Posted on 03/31/2015 8:25:14 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Upon encountering the story of Jesus cursing the barren fig tree, the average Bible student is slightly taken aback by the “strangeness” of the events that occur. Mark’s account records the story as follows:
Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.” And His disciples heard it.... Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away” (11:12-14,20-21, emp. added).
One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”? In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. Steve Wells, the author of The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible, labeled this story as an absurdity and said in a sarcastic tone: “Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. He did this to show the world just how much God hates figs” (2006, emp. added). Louis Cable, another skeptic, responded to the story with this statement: “Now to curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit in March is not unlike kicking a dog because it can not speak English thereby punishing it for the inability to do the impossible” (n.d.).
Is it the case that Jesus capriciously, out of anger, cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though the tree was incapable of producing? With a little research, one quickly ascertains that such is not the case. Not only does an excellent reason exist for the curse upon the fig tree, but an equally good spiritual application should be considered as well.
When Jesus approached the fig tree, the text indicates that the tree had plenty of leaves. R.K. Harrison, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, explains that various kinds of figs grew in Palestine during the first century. One very important aspect of fig growth has to do with the relationship between the leaf and the fruit. Harrison notes that the tiny figs, known to the Arabs as taksh, “appear simultaneously in the leaf axils” (1982, 2:302) This taksh is edible and “is often gathered for sale in the markets” (2:302). Furthermore, the text notes: “When the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some taksh on it.... But if a tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season” (2:301-302).
Thus, when Jesus approached the leafy fig tree, He had every reason to suspect that something edible would be on it. However, after inspecting the tree, Mark records that “He found nothing but leaves.” No taksh were budding as they should have been if the tree was going to produce edible figs that year. The tree appeared to be fruitful, but it only had outward signs of bearing fruit (leaves) and in truth offered nothing of value to weary travelers.
In addition, anyone even slightly familiar with the character of Jesus knows that He did not spend His time on this Earth eradicating barren fig trees as an ecological service to Palestinian farmers. What, then, was the point of such abrupt action against the tree? When one notices the context of the event, Jesus’ intention seems to become apparent and two fold. First, in its immediate context, the barren fig tree seems to apply to the pretentious religion of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Following Jesus’ curse upon the fig tree, the text says that Jesus went to Jerusalem and began to drive the money changers out of the temple (Mark 11:15-19). The activities in the temple that once had been fruitful and wholesome had become empty of value and useless. Allen Black commented: “The cursing of the fig tree symbolizes God’s judgment on Israel for not bearing the fruit he wanted from the temple. It foreshadows the cleansing of the temple and ultimately the prophecy of its destruction in chapter 13” (1995, p. 200).
Second, in a general sense, Jesus often insisted that trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down (Matthew 7:19; Luke 13:6-9). The fig tree did not bear fruit, was useless, and deserved to be destroyed: the spiritual application being that any human who does not bear fruit for God will also be destroyed for his or her failure to produce.
Jesus did not throw a temper tantrum and curse the fig tree even though it was incapable of producing fruit. He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus’ calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.
Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Cable, Louis (no date), “Some Famous New Testament Forgeries,” [On-line], URL: http://www.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html.
Wells, Steve (2006), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.
Harrison, R.K. (1982), “Fig, Fig Tree,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Um, the tree withered away and died. The people of Israel were scattered but it did not cease to exist.
>>The modern regathering of Israel is very partial at this point. Great difficulties and some losses in retaining Jewish control of the territory, and a territory which is much smaller than its biblical extent.<<
The reforming of a nation after 2000 years and you're looking at "partial at this point"? God promised He would bring them back to the land He promised them and that's exactly what He is doing.
I was obviously correct given your introspection.
bump for later
“Kyle Butt hopefully will learn there is no reason to address what “skeptics” say.”
Sure there is. If nobody addresses them, then people who are not committed to one side or the other will be swayed by the skeptics, because that is the only opinion they will hear.
Perhaps I should explain better.
We address what skeptics say simply by teaching the Bible.
Not by addressing their idiotic comments directly as if equal in value.
Butts makes a mistake in attributing so much space to skeptic “positions” and quotes when it is not necessary.
The subject of what the cursing of the fig tree means is more than enough and contaminating it with nonsense that is unnecessary just detracts and weakens the apologetic.
I liken to putting on the full armor. No one needs to defend the Bible to skeptics, just like no one has to defend that a sword is a sword.
But we do need to teach each other how to use the sword, but don’t need to argue with skeptics that our sword can function as a sword.
I thought you were inviting it, not setting a gotcha trap that you were then going to crow over when someone tripped it. I really expected better of you, I truly did.
“So much space” ???
A couple of lines or so, and then quite a lot on the real background.
Sounds like proper proportion. You are just being puffed up... confess it!
I am sincere.
Butts writes:
One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”?
Yes. We think we are about to get some Bible teaching.
But he follows with:
In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. Steve Wells, the author of The Skeptics’ Annotated Bible, labeled this story as an absurdity and said in a sarcastic tone: “Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. He did this to show the world just how much God hates figs” (2006, emp. added). Louis Cable, another skeptic, responded to the story with this statement: “Now to curse a fig tree for not bearing fruit in March is not unlike kicking a dog because it can not speak English thereby punishing it for the inability to do the impossible” (n.d.).
This long passage does not follow from the “prominent question”.
It is frustrating and distracting.
The article would be so much better if it were written like this:
One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that “it was not the season for figs”? Is it the case that Jesus capriciously, out of anger, cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit, even though the tree was incapable of producing? With a little research, one quickly ascertains that such is not the case. Not only does an excellent reason exist for the curse upon the fig tree, but an equally good spiritual application should be considered as well.
I am saying this as a Brotherly criticism meant to encourage strengthen and in appreciation of Butt’s work.
Except the vine, like the fig tree was also a symbol of Israel
And so?
You still sound puffed up here. You leveled a condemnation and now you are backing to a “brotherly criticism” without even admitting you have backed.
Sorry, hypocrisy won’t fly here.
Israel’s salvation – the OLIVE tree (Romans 11)
Israel as a nation – the FIG tree (Matthew 21)
Israel’s spiritual state – the VINE (Isaiah 5)
Do you want me to fight with you?
If I came on too strong, ought I not tone it down and explain my thinking and reasoning?
It may have been included in the parables simply to show that he had power.
It is easy to bear fruit in season, when the world loves you, when you meet no resistance.
We must all bear fruit in season and out of season.
I think the fact that leaves did not form until there was fruit was the point... how many people have leaves but have no fruit
I simply made a statement with no expectations whatsoever. The word "introspection" is not an invite for outside comment nor evaluation of ones own thoughts. There were no ulterior motives with expectation of comment.
Nothing but leaves! The Spirit grieves
O’er years of wasted life;
O’er sins indulged while conscience slept,
O’er vows and promises unkept,
And reap, from years of strife—
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves! No gathered sheaves
Of life’s fair rip’ning grain:
We sow our seeds; lo! tares and weeds,
Words, idle words, for earnest deeds—
Then reap, with toil and pain,
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves! Sad mem’ry weaves
No veil to hide the past;
And as we trace our weary way,
And count each lost and misspent day,
We sadly find at last—
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves!
Ah, who shall thus the Master meet,
And bring but withered leaves?
Ah, who shall, at the Savior’s feet,
Before the awful judgment seat,
Lay down, for golden sheaves,
Nothing but leaves!
Nothing but leaves!
“The cursing of the fig tree symbolizes God’s judgment on Israel for not bearing the fruit he wanted from the temple. It foreshadows the cleansing of the temple and ultimately the prophecy of its destruction in chapter 13”
The author misses the point of the judgment; it was the hypocrisy of the religious evidenced by their actions cloaked in rituals that was condemned, not Israel.
I am a hypocrite just as they were if I profess one thing and not do what I profess.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.