Surely this was not a tantrum!

[Guest]

On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. Mark 11:12-14

For years, I have pondered this passage. Jesus' actions on this occasion do not seem consistent with the character He exhibits elsewhere.

1. Why would He expect it to have figs, since it was not the season for figs?

2. Why would He curse it so that it would never bear fruit again?

Was He in a fit of anger because He was hungry, and found that the fig tree had no fruit? The next event recorded in the context of the passage is his overturning the money changers' tables in the temple. Did He do that because He was still angry about having nothing to eat?

[Guest]

i once heard an explanation that the figs usually appear with the leaves, and since this tree had leaves but no figs, it wasnt delivering what was "promised" by the leaves. some versions say that Jesus "answered" the fig tree-- of course the fig tree wasnt speaking but it was false advertising. this is only true, of course, if in fact the fruit on fig trees usually appear with the figs. i dont know much about fig trees.

i've also heard that the fig tree represents israel and Jesus was teaching a lesson. cant remember all the details, though.

TK

[Guest]

i once heard an explanation that the figs usually appear with the leaves, and since this tree had leaves but no figs, it wasnt delivering what was "promised" by the leaves.

Yes, I've read this in commentaries on the passage. But I can't verify it. Look up "figs" on the net, and none of the descriptions indicate that there are no leaves before the fruit appears. My wife, who was aware of fig trees in Texas, said that the leaves appeared long before the fruit.

some versions say that Jesus "answered" the fig tree-- of course the fig tree wasnt speaking but it was false advertising. this is only true, of course, if in fact the fruit on fig trees usually appear with the figs. i dont know much about fig trees.

It's true that the same Greek word is used here that is often translated as "answer". I do not agree that the word means "answer" since it is frequently used of a person where there has been no question. However, I think the word means "respond". It seems that Jesus was responded to the lack of fruit by uttering this curse.

i've also heard that the fig tree represents israel and Jesus was teaching a lesson. cant remember all the details, though.

There are no other instances of which I am aware where Jesus used the "object lesson" technique to teach. His usual method was through the use of parables.

[Guest]

On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. Mark 11:12-14


Maybe my imagination is overactive but if the fig tree does represent Israel then perhaps the leaves represent the Word of God because in the Torah the substance that it is written on is called leaves. So despite having the Word, Israel was fruitless and Jesus judged or cursed it for fruitlessness.
"Now in the morning as they passed by , they saw the fig tree dried up" Mark 11.20
Also the phrase "in the morning" could be a reference to the resurrection of Jesus, which was tied into the end of the old covenant and Israel.

[karenstricycle]

Paidion,

You asked:

1. Why would He expect it to have figs, since it was not the season for figs?

I have always liked the Sunset Western Garden Book but never expected it to be useful for theology. Regarding fig trees it says:

.....most varieties bear two crops a year. The first comes in early summer on last year's wood; the second, more important one comes in late summer or early fall from the current year's growth.

I believe Mark was referring to the expected early fruit. The season for figs would then mean the main (late) crop for the year. This is opposite raspberries, which bear the main crop on new wood and then in the fall have a small crop on the matured canes. A person carefully tending his raspberries would be very disappointed not to have any late berries at all, and might react as Jesus did.

Interesingly Joachim Jeremias considered this incident to be in a "parabolic action" category along with Jesus' washing of His disciple's feet, and by His rebuke where He set a child in their midst, among other things.

[Guest]

That is an interesting explanation, Homer. The only thing that spoils it is that little word "gar" ("for")

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 text clearly says that He found nothing but leaves for it was not the season for figs. In other words, it gives the fact of it being out of season as the reason for finding only leaves.

If He had been expecting figs because it was the season for the early crop, I doubt that Mark would have given the "out-of-season" reason.

[Guest]

i found this potential explanation:

Some light is shed on this passage by an article in Hard Sayings of the Bible by F. F. Bruce:

Was it not unreasonable to curse the tree for being fruitless when, as Mark expressly says, "it was not the season for figs"? The problem is most satisfactorily cleared up in a discussion called "The Barren Fig Tree" published many years ago by W. M. Christie, a Church of Scotland minister in Palestine under the British mandatory regime. He pointed out first the time of year at which the incident is said to have occurred (if, as is probable, Jesus was crucified on April 6th, A.D. 30, the incident occurred during the first days of April). "Now," wrote Christie, "the facts connected with the fig tree are these. Toward the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coincident with [this], and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grown to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off." These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs had not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found "nothing but leaves" - leaves without any taqsh- he knew that "it was an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree" and said as much.

F. F. Bruce goes on to describe the cursing of the fig tree as a real-life parable that emphasized the spoken parable of the fig tree in Luke 13:6-9. It is also likely that Jesus, knowing in advance that his disciples would be surprised by the quick effect his curse had, used the fig tree to provoke their reaction and thus make the lesson about faith more memorable.

TK

[Guest]

Mr. Bruce's explanation as to why Jesus might have expected fruit is ingenious. Nothwithstanding it still doesn't explain Mark's comment:

He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

If Bruce's explanation were correct, we would expect Mark to write, "He found nothing but leaves, for the tree was barren" or "He found nothing but leaves, for there was no taqsh on it."

[karenstricycle]

Paidion,

I think I have found the answer and it is a simple one. John Peter Lange comments:

"As the tree had leaves it promised fruit; for the harvest-time of figs, when it might have been stripped of its fruit, was not yet come."

It appears that Mark is saying the early fruit should have been on the tree. Later in the year, when the figs had fully ripened (the season for figs), there would have been no surprise in finding none on the tree - they could have all been harvested. The obvious point being the tree is barren.

It is not important, but I revised my illustration of the raspberry crop. I got it backwards. Long time since I had a bed of raspberries.

[Guest]

That is an interesting explanation, Homer. The only thing that spoils it is that little word "gar" ("for")

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 text clearly says that He found nothing but leaves for it was not the season for figs. In other words, it gives the fact of it being out of season as the reason for finding only leaves.

If He had been expecting figs because it was the season for the early crop, I doubt that Mark would have given the "out-of-season" reason.

Happy New Year!

Perhaps Jesus cursed the tree because it was out of season. Maybe it wasn't a case of false advertisement, or of Jesus expecting an early crop and being disappointed. What if he knew full well that the tree wouldn't have fruit at that point in the spring, and cursed it for that reason? The reason I ask is because it seems that the story of the fig tree is interwoven with several visits to the temple. Perhaps the fates of the tree and the temple are parallel, since the temple was going to be destroyed soon as well.