My favorite part of the Bible: Mark 11

I am not a Christian, but I still find great wisdom and insight in the Bible, especially in the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John has it's moments, but I can take it or leave it). Of all the wonderful parts of the Gospels, the Beatitudes, Gethsemane, the parables, my favorite part is chapter 11 of the Gospel of Mark. It not only shows Yeshua ben Yosef, the man we now call Jesus, at the height of his ministry with his entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, but it shows his flaws and his humanness as well. Best of all, it shows Yeshua speaking of the true potential of humanity in the clearest of terms.

It begins, as I said, with Palm Sunday, and then continues to this (KJV)...

Originally Posted by Mark 11

12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

After this, Yeshua and the disciples enter Jerusalem, and we find the famous moneychangers in the Temple scene. Then this follows...

Originally Posted by Mark 11

19 And when even was come, he went out of the city.
20 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
25 And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

There are three very important lessons in these verses. First, even more than the moneychangers scene, this story displays the essential humanness of Yeshua. This incredible man, this wonderful and wise teacher, loses his temper at a tree and kills it with a word (in Matthew the tree withers instantly, rather than overnight as here). This shows us that Yeshua is not perfect, he is flawed, just like all of us. How many of us have wounded another with unkindness in a moment of frustration? How many of us have gotten snappy with others, even others we love, when we are hungry, as he was? How incredibly normal and natural! This moment of imperfection on the part of Yeshua I find incredibly inspiring, because more than his temptation in the wilderness or his fear in Gethsemane or his doubt at Golgotha, this shows me a Yeshua I can relate to as another man, searching for peace within and without, and occasionally failing.

Notice then, in the second part, how he turns a negative into a positive. Instead of dwelling on his mistake, he uses the awe his followers feel at the sight of the dead tree into an object lesson in the power that all have within them. And notice also, there are no caveats or limits to the power of prayer (some were added to this same story in Matthew), only that one needs to believe, completely, in the power of the Divine and that the prayer will be answered. It doesn't matter what is prayed for, it doesn't matter the purity of the asker, all that matters is faith that goes beyond faith to perfect knowing and confidence.

But notice now the addendum to this teaching, the importance of forgiveness of others. This seems abrupt, almost a changing of subject, if one assumes the perfection of Yeshua, but in light of his flaws it makes perfect sense. Yeshua knows that he has done wrong by losing his temper and killing the tree, and in his heart he has asked the Divine for forgiveness for his trespass. Since this is on his mind, he then passes on the insight that God will forgive us precisely as much as we forgive others. With the knowledge of how close Yeshua is to his greatest forgivenesses of others at this time (the Tuesday before Good Friday), this teaching becomes especially poignant.

Mark 11, more than any other part of the Bible, reveals to me the true nature of the man we now call Jesus; God made man, yes, but not unique in this and, in his own way, just as flawed and human as any of us.

CS

[BlueSky]

See, I didn’t get that Jesus had lost his temper when I read that. I did wonder what the tree could have done wrong if it wasn’t season for figs though. That wonderment left me feeling that I just didn’t understand the passage.
I did a quick research and I found some interesting stuff by people who know more than I do about such things.
The first was that the story is symbolic and that the fig tree represented Israel and Jesus was symbolically warning of the judgment to come if she did not start producing fruit.
Another was that famine was believed to be the work of the devil and in fact barren or infected fig trees became symbols of this.
It is believed by some that Jesus was 'cursing the curse' and proclaiming that he was the long awaited one who would destroy the Devils work.
Interesting stuff…………thanks for sharing CS
James

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

See, I didn’t get that Jesus had lost his temper when I read that. I did wonder what the tree could have done wrong if it wasn’t season for figs though. That wonderment left me feeling that I just didn’t understand the passage.

I'd say go back and read it again, with a completely open mind. No preconceptions as to Yeshua's nature, nothing. See if you come to the same conclusions I do. Of course, there's no requirements that you do so.

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

I did a quick research and I found some interesting stuff by people who know more than I do about such things.
The first was that the story is symbolic and that the fig tree represented Israel and Jesus was symbolically warning of the judgment to come if she did not start producing fruit.

I've heard this line before... usually from the very same people that then claim that someone once literally fit 2 million animals onto a 500 ft long boat, along with enough food to feed them for a month and a half. Can't have it both ways, you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible are allegorical and which ones aren't.

Also, if Yeshua literally withered the tree but meant it as an allegorical statement, don't you think he would have mentioned it? He spent so much time on allegories and parables, and so much time breaking them down for his (let's be honest) rather thick disciples, do you think he would have tossed this one off and not explained it? No, instead he discourses on the nature of miracles and prayer. Doesn't hold water for me.

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

Another was that famine was believed to be the work of the devil and in fact barren or infected fig trees became symbols of this.
It is believed by some that Jesus was 'cursing the curse' and proclaiming that he was the long awaited one who would destroy the Devils work.

Again, an unexplained allegorical act. No good. Also, as you said yourself, the tree wasn't barren or infected, it was out of season. Nothing "cursed" about it.

Christians have placed Yeshua onto an impossibly high pedestal; they literally believe he is God. Problem is, there are quite a few instances documented in the Bible where he behaves in a less-than divine way. They refuse to let him down from that pedestal, however, which requires that they invent all kinds of convolutions like the ones you list in order to explain away his behavior. If they just let him come down, cop a squat, and have a cup of joe with them, they might find a guy well worth liking as a person, rather than one worth worshiping as a god.

CS

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by CuriousSnowflake

I'd say go back and read it again, with a completely open mind. No preconceptions as to Yeshua's nature, nothing. See if you come to the same conclusions I do. Of course, there's no requirements that you do so.



I've heard this line before... usually from the very same people that then claim that someone once literally fit 2 million animals onto a 500 ft long boat, along with enough food to feed them for a month and a half. Can't have it both ways, you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible are allegorical and which ones aren't.

Also, if Yeshua literally withered the tree but meant it as an allegorical statement, don't you think he would have mentioned it? He spent so much time on allegories and parables, and so much time breaking them down for his (let's be honest) rather thick disciples, do you think he would have tossed this one off and not explained it? No, instead he discourses on the nature of miracles and prayer. Doesn't hold water for me.



Again, an unexplained allegorical act. No good. Also, as you said yourself, the tree wasn't barren or infected, it was out of season. Nothing "cursed" about it.

Christians have placed Yeshua onto an impossibly high pedestal; they literally believe he is God. Problem is, there are quite a few instances documented in the Bible where he behaves in a less-than divine way. They refuse to let him down from that pedestal, however, which requires that they invent all kinds of convolutions like the ones you list in order to explain away his behavior. If they just let him come down, cop a squat, and have a cup of joe with them, they might find a guy well worth liking as a person, rather than one worth worshiping as a god.

CS

The thing is CS, and I happen to have many many years of experience with the bible and the study of it, is that it has to be read with an open mind, yes, but also in its context and we really don't know much about that except for the commentaries we read.
It is very much cultural as is Hunduism and Buddhism and we can only look at it as an outsider so to speak in many areas. Not all though. Parables for example speak to those who have ears to hear. At least that was my experience.


So in some cases you have to reread it in its context with a new open mind.

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

The thing is CS, and I happen to have many many years of experience with the bible and the study of it, is that it has to be read with an open mind, yes, but also in its context and we really don't know much about that except for the commentaries we read.
It is very much cultural as is Hunduism and Buddhism and we can only look at it as an outsider so to speak in many areas. Not all though. Parables for example speak to those who have ears to hear. At least that was my experience.


So in some cases you have to reread it in its context with a new open mind.

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by CuriousSnowflake

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

Ha! I take it all with a grain of salt........but I will value forever what I did 'personally' get out of the bible and the teachings of Jesus. It is part of who I am.

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by CuriousSnowflake

Of course you do, but we have to take the commentaries of others with a grain of salt, for they may well have a philosophical axe to grind. Too many Christians I've encountered over they years insist on Biblical literalism when it suits them (as in the age of the planet when debating creationism), but him and haw and shuffle their feet when confronted with difficult passages like Mark 11.

I freely admit, I'm the pot calling the kettle black to an extent here. I too have an axe to grind; I believe with all my heart that Yeshua was no more divine than I am. I also believe he was no less divine than I am as well. There are a great many passages in the Bible that refute my belief, so of course I am picking and choosing my Scriptures. The difference between me and literalists is that I don't claim that any source is authoritative and infallible, not even my current truths. I'm willing to change my truths based upon new experience and new data. Biblical literalists are not.

CS

One would have to decide what the book was. If it was symbolic then the whole thing would be symbolic. Not just parts that fit when they want it to be. If it is symbolic it would then be that Jesus was not a literal "son" of God, but a symbolic son of God, or a state that a soul could achieve. The devil wouldn't be a literal individual but a person that follows the path of "self" instead of the path to God.. etc..

[innerlight]

Originally Posted by WhiteShaman

See, I didn’t get that Jesus had lost his temper when I read that. I did wonder what the tree could have done wrong if it wasn’t season for figs though. That wonderment left me feeling that I just didn’t understand the passage.
I did a quick research and I found some interesting stuff by people who know more than I do about such things.
The first was that the story is symbolic and that the fig tree represented Israel and Jesus was symbolically warning of the judgment to come if she did not start producing fruit.
Another was that famine was believed to be the work of the devil and in fact barren or infected fig trees became symbols of this.
It is believed by some that Jesus was 'cursing the curse' and proclaiming that he was the long awaited one who would destroy the Devils work.
Interesting stuff…………thanks for sharing CS
James

It is interesting how many Catholics/Christians can turn almost anything into a fight between good and evil, or have it be the Devils work. It's hard to really know if there was a time of famine going on during that passage, and if that tree was a barren, or infected tree, or if it was just Spring and that tree had not born any fruit yet.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by innerlight

It is interesting how many Catholics/Christians can turn almost anything into a fight between good and evil, or have it be the Devils work. It's hard to really know if there was a time of famine going on during that passage, and if that tree was a barren, or infected tree, or if it was just Spring and that tree had not born any fruit yet.

That is what I was saying earlier. It has to be read in its context and that is near impossible because with that is a culture that we know little about at that time.

Originally Posted by innerlight

It is interesting how many Catholics/Christians can turn almost anything into a fight between good and evil, or have it be the Devils work. It's hard to really know if there was a time of famine going on during that passage, and if that tree was a barren, or infected tree, or if it was just Spring and that tree had not born any fruit yet.

It was the latter...

Originally Posted by Mark 11

13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

Also, it had to be Spring, since it was Passover, and Passover is keyed to the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

CS