Jerusalem: A Fig Tree That Will Bud Again

[Hidden In Him]

This thread is one of the BEST examples of confusion caused by keeping to the leaven doctrines of men instead of staying strictly with what God's written Word says.

I have been wrongly accused of being a Preterist, and at other times a Historicist, and even a Futurist, when I am none of those things, but I simply follow God's Word as written and let the chips fall where they may.

Those men who heed the traditions of men are wrapped up in creating categories to place ideas in, instead of allowing the simplicity that is God's written Word take hold and teach them.

Out of curiosity, Davy, what is your position on the OP?

 

[Davy]

Out of curiosity, Davy, what is your position on the OP?

Well, what does God's written Word show? That's my position.

Luke 23:27-31
27 And there followed Him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented Him.
28 But Jesus turning unto them said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
29 For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, 'Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.'
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, "Fall on us"; and to the hills, "Cover us."
31 For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
KJV

Rom 11:25-32
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
KJV

Zech 12:9-12
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.
12 And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart;
KJV

 

[Hidden In Him]

Well, what does God's written Word show? That's my position.

Davy, for starters can you give others at least enough credit that you are not the only one interested in "what the word of God shows"? Reading an opening statement like this makes me not wildly interested in reading the rest of what follows, as it insinuates that your opponents couldn't give a rip what the written word of God actually shows, and have possibly never even bothered to look into it.

On what grounds do you assume such things?

 

[Davy]

Davy, for starters can you give others at least enough credit that you are not the only one interested in "what the word of God shows"? Reading an opening statement like this makes me not wildly interested in reading the rest of what follows, as it insinuates that your opponents couldn't give a rip what the written word of God actually shows, and have possibly never even bothered to look into it.

On what grounds do you assume such things?

On the grounds of those SCRIPTURES I showed you, which you asked me for, since you asked my position.

So tell us what those Scriptures I posted mean, since you feel I am insinuating I think you don't care about what's written in God's Word, which I never insinuated. And if you really feel that way, then what are you defaulting to instead, if not God's written Word?

 

[Hidden In Him]

On the grounds of those SCRIPTURES I showed you, which you asked me for, since you asked my position.

So tell us what those Scriptures I posted mean, since you feel I am insinuating I think you don't care about what's written in God's Word, which I never insinuated.

Then why lead off with the statement, "My position is what the word of God shows"? I have seen numerous people make this claim, including several Jehovahs Witnesses and Unitarians we have on this forum. The insinuation is the same coming from them; that they hold to what the word of God "actually shows," whereas I and others here don't.

It's irritating.

How is the conversation going to go if in turn I respond to your post with "I hold to what the word of God actually shows," and then you reply, "No, I hold to what the word of God actually shows," and then I answer back with, "No, I hold to what the word of God actually shows," and then you reply, "No, I hold to what the word of God actually shows."

See how edifying such a conversation is? :)

How about if we start the conversation assuming that we both believe we hold to what the word of God actually shows, and not make insinuations that the other one obviously doesn't?

 

[Timtofly]

That's an interesting perspective, Timtofly, but I go by scriptural precedent on things like interpreting the parables, and in the OT Biblical precedents Israel was the vineyard, not the world.

How can you explain away that on the day of Pentecost 3000 OT Stewards from all over the earth returned to their homes as NT stewards? The ten tribes were forced to be stewards of more than Palestine. They did cover the world. For hundreds of years they came to the yearly Passover, and then returned home to their different nations.

 

[Keraz]

As usual, you are reading these two verse literally and not metaphorically.

Thats because it refers to a literal place.

Sadly, Keraz, your manner of reading and explaining the prophetic scriptures does leave a lot to be desired.

Just because what I present does not conform to your beliefs.
I suggest you examine your beliefs. They must conform to what the Bible tells us. Spiritualizing them should not be done without good reason.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Parable of the Fig Tree

6 [Jesus] also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’”

I agree that the Fig Tree is a reference indirectly to Israel. Or, at least Jesus knows that it would be taken as such.

But I disagree that the reference to the Fig Tree in the Olivet Discourse refers to the time *just before the End.* Yes, Jesus referred to both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age. But in referencing the Fig Tree, I think he was talking only about the destruction of Jerusalem, and not the end of the age.

The 2 subjects, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age, are combined in a single discourse because the Disciples followed up Jesus' statement about the destruction of Jerusalem with the question about the end of the age. Obviously, Jesus' reference to the destruction of Jerusalem conjured up in the minds of the Disciples images of the end of the age.

But Jesus, in comparing these two things did not say they synchronized. On the contrary, he answered the question "when" regarding the destruction of Jerusalem--it would be in "this generation." But regarding the question of when he's coming again, he demurred. Or you might say that he marginalized the importance of trying to guess times and seasons, which are in the Father's hands. We are to live moral, expectant lives all the time, not anticipating when he would come, but knowing that he is coming to judge us we should *always* live moral lives.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I used to listen to a few radio ministries that were taught by Jewish believers in Jesus (or Yeshua ha mashiach) and they definitely have a different perspective from most churches.
Personally, I can't comprehend why anyone would believe themselves Christian and yet dismiss all the prophecies of a restoration of national Israel, beginning with the song of Moses in the book of Deuteronomy.

The Early Church, as I understand it, was a believer in Israel's restoration. But gradually, as time passed, it became clear to everyone that the majority of Jews were not coming home, either spiritually or materially. And so, Replacement Theology began.

As Israel has entered into the modern Zionist stage, many Christians have turned back to belief in Israel's restoration. Jesus had given the clue in advance though, if anybody had been interested in knowing the truth. Jesus said that Israel's relative intransigence would exist all through the present age--God would not destroy Israel because of the promise, and because God would not judge them, the entrenched sin remained.

When Christ comes again, he will then judge Israel, destroying a large number in order to prepare for the new Christian order, beginning with those who repent at that time. They will follow the path of their Christian predecessors, who in the present age are relatively few.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I've been told that Martin Luther was deeply Antisemitic, but I don't know how anyone would know that (I've never bothered reading his theses or published works.)
I've participated in online discussions since the days of telephone modems and computers with 8080 processors. I remember online arguments on "bulletin boards" over who killed Jesus, the Romans or Jews? I think that our theologies have grown a little bit since then, but not so much as I'd hoped for.

I was in a forum where a few Jews debated with a few Christians. There was a reference to "On the Jews and their Lies." This is a document Luther came up with later--he was initially pro-Jew. But there's some question as to why Luther reverted to a form of anti-Semitism. It may have been because he was told that the Jews were back-stabbing him, using the freedom Luther recommended for them as an opportunity to keep Jews from the Gospel of Christian Salvation.

Obviously, the Jews would keep their people from Christian Salvation because as a people they had rejected Christianity. So I don't know why Luther was overtaken by that reality? But he shouldn't have been as harsh as he was. It was just his style on every subject because it had to do with his interest in preserving a Gospel of Salvation apart from Works. He wanted all people, including the Jews, to have unbridled, unspoiled access to the Gospel of Salvation. He was very loud and defensive, which wasn't all a bad thing considering the importance of the subject in his time.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus was the great teacher of replacement theology, the kingdom of God has been taken from Israel, and given to the "Holy Nation" in the Church

Matthew 21:43KJV
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

1 Peter 2:9KJV
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

That is used as a pretext for Replacement Theology. But it doesn't actually teach Replacement Theology, since Replacement Theology did not yet exist at that time.

One may fully agree with what Jesus said, that the theocracy of Israel was eventually passed to the Roman theocracy, and still not believe that Israel was "left behind." In fact, many Christians still believed that until most turned to Replacement Theology later, when they saw little evidence the Jews were coming back to their calling. The argument may be made that they still have opportunity to return.

 

[Hidden In Him]

But Jesus, in comparing these two things did not say they synchronized. On the contrary, he answered the question "when" regarding the destruction of Jerusalem--it would be in "this generation." But regarding the question of when he's coming again, he demurred.

Hi Randy.

There are a couple of problems with your hypothesis. For starters, He told them that "when you see all these things [coming to pass], know that it is near," and the previous verses suggest He was talking about His return (see v.27-31). And "all these things" that needed to happen first obviously included the tribulation and the sun being darkened, the moon not giving its light, the stars falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens being shaken, because the mention of those things preceded His statement about "seeing all these things" as well.

The confusion with this passage often comes from how it is translated, however. "This generation" is misleading. The Greek word γενεά was just as readily defined as "age," and that was the meaning here. The reference is not merely to the passing of a generation, but to an age finally "passing away."

32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this age will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The word translated "nation" there is in the singular in Greek, so if it is indeed referring to a nation, which nation in particular is He referring to?

I would make the case that this "nation" the Roman Kingdom, the 4th in a series of 4 beginning with Babylon in Dan 2 and 7.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I would make the case that this "nation" the Roman Kingdom, the 4th in a series of 4 beginning with Babylon in Dan 2 and 7.

How would the Roman Kingdom bring forth the fruits of righteousness? It wasn't long before they turned to killing Christians wholesale.

Matthew 21:43KJV
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy.
There are a couple of problems with your hypothesis. For starters, He told them that "when you see all these things [coming to pass], know that it is near," and the previous verses suggest He was talking about His return (see v.27-31).

Yes, this is a common complaint I get with my position. Here's the text:

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days

Please note that Jesus is addressing the Jews of his own generation, telling them not to "go out" when people claim they are a Christ or a Christ movement. This happened in the 1st century, and had nothing to do with Jesus' return, obviously.

Then he spoke about "lightning," which often conjures an image of Christ's Return. And since Jesus was asked about when his Return would be, it is thought that Jesus wanted the Jews of his own time to expect his Return imminently.

But it's the opposite. Jesus was clarifying what both his Comings were about. They were both about judgment, one bringing Israel under judgment imminently, and the other completing that process of judgment.

Jesus was clarifying the misconception that we should always be watching heaven, expecting he could come at any moment. But he was actually declaring that his coming would be a universal event, and not initially a local event. First, Jerusalem and the Jews would fall, and then later, the world would be brought under judgment.

The "carcass that the vultures will gather to" concerned the gathering of Roman "eagles" to Jerusalem, but it could just as well apply in the endtimes to the gathering of nations to Armageddon. The idea is that Jesus is coming *in judgment.*

Finally, note that it is in vs. 29 that Jesus speaks of *when* he is coming. He was asked both about when the fall of Jerusalem would take place and when his Coming would be. Here, it clearly and without obfuscation says that his 2nd Coming will be "after the tribulation of the Jewish People." In Luke, Jesus made it clear that he was speaking of a specifically *Jewish* punishment, and he also clearly indicated it would last throughout the age until his Return.

So this divide between the Fall of Jerusalem and the 2nd Coming is being spelled out by Jesus. They are to expect judgment imminently. But they are to expect world judgment "after the Jewish punishment," distantly. You can't expect a "soon Return" if there is going to be a fall of Jerusalem, a Jewish exile into all the world, a period of desolation among the nations (the Diaspora), and finally a judgment that purifies Israel in preparation for its spiritual restoration.

And "all these things" that needed to happen first obviously included the tribulation and the sun being darkened, the moon not giving its light, the stars falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens being shaken, because the mention of those things preceded His statement about "seeing all these things" as well.

This is a big point of disagreement. "All these things" means what it means *in context.* It could mean "absolutely everything Jesus talked about, including the birth pangs and the 2nd Coming," or it could refer only to the main prediction being made, namely "all the things" that have to do with the "birth pains," anticipating the fall of Jerusalem.

I obviously stick with the latter. Otherwise I can't make sense of the Discourse as a whole. I've been studying it for 50 years, and I could never make heads nor tails out of it--I even memorized Matthew's version of it! It just didn't make sense to me until I came to this conclusion--certainly I'm not original with it--the Church Fathers seemed to view it this way too!

The biggest problem I ran into with my view had to do with Luke 17. And a sister who was hostile to my position forced me to look deeper into it, and I altered my view somewhat. But that's another story. I largely see the 3 versions of the Olivet Discourse consistently and cohesively now. If you're happy with your position, then I'm fine with that.

The confusion with this passage often comes from how it is translated, however. "This generation" is misleading. The Greek word γενεά was just as readily defined as "age," and that was the meaning here. The reference is not merely to the passing of a generation, but to an age finally "passing away."

Yes, that is a common way of getting around the idea that Jesus was warning about the fall of Jerusalem in his own generation. But that would seem unnatural, even if it is logical. I prefer the literal "generation," which is how Jesus used it in his preceding speech. He referred to the Jewish People in his time as having all of the listed sins. They therefore would be the punished *generation.* I think you can extend to "all generations" the punishment that God has given Jews in the present age. But to extend the *guilt* of the Jews to *all generations* sounds a bit racist to me?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Jesus was clarifying the misconception that we should always be watching heaven

Boy... there are a ton of things I could say about this post; a lot to comment on. But let me start with this at least. That He would be clarifying a misconception that they always be watching Heaven again seems to contradict the context. Jesus went on to state:

42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what [h]hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

This is a big point of disagreement. "All these things" means what it means *in context.* It could mean "absolutely everything Jesus talked about, including the birth pangs and the 2nd Coming," or it could refer only to the main prediction being made, namely "all the things" that have to do with the "birth pains," anticipating the fall of Jerusalem.

Yes, it could be divided up like that, but it leads to an unnatural reading of the text; too unclear. If He said "all these things," then what just preceded what He was saying would be implied, i.e. the natural conclusion would be that He was referring to all the events described prior to this statement; things they would be able to observe and watch for.

I obviously stick with the latter. Otherwise I can't make sense of the Discourse as a whole.

Has anyone every mentioned to you the prophetic principle of partial fulfillment? It's what I subscribe to.

I prefer the literal "generation," which is how Jesus used it in his preceding speech. He referred to the Jewish People in his time as having all of the listed sins. They therefore would be the punished *generation.* I think you can extend to "all generations" the punishment that God has given Jews in the present age.

This is a plausible argument, I just don't think it's the right one.

But to extend the *guilt* of the Jews to *all generations* sounds a bit racist to me?

Not sure how the passage would extend guilt. You'd have to explain that one for me.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Boy... there are a ton of things I could say about this post; a lot to comment on. But let me start with this at least. That He would be clarifying a misconception that they always be watching Heaven again seems to contradict the context. Jesus went on to state:

42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what [h]hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

Right, Jesus did say that. We are to watch expectantly that the Kingdom will come, and all of mankind will be judged. Things will be put right. But he did not say we were to watch expectantly that he could return *at any minute.* That's the distinction I wished to make!

The misconception that was present at that time was not, of course, our version of Imminency Doctrine, the idea that Jesus can come back "at any second." Rather, it was something akin to that which said, The Kingdom is about to come and deliver Israel from the Romans at about any time now. The triumphant return of the Messiah can be expected presently," even though the Jews were hardly ready for their Kingdom to come!

So Jesus was correcting this notion by declaring, explicitly, that the temple was about to be trounced in that very generation, which would lead to an age-long Jewish Punishment. It would only end with his Return. This absolutely contradicted the then-belief that the Kingdom was about to come to bring instant deliverance.

Luke 19.11 While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

Yes, it could be divided up like that, but it leads to an unnatural reading of the text; too unclear. If He said "all these things," then what just preceded what He was saying would be implied, i.e. the natural conclusion would be that He was referring to all the events described prior to this statement; things they would be able to observe and watch for.

Yes, I understand. But in reality, discourses are not neatly divided up into timed segments--"this segment refers to Jesus' time, and this segment refers to the 2nd Coming," etc. You just have to read something sensibly in context.

I read it the way you are reading it, and was confused for many years. Somewhere along the way I listened to tidbits from others and gradually came to a more coherent understanding. Maybe it helps to read it in another language--I don't know.

Certainly it's a matter for prayer, because the enemy would love to confuse us all, and even worse, divide us. This issue doesn't determine our spiritual unity. But coming to a genuine understanding of the passage should, in theory, help us. Unfortunately, when some of us disagree too strongly, it does divide us spiritually. I don't think that's true in your case.

So "all these things" refer to the Main Event, the Fall of Jerusalem. I say this for several reasons.

1) Jesus began the Discourse by introducing the idea that Jerusalem is soon to fall. This was his main objective, to predict this major event in the history of Israel. Just as the prophets before him predicted the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians, Jesus was here predicting the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans.

It would be illogical for Jesus to ask his Disciples or his Generation to look for "all these things" if the things included things that clearly could not happen in their generation, such as the regathering of Israel. A long Diaspora was to precede that event.

2) Jesus identified "all these things" as a group by referring to them as "birth pains." They consisted of events that were directly linked, thematically and historically, to the fall of Jerusalem.

Predicting wars and rumors of wars are the things that anticipate further warfare. Hearing and seeing Roman activities in the region were to be viewed as a sign from God that imminent judgment was coming. And historically, earthquakes and wars did happen at that time, just before the 70 AD event.

3) Jesus intended to distinguish between the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and his Return after a long dispersion of the Jewish People. "All these things" that Jesus said his own generation was to expect would therefore be focused on the nearer event, namely the event of 70 AD.

So why, you ask, would Jesus mention "all these things" right after referring to his 2nd Coming? It was, I think, because Jesus was contrasting the things his generation was to look for with the things that they would not expect to be imminent, namely his coming as lightning shining throughout the earth, following a long Jewish Dispersion.

Has anyone every mentioned to you the prophetic principle of partial fulfillment? It's what I subscribe to.

Of course. I've heard of partial fulfillment, double fulfillment, etc. I'm a literalist. I think there are foreshadowings, but I interpret what Jesus said quite literally. Poetic license is allowed. ;)

This is a plausible argument, I just don't think it's the right one.

That's okay, brother. We're just sharing views. You've always had a good spirit. That's way too rare on the forums. I just got kicked off another forum today for presenting the idea that baptismal regeneration didn't always intend to mean justification by works in the traditional churches. I was accused of misrepresenting traditional church positions. ;)

Thanks for your good spirit. I genuinely appreciate it! :)

Not sure how the passage would extend guilt. You'd have to explain that one for me.

Luke 21 defines the Great Tribulation as a Tribulation of the *Jewish People,* and one that lasts *throughout the NT age,* ending only at the Return of Christ. I've argued this until I'm out of breath, but find relatively few to agree with me.

So the idea is that Punishment came upon the generation that Jesus condemned as worse than Sodom, which is the generation that crucified him. And the Jews were targeted because they should've known better. The Gospel of Theocracy would then be taken to the Romans due to their relative innocence.

So the guilt belonged to this generation, and not to all future generations of Jews who had yet to be born. Yes, the Jews continued to be controlled by bad leaders, who defined Judaism as "not Christianity," and who blamed Christianity as perhaps their "worst enemy." There could be some truth in that if we include in "Christianity" corrupt forms of Christianity.

In sum, the Punishment of the Jewish People would continue through all NT generations, but the Guilt belonged solely on the generation that crucified Christ. Each succeeding generation would bear its own individual guilt, rather than bearing some kind of "racial guilt" for the murder of Christ.

The "Punishment" is merely exile from the land of Israel. It is not punishment in the sense that all generations of Jews are guilty of rejecting Jesus. Many of them don't know anything about it, or have false caricatures of him.

The "punishment," therefore, is just where the nation has to sit, quarantined away from their land until the time set by the Lord to bring them back and remove the wicked. The "Punishment" and the "Guilt," therefore, must be clearly distinguished, lest we fall into a form of anti-Semitism.

 

[Randy Kluth]

How would the Roman Kingdom bring forth the fruits of righteousness? It wasn't long before they turned to killing Christians wholesale.

Matthew 21:43KJV
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The Roman Kingdom was converted under Theodosius to a Christian Kingdom/Empire.

 

[Oseas]

The Parable of the Fig Tree

6 [Jesus] also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it use up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’”

Will the city of Jerusalem bear spiritual fruit, and many Jews come to Christ in the end-times? Many say no, and that God is done with the nation of Isreal; that the church is now spiritual "Isreal" and all Bible prophecy relates to Christians alone. They even teach that the above parable proves God was finished with Israel after A.D. 70.

But was He? This will take a little bit to unpack, but first let's list the specifics of this parable. The symbolism was as follows:

- The man who planted the tree was God
- His vineyard was Isreal, and the fig tree was specifically the city of Jerusalem.
- Jesus was the keeper of the vineyard.
- The fruit God was seeking from His fig tree was the fruit of righteousness, which they were not giving Him, so the Father had determined to "cut it down," and that judgment would come upon Israel, for she would be handed over to the nations.
- But Jesus was depicted here as interceding on behalf of Jerusalem, asking the Father to essentially, "Give it one more season before you bring judgment upon them. I will pour out the Holy Spirit upon them as a witness to Me, and perhaps the city will come under repentance, and finally turn to producing the fruit of righteousness. If they still do not after that, cut it down."

Did the city of Jerusalem produce the fruit God desired in the 1st century? Yes and no. After the Spirit of God was poured out upon the disciples in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, Acts says:

40 And with many other words [Peter] testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them... 46 and [believers] ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. (Acts 2:40-47)

What becomes very interesting, however, is this: Jesus uses a fig tree parable again later in His ministry as recorded in both Matthew 24 and Luke 21, and in this teaching He prophesied that in the time just before His return, the fig tree (Jerusalem) would start to have tender branches and then bud, which are the early stages of bearing fruit.

Luke 21 renders it like this:

29 Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. 30 When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. 31 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Matthew 24 has it this way:

31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth shoots, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

Now, this symbolism strongly suggests that in the time just before Christ's return to gather His elect from the four corners of the earth, the fig tree, which was Jerusalem in the previous parable, will again bud and begin bearing fruit. This also suggests the Spirit will once again be poured put upon Israel as well.

Lest anyone doubt that this passage was talking about the nation of Isreal and Jerusalem specifically here, take a look again at the context in which these passages are found. I will post them out in full in the next post.

God bless, and thanks for reading.

Jerusalem: A Fig Tree That Will Bud Again

OK, but what kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? Once a Jewish Man, surreptitiously like a LAMB of two horns, in fact a FALSE LAMB, will manifest himself in Israel as a messiah, a false messiah, of course, actually he is/will be an esoteric, and kabbalistic, and SPIRITIST messiah?


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? If the COURT which is without the temple it is/will be given unto the Gentiles, and the Holy City shall they tread under foot forty and two months-1.260 days- confirmed in Revelation 13:v.5? (IT WILL BE FIRST HALF OF THE LAST WEEK-DANIEL 9:v.27).


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? If the false messiah will oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God will sit in the temple of GOD, shewing himself that he is God?


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? If the MAN Beast like a LAMB that will ascend out of the bottomless pit and will make WAR against the witnesses of GOD, and shall overcome them, and kill them, and their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city -JERUSALEM- which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified?


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? If the false messiah-John 5:v.43-47-, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders? And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause GOD shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a lie: That they ALL, yes, ALL might be DAMNED who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? If the Abomination of Desolation that JESUS referred in Matt.24:v.15 will be established in Israel by a Jewish false messiah, AN IMPOSTOR, as JESUS revealed? - John 5:v.43-47


What kind of fruit will the fig tree produce? Once the most High GOD shall send them STRONG DELUSION, that they should believe a LIE? That they ALL, yes, they ALL might be DAMNED who believed not the truth-believed not in JESUS-, but had pleasure in unrighteousness? JESUS came unto His own, and His own received Him not.

 

[Oseas]

According Scriptures, where was/is the root of the fig tree?

Genesis 3:v.7 - The eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons / girdles.

God did not accept the model that Adam and Eve created to hide or cover their nakedness.