This has to be one of my least favorite biblical passages. Jesus’ cursing of the unfruitful fig tree presents Christians with a dilemma unique in the Gospels. A cursory reading of the text portrays Jesus as acting quite out of character, using his divine power in selfish anger to curse a mere tree because it did not act contrary to nature by providing him fruit out of season to satisfy his hunger.
As Mark sets up the story, he points out several facts. It was the day after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Jesus and his disciples were walking from Bethany, where they had spent the night, toward Jerusalem. Jesus was hungry. He saw a fig tree in leaf in the distance. He went to it to see if it might have any fruit, but found only leaves. Then Mark adds the confounding clause, "for it was not the season for figs". This is the troubling element for many, including me, who find this passage difficult. If Jesus’ purpose in approaching the fig tree were simply because he was hungry, as Mark intimates, and it was not even the season for figs, which Jesus must have known before he even approached the tree, then how can he be justified in saying to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again?" Before we consider the answer to that question, we need to take note of additional facts provided by Mark.
When Jesus made the statement to the tree, Mark notes that "his disciples heard it". Picking up the story in verse 20, after the cleansing of the temple, we find that the fig tree had not only withered away, but had withered away to its roots. We are also told that Peter "remembered," and that he called Jesus’ attention to the withered tree, saying Jesus had "cursed" it. Then, without apparent transition, Mark says Jesus "answered" them (though no question is posed) by giving instruction about faith that can remove mountains — another enigmatic passage for many Christians.
Now consider how the facts provided by Mark serve to clarify the meaning of what would otherwise be a troubling passage. First, we need to note that "his disciples heard it". The presence of this statement indicates that Jesus’ pronouncement on the tree was a teaching situation. Jesus’ words were intended to instruct his disciples, and the incident, therefore, was intended to provide the opportunity to teach them and the reader. Mark often provides a reaction to Jesus’ actions and instruction.
The fact that it was not the season for figs, then, should not make Jesus appear unreasonable, as some have assumed; rather, it underscores the point of the passage: the nation has not borne fruit — its spiritual leaders are incapable of recognizing the Messiah, the temple is a den of robbers and not a house of prayer for the nations — and the Judge has arrived to pass sentence.
The fig tree incident is recorded as a teaching situation, the lesson of which is given in the events and sayings of Jesus in the following verses, the reasons for Mark’s letting the reader know that Jesus was hungry, that he knew the distant fig tree was in leaf, and that it was not the season for figs, begin to come into focus. The fact that Jesus was hungry provides not only the immediate reason to approach the tree (a fact essential to the narrative — approaching a fruitless tree only to be disappointed would be meaningless unless someone was hungry). It is also vital to the prophetic declaration Jesus was to make.
Many scholars agree that Jesus would have had in mind such passages as Jeremiah 8:13: "When I wanted to gather them, says the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them." The fact that Jesus was hungry and approached the fig tree looking for fruit illustrates his identity and authority as the Judge of Israel who finds that the nation, despite its "leafy" appearance, has not produced the fruit God desired.
Nonetheless, this is another "stretch" for Mark and I have a hard time defending this parable. The Old Testament is HARD.
No comments:
Post a Comment