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!

Is Translating Understanding?

In first year (or even later) Greek courses it is often assumed that if you can translate a Greek phrase or sentence into English, then you understand what the Greek sentence means. This, however, is simply not the case. Just because someone can provide an English gloss for each word in the Greek text does not mean that they understand all (or even most) that is going on in the orignal text. Moisés Silva in a chapter discussing the detailed debate over the use of the Greek verbal tenses, A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect, reminds us of this fact.

We have traditionally assumed that learning Greek means being able to translate, but that is really mixing apples and oranges. If you want to become proficient in Italian, you go to Italy, hear and imitate the spoken language even as you learn to read it, and never once produce a written English translation of anything. Of course, since Greek is an ancient language, we are virtually obligated to rely on translation, but it remains true that being able to translate is a very distinct skill from learning a language (p. 76). 

This is a reminder that just because a person can provide English "equivalence" to different Greek words, does not mean they understand the original text. After all, if all it took to understand the orignal Greek text were English glosses, then by simply looking at an English Bible (or Greek-English interlinear) a person would understand the Greek text. And, as should be apparent, this is simply not the case!

The Reliability of the New Testament

D. A. Carson on the New Testament Canon

Who Wrote the Gospels?

Walker Reviews Lexicon

The Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism has a review of the Compact Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, edited by Mark House. The review was written by our own Josh Walker and may be of interest to many of you.

New Testament Commentaries Recommended

Dr. Guy Waters, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary Jackson, has shared with Bring the Books his list of what are, in his opinion, the best recent exegetical commentaries addressing the Greek text of the New Testament. We thought our readers might appreciate seeing his list, as well.

The Gospel of Matthew:
The Gospel of Matthew, by R.T. France (NICNT)

The Gospel of Mark:
The Gospel of Mark, by R.T. France (NIGTC)

The Gospel of Luke:
The Gospel of Luke (2 Vol.) by Darrell L. Bock (BECNT)

[Hint: at WTSBooks, if you buy the two volumes separately, you'll save $5 on the total price. Volume 1 - Volume 2]

The Gospel of John:
The Gospel of John, by D.A. Carson (Pillar)

The Book of Acts:
Acts, by Darrell L. Bock (BECNT)

The Epistle to the Romans:
The Epistle to the Romans, by Douglas J. Moo (NICNT)

The Epistle of 1 Corinthians:
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, by Gordon Fee (NICNT)

The Epistle of 2 Corinthians:
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, by Murray J. Harris (NIGTC)

The Epistle to the Galatians:
Galatians, by Thomas R. Schreiner (ZEC)

The Epistle to the Ephesians:
Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary, by Harold W. Hoehner

The Epistle to the Philippians:
The Epistle to the Philippians, by Peter T. O'Brien (NIGTC)

The Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon:
The Epistle to the Colossians and Philemon, by Douglas J. Moo (Pillar)

The Epistles of 1 & 2 Thessalonians:
1 & 2 Thessalonians, by F.F. Bruce (Word)

The Pastoral Epistles:
Pastoral Epistles, by George W. Knight (NIGTC)

The Letter to the Hebrews:
The Letter to the Hebrews, by Peter T. O'Brien (Pillar)

The Epistle of James:
The Letter of James, by Douglas J. Moo (Pillar)

The Epistles of 1 & 2 Peter & Jude:
1, 2 Peter, Jude, by Thomas R. Schreiner (NAC)

The Epistles of 1-3 John:
The Epistles of John, by I. Howard Marshall (NICNT)

The Book of Revelation:
The Book of Revelation, by Walvoord (just kidding!)

The Book of Revelation, by G.K. Beale (NIGTC)

Rob Bell and Syncretism

Canon is FOR the Church, Not FROM the Church

The idea of a New Testament canon was not something developed in the second century (or later) when the church was faced with pressing needs, but rather it was something that was handed down to and inherited by the early church from the beginning. It was the foundation for the church, not the consequence of the church. The idea of canon, therefore, does not belong formally to church history, but is more accurately understood as a central plank in redemptive history.

The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas J. Kostenberger, Page 117

Jesus Questions Peter

D.A. Carson points out the following with regards to Jesus' questioning of Peter, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-19):

Jesus' initial question probes Peter to the depth of his being. He does not try to answer in terms of the relative strength of his love as compared with that of other disciples. He appeals rather to the Lord's knowledge. Despite my bitter failure, he says in effect, I love you - you know that I love you. Jesus accepts his declaration, doubtless to Peter's relief, and commissions him: Feed my lambs.

[Pillar Commentary on John, Pg. 677-678]

Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians

I had a nice surprise waiting for me when I arrived home yesterday. It was a mystery box from Zondervan. However, I had no idea what was inside because I did not order anything from them. Since it is always great to get random boxes from a great publisher, this was the sort of surprise you often hope for. When I opened the box, I found Clifton Arnold's new commentary on the book of Ephesians. This new volume is only the fourth in Zondervan's Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series.

At the outset, I want to state my appreciation for this series in general. I really like the way these commentaries have been done. At least two reasons come to mind: First, the ECNT commentaries use the Greek font, which I appreciate since I have always found transliterations to be useless. If you do not know Greek, then in what sense are transliterations even helpful? And if you do know Greek it is frustrating to read Greek in English characters. Second, to my knowledge, this is the first commentary series to use charts that show the relationship between clauses, which should be a very helpful feature.

Aside from the ECNT series itself, I do have some comments to make about this particular volume: The first thing that caught my eye was its immense size, which is a whooping 508 pages of raw commentary, not even including the index. This is one of the largest Ephesians commentaries on the market and the space is not wasted! Each section of Ephesians is examined from different angles: literary context, main idea, translation and graphical layout, structure, exegetical outline, explanation of the text, and theological application. The readers of this blog would also be interested to know that he does deal with Ephesians 1:3-11 in a very "Calvinistic" way.

All and all, I think this is a great addition to the corpus of commentaries on Ephesians and I look forward to using it in my future work on Paul in general and Ephesians in particular.

New Testament Greek Linguistics

Durning my work towards a PhD at MacDiv, I have been doing a lot of reading in the area of the language of Greek (the language the New Testament was originally written in), specifically, Greek linguistics. One of the articles I have been working with is by a good friend of mine Andrew Pitts (and my advisor Dr. Stan Porter). I thought our readers would like a taste of what I have been working on the past few months, so I wanted to post the abstract of this article, which is titled "New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research" and can be found in the journal Currents in Biblical Research 2008, 6, 214.

This article examines developments in research on the linguistic and grammatical analysis of the language and literature of the New Testament since the publication of James Barr's important work in 1961. While there have been a large number of important advances since this time, the present survey restricts its analysis to research that has been significantly informed by modern linguistics. It considers four areas, in particular: verb structure, case structure, syntax and discourse analysis. Verbal aspect theory has been treated in more detail than any other aspect of the Greek verb. Most investigation of case structure has been informed by case grammar, originating in Fillmore's work. Syntactic theories that have been applied to the language of the New Testament draw mostly from the generative tradition of linguistics, but the OpenText.org project has recently implemented a functional and relational dependency model. Discourse analysis has typically been divided into four schools, but in recent research we see a fifth, eclectic approach, emerging.

(image from here)

Was the Strong Man 'Bound' or Was He 'Overcome'?

In a friendly debate with a co-worker, I was prepared to slam-dunk him in a discussion of the Millennium in Revelation 20 - particularly the statement in 20:2 that Satan, in the millennium, was bound for a thousand years. I was arguing that in the Gospels, Jesus literally says that Satan has already been bound. Knowing that Jesus says this in Matthew, Mark, and in Luke, I invited him to turn to any of the passages where Jesus says that the strong man has been bound. In the New King James, Matthew 12:29 reads:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

The parallel passage in Mark 3:27 reads:

No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

Unfortunately for me, he chose the version in Luke 11:22, which, from v. 21, reads:

When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoils.

One might initially be disturbed that each version varies slightly, but especially by the fact that Luke's version of the passage uses the word "overcome" instead of the word "bind."

We should be fully aware that given the doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration, we allow for the personalities of the writers to influence their recordings of Jesus' teachings. As the Chicago Statement says:

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

What then, are we to think of the Matthew/Mark (hereafter 'MM') rendering in comparison to the Lukan rendering of the teaching? MM appears to teach that Satan has been bound, in some sort of long-term sense (which certainly, prima facie appears to serve my own Amill leanings). But Luke appears to teach that the strong man has been 'overcome,' which my debating partner believed to indicate a less 'permanent' sort of fate for the strong man (a momentary victory, as it were). Initially, I conceded that it appeared to be so, but after looking at the range of meanings, I have changed my tune.

As you may have noticed, MM have Jesus saying that the strong man has been 'bound' (Gk. 'daesae'), which is from 'deo' and is generally translated 'bind, tie,' but it is sometimes used to refer to someone's arrest or imprisonment.

Luke, however, records Jesus as saying that the strong man has been 'overcome.' The Greek word here is 'nikaesae'. The lexical form of this Greek word is 'nikao,' which is translated, in different places, as 'be victor, prevail, conquer, overcome, or vanquish.'

The solution to this seeming discrepancy is to first remain consistent in employing the perspicuity of Scripture and acknowledging that both words ('daesae' and 'nikaesae') are complimentary. The strong man has not been bound to the exclusion of his having been overcome, nor is he overcome to the exclusion of his binding; this is not an either/or situation. As such, one might understand the Gospels collectively to be conveying Christ's idea in this way:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds in victory the strong man?

A similarly likely way of understanding it would be:

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first overcomes and binds the strong man?

I am, of course, only helping to solve a perceived discrepancy, not to suggest an alternate translation. This should be obvious, I hope.

In either case, if the Amill claims that Satan has been bound and then appeals to this passage in MM, it would be a mistake to attempt to turn Luke's rendering of the passage against MM. It is not either 'overcome' or 'bind,' but it is rather, both.

MacDiv and Tons of Books to Read

As some of our readers already know, I was accepted into the Ph.D. program in New Testament at McMaster Divinity College to study under Dr. Stanley Porter. So, my wife and I will be moving at the end of the summer to Hamilton, Ontario Canada, where MacDiv is located. A few of the classes I will be taking next year have posted the reading lists online. For one class, the reading list is over forty books (that is a four followed by a zero!). Some of the text books cost over a hundred dollars. I created an Amazon wish list with just books I need for classes. Right now it has about half the books needed for one class. If anyone would like to help my wife and I out with buying these books, I am posting this link. We are very excited about moving and would covet your prayers and encouragements as we move forward. The goal, at this point, is to continue blogging throughout our time at MacDiv. I would imagine that most of my posts will be in the area of New Testament, but not exclusively.

Interview on the Authorship of Hebrews

As a few of you might already know, Andrew W. Pitts and I are publishing a chapter together titled "The Authorship of Hebrews: A Further Development in the Luke-Paul Relationship" which is forthcoming in S.E. Porter (ed.), Paul's Social Relations (Pauline Studies 7; Leiden: Brill, 2010). But what you might not know is that an interview on this chapter was posted yesterday on Mike Bird's blog. Here is a sample of the interview.

What is the basic thesis of your chapter on the authorship of Hebrews?

The evidence we examine suggests that Hebrews likely represents a Pauline speech, probably originally delivered in a Diaspora synagogue, that Luke documented in some way during their travels together and which Luke later published as an independent speech to be circulated among house churches in the Jewish-Christian Diaspora. From Acts, there already exists a historical context for Luke’s recording or in some way attaining and publishing Paul’s speeches in a narrative context. Luke remains the only person in the early Church whom we know to have published Paul’s teaching (beyond supposed Paulinists) and particularly his speeches. And certainly by the first century we have a well established tradition within Greco-Roman rhetorical and historiographic stenography (speech recording through the use of a system of shorthand) of narrative (speeches incorporated into a running narrative), compilation (multiple speeches collected and edited in a single publication) and independent (the publication of a single speech) speech circulation by stenographers. Since it can be shown (1) that early Christians pursued parallel practices, particularly Luke and Mark, (2) that Hebrews and Luke-Acts share substantial linguistic affinities and (3) that significant theological-literary affinities exist between Hebrews and Paul, we argue that a solid case for Luke’s independent publication of Hebrews as a Pauline speech can be sustained. We don’t claim to have “solved” the problem of authorship in terms of absolutes or certainties, but we do think that this is the direction that the evidence points most clearly.

The Ending of Mark

In the comment section of this post I was asked about Carson and Moo's take on the long ending of Mark's Gospel. Here is what they have to say on this textual issue:

The ending of Mark’s gospel poses quite a different, and more severe, problem [than the variant in Mark 1:1]. The majority of manuscripts include the so-called long ending, in which are narrated several resurrection appearances of Jesus, Jesus’ commissioning of the disciples, and his ascension. This long ending is printed as verses 9–20 in the KJV; in modern English versions, it usually appears in the margin or with a notation. Since it is found in the bulk of the manuscripts and can be traced to the first half of the second century, this long ending can lay some claim to be considered as the original ending of Mark’s gospel.

I would agree with them on their conclusion that the longer ending of Mark can lay "some claim" to being original. However, by "some" I would think a very slim some. Although, I think this passage has more chance of being original than John 7:53-8:11. Based on the manuscript evidence and the internal evidence, I am more convinced of the UBS committee's understanding of this textual variant in Mark. Metzger comments on their findings on this passage with these words:

At the same time, however, out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9–20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets in order to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.

John 7:53-8:11

There is a question as to weather or not John 7:53-8:11 is original to the Gospel of John (or any other canonical book for that matter). Carson and Moo, in their An Introduction to the New Testament, comment on this passage about the women caught in adultery and have this to say, which I agree with.

Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that the narrative of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) was originally part of John’s gospel,116 the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (TNIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers omit this narrative; in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from [p. 274] Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative,117 not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it at 7:53–8:11, some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and others variously after John 7:44, John 7:36, or John 21:25.118 The diversity of placement confirms (though it cannot establish) the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the substance of the narrative is authentic — a position plausible enough — it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: it includes numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John but that are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular.

Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin

I just added Dan Wallace's latest book Granville Sharp's Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance to my amazon wish list. This book looks like a must read for anyone who is interested in New Testament studies, especially Greek. According to the product description:

Granville Sharps Canon and Its Kin explains that the semantics of the article-substantive-KAI-substantive construction (TSKS) have been largely misunderstood and that this misunderstanding has adversely impacted the exegesis of several theologically significant texts. This issue is addressed from three angles: historical investigation, linguistic-phenomenological analysis of the construction, and exegetical implications. The reasons for the misunderstanding are traced historically; a better comprehension of the semantics of the construction is established by an examination of primary literature in the light of linguistic theory; and the implications of this analysis are applied to a number of passages in the New Testament.

Historically, the treatment begins with a clear grammatical principle articulated by Granville Sharp, and it ends with the present-day confusion. This book includes a detailed examination of the New Testament data and other Ancient Greek literature, which reveals that Sharps rule has a general validity in the language. Lastly, a number of exegetically significant texts that are affected by the linguistic-phenomenological investigation are discussed in detail. This enlightening text is a valuable resource for undergraduate and graduate students of religion, linguistics, history, and Greek.

Con Campbell, in his latest blog post, says the following about this new book.

It is rare to be invited to review a book that is both a landmark and robust to the point of seeming virtually irrefutable. It is a landmark book because it has in my opinion put to rest the debate about Sharp’s rule, and has shown that it is of enormous importance both to Greek syntax and to theological exegesis of the New Testament. Truly, the humble Greek article reaches the heights of the deity of Christ! The book is robust in that it is difficult to imagine its key conclusions being overturned any time soon, if ever. If such claims appear grandiose, the following is more so: this book will stand the test of time as one of the best contributions to Greek syntax of the twentyfirst century. Dr Wallace is to be congratulated, and all serious students of the Greek New Testament should read his book, and will do so to great profit.

Authorship of Hebrews and Psalm 2:7

I have been M.I.A. from Bring the Books because I have been working on my paper that I will be delivering at ETS on November 19th at 11 am. I have probably spent about 100 hours this year on this single paper. I am pleased with the research and conclusion of the paper but I need to work on the syntax and wording a bit more. One of the pieces of evidence I have found in my study that is pretty compelling to me is how Psalm 2:7 is used in the New Testament to prove a high Christology. Below in a section from my paper on this high Christology.

Hebrews and Paul both seem to have a high Christology. Hebrews 1:1-14 sets forth a Christ that is above the angelic beings. Likewise, Paul argues for an exalted view of Christ in Philippians 2:9-10 and Colossians 1:14-19. In relation to a high Christology, Hebrews 1:1-14 quotes five passages from the Psalter to make its point. The first of these is Psalm 2:7, which is alluded to by Paul in Romans 1:4 to make a strikingly similar point (i.e. high Christology). Further, this same passage from the Psalter is quoted by Paul, as recorded by Luke, in Acts 13:33. In this passage, as with the others, the point that is being made is a high Christology. The Romans and Acts passages link Psalm 2 with the resurrection, while the Hebrews passage links Psalm 2 with the ascension.

Commentary Help

*Click the Picture*