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).
Some scholars say that it was not the season for figs, others say that there was one early type of fig ..either way the leaves signaled the presence of fruit, as figs grew before the the tree would show leaves from a distance .
I appreciate the fact that you ran an article that was not anti-Catholic. Thank you.
They Looked holy with their works but were in fact enemies of God
The fig tree was often used as a symbol of Israel.. a fruitless people
This was a teaching moment for the apostles and for us
Do we show leaves that do not cover fruit.. real fruit?
John 15:…5"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6"If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.…
Jesus Christ’s parables are meant to teach those who are spiritually in tune with his underlying spiritual message. Scholars will never attain this level because they seek a learned level, they are not seeking a spiritual level or asking to be fed spiritually.
That article should cause some introspection.
Kyle Butt hopefully will learn there is no reason to address what “skeptics” say.
the fig tree represents national Israel.
The tree was barren of the budding figs that would normally later grow into full size figs in fig season — that explains a whole lot. Those familiar with fig trees would know it. Apples, cherries, etc. do not grow in this fashion.
With all due respect, this ought to be a caution against jumping to conclusions when reading the bible. Give it time to become clear and certainly don’t curse others who don’t have the same take you had, just because they did not. Everybody must be born again and everybody must grow.
Cautioning the flock is one reason to address it; being able to give an answer with meekness and respect for the hope within us is another reason to address it. It is a spiritual snobbery to assume everyone has to be on the same exalted level as you.
With the vine, this is speaking of grapes, a different horticultural example.
How do you figure that? National Israel is being brought back together ever since 1948.
It seems here to be a all or nothing thing, rather than a matter of degree. The tree had budding figs, or it did not. It wasn’t a question of it being scanty.
Still it is very possible for the Lord to curse those things that are “just for show” in a life. The Lord may want you to live small rather than living large, if doing the latter hardly ever presents a gospel attitude to the world.
No it’s a waste of time and effort in an article such as this.
We do have to deal with the narrative, which had Jesus declaring the tree would never bear fruit. It might be metaphorically referring to a certain generation or generations of the official leaders of the nation of Israel, not Israel forevermore.
This may be another example that there are a lot of biblical texts which are not intended to stand alone or be viewed in a vacuum.
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.
How so? Does everybody already know everything about this? Is it a sin to tell them?
Your snobbery is showing!
Um......what? Not sure what that means and can’t imagine how it ties to my post.
Carrying the metaphor forward in a straightforward way. Maybe it was not the “introspection” use you envisioned, and please share what you had in mind if it was not. It could be both-and.
Paul would have hooted at this notion. Yes even scholars are saved by grace through faith.
“Does everybody already know everything about this?”
I don’t even know what you are talking about.
Does everyone know the dumb ideas of “skeptics”?
I see no reason to address their ideas.
It detracts from the teaching.
Perhaps you think I am saying no one needs to teach what the fig tree incident means. That is not what I am saying, quite the opposite.
I am saying he should forget about what the skeptics say and just teach the Bible.
His first paragraphs are all about presenting idiocy put forth by “skeptics”. Such idiocy is completely inconsequential.
It detracts from the message and will lose readers.
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.