Mark 11


Nothing but leaves. Self righteousness does not bear any fruit. The Jews depended on seasons and times to cover their self righteousness through sacrafice and sin offering. But we (those under grace and the righteousness of Christ) are commaned to produce fruit in AND out of season.

Matthew 24


Again, leaves - no fruit. Again, when the sacrafices resume when the temple is rebuilt it is to cover themselves in self righteousness. He does not desire sacrafice and blood offerings - He desires our heart! Any other covering or sacrafice aside from Christ is from ourselves and has no redeeming factor.

This is fantastic! I hope others will get to read this!
It takes the focus off the flesh, and onto producing Fruit that lasts!

John 15:
8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

WELL
Jul 11th 2008, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by RabbiKnife http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1703155#post1703155)
Poppycock and balderdash. Ninnyhammers.
Originally Posted by ACCM
Not everyone appreciates language like this on a Christian Message board :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by RabbiKnife

The Scripture says exactly what is says and what it meant to original hearer or reader and absolutely nothing else. Only when we understand what the original audience understood can we then attempt to make a parallel application to our lives in our cultures.

But there is no "deeper meaning". Period. Esoteric postmodern gobbledygook.
Firstly scripture says exactly what it says.... face value, correct..... but there is more to it than what meets the eyeI'm not sure what's going on here, but Christ can be understood, especialy by the poor, so I don't think we should try read into this too much.

Lk 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

threebigrocks
Jul 11th 2008, 08:14 PM
A bit ethnocentric eh....

I don't see Adam as Israel. I don't see Adam as self-righteous. That they "covered" themselves shows their ability to recognize their shame. It is shame that is being covered. As God's children they behaved shamefully. It's not about being "broken".
Christians should get the message that it is shameful for God's children to act shamefully. And if they do there are consequences to face responsibly (repentance and or penance).


And you don't see that "kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar" thing going on when they heard God coming to them in the garden? It's like finding no evidence except two kids with smudes of chocolate and traces of crumbs on their face. They tried to coverup with their own good in order to look no different to God and hide their shame which resulted from their knowledge of sin because they ate the fruit. Didn't work, because they heard the footsteps of God coming for them and He already knew - God knows the heart. Their efforts were 'fruitless'!

threebigrocks
Jul 11th 2008, 08:20 PM
I'm not sure what's going on here, but Christ can be understood, especialy by the poor, so I don't think we should try read into this too much.

Yes! Look at who he called to be apostles: not the super intelligent educated men - but the smelly, dirty, poor, hardworking, blue collar uneducated men. Blessed are the poor, the hungry, the naked, the sick. It was those who saw a need for the hope He gave, who had nothing, who had been humbled by life and had been stripped of self righteousness. It was those who could receive him because they were needy.

Brother Mark
Jul 11th 2008, 08:21 PM
And you don't see that "kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar" thing going on when they heard God coming to them in the garden? It's like finding no evidence except two kids with smudes of chocolate and traces of crumbs on their face. They tried to coverup with their own good in order to look no different to God and hide their shame which resulted from their knowledge of sin because they ate the fruit. Didn't work, because they heard the footsteps of God coming for them and He already knew - God knows the heart. Their efforts were 'fruitless'!

Yes they were. It was about shame but it was also about what man could do to remove his shame. We can't remove our own shame and nothing we can do will clothe us! Throughout scripture clothes are symbolic and the man that shows up at the wedding feast without the proper clothes is quickly kicked out. God did not allow Adam and Eve to stay clothed in their "fig leaves" as they were inadequate. Instead he offered them clothes from an animal that was slaughtered. Eventually, we are covered in the robe of righteousness of Christ that was slaughtered for our sins as the animals were slaughtered for Adam and Eve.

Shame often leads us to do many works in order to hide our nakedness before God. They didn't cover our nakedness in God's eyes in the Garden nor will they now.

I really enjoyed your take on the whole thing and was just adding my 2 cents.

BroRog
Jul 12th 2008, 12:43 AM
Good point!
Do you know of any particuliar denomination that uses this "first mension" principle?

I don't know if this technique is unique to any one denomination. Perhaps others know.

Brother Mark
Jul 12th 2008, 12:50 AM
Because it's a nicer way of reasoning than telling someone outright they are wrong. :)

Scripture says he spoke in parables in order to hide the truth. ;)

theleast
Jul 12th 2008, 01:28 AM
Scripture says he spoke in parables in order to hide the truth. ;)

Yup...

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Brother Mark
Jul 12th 2008, 01:37 AM
I don't know if this technique is unique to any one denomination. Perhaps others know.

I don't think it is unique to one denomination. I have heard it used by many believers in different denominations.

Brother Mark
Jul 12th 2008, 01:38 AM
Yup...

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Indeed! It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. But it is the glory of kings to search it out. (Proverbs 25:2). For those that wish to rule and reign with one Christ Jesus, they will search out the hidden things of God for they have the heart of kings!