May Be A Rehash But I Have Questions About Fig Trees

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

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.

That is the full scenario of this picture. What a petty asshole Jesus was! Just because it wasn't the time for a fig tree to offer fruit, he curses it... Classy!

Now to the argument I hear on behalf of Jebus. I have heard that he is trying to make the tree an example of how when something is useless, it will wither away and die, or even more so in this case, be destroyed. Referencing to Israel...though, I think like many other parables of the bible, this one was quite a stretch as well. Jesus doesn't say anything along the lines of,"This is what is in store for Israel since they went all rogue on me and have become useless in their faith." Granted, people have brought up Jesus' speech in Matthew 21:20's, but he is speaking as to how YOU will conquer nations, he says nothing of Israel directly being in the wrong here.

Secondly, don't you think he pre-emptively killed a tree without cause? He couldn't tell with his godly vision and omniscient powers that the tree didn't have fruit? Rather he got pissed when he walked over because the leaves fooled him? Seriously? I realize that if a fig produces fruit, a telling sign are the leaves that show up AFTER such production. Yes, it is an ass backwards plant. But is there not a chance that maybe, just MAYBE, there were other people on the road that morning who might have plucked the fruit first? You can pick figs and have the leaves remain. I think that is why people refer to the first defense that this is in fact a lesson. And ironically, I see it as survival of the fittest as what Jebus was referring to, which would be the Romans overtaking the lands at some point. Everyone in Jebus' time KNEW Rome's march was inevitable.

And back to the ass backward fig tree. What really crisps my ass here as that the story isn't even being told honestly either. You can tell whoever wrote this nonsense is scrambling to make it look better. As I recall in this verse, it is an understood fact that Jesus' expectations for fruit were falsely founded because it was NOT time for the figs to be in season. THEN, just incase it was an early bloom, the author decides to deal with that by saying it must be a sick tree to begin with then. AND THEN, they remove the common notion that maybe there were more people on the road that morning who might have enjoyed an early bearing from the tree and left the leaves behind. Forget the fact Jebus couldn't have known before walking over there that fruit wouldn't be on it? And then to rationalize destruction of said tree that had probably fed weary travellers for many years, they use a common sense deduction of survival of the fittest. Where as faith makes you fit and you can move mountains....

This whole thing is ridiculous.

I think this whole adventure with a fig tree and petty behavior has been kind of glossed over with this parable of something that was common knowledge anyhow.

[Foxy Methoxy]

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good points, Zomberina. A spin-off from what you say:

 

A more subtle Christian approach than the very literal approach is to say that this passage, and others like it (e.g. veil in the Temple torn, details of infancy narratives), are not meant to be historical accounts but are theological meditations. They present a theme, not an event - in this case, the barren fig tree thematizing Israel's failure to bear fruit due to its unbelief in Jesus as messiah. The sort of Christian who says stuff like this also might say, for example, that the story of Jonah is not historical but is intended as a kind of divinely inspired short story with a theological message.

 

I think the main advantage of this kind of interpretation for the Christian is to make it hard to falsify it. On the other hand, that advantage creates a second problem, because this interpretative move takes the passage out of the realm of testibility altogether. The Christian can't even test the theology, since by hypothesis these passages give inspired theological reflection.

 

A secondary advantage of this kind of interpretation - is it "midrashic"? - is to make differences among parallel accounts irrelevant. A literalistic inerrantist has a problem with, for example, how long it took the fig tree to wither (immediately in Matthew, overnight in Mark), or when in the course of Jesus' trip to Jerusalem they encountered the tree (discrepancies between Matthew and Mark). The midrashic interpreter, if that's the correct word, can just say that the inspired gospel writers each does his own theological meditation in a slightly different way and we benefit by getting two meditations, not one.

 

Catholic scripture scholars often take this approach that I'm calling "midrashic" because the Church declares doctrine, not the Bible by itself, so they can be freer with scripture (within limits, of course) than Protestant fundies can.

 

In my opinion, this "midrashic" approach fails to accomplish what non-fundamentalist interpreters want because it can't show why there is ANY historical basis to biblical accounts. Why not, after all, say that the resurrection accounts are not historical but are theological meditations? And if one goes that far, Christianity loses the historic claims that it says that it stands on.

[Foxy Methoxy]

This story is often referred to a the Bible's strangest moment. Fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible is divinely inspired jump through hoops to offer an explanation. It is very problematic because 1. It involves Jesus and 2. It is in the New Testement twice and 3. It makes no freaking sense.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

Good points, Zomberina. A spin-off from what you say:

 

A more subtle Christian approach than the very literal approach is to say that this passage, and others like it (e.g. veil in the Temple torn, details of infancy narratives), are not meant to be historical accounts but are theological meditations. They present a theme, not an event - in this case, the barren fig tree thematizing Israel's failure to bear fruit due to its unbelief in Jesus as messiah. The sort of Christian who says stuff like this also might say, for example, that the story of Jonah is not historical but is intended as a kind of divinely inspired short story with a theological message.

 

I think the main advantage of this kind of interpretation for the Christian is to make it hard to falsify it. On the other hand, that advantage creates a second problem, because this interpretative move takes the passage out of the realm of testibility altogether. The Christian can't even test the theology, since by hypothesis these passages give inspired theological reflection.

 

A secondary advantage of this kind of interpretation - is it "midrashic"? - is to make differences among parallel accounts irrelevant. A literalistic inerrantist has a problem with, for example, how long it took the fig tree to wither (immediately in Matthew, overnight in Mark), or when in the course of Jesus' trip to Jerusalem they encountered the tree (discrepancies between Matthew and Mark). The midrashic interpreter, if that's the correct word, can just say that the inspired gospel writers each does his own theological meditation in a slightly different way and we benefit by getting two meditations, not one.

 

Catholic scripture scholars often take this approach that I'm calling "midrashic" because the Church declares doctrine, not the Bible by itself, so they can be freer with scripture (within limits, of course) than Protestant fundies can.

 

In my opinion, this "midrashic" approach fails to accomplish what non-fundamentalist interpreters want because it can't show why there is ANY historical basis to biblical accounts. Why not, after all, say that the resurrection accounts are not historical but are theological meditations? And if one goes that far, Christianity loses the historic claims that it says that it stands on.

For me, like you say, it is a failed attempt at making a larger theme to it. I mean, in Mark, the conversation goes further to basically discuss how they too will have his ability and be able to make "mountains leap into the sea". BUT, it also has been purported to show that Israel "withered"...which I think is a stretch because they are projecting their own grasping at straws further than what I think Jebus ever inferred in the conversation. It would seem if Jebus were demonstrating how a country will wither and be torn asunder, than he is demonstrating something that was inevitable, and ultimately a "survival of the fittest" concept...which was around wayyyy before this bearded abomination ever showed up on the scene.

[TheBluegrassSkeptic]

This story is often referred to a the Bible's strangest moment. Fundamentalists who believe every word of the Bible is divinely inspired jump through hoops to offer an explanation. It is very problematic because 1. It involves Jesus and 2. It is in the New Testement twice and 3. It makes no freaking sense.

I think it's problematic because, as they say, your first instinct about a situation is usually right, and my first instinct is that he was being a petty asshole. Period. Then you have all the surrounding data. Logic is a wonderful thing, if the Bible were full of logic, I might actually believe it.