117. Chapter 4 - The Cursing of the Fig Tree; Second Cleansing of the Temple

Chapter 4 - The Cursing of the Fig Tree; Second Cleansing of the Temple Matthew 21:12-22;Mark 11:12-25;Luke 19:45-48;Luke 21:37,Luke 21:38 Proofs of Kingship

Interwoven in the most intricate and vivid pattern with the claim of Jesus at the Triumphal Entry to be King are the inimitable proofs of His claim. The proof is not set forth in any logical argument, but arises out of the very sequence of events. The majestic presence of Jesus Himself, and the whole cumulative force of His ministry furnished a background of proof which could not be overlooked. While there must have been a host of those in the midst who had been healed or who had seen Jesus work miracles, the crowd talked most about the proof furnished in the recent resurrection of Lazarus. The miraculous foreknowledge which He showed in summoning the animals and the thrilling gesture of kingliness with which He asserted His need of them, gave timely and powerful evidence. His prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as the sight of the unbelieving city moved Him to tears, added further proof of the same kind. Friends by their acclaim and enemies by their protests showed that they realized He was claiming to be King. Both were unconscious tributes to the power of the accompanying proof. The ignoring of the claim by the Roman authorities does not constitute a denial; it only shows that their investigation of His ministry had revealed that His was not a political or military organization, but purely a spiritual movement. When Jesus arrived in the temple it was late in the evening, and Mark informs us (Mark 11:11) that He “looked round about upon all things” and “went out unto Bethany with the twelve.” Nothing very kinglike about such procedure, one might imagine, but a look from Jesus could be the source of the greatest joy, grief, or terror. Inasmuch as the Jewish leaders had gone back to their merchandising in the temple in defiance of His early rebuke, the look of Jesus as He walked about the temple and observed what was being done in the Lord’s House, must have been significant of dreadful things to come. The day following the triumphal entry saw Jesus offer further proof of the claim He had just made: the cursing of the fig tree, which made a profound impression upon His disciples; the cleansing of the temple, accomplished in the presence of the nation and in the face of the bitter resentment of the leaders of the nation. After assuming control of the temple in a flaming attack upon the corrupt management of the Sadducees (aided and abetted by the Pharisees), Jesus answered in devastating fashion their challenge of the authority over the temple which He had assumed. He then proceeded to close this day of control in the temple by offering further proof of His deity and a gentle example of the Messiah’s reign by healing the sick and maimed that came to Him for help.

Differences in the Accounts

Luke omits the detail of time that the cleansing of the temple did not occur until the next morning after the triumphal entry. Both Matthew and Luke simply present a summary of these exciting events which accompanied the triumphal entry, a summary which is exceedingly brief in Luke concerning the cleansing of the temple and does not mention the cursing of the fig tree. Matthew records the fact that the cursing of the fig tree occurred in the morning after the triumphal entry, but he condenses this account also and it is only Mark who records that the discussion over the collapse of the tree did not occur until the following morning. All three tell of the custom of Jesus to go forth each night to Bethany and to return in the morning for teaching in the temple. This solves the problem as to why the disciples did not see and discuss the withered fig tree as they came forth from Jerusalem that evening: the winding road around the Mount of Olives was regularly used in climbing up to Bethany and the shorter, steeper road leading straight down from the crest was the usual means of entry to Jerusalem from the east. Entering and leaving the city by these different roads, they did not pass by the fig tree on their return trip in the evening.

Why Hungry?

If Jesus had spent the night in Bethany in the home of Lazarus or of some other disciple, it is perplexing to contemplate the fact that we find Him hungry as He goes into Jerusalem early in the morning. Some suggest that Jesus had left Bethany before time for breakfast, but this does not fit the solicitous care of His devoted friends there nor the fact that He was hungry and His disciples not. In Galilee the pressure of His campaign had sometimes been so great that He did not have time to eat (Mark 6:31). The disciples had shown distress at Sychar because Jesus was so engrossed in His work that He would not eat with them (John 4:31-34). Was there any time in Jesus’ ministry when the burdens were as heavy as now just before the crucifixion? Had the spiritual struggles so encompassed Him that He had had no inclination to eat until suddenly this beautiful fig tree in full leaf came into view? The only other place where it is ever recorded that Jesus was hungry is in the wilderness when He fasted until the point of collapse was near. Jesus may not have been in the home of friends the night before, but out under the stars praying to God. Forgotten is His hunger once He is in the presence of the barren fig tree and the opportunity to teach a great spiritual lesson to His disciples. The Foreknowledge of Jesus The question as to the hunger of Jesus and the purpose with which He approached the tree raises the further problem as to whether Jesus knew that the tree was barren before He came to it. Jesus had the power of miraculous insight into the hearts of men, the state of affairs at a distance, the very course of the future. He could have known without coming to the tree that it was barren, but it seems that He accepted the ordinary limitations of the flesh except where there was some occasion to exert His miraculous power. The statement of both Matthew and Luke concerning the hunger of Jesus suggests that Jesus did not use His miraculous power until He came to the tree, while the emphasis upon the great lesson which Jesus taught in cursing the tree suggests that He did have this in mind as He approached the tree. To analyze the mind of Jesus is beyond our power or province; we simply cannot answer such a question with certainty. Two-source theorists contend that Matthew in copying from Mark removes the suggestion of limitation of Jesus in the words “he came, if haply he might find anything thereon” (Mark 11:13). The theory, however, runs into two snags in the omission by Luke of the phrase emphasizing the universal element in which he was especially interested: “for all the nations” (Mark 11:17); and in the absence from Matthew of the note of time in Mark 11:11. If Matthew and Luke were copying from Mark, instead of writing independently, why did they omit these? The Miracle

Matthew states simply that the fig tree was by the wayside, while Mark states that Jesus saw it “afar off,” which probably means that it was by the road side, but seen afar off as they walked down the road toward it. The record of Mark is particularly vivid as he writes: “And he answered and said unto it.” The tree had been, as it were, addressing the world and making false claims by a gorgeous foliage ahead of season; Jesus answered these claims with the curse He pronounced upon it. Mark also has the comment: “And his disciples heard it.” This at once emphasizes the fact that the disciples were actual witnesses of the entire miracle, and it suggests the staggering impact upon the disciples of the strange words of Jesus. The characteristic brevity of the narratives leaves untold the exact impression upon the disciples. Since they had heard Him address both the wind and the waves when the storm on the sea had imperiled their lives, the recollection of this would have checked any thought of incongruity in Jesus’ addressing the tree. Amazed beyond measure, however, at what they had heard Him say to the tree, their gaze must have been drawn to the tree on the next morning as it came into view. Showing the wonderful discipline of the group, the disciples did not question the course of Jesus at the time, but on the next morning the burning questions and reflections found a voice as Peter exclaimed in excitement, “Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered” (Mark 11:21). To speak of it now would not be to question the propriety of Jesus’ conduct, since the condition of the tree had already justified Jesus’ words. Matthew records the fact that the tree withered away immediately, and the condition in which they found it in the morning justifies his record. Mark in recording the fact that on the next morning they observed the condition of the fig tree says that it was “withered away from the roots” (Mark 11:20). Trees do not wither away naturally from the roots, but from the branches; the tips of the branches and then the limbs becoming dead, and finally the trunk yielding to the onslaught of a storm. This tree collapsed, the trunk, the limbs, and smaller branches all alike sinking in a crumbled mass under the curse of Jesus. This change was not so sudden that the disciples hurrying on with Jesus into Jerusalem saw it at the time, but by the next morning the process was complete and the entire tree was withered away from the roots up.

Radical Attacks This miracle has been the center of concentrated attack by radical objectors. They argue: (1) The inherent improbability of “nature miracles” since they are so plainly contrary to the observed course of nature as to emphasize the innate improbability which resides in the miracle. Examples of “nature miracles” are: changing the water into wine, stilling the tempest, feeding the 5,000 and 4,000, walking on the water, and cursing the fig tree. (2) In the “healing miracles,” since they are works of benevolence, the gracious spirit of Jesus is evident, but here it is held Jesus shows exactly the opposite type. (3) Furthermore, they maintain that there is no adequate reason for any of these miracles: the production of the wine was not urgently needed, the walking on the water was not necessary; and the cursing of the fig tree is especially contrary to the genial temper of Jesus. They represent Jesus as being moved by purely selfish feelings when His hunger was left unsatisfied: He lost His temper and cursed an object without will or intelligence.

Rejoinders To these objections the following rejoinders (to be found, in part, in Parabolic Teaching of Jesus, by A. B. Bruce) are offered: (1) Granting the existence of God, a nature miracle is no more difficult to perform or believe than any other kind. The world is ruled by a Person, the Creator of all, not by mere natural laws, which are no more than an observed uniformity in the operation of nature; in other words, the way God usually works. A miracle is God working in an unusual way, bringing about results which would not have been achieved by the natural processes of nature. This kind of objection to nature miracles really leads straight to the denial of the existence of God. This miracle, like all others, rests upon the testimony of competent witnesses. It is in the same category with any other fact of history. (2) The denial of any benevolence in turning the water into wine shows a failure to realize the critical embarrassment of the host at the wedding feast. The stilling of the tempest quieted the fears of the bestormed disciples who felt that death by drowning was at hand. The feeding of the 5,000 and the 4,000 showed mercy on persistent and famished multitudes. The walking on the water gave timely aid to the disciples who were caught in another fierce storm and full of distress over Jesus’ refusal to let the multitudes make Him king. We shall see a deep purpose of Jesus in cursing the fig tree. The whole proposition that these miracles are invalid because no benevolent purpose is seen, overlooks the fundamental purpose of miracles — to give unquestionable proof that Jesus is what He claimed to be, the very Son of God. It argues that the needs of the body might properly be ministered to by Jesus, but the needs of the spirit do not demand or deserve such help. In other words, the body is more important than the spirit! There is not the slightest evidence that Jesus lost His temper or was moved by selfish emotions in cursing the fig tree. His real object was to teach a great lesson to His disciples and to the world: a lesson which reveals Him as the Son of God and the futility of professions of faith without works, of pretense without product; and which reveals also the mighty possibilities of faith.

Why Curse a Tree A further attack upon this miracle is that the proposition of cursing an inanimate object which could not hear, or understand, or obey as if it were a responsible agent, is an absurdity. The answer to this is quite simple: the tree obeyed. It would indeed be absurd for us to curse a tree, or to talk to wind and waves, but for the Creator this is not a valid objection. In the light of the deep purpose which Jesus had and the amazing result which He achieved, the action of Jesus is not only intelligent, but profoundly impressive. In reflecting upon the fact that Jesus spoke to a tree, we should remember that comment of Mark’s: “And his disciples heard it” Through their testimony all the ages have heard it, marveled at the divine power of Jesus, and earnestly sought the meaning of the lesson He taught. Was the Curse Immoral? The critics make a great play upon the statement of Mark “for it was not the season of figs” (Mark 11:13). They claim that it was really immoral to curse a fig tree because it did not have fruit, when it was not the season of figs. A little study of the trees and fruits of Palestine would have saved them from such folly. The figs appear before the leaves on a type of fig tree common in Palestine. This tree evidently was of this type, else the whole scene has no meaning at all. The fact that it was of this variety is made quite clear by both Matthew and Mark in recording that Jesus cursed the tree because it had leaves but not fruit, when taken in conjunction with Mark’s statement that it was not yet the season of figs. This tree was undoubtedly in a sheltered place where it put forth leaves ahead of the general season, for it stood out on the landscape in a marked way. The fact that it had leaves and no fruit and was cursed by Jesus because of this, implies the type of fig tree it was. An inhabitant of Palestine would have no difficulty in immediately seeing the point. Mark’s purpose in stating briefly” for it was not the season of figs” was certainly not to suggest that his beloved Lord was irrational or immoral in cursing a fig tree for not having fruit when it was not yet time for figs. But narratives emphasize the fact that the tree was in full leaf and imply that it should have had fruit. Mark’s purpose in his added note was to uncover completely the dramatic character of the incident. In a land where thousands of fig trees line the fields and roadways, it was possible in the proper season quickly to satisfy hunger. Here is one tree, however, standing out in solitary splendor, proclaiming its fruit, but possessing none. Its solitary character helps to symbolize the Jewish nation — ahead of all the world in opportunity to know and accept the Messiah, proclaiming Him the Christ the day before and about to crucify Him a few days later — foliage but no fruit. “Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward forever.” He actually pronounced this curse on the tree and the tree was actually withered, but His object was more than merely to curse the tree. The tree standing there in showy display suddenly became the symbol of the Jewish nation, full of empty praise of Jesus at the time of the triumphal entry, but with no real fruit. Jesus also issued thus a solemn warning of the fate of the disobedient. The disciples may have wondered at the manner in which He kept permitting His enemies to scorn and persecute Him and now to plot His death. They had seen Jesus work so many marvelous miracles, none of which was destructive in character with the exception of the destruction of the swine that followed the miracle of casting out the demons from the Gadarene demoniacs. They may have begun to wonder whether Jesus had the power to destroy His enemies at a word, as the benevolent miracles would seem to indicate. Here, right on the eve of His surrender of liberty and life to the brutal assaults of His foes, they see Him use His power to destroy at a word. They never forgot it. Later on, it must have helped them to believe as they reflected how Jesus could have swept all His enemies off the earth at a word. This miracle proved it. How timely was this aid to their faith! There is no word, however, of this purpose in the narratives. The only thing that suggests it, is that Jesus did not immediately explain His purpose in cursing the tree. He left them to meditate and wonder at His words and led them in this mood into the presence of His enemies waiting to bring about His death. The next morning in discussing with His disciples the withering of the fig tree, Jesus did not mention this angle of the miracle, but concentrated their attention on the necessity and the power of faith. The Discussion with the Disciples

Matthew represents the whole group of disciples as asking an amazed question, while Mark makes clear that when they spied the tree in ruins Peter was the first one to cry out in wonder. The rest must have immediately joined in similar exclamations and questions. “How did the fig tree immediately wither away?” does not question His conduct; it rather seeks the process by which His power has brought about such a startling change. They were on the Mount of Olives and “even if ye shall say to this mountain” seems quite readily to refer to it, but this is a current hyperbole to refer to uprooted mountains. Zechariah 14:4 comes to mind as we contemplate this saying. A figurative meaning — achievements as difficult and wonderful as moving mountains — seems apparent since neither Jesus nor His disciples ever moved any mountains and the need for such a miracle is lacking. The promise that they will receive whatever they ask in prayer, believing, carries the limitations of a spiritual character — the outlook and object must be in harmony with faith in Christ. Mark makes plain that the main thing they are to ask in prayer is forgiveness for sins and shortcomings, and the main obstacle to the answer to such requests is the refusal of the worshipper to forgive his fellowmen. Since the disciples might put a violent construction upon the miracle which they had just witnessed as they proceeded into the tragic days ahead, this humble reminder of the necessity for keeping forgiveness in their hearts should save them from a vindictive spirit.

Cleansing of the Temple

Between the cursing of the fig tree and the discussion of its collapse there is the day spent in the temple, a day which is especially memorable because Jesus again drives the motley crowd of traders out of the temple. As before, His whole attitude must have been tremendously dramatic and awe-inspiring. His denunciation is much more severe this time as He openly charges that they had made the House of God a den of robbers. Jesus quotes from Jeremiah 7:11 and Isaiah 56:7. The former denounces the wicked character of the people worshipping in the temple and the false trust of Israel in the temple; Jesus now applies this to their misuse of the temple and their misconduct in the temple. The passage from Isaiah affirms the holy character of the temple, the necessity for righteousness in the lives of the worshipers, and the share which the Gentiles who accept the Lord will have in the temple. Mark especially brings out the quotation from Isaiah with the strong hope it sets forth for all the world: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17). Plummer, who is inclined to accept the Two-source Theory, admits that there is strong evidence that Luke never saw the Gospel of Mark. Luke was writing to the Greeks; Mark also had a world-wide objective, which is usually named as Rome. It would be expected that Luke would be interested in giving details such as indicate salvation for the Gentiles, but he says simply: “a house of prayer” and does not record the striking phrase “for all the nations.” Plummer asks: “Would he (Luke) have omitted this if he had had Mark, who preserves it, before him?”

Effects of the Cleansing The bitter malice and smoldering hatred which the Jewish leaders felt toward Jesus became more fierce and deadly as they found themselves compelled to endure the humiliation of His triumphal entry and His bold challenge of their conduct of the temple. The chief priests (Sadducees) and the scribes (the coterie of scholars who headed the Pharisees) “sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching” (Mark 11:18); “and they could not find what they might do; for the people all hung upon him, listening” (Luke 19:48). This interesting picture of the enrapt multitudes listening to Jesus shows how the hypocritical leaders had to act quickly and use their hirelings to confuse, mislead, and browbeat the crowds before they were able to bring about the crucifixion of Jesus. It also explains their great delight when they received the unexpected offer of help from Judas Iscariot. The desperate and deadly conflict with the undercurrent of violence among the leaders suppressed the natural enthusiasm of the people for Jesus. To a nation hoping for a political Messiah to lead them against foreign foes and free the nation from foreign bondage, the triumphal entry seemed to offer the strategic moment for some concrete movement in this direction. When Jesus, instead of inciting to revolution against the political government, made a telling assault upon the religious leaders with their flagrant and unbridled rapacity in the temple, He was reviving in the minds of the people the spiritual ideals and atmosphere which the temple was given to promote and was seeking to turn them from worldly aims to heavenly objectives. It gave the Jewish leaders, however, opportunity to send out waves of subtle propaganda against Christ as utterly inadequate for the Messianic needs of the hour. When Jesus drove out the profiteers from the temple court, he welcomed the helpless and the suffering. As He healed the blind and the lame and taught the crowds, a great demonstration was given of the true spiritual purpose of the temple and of the divine power back of His assumption of authority over the temple. The Children in the Temple

We do not hear much about the place of the children in the Old Testament worship or even their place in the worship of the New Testament Church. Somehow the repeated references to the children in the ministry of Jesus grip our hearts. To share the glories of the triumphal entry had been a heart-throbbing experience for the children. The enthusiasm of youth often causes children to shout aloud their joyous acclaim after the demonstrations of older people have subsided. Seeing Jesus take charge of the temple in this startling fashion and not being old enough to realize the tragic character of the conflict which was in progress, the children were not afflicted with the excessive prudence and watchful caution which kept the older people silent now; and loving Christ in such intense fashion, they knew no fear and cried out for joy again and again: “Hosanna to the Son of David!” (Matthew 21:15). Jesus might not be the kind of a Messiah that conniving, corrupt, political leaders desired, but He satisfied the longings of the hearts of the children. The Jewish leaders sought to silence this acclaim of Jesus as the Christ which was so dangerous for them in the breathless crisis. To their bitter question of protest: “Hearest thou what these are saying?” Jesus replied with another quotation from the Old Testament: “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise.” The excitement and confusion of the last two days had swept away their control of the multitude to such an extent that they did not attempt to silence the children by a direct command. Knowing that Jesus could quiet them with a word, they at least could make plain that the blame for the present crisis rested upon Jesus. Since Psalms 8:2 represents God as filling earth and heaven with His glory and using the mouths of babes and sucklings as the means of silencing the false accusations of His enemies, it would be hard to imagine a more appropriate use of the passage than Jesus made in His reply. The Messiah found true praise in the utter simplicity and sincerity of the hearts and the unquenchable enthusiasm of the voices of little children who had no selfish ambitions to lead them astray and no fear of wicked rulers to silence them.