Finally!! In my 7 decades, this story has bothered me so much. Every preacher just skipped over it. I'm like, dang JC, poor little tree. Now, it's adios temple.
I think that's a new interpretation to me. Having grown up in the church and certainly having heard a few sermons about or including that passage or Bible studies which included that passage, I don't think I'd ever heard that interpretation. In my memory it was always viewed as it's own thing, not connected with the temple. The interpretation I recall being told was this was Jesus showing his power and being hungry and not happy that the fig tree didn't just up and produce fruit for him as he came up to it. Dan's interpretation makes more sense, but also speaks to the varied interpretations across time and groups.
I've always heard of it being both connected, at least that's what I was taught in church, with the parallel being specifically that Christians should bear fruit as the Pharisees and fig tree didn't but I've never heard it interpreted as foreshadowing a solution through the resurrection.
That's interesting, because both in Foursquare and SBC I've consistently heard that the fig tree was an interpretive wrapper for the temple cleansing story.
There's traditional interpretations vs things academics find and piece together. Dan is not explaining a new interpretation, and very often the explanations we hear growing up are not always what the text is meant to have said. For example. Who wrote the Torah? Tradition: Moses More likely: different scribes and communities over extended period of time. Why: not every verse or book of the Torah has content that appears to be all from the same time period and there are competing details on them. Moses also dies in the Torah, he's likely not writing this scripture in third person from the grave. Most of these verses where experts give more context are not always going to be compatible with traditions depending on which ones we're talking about. The fig tree should not be seen as having no connection to the temple, given the symbolism of fig trees throughout the bible, and what is being articulated in this story.
Maybe it’s new. But I’m in my forties and have always heard that story and subsequent interpretation. But alone that story doesn’t make any sense. Reading mark it flows together. I laughed at the LCK bit but understood that it was only hilarious if you hadn’t read the text.😅
Yeah, I never understood the fig tree story either. Super interesting. Thanks, Dan! Also I love hearing Louis CK talk about the Bible. He has the old bit about Abraham and Isaac that’s one of my favorites.
Have faith in god and your fruit will always be in season! Some people derive their purpose from nature, while others derive their purpose from God himself.
Nature is of God. Farmers learned more about God and the working of the universe than all the priests in their temples. Even though these people working hand in hand with God were called pagans.
It happens to also highlight that Jews didn’t EXPECT Jesus or what Jesus did to foreshadow him being the Messiah AND Yahweh also. So it was “not the season” for Jews to convert to Christianity. But the temple cult ended specifically so the story can be constrained to that. Modern rabbis Judaism is really a few hundred years after the temple was destroyed, so one could say the figs tree resurrected themselves without the “tree” of the temple being rebuilt on the blood soaked live animal sacrifice ground.
I always thought this section was ridiculous, same as Louis, but I'm glad to hear this explanation and see a different way to understand it. Thanks for adding more context tot his story.
I'm surprised how many comments from people saying they've never heard this interpretation. It's the only way I've ever heard this passage taught. It's just about the only way to make sense of it.
Agreed. Its always been seen as a literary technique to bracket the story about the temple, making it clear its just a metaphor. There are a number of Markan Sandwiches in that gospel that must be interpreted the same way.
This is why it’s clear you know what you’re talking about, because 1: It makes sense. 2: In 30 years of sermon listening I’ve never heard another preacher outline those verses that way in that context.
@@mccsnackin to be fair, it's not a frequently discussed passage The story I've never heard talked about? Aaron and Miriam criticizing Moses's wife because of her dark skin. God punished them with leprosy, which is funny cause leprosy turns skin white.
The story reminds me of gospels about his childhood and youth where Jesus had anger issues and often was misbehaving. Other incidents in todays Nt also portray Jesus with anger issues
I always loved this passage, full of don't be a crook, don't ask stupid questions, and things have consequences, the sort of things a religion for adults should be saying. And for its part, the bit was hilarious. Thanks for doing your thing, again!
I suppose I ought to comment after watching like a million of your videos and not commenting on any before now. This was so interesting, I've never heard this perspective on this story before. Keep up the good work.
Still, I like to imagine that that was exactly how it happened. Peter: "Hey Jesus, I get you're trying to tell us that the temple is doomed, but did you really have to destroy that tree for the sake of the metaphor?" I also find that the analogy breaks pretty quickly. Maybe the temple wasn't "baring fruit" because it wasn't in season. So because the temple is broken now, it will be broken and doomed forever? Seems kinda harsh, given Jesus is all about forgiveness...
forgiveness is there for those who seek it, but there's more to it. jesus brings the kingdom of god in which the temple is unnecessary. God is accessible to all nations, not just the one with the temple. he offers his own life as a permanently effective sacrifice instead of perpetually offering animals in the temple.
@Barseik Harsh, or doesn't make sense? Absolutely the later, IMO, especially when reading the final chapter of Isaiah, and Zechariah. However, from a Mormon perspective, I believe they consider(ed) themselves the only tribe of "Israel" that remained true to Adonai, and escaped Israel to settle in North America. So, I would guess Mormons believe "the Temple" in Salt Lake City, has replaced that "old testament covenant" location in Israel, and Mormons probably look at Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66, and a rebuilt Temple in Israel, as metaphorical only, and that Salt Lake City is the new Jerusalem, or something like that. But that's just my guess. I don't believe any of the Abrahamic religions, but Christian, and Muslim replacement theology - of Israel - is a major part of their doctrines / dogmas. Here's a very interesting scholarly work dealing with the replacement theology of Christianity, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, by James William Parkes.
I understand why people have trouble with this story. If the fig tree is the temple, and the fig tree is never baring fruit again, then the temple is never coming back. Thus, they won't rebuild the temple and Revelation is simply referencing its destruction in the first century.
@@MusicalRaichu Yeah, I was bored at work, so I looked at a "All About Bluey!" book, which stated that...I felt like that SNL skit that revealed that, according to Sanrio, Hello Kitty is really a little human girl!😂
As a literary device, i guess Dan's explanation makes sense. But if you are reading the Bible and believe that it comports with reality, Im with Loius on this one.
Can you explain what you mean? It is a literary text thus the narrative/literary context is necessary for understanding the significance of Jesus’s actions.
Botany interjection: fig trees grow there leaves from the fruit. To have leaves they must have fruit. If it does not have fruit but does have leaves its not a fig. The tree is litterally lying.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy So the Jewish temple was destroyed because it hadn't reached the season for fruits? If it was corrupted or on poor foundation or mismanaged, there are easy tree analogies to use if this is literary only.
Thank you for such an interesting explanation of that story! What do you think the relevance is of the fig tree not being in in season? This story could have made as much, if not more sense if it was in season and not bearing fruit.
The problem of the season only gets stranger in the context of the metaphor 🧐 do we expect temporal variation in the quality of the output of churches? The fruits of the spirit are only ripe in August?
It makes a lot more sense as a literary device, but since it looks like one of Jesus' miracles, it is used to show that Jesus can engage in malevolence (which his church then follows suit for the next twenty centuries). The devil can cite scripture to his purpose and all that. And to this day, many devils do.
So there is actually a botany explanation here, in the spring fig trees produce fruit before they produce leaves. The leaves come out from the same stem as the fruit. If you are in a region where fig trees are native if you see leaves on a grown fig there is fruit. If all the fruit is picked off then all the leaves will have been picked off as well. Edit: so not all varieties of figs of the fruit and leaves connected. breba figs do not, main crop figs do.
This story only doesn't make sense if you read it simply and literally. If you bring your basic reading comprehension skills to it you can see that the fig tree is a metaphor and that this is itself a parable within the story of Jesus's mission I'm an atheist but i know better than to dismiss a part of the Bible as being nonsensical without actually trying to understand what it is actually trying to convey I think Louis CK is being intentionally dishonest here since he skips over the middle part of the story that gives it context and meaning
He's giving the text about as much scrutiny as most American evangelicals do. The difference is he's doing it for a laugh, not to force an ignorant and harmful ideology on his society.
Many people are poorly catechized, public education is a major issue in the US, and cult like far right Christians emphasize taking things literally. I mean, we're talking about a segment of the population gets angry about people having pronouns, declaring they'll never use them .. while using them. Just fundamentally misunderstanding things so poorly that they try to make transphobic comments and end up making statements that are affirming because they so completely misunderstand the concept.
Dan, love your stuff! Excellent explanation and commentary. One suggestion. Although I don't mind cursing at all, the swearing in this video probably will affect the algorithms distribution of it and makes it more difficult to those that may need to hear this message without being turned off due too the swearing.
So I have a question for you Dan....and I suspect it isn't one that would be easy to answer in a short video. I'd like to know why the consensus of historians and Biblical scholars considers Jesus to be a historical figure and not a myth or an amalgam of several different prophets. What are the criteria for that conclusion....? From my understanding there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus....is that right...? If you have covered this in a previous video, please point me in the right direction. Thanks....as always, your videos are very interesting and informative.
That’s more Dr. Bart Ehrman’s territory, since it is a historical issue not a narrative one. I am certain you can find a TH-cam video where he covers that one, maybe even one where he discusses it with Dan.
I'm not an academic, but I think another plausible option is both. There was an actual guy, named Yeshua who did a bunch of stuff. Then legends formed. Much like the legend of Abe Lincoln never telling a lie, Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or Lincoln's ghost haunting the White House. Fact or fiction isn't as binary as much as we would like.
@@squiddwizzard8850 That's basically the position of most scholars. There was a historical Jesus. It's hard to know much about him, since he'd been heavily mythologized before the Gospels were written. He very likely came from Nazareth. Preached and built up a following there. Came to Jerusalem with his followers. Crossed the authorities and got executed, but his followers claimed to have seen him resurrected and continued preaching about him, which led to the new religion. There are arguments about what teachings are original, but that's really hard to tease out. I don't really see how the amalgam idea could work - though certainly some of the teachings and parables could have come from others.
And Jesus came upon the fig tree that had no fruit, for it was not in season. But Jesus was the messiah and could command miracles and at his word the tree bore fruit. And Peter upon seeing this said, wow, this is a great metaphor for you being the messiah as foretold in the prophecies and establishing the Earthly kingdom as it literally says in our scripture. But then saith the editor, oh shit it's been over thirty years and that whole establishing an Earthly kingdom didn't happen and told the author to look out the window and behold the Romans tearing down the Temple. And so the author prayed to God to know of the truth. But no truth was forthcoming and thus the author was forced to retcon the story into the fig tree withering. And for that the people praised him for foreseeing events, even though he was writing after the fact.
Dan, that's interesting that you date Mark to just after the temple's destruction in 70 A.D., since most scholars are a bit nebulous about it being before or after that with the range 65-73 AD, sometimes being tossed around. I've heard it said that the prediction of the temple's destruction wouldn't have been all that surprising even if Mark was written in the 60's since Roman-Judaic tensions became quite strong after the Caligula Crisis circa 40 A.D.. Kind of like predicting the U.S. Civil War anytime between 1830 and 1860.
That's not how prophecy works, ideally One way is to predict something with no time limit, so if it hasn't happened in, say, 2000 years, it's still in effect. Another is to claim to have predicted something that has already happened. But to be fair, the Bible did predict the second coming would happen while some of the deciples were still living - an honest miss.
This feels to me to be the only time I've ever seen Dan give an opinion rather than hard facts. Saying that Jesus cursed the tree as a metaphor for the temple make sense, but I don't see that there can be actual data to show what Jesus was thinking when he did it. I still love Dan's stuff and will keep telling everyone I know about him.
Since none of your explanation is in the book, regular people just think wow God isn't smart enough to know that it isn't the season for disgusting figs
I've always though that this passage in some way parallels Mark 13 which predicts the destruction of the Temple, then followed it with another fig tree story.
The biblical accounts of this event are in contradiction. In Matthew's account the fig tree withers away immediately and the disciples notice immediately. However, in Mark's account upon Jesus cursing the fig tree, it states they "heard" Jesus. There is no mention of them "immediately" witnessing it wither. They don't notice it withered until the next morning.
each evangelist adapted the stories to fit the message they wanted to convey and their own literary styles. they could have been consistent if they wanted to (sometimes one quotes the other verbatim). it just wasn't their priority.
The Bible is not univocal. This is not the only instance of something like this; there are many. Genesis 1 & 2 for instance. Dan has done many videos on that issue broadly; this one he's sticking to mark because that's what Loius is quoting.
@MusicalRaichu - It wasn't their priority because they had no idea they were writing what would eventually become part of a New Testament hundreds of years later. There was no holy spirit leading them.
The being the wrong season part gets in the way of the metaphor in my mind. If it's not the season for figs, then the tree isn't at fault so why curse it? Does that mean the ones tainting the temple are also just doing what they're supposed to?
"The treatment of the barren fig tree by the Savior of the world shows how all pretenders to godliness will be treated.... This tree represents the Jews, who refused to respond to the love of Christ. Despite all the privileges and opportunities granted them, they brought forth only briers and thorns-no fruit to the glory of God. This blighted tree was a parable to the house of Israel-a most impressive lesson. It is also a lesson to the professed followers of Christ in every age. Reaching through all time, it speaks in unmistakable language to all formalists and boasters of godliness who stand forth to the world with high profession but are utterly devoid of that vital piety which alone God recognizes as fruit.... Like the barren fig tree, many flaunt their foliage-covered branches before the Lord, proudly claiming to be His commandment-keeping people, while the heart-searching God finds them destitute of fruit.... We learn from the Sacred Record that this tree, upon which hung not a redeeming cluster of fruit, was clothed with green foliage. Notice the words, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” The doom of the fruitless fig tree has an application to individual professors who manifest the natural tendencies of the unrenewed heart, and contradict their faith by their daily life. They do not represent to the world the character of Christ, because they have not Christ in them. Our Savior never turned away from the truly penitent, no matter how great their guilt. But He hates all hypocrisy and vain display.... Fruitless professors, sad indeed is your fate; for the open sinner stands in a more favorable position in the sight of God. The blight of God's curse is upon that class who hide the deformity of their lives under a profession of godliness. John, that bold, undaunted reprover of sin, who came to prepare the way for Christ's first advent, thus addressed the multitude that flocked to hear him: “Therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”-The Review and Herald, January 11, 1881.
Im not some smart person, but i know fig trees have multiple fruiting in a year cycle, and one of those the fruit will bear before the leaves. So to me it meant to represent a person appearing to have fruits of the spirit but they do not. So wow thank you so much for giving me better understanding and glad to know i was closer to the right track anyway than that guy haha
Independent of the sandwiched stories concept, I'm curious to know when fig season would have been in Jesus' time, in relation to the time of Passover.
Dr Dan, wait! Say that again? “The notion that we should take a moral from these stories is a post-biblical re-negotiation of the text”? Please talk about that more. I’ve never heard anyone say anything like that. I thought Jesus was supposed to be Mr Morality (although I think his morality stinks)
moralizing is like treating the story of david and goliath as teaching us to have faith in God like david so we can defeat giant obstacles and sins in our life. understanding the story in its historical and literary context is like seeing david as a saviour/messiah figure where we identify with God's people whom the messiah saves. what don't you like about Jesus' morality?
I've made entire video series about my problems with Jesus. Feel free to go watch them and we can talk about it there rather than cluttering up Dr Dan's comment section.@@MusicalRaichu
None of the Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem. The ur text it was based on maybe but Mark would have been written between 70 and 75 CE. Mark, if he had anything to do with the gospel baring his name, was a contemporary of Paul, not the original 12. Some fundamentalists try and date Mark to around 50 CE, but that isn't based on any good evidence. They are trying to turn accounts of contemporary events, like the destruction of the temple, into future predictions.
Dont it just make your mad when you hear people who can't look for context, or purpose, but feel they can make an assumption. That "comedian" is infuriating!
I'm not knocking Louis ck. I think he's a brilliant and great comedian. That said, I think this is an example of why context and presentation of the data is important. Also, it's said Jesus spoke in parables. I think a parallel could be made to the Socratic line of inquiry. God, in my understanding, gave us a heart and a mind. He wants us to use both. He wants us to choose Him. One always has a choice
But what happens if your very own brother, son or daughter, or the wife you love, or a close friend secretly entices you to worship another god according to your Bible?
@@Danny451 you still have a choice. Even if there's a threat of being thrown to lions or in a furnace, you still always have a choice. You choose to do right or to do evil. You always have a choice.
@@azurejester So do you think it's moral to "delete" your very own brother, son or daughter, or wife, or a close friend simply because they ask you to worship another god? Would you delete them if they secretly asked you to worship another god? Yes or no. You have a choice.
@@azurejester That's because you haven't read your Bible. Read Deuteronomy 13:6. "If your very own brother, son or daughter, or the wife you love, or a close friend secretly entices you to go and worship another god, your hand must be the FIRST to "DELETE" them. Again, do you think that is a moral thing to do? Edit. I have to use another word for k××l. TH-cam doesn't like that word.
This is one of the stories so full of plot holes, contradictions, and conflicted claims, that I practically lost my faith just on this story alone, once I learned how powerful a weapon critical thinking and skepticism are against Magical Thinking. But there are any others, such as Matthew's farcical zombie claim.
What about Dr. McClellan’s view is full of plot holes, contradictions, and conflicted claims? It seems like you have(or had) the opinion that the gospel of Matthew is supposed to be a 21st century journalistic account of what happened. Why would you think that?
Idk what plot holes or contradictions you're referring to in this story... I could see why you'd think it was hard to believe or very clearly written with an intended message rather than a direct account or a real historical event, but from what I can tell it says what it wants to in a pretty well written manner.
That's a popular scholarly interpretation but it's also cherry-picking -- or fig-picking -- the data. And if we're going with that meaning let's at least admit that it is one of the now-shamefully anti-Jewish bits of the New Testament. Jesus condemns the tree, and by implication the nation of Israel, and the Jewish people. Matthew tells the story a little different. The action is pretty much the same, except the tree withers and dies immediately upon Jesus' curse, while in Mark the party sees it dead the next day. Then, in the gospel named Matthew, Jesus explains, and his explanation says nothing about the temple. Luke omits the story but has Jesus tell a parable about a barren fig tree, who's owner has been cultivating it for years with no fruit yet. Whether it ever yields fruit is left unresolved. Data clearly sides with Luke on one point: Fruit-bearing fig trees were a cultivated crop, having owners. Mark and Matthew seem to imply that had figs been in season, Jesus would be free to pick and eat them. No, that would be a crime, though not as bad as attacking the Temple. If one wants figs while visiting Jerusalem or Bethany, one goes to market and buys them. Comedian Louis C.K. is right. That is one f'ed up story.
I disagree. Since the author explains that it's not of season. Jesus also said to watch the time and the season. Have faith in God and you can move the mountain into the sea.
You skipped right over the part I was hoping most you would address: ..."for the time of figs was not yet." A fig tree should not be expected to bear fruit out of season, so what does this have to do with the temple theme?
I have a feeling that Dr. McClellan thinks that Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66 are meant to be metaphorical only, i.e., the Jewish people will NOT build a third Temple in Jerusalem in the future, because I think the LDS are pretty heavy into 'replacement theology', and that the Temple in Salt Lake City is the final Temple for all mankind (-or something like that). I personally reject all three Abrahamic relegions, and their corresponding religious texts, and see all world religions as fables / fairytales, but worthy of study to understand various cultures. Anyone interested in studying "replacement theology", i.e., the Christian church is the New Israel, should find this scholarly work very insightful, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, by James William Parkes.
Dan's interpretation still doesn't make sense because the story doesn't say that the fig tree was diseased or corrupt, just out of season. That means that if Jesus just left it alone it would bear fruit. The tree was healthy and doing what G-d designed it to do. That seems like a strange reason to curse it or use it as an analogy for a Temple that was going to be destroyed due to internal corruption.
Jesus was, as He always was, teaching His disciples an object lesson. The leaves were symbolizing the professing believer's flaunting of piety while having no fruit to show fourth. The tree was advertising healthful fruit for the benefit of the observer but upon closer inspection it was a false advertisement. The Jewish leaders of that time and the Christian leaders of this time, as well as all professing followers of God who don't have godly fruit, are being called out for their hypocrisy.
@@truthbebold4009 But that still doesn't answer why the tree was said to be out of season, which is normal and healthy for a tree, as opposed to diseased or corrupt.
What seems unusual about this story is that it is told as an actual happening. It seems to me that most "lessons" in the gospel are told as metaphors, such as: ...it is like a man goes out to sow seed... I never understood the fig tree as a metaphor since it is told as something that actually happened. Interesting take on the story, though.
It is likely best to understand everything in all four gospels as metaphor, even if some are also historical. The historicity is less important than the moral message.
It seems as if there are multiple layers of teachings in the gospels. The parables are intentional lessons inserted into the narrative to show the nature of his teachings, because of the messiah prophecy that said he’d teach in parables. So while the character is being made to fit the part of the promised messiah, the author is inserting their own teaching by adding the fig tree story.
Siddhartha Gautama is the blessed fig and it shows because no bibliolatry is good or redeemable. Bibliolatry is only as evil as idolatry of mans words claiming to be magically divine protected/produced words.
So an "innocent" fig tree suffers so Jesus can make a point about the temple? Even in context, it's a still a weird story, and doesn't put Jesus in a very good light.
@@Jd-808 yeah, a bad one. In the context of the story, thr Temple was at fault for not bearing fruit. The tree wasn't - it wasn't the season, it was literally doing what it's supposed to be doing, making a very bad analogy for the Temple.
@@LoisoPondohva Yeah. Had it been in season, but not properly maintained, it would make more sense to say "They've done to the temple what they've done to this tree. It is not salvageable."
@@LoisoPondohva watch the video again. Mark’s audience would’ve known he was referencing a temple that had been destroyed, one whose season had passed & that could no longer bear fruit.
Botany interjection: fig trees grow there leaves from the fruit. To have leaves they must have fruit. If it does not have fruit but does have leaves its not a fig. The tree is litterally lying.
"do scholars agree?" Which scholars? NT scholars are mostly christians who mostly believe the thing has a historical basis. Many even signing statements which demand that they hold to certain theological views in order to maintain their employment. There are a few exceptions to this but I do mean a few. Critical scholars, that is scholars who don't have a prior faith commitment leading them to derive explanations from a presupposed conclusion and the handful of believing scholars out there who aren't quite so blinkered, mostly lean towards accepting that there was a dude who was crucified. Or at a minimum that a tradition arose about a dude being crucified and that people believed this to be based on an actual dude. Then there are those who note that "Jesus Christ" may in fact be a pseudonym or a kind of title, so none of these stories point to a "Jesus". Then there are some who don't think the crucifixion was a real thing for various reasons and there are some who doubt not just the dude being nailed to a stick but the dude himself. So, do scholars agree? Certainly not. Pretty much every object in the first half of your sentence is up for debate. Thus, the answer to your question. "Was jesus actually crucified"? It is impossible to say.
As far as i know yes, there is consensus in that. If you want a logic argument it was a very bad thing to say your prophet was crucified. It is the kind of things you will only admit because you can't pretend otherwise.
@@uxigadur Not for nothing but that's a terrible argument. If it was a bad thing to say that your object of worship was crucified, then christianity wouldn't have taken off regardless of whether that was the case or not. Jesus was still considered to have been crucified. It's pretty clear that this was not a problem. Not just for the obvious success of christianity (in terms of survival and popularity) but because Jesus is not unique among deities in having been killed in a humiliating way.
@@rainbowkrampus If you are saying that in the end, as centuries passed and christianity spread and endured the cross proved not to be an ultimate problem, that very much i agree. But that is not the point. I said it was a problem for the very early christians. The cross didn't fit in the concept of the Messiah, it was also not something greeks apreciated, and for what i have seen neither the romans. The first letter to Corinthians point to all this in (1:22). It is also worth mentioning that for a long time christianity was far from being successful. it would take centuries. The occurrence of an event doesn't follow that such event didn't have vectors in opposition. Yes ultimately, several years later christianity endured. In anycase, it seems to me that the idea that people hardly ever forge a narrative against their goals is a strong argument against forgery. And the lacks of efforts to correct the narrative is also worth to consider. -I usually don't mention that an argument is an argument. All the best.
Nevertheless a terrible and easily mistranslated metaphor from the “Son of God/Messiah” who, knowing all, should have foreseen. If he literally killed a tree for not bearing fruit out of season-a tree locals likely relied on for sustenance-he is a selfish jerk. He could have easily conjured a few loaves and fishes and left the poor tree alone
Awful story that has given power to religions that tell you you're not good enough and Dan, you failed to mention the contradiction with Matthew's version of the story. Different order of events, different motives, and different times of year.
The metaphor goes beyond referring to just the Temple. Its further meaning is that anyone who does not repent & obey God will be dead for ever, ie. will not be given eternal life.
The Bible is a collection of stories. Stories typically involve literary devices like metaphor or simile. That’s exactly what was happening here. It’s not really apologetics to clarify the missing parts of a Lewis CK bit
People tell you to "read" the bible. You do and you're left speechless by all its fantastical stories filled with the wondrous, the supernatural, the mysterious, the magic, the sorcery, the wizardry, talking serpents and donkeys. And then it makes total sense that an industry has been created to decipher, translate and interpret the "message" of this chapter, what this passage "entails" and what this word "really means"!
What a disappointment Peterson has become for some. I know people who were really impressed by him. I never as that interested in him. His early work seemed sound but there’s lots of good psych professors.
*Something better was coming* Namely, successful prayer and, so that God would forgive them their sins, forgiveness. That is what follows the fig tree story, Mark 11:22-26 Mark gives a recipe for successful prayer that has failed most of the time.
Dan addresses many videos which are not from pastors/clergy/theologians. In fact I'd argue most of his channel is addressing folks who are not in the field. Which is IMO okay, as many of them are posting stuff that's either their personal misinterpretation or a common one. The criticism of this story is one to have heard before.
Dan fact checking a Louis CK bit is not something I thought I'd never see lol.
Real answer:
They were shooting the very first Snickers Hunger Attack commercial.
Finally!! In my 7 decades, this story has bothered me so much. Every preacher just skipped over it. I'm like, dang JC, poor little tree. Now, it's adios temple.
So many atheist tree huggers get triggered by this story it's amazing!
It just shows how clueless they R when they read the Bible!
That tree had it coming...it knew what it did...😤
I think that's a new interpretation to me. Having grown up in the church and certainly having heard a few sermons about or including that passage or Bible studies which included that passage, I don't think I'd ever heard that interpretation.
In my memory it was always viewed as it's own thing, not connected with the temple. The interpretation I recall being told was this was Jesus showing his power and being hungry and not happy that the fig tree didn't just up and produce fruit for him as he came up to it.
Dan's interpretation makes more sense, but also speaks to the varied interpretations across time and groups.
I've always heard of it being both connected, at least that's what I was taught in church, with the parallel being specifically that Christians should bear fruit as the Pharisees and fig tree didn't but I've never heard it interpreted as foreshadowing a solution through the resurrection.
That's interesting, because both in Foursquare and SBC I've consistently heard that the fig tree was an interpretive wrapper for the temple cleansing story.
There's traditional interpretations vs things academics find and piece together. Dan is not explaining a new interpretation, and very often the explanations we hear growing up are not always what the text is meant to have said.
For example. Who wrote the Torah?
Tradition: Moses
More likely: different scribes and communities over extended period of time.
Why: not every verse or book of the Torah has content that appears to be all from the same time period and there are competing details on them. Moses also dies in the Torah, he's likely not writing this scripture in third person from the grave.
Most of these verses where experts give more context are not always going to be compatible with traditions depending on which ones we're talking about.
The fig tree should not be seen as having no connection to the temple, given the symbolism of fig trees throughout the bible, and what is being articulated in this story.
Maybe it’s new. But I’m in my forties and have always heard that story and subsequent interpretation. But alone that story doesn’t make any sense. Reading mark it flows together. I laughed at the LCK bit but understood that it was only hilarious if you hadn’t read the text.😅
Yeah, I never understood the fig tree story either. Super interesting. Thanks, Dan! Also I love hearing Louis CK talk about the Bible. He has the old bit about Abraham and Isaac that’s one of my favorites.
Have faith in god and your fruit will always be in season! Some people derive their purpose from nature, while others derive their purpose from God himself.
@@ddrse No thank you!
Some people derive their purpose from nature. They begin to look like it. Like a creeping thing.
Nature is of God. Farmers learned more about God and the working of the universe than all the priests in their temples. Even though these people working hand in hand with God were called pagans.
Thank you so much for this one, Dan. I never understood the point of that story at all, despite many Catholic sermons growing up.
It happens to also highlight that Jews didn’t EXPECT Jesus or what Jesus did to foreshadow him being the Messiah AND Yahweh also. So it was “not the season” for Jews to convert to Christianity. But the temple cult ended specifically so the story can be constrained to that. Modern rabbis Judaism is really a few hundred years after the temple was destroyed, so one could say the figs tree resurrected themselves without the “tree” of the temple being rebuilt on the blood soaked live animal sacrifice ground.
I always thought this section was ridiculous, same as Louis, but I'm glad to hear this explanation and see a different way to understand it. Thanks for adding more context tot his story.
I'm surprised how many comments from people saying they've never heard this interpretation. It's the only way I've ever heard this passage taught. It's just about the only way to make sense of it.
Agreed. Its always been seen as a literary technique to bracket the story about the temple, making it clear its just a metaphor. There are a number of Markan Sandwiches in that gospel that must be interpreted the same way.
Literally just finished re-reading Mark and was thinking. "Oh it's about the temple" great timing.
So, does Jesus saying the Temple is NEVER coming back put paid to those who are expecting a Third Temple to be built, in order for Jesus to return?
This is why it’s clear you know what you’re talking about, because 1: It makes sense. 2: In 30 years of sermon listening I’ve never heard another preacher outline those verses that way in that context.
It's how I've always heard pastors interpret it.
@@langreeves6419 well I grew up mainly in non-denominational church.
@@mccsnackin to be fair, it's not a frequently discussed passage
The story I've never heard talked about? Aaron and Miriam criticizing Moses's wife because of her dark skin. God punished them with leprosy, which is funny cause leprosy turns skin white.
The story reminds me of gospels about his childhood and youth where Jesus had anger issues and often was misbehaving. Other incidents in todays Nt also portray Jesus with anger issues
How can you prove it ?
No
As good an explanation as any.
But it is more fun to think that Jesus really really hates figs.
I always loved this passage, full of don't be a crook, don't ask stupid questions, and things have consequences, the sort of things a religion for adults should be saying. And for its part, the bit was hilarious. Thanks for doing your thing, again!
I suppose I ought to comment after watching like a million of your videos and not commenting on any before now.
This was so interesting, I've never heard this perspective on this story before.
Keep up the good work.
Still, I like to imagine that that was exactly how it happened.
Peter: "Hey Jesus, I get you're trying to tell us that the temple is doomed, but did you really have to destroy that tree for the sake of the metaphor?"
I also find that the analogy breaks pretty quickly. Maybe the temple wasn't "baring fruit" because it wasn't in season. So because the temple is broken now, it will be broken and doomed forever? Seems kinda harsh, given Jesus is all about forgiveness...
forgiveness is there for those who seek it, but there's more to it. jesus brings the kingdom of god in which the temple is unnecessary. God is accessible to all nations, not just the one with the temple. he offers his own life as a permanently effective sacrifice instead of perpetually offering animals in the temple.
@Barseik Harsh, or doesn't make sense? Absolutely the later, IMO, especially when reading the final chapter of Isaiah, and Zechariah.
However, from a Mormon perspective, I believe they consider(ed) themselves the only tribe of "Israel" that remained true to Adonai, and escaped Israel to settle in North America.
So, I would guess Mormons believe "the Temple" in Salt Lake City, has replaced that "old testament covenant" location in Israel, and Mormons probably look at Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66, and a rebuilt Temple in Israel, as metaphorical only, and that Salt Lake City is the new Jerusalem, or something like that. But that's just my guess.
I don't believe any of the Abrahamic religions, but Christian, and Muslim replacement theology - of Israel - is a major part of their doctrines / dogmas.
Here's a very interesting scholarly work dealing with the replacement theology of Christianity, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, by James William Parkes.
Interesting hearing people's experiences in the comments. I'm not a big churchgoer, but I do remember this story and this interpretation taught.
I, too, love fairytales.
You definitely don't love grammar though 😂
I understand why people have trouble with this story. If the fig tree is the temple, and the fig tree is never baring fruit again, then the temple is never coming back. Thus, they won't rebuild the temple and Revelation is simply referencing its destruction in the first century.
This is powerful insight. Makes total sense. Thank you, Dan!
So, an allegory.
What do you say about Matthew's version that removes the sandwich?
Didnt have dan fact checking louis CK's comedy on my guesses for the day
Apropos of nothing, I just found out yesterday that Bluey is actually a girl dog! Had no idea...
what!? i didn't know either. my grandson watches it.
@@MusicalRaichu Yeah, I was bored at work, so I looked at a "All About Bluey!" book, which stated that...I felt like that SNL skit that revealed that, according to Sanrio, Hello Kitty is really a little human girl!😂
"Let's see it" is a risky thing to say to CK Louis, the comedian
As a literary device, i guess Dan's explanation makes sense. But if you are reading the Bible and believe that it comports with reality, Im with Loius on this one.
Can you explain what you mean? It is a literary text thus the narrative/literary context is necessary for understanding the significance of Jesus’s actions.
@@Thoughtful_Theologian
Why are you confused? The OP said _as a literary device_ the story makes sense, and you’re essentially agreeing with that.
Botany interjection: fig trees grow there leaves from the fruit. To have leaves they must have fruit. If it does not have fruit but does have leaves its not a fig. The tree is litterally lying.
@@Thoughtful_Theologian I mean that it never happened in real life. It is a story meant to convey a message, just like Dan said.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy So the Jewish temple was destroyed because it hadn't reached the season for fruits? If it was corrupted or on poor foundation or mismanaged, there are easy tree analogies to use if this is literary only.
I love watching Louie CK
Thank you for such an interesting explanation of that story! What do you think the relevance is of the fig tree not being in in season? This story could have made as much, if not more sense if it was in season and not bearing fruit.
With faith in god your fruit will always be in season
First time I ever heard a rational explanation of the fig tree story
Thank you for your scholarship!
Thanks for the explanation 👍
Excellent explanation.
The problem of the season only gets stranger in the context of the metaphor 🧐 do we expect temporal variation in the quality of the output of churches? The fruits of the spirit are only ripe in August?
It makes a lot more sense as a literary device, but since it looks like one of Jesus' miracles, it is used to show that Jesus can engage in malevolence (which his church then follows suit for the next twenty centuries). The devil can cite scripture to his purpose and all that. And to this day, many devils do.
Thank you for the additional context
Can you possibly do a video focusing on the temple, contrasting perspectives of Jews and Christians about it, then and now?
Love the video…love the bluey shirt even more
Or, perhaps the 2nd Temple had already been destroyed by the time Mark wrote?
Dan literally said that in the video
So there is actually a botany explanation here, in the spring fig trees produce fruit before they produce leaves. The leaves come out from the same stem as the fruit. If you are in a region where fig trees are native if you see leaves on a grown fig there is fruit. If all the fruit is picked off then all the leaves will have been picked off as well.
Edit: so not all varieties of figs of the fruit and leaves connected. breba figs do not, main crop figs do.
This story only doesn't make sense if you read it simply and literally. If you bring your basic reading comprehension skills to it you can see that the fig tree is a metaphor and that this is itself a parable within the story of Jesus's mission
I'm an atheist but i know better than to dismiss a part of the Bible as being nonsensical without actually trying to understand what it is actually trying to convey
I think Louis CK is being intentionally dishonest here since he skips over the middle part of the story that gives it context and meaning
Or... he is a comedian.
He's giving the text about as much scrutiny as most American evangelicals do. The difference is he's doing it for a laugh, not to force an ignorant and harmful ideology on his society.
Many people are poorly catechized, public education is a major issue in the US, and cult like far right Christians emphasize taking things literally.
I mean, we're talking about a segment of the population gets angry about people having pronouns, declaring they'll never use them .. while using them. Just fundamentally misunderstanding things so poorly that they try to make transphobic comments and end up making statements that are affirming because they so completely misunderstand the concept.
Dan, love your stuff! Excellent explanation and commentary. One suggestion. Although I don't mind cursing at all, the swearing in this video probably will affect the algorithms distribution of it and makes it more difficult to those that may need to hear this message without being turned off due too the swearing.
Is there a connection between II Samuel 6:20-23 and this story of the fig tree?
That was beautiful.
The story in Matthew is different in that the tree dries up right away. Is Matthew putting a different spin on it with a different point?
Should add a what up party people t-shirt to your store
So I have a question for you Dan....and I suspect it isn't one that would be easy to answer in a short video.
I'd like to know why the consensus of historians and Biblical scholars considers Jesus to be a historical figure and not a myth or an amalgam of several different prophets.
What are the criteria for that conclusion....?
From my understanding there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus....is that right...?
If you have covered this in a previous video, please point me in the right direction.
Thanks....as always, your videos are very interesting and informative.
That’s more Dr. Bart Ehrman’s territory, since it is a historical issue not a narrative one. I am certain you can find a TH-cam video where he covers that one, maybe even one where he discusses it with Dan.
@@Sotelurian Thanks. I'll check him out.
I'm not an academic, but I think another plausible option is both.
There was an actual guy, named Yeshua who did a bunch of stuff. Then legends formed.
Much like the legend of Abe Lincoln never telling a lie, Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or Lincoln's ghost haunting the White House.
Fact or fiction isn't as binary as much as we would like.
@@squiddwizzard8850 That's basically the position of most scholars. There was a historical Jesus. It's hard to know much about him, since he'd been heavily mythologized before the Gospels were written. He very likely came from Nazareth. Preached and built up a following there. Came to Jerusalem with his followers. Crossed the authorities and got executed, but his followers claimed to have seen him resurrected and continued preaching about him, which led to the new religion.
There are arguments about what teachings are original, but that's really hard to tease out.
I don't really see how the amalgam idea could work - though certainly some of the teachings and parables could have come from others.
And Jesus came upon the fig tree that had no fruit, for it was not in season. But Jesus was the messiah and could command miracles and at his word the tree bore fruit. And Peter upon seeing this said, wow, this is a great metaphor for you being the messiah as foretold in the prophecies and establishing the Earthly kingdom as it literally says in our scripture.
But then saith the editor, oh shit it's been over thirty years and that whole establishing an Earthly kingdom didn't happen and told the author to look out the window and behold the Romans tearing down the Temple. And so the author prayed to God to know of the truth. But no truth was forthcoming and thus the author was forced to retcon the story into the fig tree withering. And for that the people praised him for foreseeing events, even though he was writing after the fact.
Dan, that's interesting that you date Mark to just after the temple's destruction in 70 A.D., since most scholars are a bit nebulous about it being before or after that with the range 65-73 AD, sometimes being tossed around. I've heard it said that the prediction of the temple's destruction wouldn't have been all that surprising even if Mark was written in the 60's since Roman-Judaic tensions became quite strong after the Caligula Crisis circa 40 A.D.. Kind of like predicting the U.S. Civil War anytime between 1830 and 1860.
That's not how prophecy works, ideally One way is to predict something with no time limit, so if it hasn't happened in, say, 2000 years, it's still in effect. Another is to claim to have predicted something that has already happened. But to be fair, the Bible did predict the second coming would happen while some of the deciples were still living - an honest miss.
I'm sure that fig tree was up to something
This feels to me to be the only time I've ever seen Dan give an opinion rather than hard facts. Saying that Jesus cursed the tree as a metaphor for the temple make sense, but I don't see that there can be actual data to show what Jesus was thinking when he did it. I still love Dan's stuff and will keep telling everyone I know about him.
The only way I'd ever watch anything from Louis CK is because of Dan breaking it down
Since none of your explanation is in the book, regular people just think wow God isn't smart enough to know that it isn't the season for disgusting figs
I've always though that this passage in some way parallels Mark 13 which predicts the destruction of the Temple, then followed it with another fig tree story.
The biblical accounts of this event are in contradiction. In Matthew's account the fig tree withers away immediately and the disciples notice immediately. However, in Mark's account upon Jesus cursing the fig tree, it states they "heard" Jesus. There is no mention of them "immediately" witnessing it wither. They don't notice it withered until the next morning.
each evangelist adapted the stories to fit the message they wanted to convey and their own literary styles. they could have been consistent if they wanted to (sometimes one quotes the other verbatim). it just wasn't their priority.
The Bible is not univocal. This is not the only instance of something like this; there are many. Genesis 1 & 2 for instance. Dan has done many videos on that issue broadly; this one he's sticking to mark because that's what Loius is quoting.
@MusicalRaichu - It wasn't their priority because they had no idea they were writing what would eventually become part of a New Testament hundreds of years later. There was no holy spirit leading them.
The being the wrong season part gets in the way of the metaphor in my mind. If it's not the season for figs, then the tree isn't at fault so why curse it? Does that mean the ones tainting the temple are also just doing what they're supposed to?
"The treatment of the barren fig tree by the Savior of the world shows how all pretenders to godliness will be treated.... This tree represents the Jews, who refused to respond to the love of Christ. Despite all the privileges and opportunities granted them, they brought forth only briers and thorns-no fruit to the glory of God. This blighted tree was a parable to the house of Israel-a most impressive lesson. It is also a lesson to the professed followers of Christ in every age. Reaching through all time, it speaks in unmistakable language to all formalists and boasters of godliness who stand forth to the world with high profession but are utterly devoid of that vital piety which alone God recognizes as fruit....
Like the barren fig tree, many flaunt their foliage-covered branches before the Lord, proudly claiming to be His commandment-keeping people, while the heart-searching God finds them destitute of fruit....
We learn from the Sacred Record that this tree, upon which hung not a redeeming cluster of fruit, was clothed with green foliage. Notice the words, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” The doom of the fruitless fig tree has an application to individual professors who manifest the natural tendencies of the unrenewed heart, and contradict their faith by their daily life. They do not represent to the world the character of Christ, because they have not Christ in them.
Our Savior never turned away from the truly penitent, no matter how great their guilt. But He hates all hypocrisy and vain display....
Fruitless professors, sad indeed is your fate; for the open sinner stands in a more favorable position in the sight of God. The blight of God's curse is upon that class who hide the deformity of their lives under a profession of godliness. John, that bold, undaunted reprover of sin, who came to prepare the way for Christ's first advent, thus addressed the multitude that flocked to hear him: “Therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”-The Review and Herald, January 11, 1881.
Hi Beard..I mean...Dan. Hi Dan. 🙃
Im not some smart person, but i know fig trees have multiple fruiting in a year cycle, and one of those the fruit will bear before the leaves. So to me it meant to represent a person appearing to have fruits of the spirit but they do not. So wow thank you so much for giving me better understanding and glad to know i was closer to the right track anyway than that guy haha
Independent of the sandwiched stories concept, I'm curious to know when fig season would have been in Jesus' time, in relation to the time of Passover.
Figs are in season around August. Passover is in March/April
But why would Jesus expect to find fruit on a fig tree early in the spring? Wasn't it early spring when he traveled to Jerusalem?
Dr Dan, wait! Say that again? “The notion that we should take a moral from these stories is a post-biblical re-negotiation of the text”? Please talk about that more. I’ve never heard anyone say anything like that. I thought Jesus was supposed to be Mr Morality (although I think his morality stinks)
moralizing is like treating the story of david and goliath as teaching us to have faith in God like david so we can defeat giant obstacles and sins in our life. understanding the story in its historical and literary context is like seeing david as a saviour/messiah figure where we identify with God's people whom the messiah saves.
what don't you like about Jesus' morality?
I've made entire video series about my problems with Jesus. Feel free to go watch them and we can talk about it there rather than cluttering up Dr Dan's comment section.@@MusicalRaichu
Still doesn't make sense to curse a tree for not having fruit when it's not the time of year for it to have fruit.
Remember how you were talking about a plain reading of the text, and not imposing your own interpretation on it. What happened to that?
I thought the Gospel of Mark was the one written before the destruction of the Temple?
None of the Gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem. The ur text it was based on maybe but Mark would have been written between 70 and 75 CE. Mark, if he had anything to do with the gospel baring his name, was a contemporary of Paul, not the original 12.
Some fundamentalists try and date Mark to around 50 CE, but that isn't based on any good evidence. They are trying to turn accounts of contemporary events, like the destruction of the temple, into future predictions.
Dont it just make your mad when you hear people who can't look for context, or purpose, but feel they can make an assumption. That "comedian" is infuriating!
I'm not knocking Louis ck. I think he's a brilliant and great comedian.
That said, I think this is an example of why context and presentation of the data is important.
Also, it's said Jesus spoke in parables. I think a parallel could be made to the Socratic line of inquiry.
God, in my understanding, gave us a heart and a mind. He wants us to use both. He wants us to choose Him. One always has a choice
But what happens if your very own brother, son or daughter, or the wife you love, or a close friend secretly entices you to worship another god according to your Bible?
@@Danny451 you still have a choice. Even if there's a threat of being thrown to lions or in a furnace, you still always have a choice. You choose to do right or to do evil. You always have a choice.
@@azurejester So do you think it's moral to "delete" your very own brother, son or daughter, or wife, or a close friend simply because they ask you to worship another god? Would you delete them if they secretly asked you to worship another god? Yes or no. You have a choice.
@@Danny451 I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Are you alright?
@@azurejester That's because you haven't read your Bible. Read Deuteronomy 13:6. "If your very own brother, son or daughter, or the wife you love, or a close friend secretly entices you to go and worship another god, your hand must be the FIRST to "DELETE" them. Again, do you think that is a moral thing to do? Edit. I have to use another word for k××l. TH-cam doesn't like that word.
This is one of the stories so full of plot holes, contradictions, and conflicted claims, that I practically lost my faith just on this story alone, once I learned how powerful a weapon critical thinking and skepticism are against Magical Thinking. But there are any others, such as Matthew's farcical zombie claim.
What about Dr. McClellan’s view is full of plot holes, contradictions, and conflicted claims? It seems like you have(or had) the opinion that the gospel of Matthew is supposed to be a 21st century journalistic account of what happened. Why would you think that?
Idk what plot holes or contradictions you're referring to in this story... I could see why you'd think it was hard to believe or very clearly written with an intended message rather than a direct account or a real historical event, but from what I can tell it says what it wants to in a pretty well written manner.
More like this is one of those stories that proves you people are incapable of understanding symbolic language.
So I won’t get crosswise with God if I eat figs? Do Fig Newtons count?
That's a popular scholarly interpretation but it's also cherry-picking -- or fig-picking -- the data. And if we're going with that meaning let's at least admit that it is one of the now-shamefully anti-Jewish bits of the New Testament. Jesus condemns the tree, and by implication the nation of Israel, and the Jewish people.
Matthew tells the story a little different. The action is pretty much the same, except the tree withers and dies immediately upon Jesus' curse, while in Mark the party sees it dead the next day. Then, in the gospel named Matthew, Jesus explains, and his explanation says nothing about the temple.
Luke omits the story but has Jesus tell a parable about a barren fig tree, who's owner has been cultivating it for years with no fruit yet. Whether it ever yields fruit is left unresolved. Data clearly sides with Luke on one point: Fruit-bearing fig trees were a cultivated crop, having owners. Mark and Matthew seem to imply that had figs been in season, Jesus would be free to pick and eat them. No, that would be a crime, though not as bad as attacking the Temple. If one wants figs while visiting Jerusalem or Bethany, one goes to market and buys them.
Comedian Louis C.K. is right. That is one f'ed up story.
I disagree. Since the author explains that it's not of season. Jesus also said to watch the time and the season. Have faith in God and you can move the mountain into the sea.
You skipped right over the part I was hoping most you would address: ..."for the time of figs was not yet." A fig tree should not be expected to bear fruit out of season, so what does this have to do with the temple theme?
I have a feeling that Dr. McClellan thinks that Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66 are meant to be metaphorical only, i.e., the Jewish people will NOT build a third Temple in Jerusalem in the future, because I think the LDS are pretty heavy into 'replacement theology', and that the Temple in Salt Lake City is the final Temple for all mankind (-or something like that).
I personally reject all three Abrahamic relegions, and their corresponding religious texts, and see all world religions as fables / fairytales, but worthy of study to understand various cultures.
Anyone interested in studying "replacement theology", i.e., the Christian church is the New Israel, should find this scholarly work very insightful, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism, by James William Parkes.
Going to Starbucks to buy a McChicken..but they don't sell McChicken 😎 how dumb can i be?
Another great example that these stories are all symbolic fairy tales
Dan's interpretation still doesn't make sense because the story doesn't say that the fig tree was diseased or corrupt, just out of season. That means that if Jesus just left it alone it would bear fruit. The tree was healthy and doing what G-d designed it to do. That seems like a strange reason to curse it or use it as an analogy for a Temple that was going to be destroyed due to internal corruption.
Jesus was, as He always was, teaching His disciples an object lesson. The leaves were symbolizing the professing believer's flaunting of piety while having no fruit to show fourth. The tree was advertising healthful fruit for the benefit of the observer but upon closer inspection it was a false advertisement. The Jewish leaders of that time and the Christian leaders of this time, as well as all professing followers of God who don't have godly fruit, are being called out for their hypocrisy.
@@truthbebold4009 But that still doesn't answer why the tree was said to be out of season, which is normal and healthy for a tree, as opposed to diseased or corrupt.
What seems unusual about this story is that it is told as an actual happening. It seems to me that most "lessons" in the gospel are told as metaphors, such as: ...it is like a man goes out to sow seed... I never understood the fig tree as a metaphor since it is told as something that actually happened. Interesting take on the story, though.
It is likely best to understand everything in all four gospels as metaphor, even if some are also historical. The historicity is less important than the moral message.
It seems as if there are multiple layers of teachings in the gospels. The parables are intentional lessons inserted into the narrative to show the nature of his teachings, because of the messiah prophecy that said he’d teach in parables. So while the character is being made to fit the part of the promised messiah, the author is inserting their own teaching by adding the fig tree story.
Why didn't Jesus just say that instead of turning into some kind parable and creating such confusion?
Uh.....have you read the gospels?
Jesus always talked in parables and metaphors.
Siddhartha Gautama is the blessed fig and it shows because no bibliolatry is good or redeemable. Bibliolatry is only as evil as idolatry of mans words claiming to be magically divine protected/produced words.
So an "innocent" fig tree suffers so Jesus can make a point about the temple? Even in context, it's a still a weird story, and doesn't put Jesus in a very good light.
…it’s a metaphor.
@@Jd-808 yeah, a bad one.
In the context of the story, thr Temple was at fault for not bearing fruit. The tree wasn't - it wasn't the season, it was literally doing what it's supposed to be doing, making a very bad analogy for the Temple.
@@LoisoPondohva Yeah. Had it been in season, but not properly maintained, it would make more sense to say "They've done to the temple what they've done to this tree. It is not salvageable."
@@LoisoPondohva watch the video again. Mark’s audience would’ve known he was referencing a temple that had been destroyed, one whose season had passed & that could no longer bear fruit.
Botany interjection: fig trees grow there leaves from the fruit. To have leaves they must have fruit. If it does not have fruit but does have leaves its not a fig. The tree is litterally lying.
A silly story in a silly book
CK should've read from Matthew. No need to skip passages and the tree dies immediately. Nice Try Tho 😂
Interesting
Was jesus actually crucified,do scholars agree?
"do scholars agree?"
Which scholars?
NT scholars are mostly christians who mostly believe the thing has a historical basis. Many even signing statements which demand that they hold to certain theological views in order to maintain their employment. There are a few exceptions to this but I do mean a few.
Critical scholars, that is scholars who don't have a prior faith commitment leading them to derive explanations from a presupposed conclusion and the handful of believing scholars out there who aren't quite so blinkered, mostly lean towards accepting that there was a dude who was crucified. Or at a minimum that a tradition arose about a dude being crucified and that people believed this to be based on an actual dude. Then there are those who note that "Jesus Christ" may in fact be a pseudonym or a kind of title, so none of these stories point to a "Jesus". Then there are some who don't think the crucifixion was a real thing for various reasons and there are some who doubt not just the dude being nailed to a stick but the dude himself.
So, do scholars agree? Certainly not. Pretty much every object in the first half of your sentence is up for debate.
Thus, the answer to your question. "Was jesus actually crucified"?
It is impossible to say.
As far as i know yes, there is consensus in that. If you want a logic argument it was a very bad thing to say your prophet was crucified. It is the kind of things you will only admit because you can't pretend otherwise.
@@uxigadur Not for nothing but that's a terrible argument.
If it was a bad thing to say that your object of worship was crucified, then christianity wouldn't have taken off regardless of whether that was the case or not. Jesus was still considered to have been crucified.
It's pretty clear that this was not a problem. Not just for the obvious success of christianity (in terms of survival and popularity) but because Jesus is not unique among deities in having been killed in a humiliating way.
@@rainbowkrampus If you are saying that in the end, as centuries passed and christianity spread and endured the cross proved not to be an ultimate problem, that very much i agree. But that is not the point.
I said it was a problem for the very early christians. The cross didn't fit in the concept of the Messiah, it was also not something greeks apreciated, and for what i have seen neither the romans. The first letter to Corinthians point to all this in (1:22). It is also worth mentioning that for a long time christianity was far from being successful. it would take centuries.
The occurrence of an event doesn't follow that such event didn't have vectors in opposition. Yes ultimately, several years later christianity endured.
In anycase, it seems to me that the idea that people hardly ever forge a narrative against their goals is a strong argument against forgery. And the lacks of efforts to correct the narrative is also worth to consider. -I usually don't mention that an argument is an argument.
All the best.
he does not like figs
Nevertheless a terrible and easily mistranslated metaphor from the “Son of God/Messiah” who, knowing all, should have foreseen. If he literally killed a tree for not bearing fruit out of season-a tree locals likely relied on for sustenance-he is a selfish jerk. He could have easily conjured a few loaves and fishes and left the poor tree alone
Awful story that has given power to religions that tell you you're not good enough and Dan, you failed to mention the contradiction with Matthew's version of the story. Different order of events, different motives, and different times of year.
The Bible is not univocal, as Dan is fond of saying.
Why does Mark's version of the story have to be understood with reference to Matthew's?
He didn't fail to mention it, as Louis is specifically referring to the version in Mark
The F word is cool
they can make you fart
🍎🍎
The metaphor goes beyond referring to just the Temple.
Its further meaning is that anyone who does not repent & obey God will be dead for ever, ie. will not be given eternal life.
I sayeth, why sayeth you that his sayeth is thus sayeth wrongly.
Oh , no , smacks of apologetics .
The Bible is a collection of stories. Stories typically involve literary devices like metaphor or simile. That’s exactly what was happening here. It’s not really apologetics to clarify the missing parts of a Lewis CK bit
Oh no, Dan isn’t doing what I want him to do
If it were apologetic and we don't want be perceived as apologists, we'd have to conclude that indeed JC destroyed a faultless fig tree just cuz.
@@toniacollinske2518yes, apologists would explain how the story literally happened,but Dan is simply describing the literary devices the author used.
Not apologetics.
Apologetics twist the Bible do things must have literally occurred.
Dan is saying it's a literary device and didn't happen.
People tell you to "read" the bible. You do and you're left speechless by all its fantastical stories filled with the wondrous, the supernatural, the mysterious, the magic, the sorcery, the wizardry, talking serpents and donkeys. And then it makes total sense that an industry has been created to decipher, translate and interpret the "message" of this chapter, what this passage "entails" and what this word "really means"!
What a disappointment Peterson has become for some. I know people who were really impressed by him. I never as that interested in him. His early work seemed sound but there’s lots of good psych professors.
Dude…. It’s a comedy bit. This video is so pointless.
*Something better was coming*
Namely, successful prayer and, so that God would forgive them their sins, forgiveness. That is what follows the fig tree story, Mark 11:22-26
Mark gives a recipe for successful prayer that has failed most of the time.
The Messiah will build the temple, not destroy it.
That’s what he did. The Church is the new temple.
@@CarlosAlvarado04 The Holy Temple in Jerusalem is the central place of prayer for all time and for all people.
Jesus did not have enough faith.
Dude, you realize that guy is a comedian, right? Not a preacher. I mean they are all comedians also, but he is only a comedian.
All comedians are preachers.
Dan addresses many videos which are not from pastors/clergy/theologians. In fact I'd argue most of his channel is addressing folks who are not in the field.
Which is IMO okay, as many of them are posting stuff that's either their personal misinterpretation or a common one.
The criticism of this story is one to have heard before.
My man, it seems to me you're imposing your own rhetorical goals there...