One of the most intractable scenes in the New Testament is when Jesus curses the fig tree. Let’s first look at the passage.
[Mar 11:12-14 NIV] 12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
Before we get into what are the common arguments for this scene, let’s take a moment to fully understand why this is such a problem.
The act of cursing the fig tree, at first glance, seems capricious, or impulsive. It is totally out of Jesus’ character to arbitrarily curse something like a tree or plant. However, this isn’t the only issue with the event. Mark’s Gospel says it was not the season for figs. This makes Jesus’ actions even more odd. This statement assumes that Jesus did something that was not only out of character but unnecessary given that the tree was not supposed to bear fruit. Here are some logic statements to clarify-
Scenario 1
IF the tree should bear fruit and did not- Jesus actions are possibly warranted, but then Mark’s statement (and the Disciples reactions) are false. This would mean the Bible is incorrect when it stated that the fruit was not in season.
Scenario 2
IF the tree should not bear fruit and did not- Jesus’ actions are unwarranted because the tree is doing what the tree is supposed to do. Mark’s statement about the wrong season would be correct (and the Disciples reaction would be justified). This would then make the Biblical account truthful, but would cast a harsh light on Jesus’ behavior. Why would He kill a tree for doing exactly what a tree is supposed to do?
Neither of these scenarios are tenable positions that are cohesive to the rest of the Gospels. However, without any further revelation, this is what we are left with. Scholars have then argued that the tree was a representation of wicked Israel, or disobedient Israel. But again, this is not a fair comparison. If the tree was doing what the tree was supposed to do- i.e.- sprouting leaves and then bringing forth fruit later, why would it be compared to an apostate Israel? In Luke, as Jesus is riding towards Jerusalem, He says the following-
[Luk 19:41-44 NIV] 41 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42 and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43 The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44 They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you."
This was in the same time period of the fig tree, so if this is the comparison that is being made it is not a proper parallel. First, Jerusalem is going to be destroyed because they did not recognize the time of their visitation. They did not recognize when the Messiah was coming. They were wrong in their behavior and therefore they were paying for their actions, or inactions, to be correct. The tree, on the other hand, was doing what it was supposed to do by nature- if we continue in the scenario above. The tree was not withholding it’s fruit, or waiting for some other person to come and give it’s fruit to. According to Mark, it was simply not the right time to pick fruit because it wasn’t available to anyone. These two scenarios are not the same! Israel (or Jerusalem specifically) was not doing what they were supposed to do and Jesus pronounces a curse on them. Their lack of recognition of their Messiah caused their cursing. The fig tree did nothing wrong. Further, Israel and Jerusalem have a promise of redemption. The fig tree has a specific promise of being forever cursed and never to return.
These interpretations of this passage, in my opinion, leave us wanting. I can’t see Jesus cursing an “innocent” tree without cause, I can’t see the Bible recording a fact about the growing season and it being incorrect, and I can’t see the comparison to Israel as a meaningful object lesson. What, then, do we do?
Let’s look more into the context of the event. The 11th chapter of Mark records several events that take place during the week before Passover. One- Jesus sends two Disciples to get a colt and specifically tells them to announce that the Lord is in need of it. Two- Jesus goes to the temple and announces that the money changers are turning His Father’s house into a den of thieves. Third- he argues with the religious leaders about Heaven, resurrection, the Messiah’s birth line, etc. All of these activities are quite different than the beginning of His ministry.
Think about how His ministry started at Cana. What did He say? “Woman, it is not my time.” How many times did He tell people “tell no one what has happened.” Yet, one week before His final Passover and He is finding opportunities to show people who He is. Maybe we should look at the cursing of the fig tree in light of that context. Maybe Mark included the event in that part of the Gospel, not only because it is chronologically correct, but maybe because Jesus was using the fig tree to once again demonstrate who He was to His Disciples.
With this in mind, let’s look closer at the words Mark uses. Mark states that the fig tree was not in season. However, this doesn’t really make sense. Figs grow as early as February in Israel but March would be acceptable for Passover week. Maybe we should look then at the word for season.
The word Mark uses is – Kairos, which means- due measure; a measure of time, a larger or smaller portion of time, hence:
a fixed and definite time, the time when things are brought to crisis, the decisive epoch waited for
opportune or seasonable time
the right time
a limited period of time
to what time brings, the state of the times, the things and events of time
Based on this, we can reasonably make an assumption that Kairos doesn’t HAVE to mean harvest season. It could mean a specific time period other than “harvest time”. This begs the question, what time period could Mark be talking about if not “harvest time”?
In Leviticus, God gave the people specific instructions on growing when they entered the promised land.
[Lev 19:23 NIV] 23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten.
To this day, Jewish people in Israel, practice the law of Orlah- the prohibition of using the fruit for the first three years of a tree’s life. During biblical times, the trees were demarcated with broken potsherds at the base of an Orlah tree so that no one would use or consume the fruit.
The fifth year, according to Levitical law, the fruit became usable and freely able to be gathered. [Lev 19:25 NIV] 25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
Let’s look at the cursing of the fig tree through the lens of Orlah. If the fig tree happened to be in Orlah, or the first 3 years of life, would Jesus walk up to it to get fruit? No- He had no reason to break Torah law in that manner. Jesus went against the law at other times when compassion trumped the letter of the law- healing, feeding, etc. But again, to capriciously break the law served no greater purpose for His illustration. However, IF this would have happened, Mark would have been correct in saying “It was not in season.” Meaning- the tree was Orlah- it was not the right time to eat from the tree.
What if this was the fifth year of the tree’s life? Then it could have been eaten freely as the law states. There would be no issue if Jesus would have attempted to get figs from it. However, the Bible would be wrong in the statement by Mark that it was not “in season”, as it would have been out of Orlah and able to be used freely.
So now we are faced with a bit of the same problem we had earlier. Either Jesus or the Disciples are wrong if we look at this from an Orlah perspective. That is, until we look at the fourth year of the life of a tree. [Lev 19:24 NIV] 24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD.
The fourth year of a tree is completely different than the first three as well as the fifth. In fact, it has a special name. Fourth year trees are called Neta Revai. As can be seen from the passage above, they are treated differently. The fruit of a fourth year tree can be used, but is holy to God and is a praise offering. In fact, the rules regarding Neta Revai stipulated that in order to use fruit in the fourth year, it had to be taken to Jerusalem where it was declared holy and sanctified. Even today, fourth year fruit has a “purchase price” that must be given in order for someone to use it.
Let us now look at the potential interaction between Jesus and the Disciples if the tree was Neta Revai. Jesus would go up to the tree and look for fruit but had no intention of going back to Jerusalem to make it holy and sanctified. But the Disciples, knowing the law as well, would say “that tree is not in season”, meaning it is in Neta Revai. It cannot be freely eaten of without being sanctified.
In this scenario, what would Jesus have been showing His disciples? “Guys, you may think fruit from this tree needs to go to Jerusalem and therefore not the proper time to eat from it, but… I AM THE SANCTIFIER. I make the fruit holy. No longer do things have to go to the Temple or to Jerusalem for it to be blessed and sanctified. The One who sanctifies it has come to the fruit! By virtue of Jesus being the one to pick the fruit and consume it, the fruit becomes sanctified. Being a praise offering to the Lord, it no longer had to make the journey to Jerusalem. By being consumed by the Lord, it was offering its praise.
Jesus was once again showing His followers who He was. NOW we can view the lack of fruit as worthy of condemnation. In this context we have a tree that it is intended to, in that time period, be a praise offering unto the Lord and when the Lord is standing in front of it requiring praise, it does not give it. This surely deserves cursing and withering. Yet the Disciples STILL did not see Him for who He was.
When we look at the fig tree as being in the fourth year, or Neta Revai, everything makes sense.
1. Why Jesus would attempt to take fruit from the tree when it wasn’t the right time? It was specifically for Him as a praise offering.
2. The Disciples would say the tree was not in the right Kairos- or time period- or it wasn’t yet in the fifth year.
3. Jesus would of course curse the fig tree. How, honestly, could He not? It was designed to give praise offering unto the Lord in that Kairos-year- and here the Lord stood in front of it and wanted praise and the tree withheld it. Jesus had every right to curse it.
4. Why did Mark write this event in the middle of other scenes where Jesus was announcing to everyone who He was? Because this was another event during the week of Passover where Jesus was proclaiming His authority. He had already stated that if He was not proclaimed King the stones would cry out. He was showing them that the trees should even obey His Lordship.
While I am not saying this is the answer to the cursing of the fig tree problem, I do believe this brings the most clarity to the issue. It also makes the comparison to Jerusalem a more tenable argument as well. In light of this possibility, one could say that Jerusalem was in that season- their hour of visitation- supposed to give praise to the King of kings but when they did not, just like the fig tree which was in it’s own time of visitation and should have given a praise offering, it did not. Therefore, they were both cursed- one forever (the fig tree) and one (Jerusalem) until they cry “Lord, Lord!”- an offering of praise.
Comments