Faith to Move Mountains (2)
v. 12-14
Our passage begins as Jesus departs from Bethany and heads toward Jerusalem (v. 12). He sees a fig tree in the distance, but when he reaches it, he finds nothing but leaves. At this, he says to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again" (v. 14). The incident perplexes many people, since it appears to them that the tree here receives overly harsh and even unjust treatment from our Lord.
Commentators typically offer two points of clarification.
The first has to do with the "complicated biology" of the fig. There are two crops of figs gathered in this region. The earlier and smaller figs become ripe in May and June, and the later and larger ones become ripe around late August and September. New leaves begin to appear in March, and along with them would appear many tiny figs, called taksh in Arabic. They are eaten by people when hungry, and often gathered to be sold in the markets. These are not the true figs, but they grow only to a small size and then the majority would fall off.
This incident in our passage occurs at Passover time (14:1), about April, so it is "not the season for figs" (v. 13). However, this particular tree has leaves, and "When the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some taksh on it, even though the season for edible figs (Mk. 11:13, AV) has not arrived. When the leaves are fully developed the fruit ought to be mature also. But if the tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season." So the abundance of leaves gives Jesus reason to expect fruit as well – that is, taksh – but when he reaches the tree, he finds nothing but leaves.
Then, the second point that commentators mention is that the fig tree merely functions as a symbol for something else, and the way Jesus treats it is intended as an acted parable. Hendriksen writes, "It is impossible to believe that the curse which the Lord pronounced upon this tree was an act of punishing it, as if the tree as such was responsible for not bearing fruit, and as if, for this reason, Jesus was angry with it."
Right now we will not discuss what this symbolic interaction between Jesus and the tree conveys – that is reserved for later. At this time, our focus is on the typical ways in which commentators attempt to provide moral justification for how Jesus treats the fig tree. When it comes to this, we must declare that although both points are true, both of them fail as moral justification for Jesus' action.
Regarding the first point, although Jesus has reason to expect fruit on the tree because of the leaves, this in itself cannot justify cursing it just because the tree fails to satisfy such an expectation. Would these commentators say that anyone else in a similar situation would be justified in doing the same? Would they not appeal to the teaching of Scripture and say that one should exercise patience, gratitude, and contentment instead? We are not permitted to curse something just because it fails to meet what appears to be a "reasonable" expectation.
Regarding the second point, it is irrelevant whether or not the tree functions as a symbol of something else, or whether or not Jesus is acting out a parable. A person's action is not automatically justified just because it is symbolic. If it is wrong in itself, then it is wrong no matter what. I am not permitted to murder someone just as long as my intention is to make a point about something else. I am not permitted to steal from someone just because I am acting out a parable.
So both points fail to provide moral justification for Jesus' action. The real problem is that the commentators have assumed a man-centered reference point as they read the passage, and so they apply to divine actions and commands a human standard – a standard that is itself subordinate to and judged by divine actions and commands. The proper reference point ought to be God-centered, and that is the sovereign right and power of God. What God performs and what God commands are righteous by definition. Rather than requiring moral justification or explanation by our standard, the reverse is true – his actions and commands constitute the standard by which our actions are judged.
(to be continued)
April 08 2006 | Expositions