Letters to the Editor

The Fossil Record

Dear Bro. Don,

It is certainly true that “there is no room for dogmatism” when the subject of fossils is discussed. Bro. Alan Hayward (Tidings 2/96) makes this doctrinaire statement: “There are so many of these microfossils that, in many places, they form sedimentary beds up to a mile or even more, which must have taken enormous time to accumulate” (emphasis added). However, the strata that formed a few years ago in connection with the eruption of Mount St. Helens proves that sedimentary beds can be formed in a very short time, as a result of a catastrophe, and need not take “enormous time” to accumulate.

Can it really be true that “the days of creation do not demand to be taken literally, as 24-hour periods”? Is the first chapter of Genesis to be taken as figurative; or is it a parable; a poem, perhaps? or did God reveal the wonders of creation to Moses in six literal days?

The terms of the fourth commandment seems to clinch the matter:

“Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work…for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth…and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.”

Would any Israelite, standing at the foot of Mt. Sinai and hearing these words, say to himself, “Oh yes, we are to keep the seventh day of each week holy, because God created the heavens and the earth during six vast geological ages and He has been resting for a seventh vast geological age”?

If the fourth commandment enjoined six literal days of labor and the seventh a literal day of rest, what possible grounds can there be for asserting that the action described in the same verse, “in six days the LORD made the heaven and the earth” is to be calculated on a completely different scale of time or else to be interpreted in a bizarre manner that was not even promoted until about 200 years ago.

If the fourth commandment can be wrested and distorted to convey something entirely different from its obvious, natural meaning, then the door is open to similarly change the ordinary meaning of the other commandments. This of course, is exactly what the humanists have done by substituting situation ethics for “Thou shalt not steal.”

E. W. Farrar, Hamilton, ONT (Unamended)

While we are sure Bro. Farrar had no such intention, the final statement in his letter might convey that anyone not taking his view of the creation matter is a compromiser of God’s moral edicts. We feel certain such an inference was not intended.

Recognizing Bible idiom

We feel the Bible record of Genesis I is written the way it is to convey the grand plan of God with this dispensation and to highlight certain aspects of God’s creative actions. And the sab­bath law is given with respect to the way the Bible record is supplied.

Consider Genesis 1:16-17: the Bible  record has the stars being created on the fourth day. Does Bro. Farrar be­lieve the universe was utterly nothing from the beginning of time until 6,000 years ago? To us, it is unthinkable that God, who is creative, and ingenious far beyond mortal man would be doing nothing until just recently. Further Job 38:7 intimates the celestial bodies existed when the Adamic creation as described in Genesis I began.

The same idea of arranging the Bible record to suggest a deeper point is evident in the Melchisedec matter and the issues alluded to in Romans 5:13-14. A full examination of the point must be postponed for the moment.

Genesis 1 as a preview of the Adamic creation

We would suggest the following idea is useful in reading the creation narrative:

Day one separation of light and darkness = 4,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C. the sons of God (light) were separated from the wicked (darkness).

Day two dominated by water = 3,000 B.C. to 2,000 B.C. dominated by the flood.

Day three = 2,000 B.C. to 1,000 B.C. dominated by separation of Israel (earth) from nations (seas) with Israel (the earth) to bring forth fruit with na­tions (seas) unproductive until day five.

Day four = 1,000 B.C. to 0 B.C. dominated by prominent individuals (kings and prophets) who were to bring order in their areas of influence as were the sun, moon and stars.

Days five and six  = the A.D. period when the Gentiles (seas) and Jews (earth) were to be productive in bringing forth creatures to God culminating in those to whom dominion would be given (the faithful saints).

Thus we conclude Exodus 20:11 is intended to be read as follows: “[The  Bible record reads] for six days the LORD made heaven and earth…” rather than being a proof positive that nothing existed until 6,000 years ago.

The Age of the Earth

Dear Bro. Don,

I am reluctant to wade into controversies over the age of the earth. Bro. Alan Hayward in one of his books made the point about the amount of time it takes to research and answer arguments in these scientific areas. How very true this is! But I feel at least some observations must be made about his arguments.

Bro. Alan argues that Bible pas­sages referring to a “carnivore-free creation” are “easily capable of a figurative interpretation.” I suspect he may be referring to Isaiah 11 and 65. But this argument must also apply equally to the following: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Gen. 1:29-30).

There are significant implications if these words are taken literally, and, there are equally significant (though different) implications if these words are taken figuratively.

If Genesis 1:29-30 is taken literally, one is forced to conclude that animals as God originally created them on the “sixth day” ate only vegetation. If they had carnivore-type teeth, then one would have to surmise they used them to tear up and devour some kind of dense foliage God provided for their “meat” (somewhat like the panda today whose carnivore-type teeth are used to eat bamboo). One is also led to conclude from the Genesis record that the carnivore activity now apparent in the animal kingdom, and reflected in the fossil record (not so much in the teeth as in the teeth marks on fossil bones), did not occur until after the sin of man. (One other observation can be made: If Genesis 1 is literal, then Isaiah 11 and 65 whatever symbolical aspects are intended, is also a promise of the restoration of creation to the condition God originally intended for it)

What are the implications of these observations? There are two possibilities: 1) Genesis 1 is literally true and the paleontologists’ arguments for the great age of fossils (as well as the evolutionary sequence they apply to them) is wrong, or 2) the paleontologists are right and Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally. (The third option is unacceptable to any Bible believer, namely that paleontologists have it right and the Bible is false.)

Bro. Alan rejects the former conclusion because he believes the evidence for millions of years of life on earth is “overwhelming.”

But what are the implications of taking the words of Genesis 1:29-30 figuratively? I believe the implications are profound: If vs. 29-30 are figurative, why not the rest of chapter 1? Was there a real man and woman created or was “man” just a figure for some race of people God set apart for Himself, and the animals, other, inferior nations with whom God had no direct interest? And what about chapters 2 and 3? Are the sin of Adam and subsequent consequences also figurative? Is any part of Genesis literally true?

Is it not evident that if plain Bible words (where there is absolutely no indication of figurative or symbolic language as in some prophecies) must be forced into a figurative mold because of current scientific theories and their “overwhelming evidence,” that maybe the problem is not with the Bible, but with the “evidence”?

I am amazed how often the Bible is subjected to intensive examination and re-evaluation because of some “evidence,” rather than the other way around. The one good thing that can be said about the Institute for Creation Research in California (ICR not CRS) is its willingness to critically examine this evidence. One may not always agree with their findings, but one cannot help but respect their attitude toward the Bible.

Just one example of such work: It was ICR scientists that did the first extensive evaluation of the aftermath of the Mount St. Helens eruption (the volcano that literally blew off its top in 1980). Their research on the formation of a mini-Grand Canyon in the southern region of the area by a devastating slurry of melted snow, dirt and rock has caused the complete re-evaluation of the formation of the Grand Canyon (it is now believed that similar catastrophic processes, not millions of years of weathering, formed this large canyon). They also discovered a 25­foot-thick deposit of lamina (clearly defined thin layers of deposited material). Current scientific theory would have suggested that the hundreds of layers observed were the result of thousands of years of slow deposition. Yet this deposition of lamina occurred in less than five hours!

The point? Evidently there are other ways of interpreting sedimentary evidence, ways which do not involve millions of years, and therefore do not require the rejection of a straightforward reading of plain Bible narratives.

Ted Sleeper, San Mateo, CA

The literality of Genesis 1 to 3 is not an either/or matter. From other scripture we know Adam was “formed,” he was not born of parents, Eve was made second being derived from Adam (I Cor. 11:8; 15:45; I Tim. 2:13) and a literal serpent beguiled Eve (II Cor. 11:3). From observation we know flora and fauna are “after their kind” with built-in barriers that cannot be crossed. On the other hand, some of the language is figurative: Sun and moon do not “rule” (Gen. 1:16­18) in a literal sense and God did not literally “rest” (2:2-3) as all that was made must be sustained on the seventh day.

We prefer Bro. Thomas’ suggestion that the reader should “peruse the his­tory of the creation as a revelation to himself as an inhabitant of the earth… The Mosaic account is not a revelation to the inhabitants of other orbs remote from the earth of the formation of the boundless universe; but to man, as a constituent of the terrestrial system. This will explain why light is said to have been created four days before the sun, moon, and stars” (Elpis Israel, Chapter 2, 2nd paragraph) the creation account is written from the perspective of an observer on the earth and is worded to provide a cameo summary of this present epoch (see comments above following letter by Bro. Farrar.)

Dear Bro. Don,

I was not aware that there was such a number of scholarly Christadelphi­ans who took the 6,000 years of creations with such a large grain of salt. I really thought that I was one of few who questioned it, albeit I never went so far as to consider “millions of years” for our own little dispensation.

How do those who believe in a recent, carnivore-free creation deal with the fossil evidence? As a novice among these experts in fossil history, I hesitate to express my opinions, but I do not see any connection between dinosaurs and our creation. This “carnivore-free creation,” the dispensation within which we all live, birthed 6,000 years ago. How long is a day? a year? God knows. This is immaterial because our “little” creation is an entity unto itself. We are not concerned with the time period(s) before or after it. I have always had difficulty dealing with a 6,000 year creation of EARTH; I have no problem dealing with 6,000 years dispensation upon it.

If it is agreed that dinosaurs are from a previous era, the fact that they were meat eaters is a moot point. The dispensation that began with Adam is the one under discussion, and I reiterate my statement that, according to Genesis, had there been carnivorous animals at the dawn of “our creation,” the creation would not have been “very good.” It’s future sentence would already have been deter­mined. In my untutored historical mind, I choose to accept the fact that a “special creation in search of a people fit for the Lord” in the middle of millions of years of motley inhabitants on this planet is more acceptable than stretching the Adamic creation back to infinity.

I do agree that many Bible pas­sages are figurative. However, in many cases these are of a literal nature also — frequently dual prophesies. Bear in mind that when debating scripture with the “evangelicals,” if all we have to offer to their many interpretations is “that is figurative,” it is comparable to debating “supernatural mysteries” with a Roman Catholic, with the shoe on the other foot!

Unfortunately I have not read Creation and Evolution; it sounds fascinating and I will add it to my wish list. Absolutely no question about the fact that God is not, would not be, the author of a lie by creating fake fossils!

J.B. Telford, PA

There is nothing prohibiting the existence of dinosaurs in this 7,000 year dispensation. The extended life-span during the first 2,000 years suggests the prevalence of some radically different conditions. On the other hand, to my knowledge, no evidence has positively proven man and dinosaurs co-existed.

It is important to maintain our perspective that scripture deals with that which concerns us and the gracious opportunity for salvation that God has provided (Deut. 29:29).

Do Fossils Tell the Truth?

Dear Bro. Don,

J. Binch’s letter (Tidings, 11/95, p. 471) is an object lesson in the Christlike way of expressing disagreement. After saying my suggestion that there could have been carnivores before the flood “puts human scientific limits on the power of God,” she gently adds, “but I am sure that was not his intention.” Our brotherhood would be a happier community if everyone expressing disapproval of someone else’s views would do it in this gracious way.

She is right: I would not dream of limiting the power of God. God has the power to do anything He pleases. The question at issue was not whether God could have created a world without carnivores, but whether the evidence shows that He actually did so.

In discussing this, I made two particularly important points.

First, those passages which appear to speak of a carnivore-free creation do not necessarily have to be taken literally. They are easily capable of a figurative interpretation — as are those passages which speak of demon possession, everlasting torment, the preexistence of Christ and the devil. Christadelphians, of all people, ought always to bear in mind that a great many Bible passages which appear to be literal are actually figurative. Evangelicals take literally many hundreds of passages that we know ought to be taken figuratively; we should beware of assuming that their creationist literature is necessarily right in arguing that certain passages concerning creation have to be understood literally.

Second, numerous fossils have been found of animals like Tyrannosaurus Rex that were obviously meat-eaters, and obviously lived before the flood. The fossils do not depend on a scientific theory; as Bro. Robert Roberts wrote, “[Fossils are] facts and as all facts are of God they must be in agreement [with the Bible properly understood]” (Visible Hand of God, chapter V “Enoch and the Flood,” pg. 49, 1942 edn.)

The fossils also have something to say about the age of the earth. Only a very small proportion of fossils are big enough to be recognized with the naked eye. There are, literally, many billions of fossils in the earth’s crust which can only be identified with the aid of a microscope. There are so many of these microfossils that, in many places, they form sedimentary beds up to a mile thick or even more, which must have taken an enormous time to accumulate. As shown in depth in my Creation and Evolution

(Bethany House Publishers, Minnesota, 1994) the variety of fossil evidence that the earth is millions of years old is overwhelming.

How do those who believe in a recent, carnivore-free creation deal with the fossil evidence? Ultimately, they always fall back on the argument first set out in the 19th century by the English biologist and evangelical, Dr. Philip Goose. He reasoned that God deliberately created fossils to look like the skeletons of once-living things, although they were nothing of the kind. Thus God gave the false “appearance of age” to a young earth. The Creation Research Society (CRS) in California and similar bodies elsewhere still use that argument today.

Several decades ago, when the CRS began its distorted witness, Bro. Alfred Norris was heard to say, “This view will not commend itself to those of us who believe that God is not the author of a lie!” Yet, sadly, quite a number of brethren have imbibed these young-earth notions from the creationist societies of the Evangelical churches.

Dr. Thomas would have had no time for the CRS philosophy. He recognized in chapter 2 of Elpis Israel that the solar system was “millions of ages” older than Adam. He made a brave attempt to dispose of the fossil evidence for an ancient creation, by suggesting that the fossils were of creatures that belong to a previous creation which must have ended in chaos, and been followed by a “recreation.” This was not his own idea; it was quite widely advocated by orthodox Christians of the mid-nineteenth century, some of whom subsequently dropped it.

This suggestion, unfortunately, also clashes with the fossil evidence. As Bro. C.C. Walker, the second editor of The Christadelphian, points out in chapter III of his book, The Word of God (1926), “there does not appear to be an [geological] evidence at all that some six thousand years ago an existing cosmos was reduced to such a chaos as is described in Genesis 1:2.”

Seventy years later, the geological evidence is even stronger than it was then. Today it would be true to say that the fossils speak eloquently of a history of life on earth which has not been broken by any comprehensive global extinction within the past few millions of years. If we wish to be­lieve in the re-creation theory, we are forced to accept that God must have laid a false trail, by carefully altering the geological evidence on a massive scale. But would the God of Truth really have done such a thing? If we are prepared to believe that He did so, what is to stop us from believing the CRS doctrine of a young universe with a divinely-implanted appearance of great age?

As with demons, etc., the days of creation do not demand to be taken literally, as 24-hour periods. The word “day” in Scripture is often figurative of a longer period of time (see Genesis 2:4 in the KJV or the Hebrew, Luke 13:32; II Peter 3:8, etc.) and could be taken here to mean a day on God’s timescale, not ours. Or, they could be six literal 24-hour periods in which God revealed the details of creation to Adam, or to Moses. Or they could be six periods in which God explained to the angels what lay ahead, before they began their work of creation.

There are so many imponderables in this whole area that there is no room for dogmatism. We may lean to one view or another, but we cannot be certain. As Paul said, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind…But why dost thou judge thy brother [who is persuaded differently]?” Or, in the wise words of Bro. C.C. Walker, “Let those who prefer Dr. Thomas’s view stick to it; but let them not condemn others who can no longer do so.”

Alan Hayward, Clevedon, U.K.

As usual with Bro. Alan’s comments there is much food for thought. We agree that the young universe theory is presumptuous. From our understanding, although admittedly our first-hand knowledge is limited, we question why Bro. Alan says “[the fossils] speak eloquently of a history of life on earth which has not been broken by any comprehensive global extinction within the past few millions of years.” I have been impressed that the evidence for cataclysm in the fossil record is demonstrated by the sudden extinction of the mammoths found encased in ice, some with food still in their mouths.

Dr. Stephen Gould coined a phrase, “punctuated equilibrium,” to describe the sudden appearance of major life forms which seem to lack ancestoral or transitional species.

In his book, The Flood Reconsidered, F. A. Filby, also a British scientist, makes such statements as: “Between the Magdalenian and the age of polished stone there certainly is a complete break…[mammoths] increased greatly in numbers, until suddenly they ceased…the mysterious fact is that such a vast number seem to have died in one  great catastrophe…” (pp. 20,21,23). We have seen such comments in numerous books on the subject.

To us, however, the most compelling evidence is that to which we were exposed first hand. Some years ago, our wife, Sis. Ellen, worked as a scientific illustrator in the Frick Laboratory of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. At the time, the Frick lab had the largest collection of fossil mammals in the world and employed several paleontologists in primary research on fossils and the fossil record. Here were the people running the digs, making the measurements and writing the bulletins which would form the basis of statements appearing in science text books all over the world. These scientists were constantly struggling to explain the sudden appearance of discrete life forms, distributed widely over the earth, enjoying a cycle of prosperity only to disappear with similar abruptness. In other words, where did the species come from and why did they become extinct? The following quote, very typical of paleontological studies, demonstrates this problem: “Unfortunately, so far nothing is definitely known as to the American Tertiary forerunners of the far-flung Bovines of Quaternary times…in the history of the known forms, many species were involved, and that there was a mingling  from time to time of remote races and strains, well may be believed (our emphasis)…The genus Bison appears suddenly and wide spread in the Pleis­tocene accumulations of America…” The Fossil Bison of America, Bulletin of the AMNH, 1947. They also puzzled over discoveries of great pockets of fossil remains as if huge herds of species were suddenly overcome by some cataclysmic event. Periodic cataclysm is what the evidence suggested, which supports the idea that the earth sustained at least one and perhaps many, creation(s) before the one in which we are involved.

We cannot, however, dogmatize about these points. There is not sufficient divine revelation to fill in some of the details. We will learn the full story when Jesus returns.

The Olivet Prophecy

Dear Bro. Don,

I was interested to see the November editorial comment suggesting “this generation” of Matthew 24:33,­34 could refer to A.D. 70. I would dare to go even further and suggest this is exactly what Jesus was referring to. My conclusions are not based on the meaning of the word “generation,” but on both the immediate context of the prophecy and the circum­stances leading up to Jesus’ discourse.

Unfortunately many of our modem interpretations of Bible prophecy rely too heavily on the prevailing political climate and not on our convictions regarding Bible exposition. In other words, let us decide what scripture is telling us before we look for evidence in the political “heavens.” Indeed, brother Thomas might be called upon to support this approach when we consider his words with regard to the rise of Russia and the intentions of the British government over Palestine.

Context of Olivet prophecy

Our understanding of Bible prophecy would be far less complicated if we first of all accepted the fact not every word, comment or prophetic utterance was directed solely to our generation. Jesus had just told the Jews “your house is left unto you desolate” and it is in this context his disciples draw Jesus’ attention to the goodly stones of the temple. Could Jesus be suggesting that all this work was for nought? Jesus’ reply was clear, “There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” The disciples’ next question is obviously related and it will be helpful to lay out the question as it is presented by all three synoptic writers.

Matthew 24   Mark 13 Luke 21
1)  When shall these When shall these things When shall these things
2)  What shall be the sign of thy coming? What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
3)  And the end of the age?

It is evident from this comparison that the disciples wanted to know not only when this great event would happen, but what signs would be available in order for them to discern the times.

Judgments “coming” on Israel

The fact Matthew adds the phrase “sign of thy coming” should not confuse us. In the parables uttered by Je­sus earlier that week he had spoken of a “coming” — language which the Jewish mind was altogether familiar with — and that “coming” was related to the judgments of God upon the nation of Israel and, in particular, the Jewish leaders. Consider the following: “When the lord thereof of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen” (Matthew 21:40).

“But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” (Matthew 22:7).

In both passages, Jesus is describing the coming of the Lord in judgment in A.D. 70 and this was recognized by the Jewish leaders when they said, “They perceived that he spake of them” (21:45).

Credibility is given to this exposition when we realize the disciple’s question and Jesus’ comment in the parables are based upon Old Testament language. God’s judgments are performed by the nations. Assyria was the “rod of His anger;” the Medes and Persians were His “Sanctified ones;” Nebuchadnezzar was God’s “servant” (Isa. 10:5; 13:3; Jer. 25:9). The latter is interesting in that the Babylonians were used by God to overthrow the kingdom of Judah; Jeremiah, however, describes the invasion as “the presence of Yahweh” (ch. 4:26).

The same language is used of the Roman power by the prophet Daniel; he describes the destruction of the city of Jerusalem along with its temple as being performed by “the people of the prince.” Rome was God’s army, sent forth to destroy Jesus’ murderers, but when they went out against Israel it was, in reality, the coming of the Lord.

Signs fulfilled in first century

The Olivet prophecy describes the signs leading up to that dreadful event. There would be earthquakes, famines, wars and rumors of wars. All this occurred and is noted in the Acts of the apostles (ch. 16:26; 11:28; 12:20 mg.). False prophets and false Christs arose, such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee (5:36; 20:8-6). The gospel was preached throughout the “habitable” for a witness unto all nations (Col. 1:5­6; Rom. 10:14-18) and then the end came — the abomination of desolation, spoken by Daniel the prophet stood in the holy place, or as Luke interprets for us, “Jerusalem was compassed about with armies” (21:20).

It was this generation that witnessed divine wrath. It was this generation that experienced the “days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:22). It was this generation that could not escape “the damnation of Gehenna” (Matt. 23:33) — “All this shall come upon this generation” (Matt. 23:36). This was to be the end of the Jewish world, or age.

The fig tree parable

This is the immediate context of the parable of the fig tree. The circumstances leading up to the Olivet prophecy will help to place the parable in its immediate setting and shed light on our understanding.

The day prior to delivering the Olivet prophecy Jesus and his disciples were going to Jerusalem. Jesus noticed a fig tree and examined it for fruit. It had nothing but leaves and Jesus pronounced, “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever” (Matt. 21:19). The day after (the morning of the Olivet prophecy) they again passed by the fig tree and it was dried up from the roots (Mark 11:20).

The disciples drew Jesus’ attention to the withered tree and his response was simply, “Have faith in God. 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” (verse 22,­23). What a strange reply, no hint whatsoever as to what all this signified. Why? The significance of this act would have to wait until the conclusion of the Olivet discourse. So, after cataloging all the events which would herald the overthrow of the Jewish nation, Jesus says, “Now from the fig tree learn her parable” (Matt. 24:32 RV).

The association of Israel with the fig tree is a familiar figure in the Old Testament and for our purposes needs no elaboration (Hos. 9:10; Jer. 24:8; Joel 1:7). The parable, however, draws our attention to a number of details which should not be overlooked. Jesus speaks of a “tender branch” (Mt. 24:32); he describes the condition of the fig tree in similar terms to the one cursed a day earlier — “putteth forth leaves” (Mt. 24:32). Luke adds the detail, “all the trees” (Lk. 21:29). These details must be addressed in order to understand the parable.

Jesus the branch

Jesus is described as “The Branch” in the Old Testament: “Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place” (Zech. 6:12; 3:8; see also Jer. 23:5; Isa. 4:2). David was a fitting type of the Lord Jesus Christ and describes himself as such in 1 Chron. 17:17: “Thou…hast seen me as a type of the man who is on high” (Young’s Lit. Translation). He assumed the throne of Israel and subdued all his enemies (II Sam. 5:1-2; 5:7; 8:11, 15), but prior to his ascension to the throne he described himself as tender – “I am this day weak (tender is the Heb. word rak), though anointed king.”

Jesus, during his mortality, occupied the same position. He was the “tender one,” not yet “planted upon an high mountain and eminent” (Ezek. 17:22). God was about to dry up the green tree of Israel. The nation had produced nothing but leaves and was guilty of an external show of religion; it had all the appearance of fruitfulness but was barren, bereft of any spiritual qualities. But all was not lost, a tender branch would shoot forth and flourish by bringing “many sons unto glory.”

The reference to “all the trees” does not pose any difficulty when we keep in mind the Old Testament prophets. The book of Judges speaks in parabolic form of all the trees in Israel discussing the appointment of a new king (Judges 9:7-15). Israel was the almond (Jer. 1:12), the vine (Isa. 5:7), the cedar (Ezek. 17:22) and the olive (Rom. 11:20-21). The prophet Joel in describing the desolation of Is­rael states: “The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pome­granite tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered…” (1:12).

The parable of the fig tree complements the plain teaching of the Olivet prophecy; it drives home in graphic terms the message of the Lord Jesus Christ. The parable paralleled his warnings of the impending judgments as is demonstrated in verses 32-33:

The Sign The Event
When his branch is tender, and putteth forth leaves Summer is nigh
So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things It is near, even at the door

The most striking sign that Jesus offered his disciples was the condition of Israel’s spiritual climate. Early in his ministry Jesus had warned that they “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” Or again, “The tree is known by his fruit” (Matt. 7:15-16; 12:33). The scorching heat of the Middle east summer was about to burn up the chaff; it was near, even at the door.

In understanding the signs of the times, it was necessary that the dis­ciples first of all familiarize themselves with their Bibles in order to understand the message of the prophets. This should be our approach also; establish a conviction, not based upon the prevailing political climate, but on the teaching of the word of God.