Why Would Jesus Curse an Out-Of-Season Fig Tree?

What follows is an e-mail I sent in answer to a question from someone at a church I preached at this past week. I'm posting it for the benefit of anyone else who may have similar questions.

Thanks for asking me the question you did today about Mark 11:13, and especially your question about why Jesus would curse a fig tree that wasn’t producing figs if it wasn’t even the season for figs. As soon as I got home I looked into your question (a very good question) and I want to give you some information that I was able to find.

Specifically I am going to share with you a some insights from R.T. France's commentary on Mark, which I found very helpful. France points out that according to some horticultural expert, although it wasn’t the season for figs, Jesus would have still found little tiny green figs called paggim. “It may be then that these were what Jesus was hoping for, especially if the tree had…a particularly well-developed show of leaves” (France, 440). However, France says he is unable to evaluate these claims since he isn’t a plant expert. In reality France actually believes that Jesus’ demand of the fig tree is unreasonable, but like with other parables the reasonableness of every detail of the act isn’t what’s important but rather, the symbolic meaning of the act. Here’s what France says:

Mark has significantly focused the problem by the comment, "for it was not the season for figs.” …Without this clause, if Jesus might reasonably have expected to find ripe figs and was disappointed, his actions, even if still unusual, might seem more justified…For Mark, Jesus’ frustration was horticulturally unreasonable. He tells the story not because it offers a model for reasonable [plant care] but because of its symbolic value. A tree in full leaf at Passover season is making a promise it cannot fulfill; so, too, is Israel. And just as Micah, speaking for God, described his disappointed search (equally unreasonably at the other end of the growing season) for the ‘first-ripe fig for which I hunger’ (Mi. 7:1), so Jesus on his initial visit to the temple has found all leaves, but no fruit. His summary verdict on the ‘braggart’ fig tree is a verdict on the failure of God’s people and is of a piece with his developing polemic against the ‘barren’ temple.

France pointed to Micah 7:1, and it appears that in that passage God is also seeking figs at a time when they aren’t in season. Here’s the passage:

Woe is me! For I have become
as when the summer fruit has been gathered,
as when the grapes have been gleaned:
there is no cluster to eat,
no first-ripe fig that my soul desires. 

It seems like Mark has mentioned that the figs are out of season perhaps even specifically to parallel God’s condemnation of Israel in Micah 7:1 with what Jesus is doing. In the Micah passage God can scarcely find any righteous men in the land; this clearly is true in Jesus’ own time as well. I actually think that drawing a connection between Jesus and Micah 7:1 makes Jesus' actions make more sense. He acts in a way that draws a parallel between his own judgment in the Temple and God’s judgment on Jerusalem. The point becomes less about the expectations we have for our plants and more about the fact that Jesus is judging Israel (remember that the fig tree episodes of 11:12-14; 11:20-26 bookend Jesus’ visit to the unfruitful temple in 11:15-19) as God judged Israel in the time of Micah.

So there are a couple of possible approaches.

1) Jesus may be making a reasonable request of the plant,
2) or he may not.

Both are textually and horticulturally plausible, depending on which fig expert you ask about it. I’m actually fine with both. With the unreasonable request, it would seem to reflect more clearly that Jesus intends to copy God’s judgment in Micah 7:1, where God can’t find a “first-ripe fig," but I’m sympathetic with those who say that Jesus would still have expected to find something on the vine indicating fruitfulness.

I’m curious whether this satisfies some of your own curiosity. If not, feel free to let me know. I can keep digging!

Don't Cultivate an Empty Legacy

I hesitate to write this for a lot of reasons. The fact is, Andrew Breitbart has died and for the last week or so we have observed a flood of contrary evaluations of the man. On the one hand, people hated his guts and thought he was the biggest slimeball who ever lived. On the other hand, some people are already lionizing him - Ann Coulter, for example, says that this is similar to the death of John Lennon.

My suspicion is, there are many Christians who would look at the life and career of Andrew Breitbart and - without having known anything of his religious life - say that Breitbart as "finished the race," borrowing Paul's own phrase. In reality, Andrew Breitbart fought for a temporal kingdom - one which will not endure in its present form. “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved" (2 Peter 3:10 ESV). This points to a cataclysmic end for the world as we know it. When Christ ushers in the age to come, it will not come calmly and smoothly with the institutions and structures of this world relatively unchanged. Rather, we will inhabit a new heavens and a new Earth. The cosmos will be fundamentally remade, and so we see that the institutions, the news papers, the blogs, and the buildings of this world will not endure into the age to come.

The Bible points to very few things which will "endure forever": God's steadfast love (1 Chr. 16:34), God's righteousness (Ps. 111:3), God's praise (Ps. 111:10), every one of God's righteous rules (Ps. 119:160), God's name (Ps. 135:13), and whatever God does (Eccl. 3:14). This does not mean that nothing we do is of any benefit. However, it should cause us to make our ultimate end and goal the one which God has designed for us (WSC Q1), so that our endeavors and labors in this life are not "burned up" in the end (1 Cor. 3:15). "Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life" (John 6:27).

Andrew Breitbart... Ronald Reagan... John Lennon... Herod... All passing fads.

Larry David - More Like God Than Ted Danson (This Time, at Least)

A few years ago, the television show Curb Your Enthusiasm ran an episode called "The Anonymous Donor," where Larry David donated money to a children's hospital (or some sort of charity) and they named a wing of the hospital after him. Meanwhile, at the grand opening, someone else had donated a wing of the facility as well, only this donation was done "anonymously." Larry becomes agitated when it becomes clear that this anonymous donor is upstaging him, since everyone sees the anonymous donation as being more noble than Larry's publicized donation. The funny part of the episode was that Ted Danson was quietly telling everyone that he was actually the anonymous donor, which only caused everyone to praise Ted even more highly. If you've ever watched Curb (and I'm not saying that you should), then you will know that predictable Larry confronts Ted and tells him what a dirtbag he is for donating the hospital wing anonymously while a crowd of people just stares at him incredulously.

What caused me to think about this was the idea of philanthropy which was raised in a brief but helpful section in Geerhardus Vos' Biblical Theology.

"God is not a philanthropist who likes to do good in secret without its becoming known; His delight is in seeing Himself and His perfections mirrored in the consciousness of the religious subject. No compromise is possible here" (p 235).

So in one sense, Larry David is more like God, strictly speaking, in this episode of Curb than Ted Danson was, because God is not interested in doing good without his goodness being recognized and rejoiced in. Ultimately, everything is a manifestation of God's desire to be known and rejoiced in by His creatures. In other words, God is not strictly altruistic. When He does good, it is for a selfish reason - a glorious, selfish reason which promotes His glory and our own happiness.

However, lets temper these thoughts by recalling, as Jonathan Edwards argued, that this is not selfishness, strictly speaking because it actually is God extending the kindness of communion with Himself to a needy, hungry, and lonely creation which is badly in need of the Creator's touch. So everybody wins. Humanity's yearning for communion with God is met, and the Creator is glorified by being rejoiced in because of it.

Almost (saved)

Christianity and Liberalism Revisited: Live Stream

Westminster Seminary California will be holding their annual conference this weekend on "Christianity and Liberalism Revisited." They are live webcasting the conference. Go here for more details.

Milton and the Law

I just came across this post by my good friend Chris Donato. It points to his newly published article in the Harvard Theological Review titles "Against the Law: Milton's (Anti?) nomianism in De Doctrina Christiana," which can be found here. I have not read his article yet, but based on the following abstract, it looks like a worthwhile read.

This essay seeks to put to rest the notion that John Milton was an antinomian, by offering a concise summation of the relevant chapters of De doctrina Christiana that discuss his views on the covenants, the law and the gospel, and Christian liberty. Defining antinomian is a difficult task, as its manifestations throughout history have not been monolithic. During the seventeenth century in England, two kinds, broadly speaking, existed: 1) doctrinal antinomianism; and 2) licentious antinomianism.

Jesus in Every Book of the Bible

What Christmas is All About

Extraordinary Afghani Prison Epistle

World Magazine obtained this extraordinary letter from our brother in the Lord, Sayed Mossa in Afghanistan. Simply extraordinary. I tried to read this letter aloud to my wife, but I kept crying. I hope my fellow Christians will read Mossa's letter, which is written in broken English and take courage from it. Let us pray that the government will have mercy and free our friend. In this letter, Mossa repeatedly calls himself a great sinner ("sinest man" is what he calls himself) and speaks of the suffering he endures because of his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. He signs the letter "Your destitute brother in the Lord."

A Change of Heart for Belle & Sebastian

My first exposure to Belle & Sebastian was their song 'If You're Feeling Sinister,' where lead singer Stuart Murdoch speaks about how irrelevant the church is to young people. Here are a few excerpts from the song's lyrics:

Hilary went to the Catholic Church because she wanted information
The vicar, or whatever, took her to one side and gave her confirmation
Saint Theresa's calling her, the church up on the hill is looking lovely
But it doesn't interest, the only things she wants to know is
How and why and when and where to go
How and why and when and where to follow

The song concludes:

But if you are feeling sinister
Go off and see a minister
Chances are you'll probably feel better
If you stayed and played with yourself

Needless to say, Murdoch portrayed the Catholic church in a not-so-flattering light. This song, in fact, caused me to think of B&S as a pretty godless band. More recently, however, NPR did an interview with Stuart Murdoch *where they asked him about the seeming lack of faith in 'If You're Feeling Sinister.' Murdoch responded:

Yes, a startling lack of faith. When I wrote that song, I was writing from the perspective of somebody who was trying to work things out. Put it this way, I was like a young, fairly hip, 19 or 20-year-old punk who was knocking about Glasgow. But I went to church. I didn’t see any other hipsters or punks at church, so I was maybe kind of writing about the folks that I knew, and my friends. And perhaps, sort of rightly so, I could see why there might be this wall, this divide between them and the church.

In 2004, Stuart Murdoch did an interview where he discussed his interest in attending church:

I'm not actually a Christian with a capital C. I'm still asking questions. But I had this time when I found myself singing all these old hymns in my kitchen and I couldn't work out why I was doing it. Then one Sunday morning I got up, looked at my watch, and thought, 'I wonder if I could make it to a church service?' It was so welcoming. It just felt like you were coming home. Twelve years later, I've never left.

In the more recent NPR interview, Murdoch then talks about how he now goes to church on a regular basis and has grown considerably less cynical:

I slipped quite easily into it and it’s a thing that’s never left me. And if you have a thing in your life, which is quiet obviously the biggest thing thats happening, you can’t stop thinking about it. And you really shouldn’t stop talking about it. Else, you know, we’re not in Communist Russia in the ’70s, you know...You know, I want to talk about the things that I’m feeling. And if I have a force working inside me and something I think about on an hourly basis, then that’s what I’m going to write about.

In a fine contrast, the new album from Belle & Sebastian (which you can listen to at NPR for free until tomorrow when the album is actually released) titled Write About Love has quite a few songs which portray a positive vision of God. I'm not saying that Stuart is a Reformed born again believer, but it is very encouraging to see people I once thought of as godless pagans surprising me. One song, in particular, is called "Ghost of Rockschool":

I’ve seen God in the sun
I’ve seen God in the street
God before bed and the promise of sleep
God in my dreams and the free ride of grace
...
Master I love from the ground above
There’s the stars below as my memory flows
Every picture frame is beating louder than time
Every clock in the hall is bending slowly
...
come on I insist have a drink have a sit in the bar
tell me all about your man and your hopes and the flaws of your life

you could love
after all that’s what you’re looking for
you can love
it’s a currency unspoken heart
but it’s hard to form a good opinion
if you’re gonna look at me that way
and it’s gonna cause a crisis
might just lose a little faith
don’t touch me
if you touch me, you could never go back
faith

come on I insist have a drink have a sit in the bar
tell me all about your man and your hopes and the flaws of your life

*Many thanks to Mollie from 'Get Religion' for bringing the interview to my attention.

Al Mohler on the Burdens of Young Christians

Friday, July 2nd marked the last episode of the Albert Mohler Program. Al Mohler has written on his blog some parting thoughts and lessons that he has learned over the years of doing his radio program. One of the points that Mohler makes which I particularly connected with was his point that young Christians bear a tremendous burden in many respects:

Just imagine being a young Christian in postmodern America. Everything appears up for negotiation, from sexuality to spiritual realities. In these times, the young are bearing the greatest burden, paying the greatest social costs, and carrying much of the intellectual freight as well.

They need help — and understanding. They desperately need the church to respond with the full witness of Scripture and the full measure of conviction. They are pressed on by all sides, pulled by the vortex of a secular culture, and faced with frontal attacks on the Christian faith. They are on college and university campuses where Christianity is derided as imperialistic and where belief in the supernatural is written off as insanity.

They face moral and cultural temptations that no previous generation of Christians has faced. They need help, and I heard their voices with particular concern and priority.

Most of the men whom we look to right now for leadership - from men like Piper, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, Sproul, Keller, et al are between 30 and 50 years older than us. We won't have these redwoods of the faith around forever to fight our fights for us; eventually, as young Reformed Christians, these fights will be fully our own to fight.

Battling Sin

Think!

In Chirst Alone

Thoughts From a First Time Atlas Shrugged Reader

I want to talk about a book. I know, I know; that's so old fashioned. After all, when was the last time we actually talked about literature on this blog? Well I'm not sure, and I'm too lazy to comb through the archives and find out. But I venture to guess it's been a while [ed. Josh posted one on Jan. 10th, you dope].

After having received an Amazon Kindle as my early birthday present, I quickly set to reading Ayn Rand's ubiquitous novel Atlas Shrugged, a book which I have been intimidated by for years, every time I walked past it in my high school library. While I don't plan on doing an in-depth review of this book, I have finished almost half of it and wanted to share a few thoughts.

I'm approaching the book with half-delight and half-dread. Here's what I'm excited about. I know that Rand was somewhat of an anarcho-capitalist, and I have long been drawn to the libertarian/anarchistic view of government espoused by the likes Mises and Rothbard.

I somewhat dreaded reading it, in part because of her atheistic views. Now, I'm not afraid that she'll make persuasive arguments for atheism, per se. Rather what I'm afraid is that she will present a compelling defense of laissez-faire capitalism, but that it will lean completely upon her atheistic presuppositions. That, and the book's just really long.

I can report, having made it to the halfway point of the book, that her defense of capitalism, while certainly consistent with her worldview of "man as a heroic being" does not, to my mind, suffer if one holds theistic presuppositions.

One thing which I have noticed is that Rand's concept of pleasure and delight in others has tended to make me a better worshipper of God. Here is what I mean by that. At one point, Rand describes two friends:

Francisco seemed to laugh at things because he saw something much greater. Jim laughed as if he wanted to let nothing remain great.

In another passage:

Of what account are praise and adulation from men whom you don't respect? Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?

In another location, a character remarks that

If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade at all. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud.

Now, certainly, a statement like this applies to economics and the "looters" as Rand calls those who favor redistribution of wealth (the Robin Hood mentality). In fact, that's what she's referring to, in the context of the book. But an absolute statement like this applies broadly to many things, and what I am thinking of in particular is the implications of a statement like this for worshipping God. If Rand is correct, and this principle may be applied broadly, then worship of God should not seem like a sacrifice. Rather, it should be a matter of the creature delighting in a being who is to be greatly admired. In Atlas Shrugged, it becomes quite apparent that the concept of admiration is very important. The characters of Dagney and Reardon, early on, consider one another the only people worth admiring, and it is quite apparent that both have been looking for someone worthy of their admiration. This leads to an intense romantic relationship, but one just wants to scream at the page, "Look even higher! There is an even more admirable person whose value is infinite! You will never run out of worship if the one you admire is infinitely worthy of that admiration, such as God is."

Really, the book has convinced me that Ayn Rand has had a profound influence upon John Piper's Christian Hedonism. Now, while he has certainly said as much in his own writings, I am almost tempted to argue that the influence of Rand is the thing which causes Piper to stand out most from the evangelical/Reformed preachers of our day. There are times in Atlas Shrugged when it almost feels like Piper is the one writing. The concept of worship and delight and admiration are so prevalent in both Piper and Rand that it seems beyond coincidental. While Piper normally points to the Apostle Paul, Jonathan Edwards, and C.S. Lewis as having the greatest influence on his Christian Hedonism, it's almost as if he's embarrassed to include (perhaps justifiably) Rand in his list.

The other side of this coin is that the overlapping areas of Rand, Edwards, Lewis, and Piper demonstrate, I think, that even in the musings of an atheistic philosopher who would most certainly repudiate the worldviews of these Christian thinkers, there is nevertheless a fascinating similarity. The desire to worship God is a universal desire and in my opinion, Rand is simply giving voice to this human need while at the same time "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." She has taken this desire to worship the greater and most admirable and cut the possibility of God (the greatest and most admirable of all beings) out of the running. When you do that, the only thing you have left to worship with any admirable qualities is a human. In fact, Rand's views of gender roles echo this:

the essence of femininity is hero worship — the desire to look up to man...an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind.

I could share more, but I'm only half done with the book. I'll share more, later. By the way, I know that there are like, scholars who spend their whole life studying Ayn Rand, and for my own sake I hope none of them read this, because they'll probably tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Your Thoughts on Introducing Jesus Christ

What do you think? Leave your thoughts in the comment section.

Doxology

Spiritual Oedipus Complex--Some Thoughts

I am back from a long drought of posting, largely due to summer Greek at RTS Jackson. I thought I would share some thoughts on one of the most helpful articles I have read. I read it over two years ago but it has still stuck with me. The article is by Carl Trueman titled The Freudom of the Christian and it hits on what I perceive is the chief problem with what has been called the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" movement. Carl Trueman notes, as others have, that although young people today in our churches may be in an uncanny fashion embracing the finer points of Reformed orthodoxy, it is many times more of a reaction to what they were fed in their bland-evangelical churches than a recognition of the Gospel and its need demand for Gospel obedience. What this machine-like-movement turns out is bunch of young people who are more concerned about not being like their old dispensational-fundamentalist-tee-totalin'-[insert "We don't want to be like that!" term here] Church family than being Christ-like.

Don't get me wrong, I was and still find myself doing this very thing, although my Spiritual parents weren't as Fundy therefore I suppose I'm not as reactionary. I grew up in Southern Baptist churches, was regenerated at a mega-church in the Dallas area, was a member of Matt Chandler's church and then a member of a Sovereign Grace Church in the Chicago area. Thus, I know what fundamentalism is (I graduated from Moody Bible)! I also know what the young Reformed movement looks like as well. Matt Chandler and Sovereign Grace Ministries are at the forefront of the movement and I was the typical feisty Calvinist who deserved a cage rather than a debate. Let me be frank, I just don't think that the Iain Campbell's of the world who want to defend the movement from those who criticize it are understanding that movement very well (FPC Jackson is hardly the center of the young Reformed movement, if anything, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and Al Mohler are much more near the center)! In fact, as John Macarthur has pointed out, Mark Driscoll is quite crude at times.

Now I must immediately make a disclaimer: Iain Campbell is right to point out that we ought not to proverbially "throw everyone under the bus." After all, John Piper, Al Mohler, and many others in the movement are extremely pious and emphasize holiness very much. However, when looking at those young people who follow these men, I find, by and large, a general lack of holiness and sometimes as Trueman's article acknowledges a vice-filled group of theologically savvy young people who sin under the guise of "Christian Liberty." Worse, if you call them out on it, they think you are being a legalist or even-worse "crusty." Of course, seemingly unaware of Eph 5:4 and 1 Tim 1:5. Well, I suppose the desire I have of myself, as with all of my other young Reformed brothers is for us to be committed, above all else to be holy...as God is holy. This is, by the way, something where the Puritans should be our examples!

If we can be more Christ-like than our Arminian-Dispensational-Whatever brothers, maybe they would find our theology more attractive. There is nothing more attractive to me (and an example for me to follow) than a brother or sister in Christ who finds the doctrine of election precious because it accentuates the mercy of God and who lives beyond reproach where glorifying God by being holy is one's chief aim!

Only One Book

Dr. Derek Thomas has a great article posted here. In this article he maintains the importance and centrality of the Bible, while showing that the Bible itself teaches that we need teachers. He begins his article with these words:

"Only one book is absolutely essential to save us, to equip us to obey God’s will, and to glorify Him in whatever we do. Only one book gives us undiluted truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Only one book serves as our ultimate and final authority in all that it affirms. That book, of course, is the Bible, God’s Holy Word. No wonder John Wesley once exclaimed, “Let me be homo unius libri” — a man of one book!"

He then goes on to state:

"And yet the irony is that if we use only this book [the Bible], we may in fact be in disobedience to it. We should count good teaching about the Bible — whether through commentaries, books, sermons, study Bibles, and so on — to be a gift from God for the good of His church (see Eph. 4:11; James 1:17). So what may look pious on the outside (“Just me and my Bible!”) can actually mask pride on the inside."

Your Calling is Now

As many of our readers know, I am a full time seminary student at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. As such, I often hear conversations about "calling." This "calling" is usually used to refer to what someone wants, or is called, to do after seminary. People will say, "I am called to the ministry," or "I am called to preach the word of God in the pulpit." Rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone say, "I am called to be a good father," or "I am called to be a faithful and loving husband." Are not these callings as well? Further more, if you are called by God to full time gospel ministry, why is it that seminary is looked at as a hurdle to jump or a necessary evil that must be done to get to what God is really calling you to? If God is calling you to full time ministery, then by necessity, God is calling you to be equipped for that task. In other words, if you are in seminary training for pulpit ministry, then you are, right now, called to be a good, diligent and faithful seminary student. Seminary is your calling. Seminary is not just preparing you for your calling, it is part of it. I hear people say things like, "I want to get done with seminary so I can start my calling," or "I am thinking about leaving seminary early so I can get into the ministry." Seminary should be viewed as your ministry. It is in seminary that the foundation for the rest of your life in God's service is laid. If the foundation is bad or abandon, then the whole building (your "real" calling) will be off. So, take heart those in school training for the pulpit. You are right where God wants you. You have already begun to fulfill your calling now!