In This Issue

• THE WITHERED FIG TREE
• WHY SEND FOR PETER?
• IN SEARCH OF NOAH’S ARK
• "YOU TOOK MY PLACE"
• UPCOMING GOSPEL MEETING SCHEDULE
• MORE INFORMATION...

As Matthew related the events of the crucifixion week, he says of Jesus, "Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, he came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, ‘Let no fruit grow on you ever again.’ And immediately the fig tree withered away. Now when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, ‘How did the fig tree wither away so soon?’" (Matt. 21:18-20).

From Mark’s account, which is more in chronological order, we learn that the pronouncement of the doom of the fig tree actually occurred on Monday before the cleansing of the temple. And although the fig tree immediately began to wither as Matthew says, it was not until Tuesday morning that the disciples noticed the completely withered condition of the tree and expressed their amazement to Jesus.

Mark’s account tells us that when this event occurred, "It was not the season for figs" (Mark 11:13). This fact has caused this event to be somewhat perplexing for most Bible students. Why did Jesus pronounce a curse upon the tree and destroy it for not having figs if it were not even the season for figs to grow?

Several suggestions have been made. First, by nature, figs begin to form earlier in the season than do the leaves. Since the tree was already completely leafed out, it would not be unreasonable to expect it to have some early figs, even though they would not yet be ripe. Second, by Jewish law, the owners of a tree were not to completely strip a plant of all its fruit, but were to leave some to be gleaned by those who were in need, as commanded in Lev. 19:9-10 and Deut. 14:19-22. So, for both these reasons, and perhaps others, it was not really so strange that the Lord might have expected to find some fruit on the tree, either of the up-coming harvest, or left from the harvest of the previous season.

But the primary emphasis should be placed on the symbolic significance of this event. Scholars almost universally recognize that the barren fig tree was chosen to represent the barren Israelite nation. The tree had the outward appearance of health and vigor with its luxuriant growth of leaves -- but it was completely void of fruit. In your private study, we suggest you read in connection with this event our Lord’s parable of the fig tree recorded in Luke 13:6-9 and Isaiah’s vineyard parable recorded in Isaiah, chapter 5. The barren tree represented the nation of Israel, which had not produced the fruit God demanded, and thus had brought a curse upon itself as God had repeatedly warned. See also John 15:1-6 where the same principle is applied to individuals as well as nations.

--CRJ

An angel appeared unto a man named Cornelius. This devout, God-fearing, alms-giving man was praying to God-- as was his custom -- when an angel of God appeared to him in a vision. (You can read it for yourself-- Acts 10)

According to popular conceptions this could mean hallucinations, latter-day revelations, or special divine appointment. An even greater number would say this proved that Cornelius was saved from his sins-- had experienced a "work of grace." I have heard of people "voted into the church" on far less evidence. But the angel was none of these things to Cornelius.

The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, who shall "tell thee what thou oughtest to do;" or "tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." (See Acts ll:13-f.)

Prayers, alms, and devoutness not-withstanding, this man still needed to be saved. Christianity is far more than good citizenship, moral uprightness, or even respect for God. A Christian has all of this, and more; but these things are found among many who have not yet become followers of Jesus Christ and hence have neither salvation from past sins nor hope for Heaven. This lesson is especially needed by those who have placed their hope for Heaven in the "Great Architect" and welfare work of a lodge.

But why send for Peter? Could not the angel tell Cornelius all he needed to know? Or the Holy Spirit-- did not this miraculous out-pouring do all that should be done for him?

When Peter began to speak (Acts 11:15) the Holy Spirit was indeed poured out upon these Gentiles --- a marvelous thing for Peter and those Jews with him to behold. Until recently they had thought the gospel was for Jews only. (See Acts 10:9-16, 25-29; 11:1-4) It took this demonstration of divine acceptance (as subjects of the gospel) to convince the Jews that the gospel was for all nations.(Acts 10:44-f.11:15-f)

But now that they were proven proper subjects of the gospel, there remained the task of preaching: to them, and urging those who would to obey. People must be taught of God; so they may hear, learn and come. (Jn.6:45) We draw nigh to God through the word of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:17-f.)

What the angel or Holy Spirit could do was hedged about by divine regulations. God had placed His truth in "earthen vessels" (2 Cor.4:7) that its divine origin might be the more apparent. It was not His will then or now that heavenly messengers deliver the story of salvation to the world. It was "once for all" delivered to inspired men, and through them to the written form in which we now find it. (Jude 3, Eph. 3:1-f. 2 Pet. 1:14-f.)

Peter did exactly what God intended he should do. He preached the good news of Christ to Cornelius and his household, and baptized those who gladly received the word. Note, He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts 10:48)

Cornelius was not saved -- was not a Christian--until he heard, believed and obeyed the gospel of Christ.

--Robert F Turner, Plain Talk, July, 1964

In the Dec. 1996 issue of "Popular Mechanics," in an article entitled "Ancient Mysteries of the Bible," author Mike Filon examines some of the Bible’s most astounding events, in light of modern scientific methods. He suggests that, "Technology and a better understanding of natural processes may explain how these seemingly impossible events occurred." [Ed. Note: We don’t need technology and a better understanding of natural processes to know how these events occurred. The Bible tells us God did them. That’s all the explanation that is necessary. --CRJ]

The article discusses whether or not events such as the burning bush, Moses parting the Red Sea, Lot’s wife turning to salt, the raising of Lazarus, and various other "astounding events" could be explained by scientific methods.

But it was Noah and the ark which drew top billing in his article.

Explorers, archeologists, and theologians, have for centuries attempted to uncover physical evidence that would solve the mystery of the "gopher wood boat."

In recent years, according to the article, researchers have located a site which contains a buried, ship-like object, which supposedly conforms to the dimensions given by God in Gen. 6:15. Other researchers believe they have located "drogue stones," which in ancient times were dragged behind ships to stabilize them, and that images returned by ground-penetrating radar have indicated unusual levels of iron oxide distribution, which may suggest metal fittings buried below the surface. And the search continues.

What does all this mean? To many, the discovery of Noah’s ark might mean the difference between believing or disbelieving the Genesis record. But to the Christian, whether physical evidence is found or not, doesn’t change the fact that through faith, we believe it to be so. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).

I believe in Noah’s ark the same way I believe in the burning bush, the raising of Lazarus, and that Moses parted the Red Sea -- through faith! Whether or not physical evidence of these ancient events is ever found, doesn’t make or break my faith. God said it, I believe it -- case closed!

So, let the explorers, the archeologists and the theologians continue to search for the ark. Personally I believe they are looking for the wrong thing. Think about it. If Noah was concerned with providing adequate housing for his family after the waters had receded he would have dismantled the ark and built houses from it.

So maybe the explorers need to stop looking for Noah’s ark, and begin looking for Noah’s house!

--Berlin Chumbley via Think, Jan-Feb-Mar, 2000.

One day, a man went to visit a church. He arrived early, parked his car, and got out. Another car pulled up near him, and the driver told him, "I always park there. You took my place!"

The visitor went inside for Bible class. He found an empty seat, and sat down. A young lady from the church approached him and stated, "That's my seat! You took my place!" The visitor was somewhat distressed by this rude welcome, but said nothing.

After class, the visitor went into the church auditorium and sat down. Another member walked up to him and said, "That's where I always sit. You took my place!" The visitor was even more troubled by this treatment, but still said nothing.

Later, as the congregation was praying for Christ to dwell among them, the visitor stood, and his appearance began to change. Horrible scars became visible on his hands and on his sandaled feet.

Someone from the congregation noticed him and called out, "What happened to you?"

The visitor replied, "I took your place."

--adapted from Tim Smith’s daily message

MORE INFORMATION...