Some good thoughts. I would challenge the fig tree example though, on this basis. With the light motif, Jesus identified Himself as the light of the world in a particular context for a particular purpose. John shared portions of Jesus' discourse for a particular purpose, but that does not mean that John was establishing a symbol for his own use outside of Jesus' discourse.

@Jas3.1 I really appreciate the feedback. Can I ask for more clarification? I read your answer but I'm not sure on what basis you are challenging the fig tree example. I realize Jesus spoke in a living context but his meaning is mediated for us today through a narrative world which have been artificially created by the Evangelists. They redacted history (choosing to include or exclude what they new) to interpret history just as all historians do. I have attempted to show how John draws symbols from Jesus' spoken words. Why do you think he isn'? How would you interpret John 4:28?

RE: the fig tree, Mark may have been implying a similarity between the fruitless fig tree and the temple, but I am wary of "the fig tree is a symbol for the temple" given the typical usage of the statement. RE: Redaction, I agree. RE: Jesus' symbols, they are His, not John's. It has to be shown that John was also intentionally establishing a symbol (vs. intentionally including the discourse for another reason.) RE: John 4:28, she left in haste. I think we need to be cautious of drawing too much significance from a single word. (I would suggest posting a separate question for this one.)

Would you explain how I can show that "John was also intentionally establishing a symbol (vs. intentionally including the discourse for another reason)?" I really thought that's what I was doing in my answer.

In John 1:1-5 the narrator explains "In the beginning was the Word . . . All things came into being through Him . . . In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness . . . ." Given the context and the genre, it is easy to see here that the narrator is establishing a symbol by speaking metaphorically about the Son as "the Light." However, I don't think it is safe to assume that because John recorded a discourse which includes Jesus establishing a symbol that the symbol carries over outside of that discourse. (cf. various uses of "seed" in Matt. 13)

I can tell you are well educated in hermeneutics, so to state it more technically, I am trying to caution against the "exegetical fallacy" of "illegitimate totality transfer" (where the connotations of a word in one context are illegitimately carried to another context.)

Oh, and I am also trying to preserve the distinction between the historical context and the narrative context / between the quoted speaker and the narrator.

I understand your caution with regards to ITT. I agree it would be fallacious for instance to arbitrarily equate Paul's use of "seed" in the context of Galatians 3 with "seed" in Matthew 13. They appear in different contexts, have different genres, authors and clearly mean different things. Just like your "lion" example. BUT each individual authorial work IS a self-contained contextual unite. It should not be partitioned in the same way. Especially when a symbol is clearly invoked without immediate interpretation. "Night" at Judas' departure (John 13:30) is more than a description of time.

RE: "each individual authorial work . . . should not be partitioned" I'm not so sure about that. As I mentioned, in Matthew 13 we see "seed" within the same Gospel, in the same chapter... in fact, within the same discourse, by the same speaker... being used several different ways.

When we're talking about very common words like "water," "light," "seed," etc. I think we would do well to remember that these do actually refer to "water," "light," "seed," ... they are not always symbols just because they appear in the same book as a symbolic usage (as your quote from Craig Koester also indicates.) Anyway, you are free to disagree. I am not on a mission to criticize or convince you or anything like that. I hope my comments have been useful to you in some way, but if not, maybe they'll be of some use to another reader.

Absolutely. Thank you. I do appreciate the discussion. It truly helps. My question is what would it take to change your mind? Is this an ideological objection or is it a point I have yet to prove? If the later how can I improve the argument? RE: Matthew 13 "Seed" isn't used altogether differently. It's the word which germinates as people. And I don't deny that water ceases to be water or light ceases to be light when used symbolically. Thanks again. I'd love to chat more if you're willing.

@MatthewMiller First, with regards to the fig tree, in your post you say, "The sandwiching of these stories indicates that the fig tree is a symbol of the temple." Rather than saying "the fig tree is a symbol of the temple," which could easily be misunderstood and misapplied, I would just suggest clarifying here that it seems that Mark wants the reader to see a connection between the fruitless fig tree and the temple. (cont.)

(...cont.) However, I'm not sure this proves that the fig tree always represents the temple, or that it does throughout his Gospel, or even that this was Jesus' intention in performing the miracle.

@MatthewMiller With regard to the seed in Matthew 13, in the first case the word is like a seed that is planted in the hearts of men, and the point is to highlight the different types of soil. In the case of the wicked hearts, the plant never grows (or is choked out.) In the second case, the righteous and the wicked are like seeds that are planted in God's creation. The usage is totally different. In the third, the Kingdom of God is like a tiny seed that grows into the biggest plant. (cont.)

(...cont.) The point here is the size of the mustard seed. So in each case the usage is distinct. We could try to force some similarity, but it would be artificial. Each parable has its own symbols, and each symbol must be interpreted within its own parable.

@MatthewMiller With regard to the light in John 8-11, my primary point was ideological: that we cannot conclude based solely on the fact that Jesus used this metaphor that John included this in order to establish Jesus = light elsewhere in his Gospel. It may (theoretically) be that he included it because it was a necessary component of the discourse he wished to include. (cont.)

(...cont.) However, I think you could argue from the first few verses of the book that John was (there) establishing Jesus = light, and that his inclusion of Jesus' claims later were to reinforce this opening statement.

To clarify, my feedback is less about the correctness of your conclusions and more about how you might be able to fine-tune your answer for semantic (and hermeneutical) accuracy, if that makes sense.

The way it is currently worded, it sounded (to me) like you were claiming that because you found "fig tree" in two places, with "temple" between them, then "fig tree = temple" in Biblical symbolism (or perhaps just in Mark's Gospel.) It also sounded like you were saying that because Jesus used a metaphor of "light" to describe Himself that this proves that John used light as a symbol throughout his Gospel.

(I'll wait for your response to each of those before I attempt to clarify any of it further.)

@Jas3.1 "Mark wants the reader to see a connection between the fruitless fig tree and the temple." Yes. A symbolic connection. It appears you don't like the word symbol because "it can be misunderstood and misappled." That's why it's vital that we define our terms. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the word symbol it has a concrete definition that applies.

@Jas3.1 The only we can know if it was Jesus' intention or not is through the mediated record of the Evangelist. And Mark appears to want his readers "to see a connection between the fruitless fig tree and the temple" The reference to the fig tree in Mark 13 naturally brings to mind the fig tree here. I understand its a more difficult escatalogical reading of Mark 13. But that's what the unified narrative of Mark appears to indicate.

@MatthewMiller I didn't mean to imply that I have an issue with the term "symbol." What I meant was that when you say "the fig tree is a symbol of the temple" it sounded like you were establishing a "fig tree = temple" formula (which I am not sure is warranted merely from observing a sandwich.) If you just meant that in this particular instance Mark is using the fig tree as a symbol for the temple, I would suggest clarifying that to avoid misunderstanding. (cont.)

(...cont.) It is pretty common these days to hear things like "the fig tree is Israel" so I think it would be worth clarifying that you are only inferring that Mark is drawing a symbolic connection between the fig tree and the temple in this particular instance. That would help the reader to avoid walking away with a new "fig tree = temple" formula which they then try to apply to all of Mark, or worse yet, all of Scripture.

@MatthewMiller But the end goal is not to know whether that was Jesus' intention. That is a means to an end. Jesus' intention is not Scripture. (There is a difference... subtle in most cases, but crucial in others.)

@MatthewMiller But why do you conclude that the unified narrative of Mark appears to indicate that? Simply because Jesus said "fig tree"? Fig trees were very common in their context. In a different context Jesus might have used a different type of tree in Mark 13. That is why Luke translated the meaning to a different culture by writing "Behold the fig tree and all the trees" (Luke 21:29). (cont.)

(...cont.) If Jesus had meant to make a specific predictive prophecy based on a "fig tree = X" formula, then that would have been an illegitimate translation. But Luke conveyed Jesus' meaning just as accurately to a culture that was not as replete with fig trees by adding "and all the trees" for clarification.

@MatthewMiller Anyway, I want to say once more that you may -- or may not -- be correct in your conclusions, but the methods (or my impression of them at least) concern me. In order to have a sound hermeneutic, it must work without exception. And once we start linking up words and establishing Gospel-wide symbols which work in some cases and not in others, and work with some words but not with others, the methods start to sound a bit shaky.

It is easy to show that John is using "Light" as a metaphor in the opening to his book. It is much difficult to sustain a "fig tree = X" interpretation for Jesus' words in Mark 13 given the rhetorical context; Jesus doesn't seem to be talking about this, and we don't have any subsequent commentary from Mark to lead us in that direction. It becomes an argument based solely on Jesus having used the same word in two different contexts.

@Jas3.1 No, I think Mark is indeed establishing the fig tree as symbol for the temple (fig tree = temple) and he intends his audience to recall the fig tree's meaning in Mark 13. Jesus curses the fig tree just as attacks the temple. The fig tree withers and so too will the temple. This is confirmed by the occasion of the Olivet Discourse mentioned in Mark 13:1-4. The fig tree is the sign the disciples seek (13:28-29).

@Jas3.1 Mark does not suggest that the fig tree is a symbol for Israel. Nor should this meaning of the fig tree be automatically applied to the appearance of a fig tree elsewhere in scripture. Although the destruction of the fig tree is promised to unfaithful Israel in Jeremiah 5:17, Hosea 2:12, and Amos 4:9.

I highly recommend this book.

amazon.com/Temple-Gospel-Mark-The-Narrative/dp/0801038928/…

@Jas3.1 It's not simply because Jesus says "fig tree." It is where and the way the fig tree is used. The curse of the fig tree closely parallels Jesus' actions in the temple in Mark 11 and in Mark 13 Jesus refers to the fig tree as an illustration that the time for the temple's destruction is near (Mark 13:1-4). If you read Gray's book you will see that Mark is making a further connection between Jesus and the temple. What happens to Jesus is what will happen to the temple.

@Jas3.1 The fig tree is important because it specifically associated with the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 5:17 and elswhere. Luke, borrowing from Mark's earlier gospel, may have added "all the trees" to help his audience understand but he does not drop the reference to the fig tree. Again we do not know all that Jesus said and taught. What we know about Jesus is mediated to us through the Evangelists. Their contextual meaning is just as much a key to what Jesus meant as direct citations.

c:9544267 I beleive it does work without exception. I believe it can and should be consistently applied. I have not yet addressed Matthew 13 but do you have another example where it does not work.

@Jas3.1 Sorry for the choppy response. I've been at work and had to jump in and out of the conversation. I will address Matthew 13 sometime today. But right now I need to go to bed.

@MatthewMiller Sounds interesting. Who is Timothy Gray?

@MatthewMiller I disagree with your exegesis of Mark 13:1-4, but I see why you are linking the temple to the remainder of chapter 13 now.

@MatthewMiller In Mark 13:28-32 Jesus gives us no indication that He is speaking apocalyptically or symbolically in his reference to the fig tree. He is saying to them "just as you normally recognize natural seasons by this natural sign, so too, recognize the spiritual season by all these signs I have just told you." So His own words identify the "fig tree" reference as literal, natural, and a point of reference, but He makes no use of "fig tree" in symbolically referring to the unfamiliar. (cont.)

(...cont.) It would be different if Jesus had said "When you notice leaves appearing on the fig trees you see that summer is near, so you too, when you see the true fig tree producing its leaves, recognize that the end is near." Then the second use would be symbolic, while the first was merely a point of reference. As it is, all we have is the point of reference. (cont.)

(...cont.) But the main thing I would like to point out here is that your argument in support of the "sandwich" proving that "fig tree = temple" is based on another verse later in the book. Essentially it is starting with the end in mind and arguing backwards. What I am suggesting is that hermeneutically, the mere identification of an association in Mark 11 does not prove that "fig tree = temple" for the rest of the book. (cont.)

(...cont.) So I would suggest that we table the Mark 13 discussion (or discuss it separately) while examining the merits of the hermeneutic applied in Mark 11.

@MatthewMiller Out of curiosity, have you ever heard of Edgar Whisenant?

@MatthewMiller I will work on additional examples for you.

@MatthewMiller Example 1: What does "body" represent in 1 Corinthians?

Example 2: What does "cloud" represent in Job?

Example 3: What does "bird" represent in Matthew?

@MatthewMiller Are you simply trying to defend that hermeneutic, though? Are you considering the possibility that it is flawed?

I'm not sure why we would think that "this = that" would be good hermeneutics when that is not how people typically speak or write in normal communication

Anyway, I'll give you a chance to process that and reply. I'll check back later to see if you've posted anything yet.

@Jas3.1 I am considering the possibility that its ill-defined and incomplete. That's why I appreciate the dialogue. You're challenging me in precisely those areas that I simply overlooked. I'll get back to you. Just woke up and I have some errands to run and work again tonight