Surely this was not a tantrum!

[Guest]

God Hates Figs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was Jesus Being Unreasonable When He Zapped the Fig Tree?
James Patrick Holding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 21:19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.

Mark 11:13-4 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever.

Skeptic Robert Price comments on these passages:Is Jesus depicted as absolutely sinless, not susceptible to irritation and unkindness? What about the fig-tree legend? In it Jesus is so annoyed with a hapless fig-tree that he supernaturally zaps it to death, the very picture of a peevish demigod.

Let's deal with the broad set of skeptical objections to these verses:

"How can Jesus be sinless when he got irritated and angry at the fig tree?" This is a non-objection. There is no hint of irritation or annoyance in Jesus' attitude; how can this be read into the text? Even if there was, though, I have yet to see the commandment, "Thou shalt not be irritated!" And if this was a sin, what do critics do about the weeds in their yards? Do they zap them with weed killer? Does they get irritated and pull them out, and are they therefore sinning by being unkind to them?

"What's wrong with this picture? There wouldn't be figs on the trees in April. Jesus was asking for the impossible! Heck, even Mark admits it wasn't the season for figs. So what's Jesus' problem here?" In a previous version of this essay I noted the common explanation that the fig tree in question had not produced the "pre-figs" (somewhat edible, very young figs) that it should have borne along with the leaves. Hence, it was barren and useless - and thus became a prophetic symbol and an object lesson: That which does not produce fruit will be cut down - just like a weed.

I can now expand on this explanation, which is correct, but incomplete. Throughout the OT, and in the NT, the fig tree as a symbol is tied in with expectation -- and withering is tied in with judgment:

Jeremiah 8:13 I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.

Hosea 9:10, 16 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

Nahum 3:12 All thy strong holds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater.

Luke 13:6-9 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Note as well that in the messianic age, fruitfulness was a sign of blessing:

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Witherington (commentary on Mark, 312) adds that the fig tree was a special sign of fruitfulness for Israel. It was often the tree used to bring firstfruits to the Temple. The fig tree was an "emblem of peace and prosperity" and in the messianic age was thought to bear fruit (313).


These points serve to answer the question of why Jesus expected figs -- at a time of year (April; the normal season was much later) when there wouldn't be any normally. As he approached Jerusalem, his acceptance as Messiah would have ushered in the Messianic age. Checking the fig tree for fruit out of season was a signal: Had he found fruit (which normally came in after the leaves), it would have been a sign of the coming Messianic Kingdom. Since he did not find fruit, the tree became a symbol for fruitless Israel, and of his rejection, and was withered -- in line with the OT judgments prescribed above. The withering of the fig tree is an enacted parable (that recorded in Luke) and a prophetic demonstration. To ask why Jesus was "irritated" or "peevish" is to miss the significance of this episode....and Mark is actually offering a double meaning when he says it was "not the season for figs." The "season" in question is not the normal fig season, but the "season" or time of the Messiah! (The Greek word Mark uses is also used in a highly symbolic way: Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel; Mark 12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.) Mark's offhand comment has more depth than the critics realize.

As a side note, some complain that there is chronological contradiction between recountings of "whether Jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers (Matt. 21:12) and subsequently cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), or cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and then threw out the money-changers (Mark 11:15)." The solution which recognizes the ancient historiographical practice of arranging material topically for didactic purposes, rather than following a strict chronology, is dismissed by one skeptic as a resolution that "borders on the pathetic." I submit that what is truly "pathetic" here is skeptical ignorance of ancient literary practices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now a few burps from the Ebon website. After childishly expressing sympathy for the fig tree (I wonder if Ebon's lawn is overgrown with weeds he refuses to be cruel to? -- after all, many insects depend on such plants for food, and what is Ebon's purpose, other than to "make an obscure ornamental point"?), Ebon mumbles for a while about how weak he thinks this answer is, and then goes to our link about arrangement of material. This is enough to completely silence any critic with sense who respects literary works in their contexts, but no:

The issue is not whether the various gospel writers simply organized the events of Jesus' life in different orders. The issue here is that two gospel writers recounted the same event and specifically said it occurred at different times. Mark records that the fig tree was not withered until the following morning. But Matthew says that the tree withered immediately, so quickly that the disciples marveled watching it die before their eyes. Mr. Holding's principle of "dischronologized narrative" cannot help him here.

Ebon musters some mighty bluster in association with this alleged contradiction, but in reality my only failure is that I didn’t lead Ebon gently by the hand through the entire process. Ebon doesn’t quite know what to make of the pearl, one might say.

Ebon’s complaint is that Matthew’s gospel has the fig tree withering "immediately" while Mark has the fig tree withering the next day. Actually, if we want to nitpick, that's not what Mark says. Mark says nothing about when the tree withered; he says that the next day Peter in particular noticed the withered tree. And if we really want to fuss, the word translated "immediately" (paracrema) is the same word used in Acts 16:33, where Paul’s former guard was "immediately" baptized along with his family. So, the "clear" chronological marker has a degree of latitude. More significantly, the amazement of the disciples over the withering of the tree takes place "[w]hen the disciples saw this …" which is certainly non-specific in terms of elapsed time, and might as well be the next day as recounted by Mark (in view of our lesson about dischronologized narrative). Finally, the clincher on this is that Mark's narrative is clearly and unquestionably fit into an intercalation pattern used throughout his Gospel, so that at once any questions of chronology become academic when this pattern comes to the fore. In the end, Ebon’s boastful claim rests on his lamentable ability to arbitrarily force his own framework of chronological expectation to bear on the text.

[Guest]

A lot of words have been written concerning the cursing of the fig tree, obvious from the posts on this forum. Maybe I'm dense, dull, and dumb, but I fail to see that any of them have answered the chief objection made evident by Mark's statement.

Mark 11:13 Seeing at a distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it; and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

The problem in a nutshell follows:

1. Jesus thought perhaps He would find fruit on the tree.

2. He found only leaves because it was not the season for figs.

3. If Jesus knew it was not the season for figs, why did He think He might find fruit on the tree?

Yes, I understand the explanation that He might think He would find fruit because it was first-crop time where fruit appeared when the tree was leafed out.

The problem is that this conflicts with Mark's explanation as to why there was no fruit. His explanation was not that, whereas other trees might have fruit at that time of the year, this particular tree was a bad tree. His explanation was that there was no fruit on it because it was not the season for figs.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

I don't know if it helps or not, but I take the view that one aspect of Jesus' ministry was to announce the impeding and certain judgment upon the nation of Israel (in other words, Israel as a nation had no chance to repent at this point, just like Egypt had no chance to repent in the first Exodus).

I don't have time right now to fully develop this right now, but I'll just say that I don't think He expected fruit on the tree or in Israel because it was God's purpose to harden Israel at this point in order to include the Gentiles into the kingdom (that was the whole mystery thing that Paul refers to in Romans 11, and Eph 2 IMO). I think the season for fruit would correspond more with this passage in the same chapter:

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
NKJV

I suspect the fig tree had more to do with a parabolic announcement of judgment that had nothing to do with the tree's performance in that season. Israel was to be finally hardened and then judged to fulfill God's ultimate purpose and bring forth the fruit thereof.

Just something else to consider.

Maybe I'll have more time later to share some more thoughts on this.

[Guest]

Paidion-

could Mark's comment (about it not being the season for figs) have been an editorial comment (i.e. looking back with 20/20 hindsight?). just a thought.

TK

[Guest]

And a sensible thought, TK.

But if this were the case, who made the editorial comment. Mark himself? Or a later copyist?

There is no evidence that the comment was not in the original --- thus probably not a later copyist.

But if it were made by Mark himself, then Mark seems to have been mistaken about the reason that there were no figs on the tree (the out-of-season reason).

For the real reason seems to have been (according to commentators and some of those who posted in this thread) that though it was the early season for figs from the year before, this tree produced only leaves and thus was a non-productive tree.

But if Mark had been mistaken, then what becomes of verbal inspiration and Scriptural infallibility?

[Guest]

holy mackeral paidion- i didnt think of all those ramifications.

could it have been that Jesus was mistaken <gasp> thinking it was fig season, when Mark knew well and good that it wasnt? doubtful.

perhaps we are missing the point. perhaps jesus cursed the fig tree to teach a lesson to his disciples about faith, and how it operates. rather than an object lesson about Israel (and it still might be) maybe it was an object lesson about faith. later in the chapter we read:

Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.”
22 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. 23 For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says.

my underlines.

here, Jesus makes the point that we should be speaking directly to our problems (rather than simply telling God about them and asking Him to do something about it-- He already knows about our problems). in other words, he is telling his disciples to tell the mountain (or problem) about God rather than telling God about the mountain.

TK

[Guest]

holy mackeral paidion- i didnt think of all those ramifications.

could it have been that Jesus was mistaken <gasp> thinking it was fig season, when Mark knew well and good that it wasnt? doubtful.

perhaps we are missing the point. perhaps jesus cursed the fig tree to teach a lesson to his disciples about faith, and how it operates. rather than an object lesson about Israel (and it still might be) maybe it was an object lesson about faith. later in the chapter we read:

Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.”
22 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. 23 For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says.

my underlines.

here, Jesus makes the point that we should be speaking directly to our problems (rather than simply telling God about them and asking Him to do something about it-- He already knows about our problems). in other words, he is telling his disciples to tell the mountain (or problem) about God rather than telling God about the mountain.

TK

TK, I've been thinking about your suggestion for a few days. Would you explain it a little more? I'm having trouble understanding what you mean about "speaking directly to our problems", and how Jesus was demonstrating this since, well, I'm pretty sure he was still hungry after he cursed the tree. Wouldn't he have done a better demonstration if he had made fruit appear on the tree? Also, it sounds like (but I'm not sure you meant it to) you are saying that we shouldn't tell our problems to God. Are you saying that?

[Guest]

Hi Michelle-

i'm not saying that we shouldnt tell our problems to God. David did (but he was an OT saint). However, we shouldnt DWELL on telling our problems to God. Doesnt He already know all about our problems?

I have come to believe that God gives us (Christians) authority to deal with our problems, through Jesus. I am NOT a word of faith person. But it seems to me that Jesus is saying, in this fig tree example, that he expects his disciples to take action, not merely ask God to take action and expect(hope?) Him to do it.

I will try to give an easy example. Let's say you are with someone who is ill, and you are going to pray for healing. You can either pray like this: "Father, X is sick. Please heal them if it is your will. If you dont, we understand it wasnt your will. If You do, awesome!" or we can pray like this: "Sickness, in the name of Jesus I command you to leave X's body." Of course our faith, and the other person's faith, is a major part of this equation.

Jesus seems to expect his followers to pray like the second example, not the first. That is how He did things, and that is how the apostles did things- and don't we have the same Holy Spirit? I know people will disagree with me on this point. But I have been trying to pray the second way for the last few months, and I have to tell you I am seeing more results. Subjective experience? Yes, but when it comes to answered prayer, what else do we have to go on?

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

I'm sorry, but I'm still a little uncertain about what you are talking about. Do you mind if I pick your brain a little more?

Hi Michelle-

i'm not saying that we shouldnt tell our problems to God. David did (but he was an OT saint). However, we shouldnt DWELL on telling our problems to God. Doesnt He already know all about our problems?

OK, God knows everything, and we're to avoid vain repetitions when we pray.

I have come to believe that God gives us (Christians) authority to deal with our problems, through Jesus. I am NOT a word of faith person. But it seems to me that Jesus is saying, in this fig tree example, that he expects his disciples to take action, not merely ask God to take action and expect(hope?) Him to do it.

I still don't understand how this plays out in the fig tree episode. Jesus was hungry, there was no fruit, he cursed the tree, and in the end wasn't he still hungry? So how did he speak to, or take action to alleviate his problem? And if the lesson is that to "take action" is to curse that which doesn't appear to meet our needs, couldn't that open the door to all kinds of evil?

I will try to give an easy example. Let's say you are with someone who is ill, and you are going to pray for healing. You can either pray like this: "Father, X is sick. Please heal them if it is your will. If you dont, we understand it wasnt your will. If You do, awesome!" or we can pray like this: "Sickness, in the name of Jesus I command you to leave X's body." Of course our faith, and the other person's faith, is a major part of this equation.

First of all, to me it seems that the first prayer actually requires more faith than the second. Secondly, if the fig tree story is our example, it seems like the prayer would be for X to either be healed or else die.

Jesus seems to expect his followers to pray like the second example, not the first. That is how He did things, and that is how the apostles did things- and don't we have the same Holy Spirit? I know people will disagree with me on this point. But I have been trying to pray the second way for the last few months, and I have to tell you I am seeing more results. Subjective experience? Yes, but when it comes to answered prayer, what else do we have to go on?

TK

Please tell me what you've experienced! Please?

[Guest]

Thanks Michelle-

I don't mind having my mind picked- although I am not sure I can answer all your questions adequately. sorry, but this may be a lengthy response!

You are right- Jesus didnt get figs from the tree- for some reason he chose to curse it instead (and i think like you said and some others it may have been an object lesson or an acted out parable). But the next day, when the disciples saw the withered tree, they remembered and asked Jesus about it. At this point he took the opportunity to teach them about prayer. You cant escape noticing in the passage that Jesus was telling the disciples to do the "saying" rather than asking God to do the "doing." Here are the relevant passages from Mark 11 again (i've underlined the parts i want to stress):

12 Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was hungry. 13 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. 14 In response Jesus said to it, “Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.”
And His disciples heard it.
***
20 Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.”
22 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. 23 For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. 24 Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.

The only way I can interpret the lesson Jesus was trying to teach is that we, as believers, have authority to "speak" directly to things that concern us. To me, prayer now is mostly about worship and thanksgiving. I used to think (and not too long ago) that a large chunk of prayer was about telling God about all the difficulties that I (or others) are facing and trying to "move" Him to do something about it. I think there are a couple of things wrong with this mindset. First, as I stated earlier, it seems kind of silly to "inform" God about stuff going on in our lives. Second, it relieves us of all responsibility ("Here my problem God-- now you deal with it"). But isn't Jesus saying in this passage (and others) that it's OUR responsibility? I believe that the body of Christ, to a large degree, has abdicated our responsibility by simply asking or begging God to solve a problem, and then washing our hands of it. If it doesnt happen, it wasnt God's will. If it does, our prayer was answered. Might as well toss a coin! Maybe that was a little facetious.

You asked for a personal example. On Dec 23rd, my son-in-law who was visiting with his family came down with an awful 24 hr stomach virus. It was the Norwalk virus which is nasty and catchy. On Christmas eve, during the day, I started to feel "off." Around 3pm i started getting chills and body aches, and my stomach started grumbling. Of course we had plans christmas eve- church, family etc. i certainly didnt want to be down for 24 hrs with stomach flu! In the past I would have prayed something like this(although perhaps summarizing a tad): "Lord, please keep me from getting sick. Amen." But this time, I went into the shower, and began praising God. Then I commanded, in the name of Jesus, the body aches to leave my body. Next I commanded, in the name of Jesus, the stomach symptoms to leave, and I commanded the virus to die, in the name of Jesus. I got out the the shower, and them put on a praise song- "From the Inside Out" by Hillsong United and turned up the volume. By the end of the song, I had no more symptoms, and I didnt get sick. Of course, everyone else in the house did, except my 3 month old granddaughter, who I was able to care for on Christmas day because everyone else was too sick to do so. Never in my life, previously, did I experience such a dramatic turnaround in sickness. You may ask why I didnt pray for everyone else when they got sick-- the honest answer is that I was chicken. I am still working through this.

I know this is just an anecdotal story, but true nonetheless. I am almost 100% certain that had I prayed the old way (God, please keep me from getting sick) that i would have been laid up for 24 hrs with the stomach flu, saying, as always, "oh well, i guess it wasnt God's will to heal me."

TK