In Mark’s Gospel, you know how Jesus cursed the figtree.

It is stated that it is not the season for fig trees to bear fruit, but Jesus cursed the fig tree because it was not fruitful.

Now the tree have no choice in that it was not in season for figs. Jesus has the right to curse as he is the creator of everything.

Can we read from this passage the judgment of human, that although we have no part in making our will to be free or to be slaved to sin, we are still to be judged according to God’s pleasure and will. Do I read too much into this passage, and read Calvinism into this passage, or not?

Edwin

The point is that because it had the pre-fig leaves, it should have had the fruit. It held out the promise of fruit, but had none

If it has the pre-fig leaves, it shouldn’t have fruits yet, since it is pre-fig, right. Also, in 13b, it states emphatically that it is not the season for fig.

Edwin

I think more to the point Edwin Jesus was proving that he was not just full of empty words, that he did indeed hold the keys to life and death.

The context of it is the truthfulness of his word, because he goes into the temple and drives out the money changes quoting Gods word, then when the Disciples see that the tree had withered and died Jesus said don’t be suprised - and then gives a sermon on having faith in God in regards to praying believing prayers and making sure that we have clean hearts with no unforgiveness.

craig

I was always of the opinion that he was saying something aslong the lines of that unlike the tree, we should not have ‘seasons’ of fruitfullness, we should always be active, working for the Gospel.

I could be totally wrong though, it wouldn’t be the first time :)

Glenn

I agree with Liz that this is an enacted parable - a not uncommon way for OT prophets to make a point.

The cursing of the figtree (11:12-14) occurs in the immediate context of the clearing of the apostate temple (11:11 & 15-19).
Also, Jesus’ response (v.22ff) to Peter’s observation (vs. 20f) of the effectiveness of Jesus’ curse indicates that this has been a sybolic act. The cursing of the figtree and its withering symbolised God’s judgement on Israel/Jerusalem/Temple for not being ‘fruitful’. The complete destruction of the tree (withered to its roots) raises the question as to whether anyone will survive the coming destruction,to which Jesus tells his disciples to trust that God will provide a way of salvation.

The detail of it not being the season for figs is interesting - it may just be a pointer to the fact that no one (including Jesus) actually expected there to be fruit on the tree and that this is in fact a symbolic act.

The detail of it not being the season for figs is interesting

That is my question. I have no question about Jesus’s condemnation of Jews being unfruitful. This passage of course is an example of Markan Sandwich, wherein an incident is broken up into halves and then another incident is inserted in the middle to make a point.

Since it is not the season for figs, in human reasoning, it is too harsh to judge the fig tree. But it is almost like some people think that if our wills are bound to make sinful choices (and have no ability to make the choice to be reconciled to God), then it is unfairfor God to judege us in the end. This thinking would say that we have the full ability to choose God and not sin, and so if we don’t choose God, then we are justly condemned by God.

Hope you get my point. God is the potter and we are the clay, and we can’t complain that God’s unfair, right? So I am wondering whether this figtree incident is showing that truth as well???

Edwin

G’day Edwin, the incident could be showing that as well, but I doubt it.

The scriptures show that he was hungry, mar 11:13 on his way to the Temple, in verse 14 he spoke to it and the Disciples were listening, then he continues on his journey to the Temple where he drives all the money makers out,

He then starts teaching the crowds by beginning Mar 11:17 that his house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations - but you have made it a robbers Den.

Notice that he started to teach them, I think that he was teaching them about prayer, the text certainly suggests it.

Then the chief priests became afraid of him. mar 11:18

Mar 11:21 shows where Peter was atonished at the figtree withering and Jesus replies with “Have faith in God, and gives the context of faith and that is in Prayer mar 11:23-26

I think the others things you are saying could come out of it, but that the central message is in believing that God will give us what we ask for in prayer.

craig

Re: Jesus cursed the figtree

[quote author="Edwin Kwok"]Can we read from this passage the judgment of human, that although we have no part in making our will to be free or to be slaved to sin, we are still to be judged according to God’s pleasure and will.

I don’t think we can as I don’t think that that is the point of the parable. It would be over interpreting the symbolism. Particularly since Jesus’ response to Peter is that there is a way of salvation from the judgement that can be taken up.

Mark,

Particularly since Jesus’ response to Peter is that there is a way of salvation from the judgement that can be taken up.

There is no doubt that there’s a way out for man from God’s judgment, but that way out is totally God’s unconditional election and unconditional means no excuse for us to blame God for His election of some and non-election of some. Just like the figtree can’t say (if a figtree can reason),"it is unfair, I am not supposed to have fruits in this season!”

Edwin

G’day Edwin,

It seems you have made up your mind on this issue, then go for it, use it to illustrate that purpose, All scripture is useful for teaching, encouraging, rebuking etc.

I still maintain the whole issue was around the Authority of Jesus and his word and in regards to prayer.

craig

Re: Jesus cursed the figtree

[quote author="Edwin Kwok"]In Mark’s Gospel, you know how Jesus cursed the figtree.

It is stated that it is not the season for fig trees to bear fruit, but Jesus cursed the fig tree because it was not fruitful.

Now the tree have no choice in that it was not in season for figs. Jesus has the right to curse as he is the creator of everything.

Can we read from this passage the judgment of human, that although we have no part in making our will to be free or to be slaved to sin, we are still to be judged according to God’s pleasure and will. Do I read too much into this passage, and read Calvinism into this passage, or not?

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

I’d go the enacted parable route that some people have suggested.

Although the point about Calvinism and God’s good pleasure is one I agree with, I don’t see it in the passage. Jesus curses a figtree which has the appearance and promise of fruitfulness but not the reality - it’s not the season for figs; but appearances suggested otherwise.

The context is that Jesus has come to judge the temple by clearing out moneylenders etc. He came to his people who should’ve been ready - they weren’t, they were to be judged. Symbolically at the time, which was actually a sign of God’s mercy — as the reality of judgment was awful. And I suppose, like the fig tree they might’ve looked to be ready for their king (the outward show of true religion) but they were not “in season”.

I believe William Lane takes a similar line in his commentary, likewise Paul Barnett in the Servant King (his commentary on Mark) but don’t quote me, I don’t have the books to hand!

Re: Jesus cursed the figtree

[quote author="Edwin Kwok"]In Mark’s Gospel, you know how Jesus cursed the figtree.

It is stated that it is not the season for fig trees to bear fruit, but Jesus cursed the fig tree because it was not fruitful.

The figs are symbolic—cf Jeremiah 8:11-13, Miah 7:1-7

Isaiah 56:6-7 & Jeremiah 7:1-11 should help us understand this particular incident—that is, the figs were symbolic of Israel. Figs that didn’t bear fruit were to be cut down - and the temple of the Lord was a den of robbers, and failed to be the prayer house of all nations.

Hence Israel in its stubborness did not bear fruit, and therefore would be cursed just as the fig is cursed because it didn’t bear fruit despite God’s goodness to them?

THanks

Jesus and the Fig Tree

May I join the discussion concerning the fig tree? On Monday of Passion Week, Jesus rose from his bivouac near Bethany while it was very early in the day, and started to make His way to the city and the Temple, and on the way He felt hungry. We know that Mondays and Thursdays were kept by the scrupulous religionists of the day as voluntary fasts, and it is to this the Pharisee alludes when he says in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk 18:9-14). But the fasting of the Pharisee was a work of supererogation, neither commanded nor sanctioned by the Law of the Prophets, and it was alien to Christ, and He did not command his disciples to fast (Matt 9:14-15).
Why was Jesus hungry? Possibly, in His eagerness to teach His people, He neglected the simple needs of life. It may be that there was no means of obtaining food in the field where He had spent the night. It may have been earlier than the hour of prayer and morning sacrifice, before which the Jews usually did not eat. For whatever reason, Jesus was hungry, so, on His way, He looked for wayside fruit to sustain Him for the day’s work ahead.
During the time of Christ, in the area of Jerusalem, there was an abundance of trees: olives, date palms, figs, walnuts. The place was practically a forest before all the trees were cut down by by the Roman Titus in the siege operations (70 A.D.) against the city. Fig trees were especially planted by the roadsides, because the dust was thought to facilitate their growth (see Pliny’s Natural History), and the fruit was considered common property. The right to pluck fruit was given to the people in Deuteronomy 23:24-26.
Jesus caught sight of a single fig tree, and although the ordinary season at which figs ripened had not yet arrived, as it was cloaked with leaves, and as the fruit of a fig tree sets before the leaves unfold, this tree looked promising. Its large rich leaves seemed to show that it was fruitful, and especially vigorous due to the early growth of the leaves. Therefore, there was every chance of finding on this tree, either the late violet-colored kermouses (autumn figs) that often remained hanging on the trees throughout the winter, even up until the time the new spring leaves had come, or, the delicious bakkooroth, the first figs to ripen, of which the locals were especially fond (see Jeremiah chap. 24). The authority for this information comes from Pliny’s Natural History: “Seri fructus per hiemem in arbore manent, et aestate inter novas frondes et folia maturescunt.” (The late fruits remain on the tree through the winter, and in summer they ripen among the leafy branches and leaves.)
When we read Mark’s expression that “the time of figs was not yet,” we need not be troubled. Jesus and His disciples must have been used to seeing the ripe figs hanging on the trees every month except in January and February (if we accept Josephus’ claim in his “Jewish War.” And, there was a type of white or early fig, which ripened in the springtime, as early in the year as April and May, before the ordinary black fig (see “The Land and the Book,” by Wm. Thompson, D.D.) Therefore, for many reasons, Jesus might have expected to find a few figs on this promising tree to satisfy his hunger, although the ordinary fig season had not arrived.
However, when Jesus approached the tree, He was disappointed. The tree was growing, the sap circulating, the leaves making a good show, but there was no fruit. Was not this an emblem of a hypocrite, whose external show is a delusion, a sham? Indeed, a fit emblem of the nation in whom the ostentatious profession of religion brought forth no fruit of good living. The tree was barren. And it was hopelessly barren; had it been fruitful the previous year, there would still have been some of the kermouses; had it been fruitful this year, the bakkooroth would have set before the leaves appeared; but on this fruitless tree there was neither any promise for the future, nor any gleanings from the past.
Therrefore, since it was useless and deceptive, a barren cumberer of the ground, Jesus made it the eternal warning against a life of hypocrisy continued until it is too late, and in the presence of His disciples He uttered the solemn fiat. Even as He spoke, what life the tree had ceased, and it began to wither.
There have been many criticisms of this miracle, but they have been based on ignorance or on prejudice. From those who reject the divine nature of Jesus, it has been called a penal miracle, a miracle of vengeance, a miracle of unworthy anger, a childish exhibition of impatience at disappointment, an uncultured indignation against innocent Nature. Those who believe that this story represents a real miraculous fact would dare question the motives of Christ. But many argue that it is an untrue and mistaken story, because it narrates what they regard as an unworth display of anger, and as a miracle of destruction which violated the right of the unknown owner of the tree, or of the people at large. But, do we suppose the writers of the Gospels had such a low opinion of Jesus as to believe that He avenged His transient displeasure on an irresponsible object? Would He, who refused to give into Satan’s temptation in the wilderness to turn stones into bread to satisfy His wants, would He fly into a rage against a tree? This is an absurd irreverancy, not worthy of the evangelists.
As for the withering of the tree itself, was the householder of the parable (Luke 13:6-9) censured because he ordered a barren fig tree cut down? Has John the Baptist ever been blamed for violence and destruction due to his utterance against fruitless trees (Matt 3:10)? Or has the prophet Joel been castigated for his saying (Joel 1:7)? Or again, has Ezechial misrepresented God when he declared that the Lord had dried up the green tree (Ezechial 17:24)? Do any but the truly ignorant blame God when lightning cleaves the gnarled oak? Is it a crime under any circumstances to destroy a useless tree? If not, is it more a crime to do so by a miracle? Why then, would the Saviour of the world be blamed by critics because He hastened the withering of one single barren tree? Especially since He founded on that destruction of its uselessness, three eternal lessons: a symbol of the destruction of impenitence, a warning of the perils of hypocrisy, and an illustration of the power of faith. As always, the many sided symbolism of the miracle would have been much more vivid and apparent to those who were more familiar with the ancient prophets than ourselves.

Hi Edwin,

I agree with Gorden’s analysis of this one.  While I also share your belief in God’s chosing grace, it seems that given its context the story is truly concerning the judgement of Israel.  (Read Gorden’s explanation though, not mine!)

To be frank I have always regarded that story with deep suspicion. Of what I don´t know. I wonder what the effect on the Apostles was when He did that number.
I think there is some value in the enacted parable.
I don´t buy the judging Israel bit. That is touted all too often and misses the point that the curse on Israel is about the judgement on all who reject Jesus. Saying Israel is like saying ¨Abraham is our father.....¨
That is; we are OK but everyone else isn´t.

Hi Owen,

I always thought that the judgement that was coming on Israel did actually come on true Israel(Ie, Jesus), and was meted out on Christ, the true Israelite.  (Clearly it’s the actions of Israel being judged here, not the actions of Jesus.)

Hence your point about the curse on Israel being about those who reject Jesus is quite right.  Those who reject his forgiveness reject the offer of Christs propitiatory(sp?)(is it even a word?) work on the cross.

IMHO.  Any and all are welcome to comment.