“727. THE BARREN FIG TREE—MATTHEW 21:12-22:14; MARK 11:12-12:12; LUKE 19:45-21:38”

The Barren Fig Tree—Mat_21:12 to Mat_22:14; Mar_11:12 to Mar_12:12; Luk_19:45 to Luk_21:38

The country between Jerusalem and Bethany is very rich in figs. Indeed, the village of Bethphage interposed between the two places, derived its name, which means “house” or “place of figs,” from this circumstance, and it is quite likely that the incident before us occurred there.

Passing over to Jerusalem the next morning, Jesus felt hungry. As this fact implies that the party had not breakfasted before leaving Bethany, it seems at the first view to speak but poorly for the hospitality of the good people there. The fact is, however, that with the Orientals the breakfast hour is late in the forenoon; and as our Lord’s time waxed short, and He had important business to transact at Jerusalem, it was not to be supposed that He would remain at Bethany till after the breakfast hour. Martha at least, it may be hinted, might have prepared breakfast earlier with regard to these circumstances. But, besides that a guest, and especially a guest such as Jesus, would not be likely to allow any serious derangement of the family customs on his account, it was considered unbecoming to take the morning meal before the hour of morning sacrifice, which was at nine o’clock; so that, taking all things into account, our Lord could not have reached Jerusalem till nearly eleven o’clock, if He had tarried at Bethany for the earliest breakfast He could have had. Note: Thus—Breakfast at the earliest, 9 ½; half an hour at breakfast 10; half an hour’s walk at least 10 ½.

Being hungry, our Lord went up to a fig-tree which presented an unusual show of leaves for the season, “if haply He might find fruit thereon,” but when He reached it, nothing was found thereon but leaves; “for,” adds the evangelist, “the time of figs was not yet.” Then Jesus laid upon that tree the doom of utter barrenness thereafter, “No man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever.”

There are some apparent difficulties in this, such as are not found in any other of our Lord’s miracles. If the time of figs was not yet, why should he expect to find fruit on that tree; and not finding it, why should the tree be condemned for not bearing fruit out of season?

In seeking an answer, we must remember that this took place where fig-trees abounded, and where there must have been some particular appearance about this tree to excite the expectation of finding fruit upon it. This appearance we have not far to seek. It was full of leaves, which was not the case with the others; for the Jewish writers attest that the leaves of the fig-tree began to make their appearance at the time of the Passover; and our Lord himself represents the appearance of the leaves of the fig-tree as a sign of near summer (Mat_13:28). This tree, therefore, had the peculiar appearance of possessing an ample dress of foliage, while the other trees were comparatively bare. This appearance of the tree warranted the expectation that some edible figs might be found upon it; for as the fruit of the fig-tree appears before the leaf, an advanced state of the foliage warranted the expectation of a correspondingly advanced state of the fruit. It is, indeed, a well-known fact that under certain combinations of favorable circumstances, some fig trees may be so far in advance of their species, as to offer a few ripe figs many weeks before the full season; and that this tree might be supposed in such a state of forwardness, is evinced by the state of the foliage. It should be added, that although the full fig season is not until June, and it was at this time early in April, the fruit of the fig-tree is fit to be eaten considerably before it is fully ripe.

The Fig Tree

There is another kind of fig-tree frequently mentioned by Jewish writers, which always had leaves, and on which the fruits of three seasons were found in different states of progress towards that maturity which was not fully reached till the third year. May it not have been to such a tree that our Lord resorted, attracted by the promise that its foliage held forth? If so, the clause, “the time of figs was not yet,” may be taken to intimate why He did not expect to find figs on the common fig-trees, but did expect to find them on this.

There is also the sycamore fig-tree, which is always green, and bears fruit at different seasons of the year. This might offer another alternative, but we do not ourselves prefer it, because in this tree the appearance of foliage does not justify a strong expectation of fruit.

For the rest, it is clear that our Lord’s displeasure against the tree is founded upon its holding forth a promise which it did not fulfill. And the perception of this fact gives a clue to all the circumstances, and removes our Lord’s action very far from that idle asperity against a senseless tree, which some have ventured to find in this proceeding. It is one of the rare instances in which our Lord, after the manner of the old prophets, teaches by symbolical action.

Yesterday, He had bewailed the foreseen desolation of Israel, as having been unfaithful to her covenant promises, and about, to frustrate her covenant hopes. Today, He teaches the same fact by symbols. The tree is Israel. He—the same who planted it in times of old, goes to it, expecting the fruit which its fair appearance warranted; but finding none, He pronounces judicially upon it the sentence of destruction. All this was to convey an important instruction, and impress a prophetic teaching; and this illustrates and dignifies an action which might at the first view seem adverse to the general purport and tendency of our Lord’s teachings and miracles. It was a prophecy and a warning embodied in material facts.

On our Lord’s arrival at the temple this day, He found the traffic in the temple-courts, which He had rebuked at his first Passover, still in vigorous operation. He therefore did as He before had done, in expelling the intruders from the place, with this difference, that his now established character and position before the people, enabled him to dispense with “the whip of small cords.” And to those who ventured to question his proceedings, He answered, “Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Apart from this, the present was a quiet day. The Sanhedrin witnessed indeed with increasing apprehension the readiness with which the people flocked to Him, and the attention with which they listened to his teaching; but they durst not yet risk the danger of exciting the passions of the multitude by taking a posture of open opposition. Jesus also was wary. He preached boldly, but was careful they should not take him at disadvantage in the temple; the crowd of followers there was an adequate shield for Him, and every night he left the city and proceeded to Bethany. Had he lodged in the town, means might have been found of surrounding the house, and making Him prisoner.

On proceeding to the city the next day, the disciples observed that the doomed tree had altogether withered away. It had doubtless been in the same state the evening before; as it was after nightfall, however, they had not been able to notice its condition—but the astonishment of the disciples, at seeing how soon the fig-tree had withered, afforded our Lord an occasion to instruct them in the nature and power of faith.

Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin seems to have concluded that things could not be allowed to go on in this way, and that it had become absolutely necessary to make a strong effort to discredit Jesus with the multitude. Different persons were therefore appointed to try Him with hard questions, in the hope that his answers to problems expressly framed to bring Him into antagonism with public opinion, on matters where the people were most sensitive, would cause a revulsion of feeling to his disadvantage.

First, He was asked by what authority He dared to act as He had done, in thus taking possession of the temple, as it were, for his own purposes, and assuming an authority to which they could not be expected to submit. But Jesus easily extricated himself from this snare, and caught them, as it were, in their own toils. He said they had asked Him a question, and He would ask one also of them; and if they answered his, He would answer theirs—“The baptism of John, was it of God or man?” They were completely nonplussed by this question. It was the firm opinion of the people that John was a prophet sent from God, and the veneration for his character had acquired strength, since his death had made him a martyr to righteousness and truth against Herodian tyranny and wickedness. To say that his mission was merely self-imposed, had been a gross and suicidal outrage to public opinion; but to admit that it was of God, lay them open, as they perceived, to the retort, Why then did ye not believe him—why not believe the testimony he bore of Me? They therefore declined to answer; and the people felt that Jesus on his part was justified in declining to answer the question they had put to Him. Nor was this the only rebuff they encountered, for they had to listen to doctrines the most of all others unpalatable to them—that their boasted privileges were nought, and would soon be taken away from them and given to those who would deserve them better. In the parables of the Two Sons, the Wicked Husbandmen, and the Marriage of the King’s Son, this lesson was not obscurely taught.

Autor: JOHN KITTO