There are so many errors in this interpretation it seems best to list them by number:
1) There is no mention of any "tree" in the Parable of the Good and Bad Figs in Jeremiah! So right off the bat, you've got it wrong. Jeremiah teaches nothing about any "Parable of the Fig Tree." It is the "Parable of the Good and Bad Figs" which is an entirely different topic. Jesus said nothing about the quality of any figs in his parable.
2) The prophecy in Jeremiah 24 was given during the
Babylonian exile and God's promise to return them to the land of Judah was fulfilled and recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is the most common error amongst Futurists. They ignore the context, and hence, the meaning, of the prophecies that have been fulfilled. The really pathetic fact is that the text explicitly states this and yet the Futurists just ignore it as if we literally blind!
Jeremiah 24:5 Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel; Like these good figs, so will I acknowledge them that are carried away captive of Judah, whom I have sent out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for their good. 6 For I will set mine eyes upon them for good, and I will bring them again to this land: and I will build them, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up
The Lord God Almighty explicitly declared that he is talking about those sent into Babylon in the 6th century BC, and his promise was fulfilled when he raised up Cyrus and let the Jews return. Your application of this passage to the future is absurd in the extreme. It is false and misleading.
3) There is nothing in the "Parable of the Fig Tree" that suggests the meaning was contained in the
kind of tree. Indeed, the parallel passage in Luke directly contradicts your interpretation because it speaks not only of a "fig" tree, but of "all trees."
Luke 21:29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Note also that there is no mention of any "parable of the fig tree."
The meaning of the parable is quite plain and obvious. Just as we know summer is near when trees (in general) begin to put forth leaves, so the first century Christians would know when the destruction of the Temple was near when the events Christ predicted began to happen.
4) There is nothing in the context of the "Parable of the Trees" that would change the meaning of "this generation" into something other than the meaning it has everywhere else in the NT, namely, the first century generation to whom Christ spoke. The attempt to force a false meaning onto these words is just another word game characteristic of all futurists who must deny what the Bible actually states in order for their theories to work. The Futurist arguments on this point are exceedingly weak, even by the low Futurist standards. See, for example, my article
Refutation of "Ten Reasons 'This Generation' Doesn't Mean My First Century Audience.
5) You made another false application to future Israel when you highlighted the prophecy that says "and
they shall be My people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart." The NT confirms that this prophecy was indeed about Israel, specifically the faithful remnant of Israel who were the first members of the Church. It is fulfilled in the Church, the body of all believers:
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
There is only ONE "people of God."
Bottom Line: Your entire interpretation is fundamentally flawed on multiple points. It has no merit whatsoever.
All the best,
Richard
Bookmarks