The Cursing of the Fig tree(Mt 21:18-.22; Mk 11:12-14, 20-24) In the foregoing two chapters we have studied the history of the Our Father and what we can learn from it with regard to the transmission of Jesus' teaching. In this chapter we are considering how reports on events were handed on in apostolic tradition. For our guidance we will take one text as example, viz. the incident of Jesus cursing the fig tree. As we did in ch. 19, so we will also here proceed from observations to a scientific hypothesis and exegetical conclusions 1. First Observation:Matthew and Mark differ slightly in their arrangement of the events of Jesus' ministry in ]erusalem. Mark's arrangements would seem more original.
Examining the survey we note the following points: (i) MATTHEW and MARK obviously knew both the same chain of traditions in the oral catechesis, in which some important events were related to each other:
(ii) MARK narrates these events as having happened in three days. This is clear because he says explicitly that Jesus spent two nights in Bethany (Mk 11:11b; 1 1:19). MARK cannot have any special reason for making this arrangement, since Jesus' first visit to the Temple on the first day (Mk 11:11a) is not stressed by MARK as of great importance. We may therefore, presume that MARK simply followed tradition as he found it. MATTHEW, however, narrates the events as having happened in two days. This is clear from the fact that he introduces the night spent in Bethany only in 21:17. (iii) Mark divides the episode of cursing the fig tree over two days. Jesus spoke the curse on the second day (Mk 11: 12-14) and gave the explanation on the third day (Mk 11: 20-24). MATTHEW puts the entire event in the same day (Mt 21:18-22). Again MARK would seem to follow tradition precisely as he finds it. We observe, consequently, that MARK adheres to a three days' arrangement and a division of the fig tree episode. MATTHEW arranges everything within two days: the episode of the fig tree falls entirely within his second day. MARK'S arrangement seems to follow the traditional preaching. Second Observation:MATTHEW has simplified the account of the fig tree. This simplification may be seen from this accurate comparison of the text in MATTHEW and MARK We underline what is proper to each.
From the comparison of the two texts we observe: MARK gives more historical details: that the tree was far off v. 13 ); that it was not the time for figs ( vi 13 ); that the tree had withered only on the next day (v. 20); that it was withered down to its roots (v. 20); that Peter asked the question (v. 21). MATTHEW omits these details He says that the tree withered at once (vs. 19). In other words: he abbreviates and simplifies. 3. Third Observation:Jesus' action of cursing the free is to be understood not only as an example for trust in prayer but also as a symbolic action concerning Jerusalem. (a) Tradition has linked Jesus' words on trust in prayer to the cursing of the fig tree. (see Mk 11:22-24; Mt 21:21-22) No doubt, this exhortation of Jesus did belong to Jesus' explanatory discussion on the day afterwards. (b) But the action of cursing the fig tree had a symbolic meaning
regarding Jerusalem. This is clear from the context: (c) This symbolic meaning was clear to the disciples.
Because Jesus' action had been described before as that of a gardener judging
trees: We may, therefore, conclude that the Apostles (and the Evangelists also!) understood the symbolical meaning of Jesus' action.They saw in it a warning to Jerusalem. The fact that the fig tree actually dried up so soon - on a mere word of Jesus - also raised another question. What is the power of prayer? (Jesus' word having been taken as a prayer concerning the tree). Jesus takes the occasion to teach them about the power of prayer. Prayer is very powerful, if we only have sufficient faith. The disciples will do greater things by prayer, if they trust in God. Both aspects, the symbolical warning to Jerusalem and the example of a powerful prayer, have been preserved in the tradition of oral catechesis. 4. Fourth Observation:MATTHEW often simplifies narrative in his Gospel. We could illustrate this point with some concrete examples: — LUKE tells us that the Roman Officer sent friends to Jesus
to say: "Sir don't trouble yourself; I do not deserve to have you come into my
house, etc." (Lk 7:6ff) — MARK and LUKE narrate that Jesus commanded the two
disciples who were going to prepare for the Last Supper, that they were to
follow a man carrying a jug of water. This man would bring them to the
house where they could prepare the Pasch. (Mk 14:12-14; Lk 22.7-11)
SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS: A reconstruction of the history of the account of the fig tree. ORIGINAL EVENT. Jesus cursed the fig tree when on His way to cleanse the Temple. It was a symbolic warning to Jerusalem. On the following day, when passing again, the disciples expressed surprise on the efficacy of Jesus' curse. Jesus then taught about the power of prayer. Tradition. In the oral preaching these various elements were care fully transmitted. St MARK related the event in his Gospel as he found it in Peter's teaching. LUKE The non-Jewish converts were not used to the symbolic actions of prophets. The curse of the fig tree might have been misunderstood by them; therefore LUKE omitted the incident. But he gives Jesus' parable on the fig tree. MATTHEW In harmony with his common procedure St. Matthew abbreviates the narration. Immediately after the glorious entry into Jerusalem he puts the cleansing of the Temple, thereby reducing what happened in two days to a one-day event . Because of this, he also has to simplify the story of the tree. Both the curse and the explanation of the drying up are put together as if they happened on one day . Exegetical ConclusionsQuite a few aspects of our reconstruction would need further discussion. But it may be more efficient to restrict our attention to one focal question. This question concerns the accuracy of historical narratives. Have the evangelists been accurate when writing down the deeds of Jesus? By way of example we may recal1 these facts:
As in the foregoing lesson we will discuss the matter in the form of a dialogue. The questions will help us to focus on the kernel of the problem. Question One. Did Matthew, by his simplification, not falsify the facts? If the tree was only withered after one day, how could he say that it 'withered at once'?REPLY. St Matthew did in no way falsify the facts, even though he changes a detail for the sake of his narrative. First of all, we should remember that 'falsification' presupposes the intention of changing facts with the purpose of deceiving others. In the case at hand, as in all examples of St Matthew's Gospel, St Matthew has no intention of deceiving. He does not say that the tree withered at once to make it a greater miracle! As we have analysed in our reconstruction, the need of putting the whole episode of the curse together arose from St Matthew's anxiety to be as brief as possible. The miracle remains entirely the same, whether the tree withers at once or in the course of one day. St Matthew is not worried about this detail. He wants us to know, (a) that Jesus cursed the tree; (b) that it withered miraculously; and (c) that Jesus joined some teaching on prayer to the occasion. His putting these three aspects together has merely a practical purpose. There is another principle we should remember: Reporting on any event always includes simplification The papers report on the Pope's journey to Bogota. In actual fact this journey lasted for many days. The Pope spoke with thousands of people. The Pope was busy day and night with various occupations. A complete report of all details would necessitate the bringing out of a hundred volume encyclopedia. But the journalists write reports varying from a few lines to a few pages. To make the report they have to select. Selection means simplification and cutting out details. The simplification is done according to the journalists' specific purpose. If a reporter writes for the London Times, he will put in details about English delegates to the Congress. Now it is good to realise that every simplification involves some inaccuracy of detail. Let us take a proper look at a typical sample of such a journalistic report: "The Holy Father left the President's house at eight o'clock. He shook hands with the President and his wife, waved to the crowds, and then stepped into the car. His car moved away ahead. The other dignitaries followed in ten more cars, provided by the Columbian State. People cheered the Pope all along the route". Let us imagine that another reporter was present. He might accuse our journalist of inaccuracy of detail, pointing out: _"The Holy Father left at five minutes past eight. He shook hands with ten other people, besides the President and his wife". "He actually first shook hands with the hostess and only after that with her husband, the President. He waved to the crowds also before shaking hands with the President and his wife". "He put on his skullcap and whispered something to his private secretary, before stepping into the car". Probably the second reporter is correct in these details. Yet we cannot for that reason blame the first reporter, For he does not want to go into all such details, neither can he do so The accuracy of detail is part and parcel of his report yet he gives us what is substantially correct. he does not have the intention to deceive us and we know what accuracy of detail to expect and what not to expect. We know that he has to limit his narrative, we know that he selects the detail according to his specific purpose. He is not falsifying, neither are we deceived. And so it is with the evangelists. They necessarily have to simplify and to select. Through this selection there will be an inaccuracy of detail inherent in their narrative We know this and we must read the narratives as they were intended to be read. The evangelists want to stress the facts themselves and their theological meaning, not the details that do not matter. Whether the entry into Jerusalem with the triumphal procession and the cleansing happen on one day or on the two successive days, did not make any difference to St. Matthew. Whether the fig tree withered at once, in the sense of a few minutes did not change the miracle for him. He reports what Jesus did: the triumphal entry, the cleansing of the Temple the cursing of the fig tree, without bothering much about the sequence of time. Conclusion: The Gospels give us accurately the facts of Jesus' life. Inaccuracy of details however, was unavoidable because of the nature of such simplified narrative and because of the Theological interest of the evangelists.Question two: Could the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Gospels not have seen to it that such historical inaccuracies would not appear in the Gospels?REPLY: The Holy Spirit certainly guarantees that no important deviations from the truth could be written down in the Gospels. But on the other hand it is clear that the Holy Spirit allowed the Evangelists to simplify and select details in the natural way employed by human writers. There is a great lesson in this. The Holy Spirit wants us to know the substantial truth of Jesus' deeds, but not every detail which our curiosity might wish to know. Neither should we think that the accuracy of detail constitutes the most important norm for true reporting. Let us suppose that a modern reporter would have been there, in Capharnaum when Jesus cured the Roman Officer's slave. Twentieth Century Journalist: "An interesting incident occurred on that day. It was a quarter to eleven. Jesus sat on a stone at, corner of the market place. Many people stood around Him, especially some merchants from Massabah who happened to be in the city on business. Jochanan was their leader, a man reputed for dishonest trade. While Jesus was talking about the needs of renouncing wealth and being satisfied with God.'s providence, this Jochanan kept distracting the audience by shifting his mule, which he kept by hand, moving it forward and backward. Also some chicken caused consternation when a woman dropped her basket full of hens just next to the place of Jesus' instruction. Just then some scribes came near and moved into the centre of the group. They had been sent by Publius Quartus, a Roman officer stationed in the town. One of the scribes, whom I could not follow because of his terrible Galilean accent, spoke highly of Publius. Another one kept interrupting him, trying to outdo him in praise. Both stressed the fact that Publius had spent half a talent of his own money for the reconstruction of the synagogue. They said that this Publius was worried about Anammelk, one of his servants who was seriously ill. They asked Jesus to visit his house. They said that Publius himself had sent them with this request. Well, hearing this Jesus stood up and made ready to go to the officer's house in the Roman quarter of the city. But then some others came with a new message. The officer had sent them to say that it would not be necessary for Jesus to come to his house. Could he not do the cure from a distance? etc. etc." Of course, in such a report we find many details, but they obscure what really happened. The importance of the incident was: (a) the Roman Officer asked Jesus for help; (b) he had such great faith that he told Jesus that was not necessary to come to his house; (c) Jesus cured him and praised his faith. This is precisely what we find in MATTHEW: "When Jesus entered Capharnaum, a Roman officer met him and begged for help: "Sir, my servant is home sick in bed, unable to move, and suffering terribly" "1 will go and make him well", Jesus said. "Oh no sir", answered the officer, "I do not deserve to have you come into my house...' (Mt 8:5-8) The narrative is very sober, indeed, but it gives the real thing that matters. All the details of bystanders, intermediaries, circumstances are not important. What matters is: Jesus' encounter with the Roman Officer, his faith and Jesus' answer. For this contains the theological lesson to us. MATTHEW's report, even if simplifying detail, is far more accurate. Conclusion: THE Holy SPIRIT guarantees - by inspiration - that the Gospels proclaim Jesus' deeds truthfully. This does not mean that all details are historically accurate. It means that the Evangelists truthfully and correctly report on the true meaning of Jesus' deeds.Question Three. Is there no connection between what we saw regarding Jesus' word in the last chapter, and what we see now regarding narrative?REPLY. Yes. For the same principle underlines both the reporting of speech and the reporting of events. When reporting speech it is not the literal, external words that count, but the meaning of the words what a person wants to say. When reporting action again it is not the external details that count, but what the person actually did. The Gospels contain Jesus' words and deeds, not as a mute machine of reproduction. They truthfully proclaim what Jesus said and what He did, regardless of the external details of the original words and the original circumstances where necessary. Conclusion: The same principle of substantial truthfulness underlies the report of Jesus' words and the report of his deed.Question four: What details then do we have to believe regarding the cursing of the fig tree?REPLY: Your question requires more than a superficial answer. It is obvious that most of the historical details given in the Gospels are accurate to a very high degree. This can be proved, both by our analysis of the parallel traditions, and by archaeological studies. But we should ask ourselves seriously, if God really wants us to concentrate so much attention on such details. We have studied the account of the fig tree in MARK and MATTHEW. What do these two evangelists want to teach us about Jesus cursing the fig tree? What do they - under inspiration - want us to remember and believe? Are they, much concerned about the smaller details? Manifestly, they are not. MATTHEW does not seem to worry whether Christ did it on one day or on two. This by itself is a great lesson to us. The Holy Spirit apparently does not want us to get lost in details. Profane details such as: how old the fig tree was and how high, whether there were more trees or only one, whether it belonged to this person or that, are not part of Christ's message. In fact, knowing such profane details might satisfy our curiosity; it would not help our faith. Of greater importance is the substantial historicity of the event; Both MATTHEW and MARK witness to this. Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered. There can be no shade of doubt about this. MARK gives us the traditional account with the two stages of curse (on one day) and explanation (on the next day). MATTHEW puts it all on one day in his narrative, for practical reasons of composition. What matters to both of them is our faith in the fact that Jesus performed this sign. Accepting the material fact of the sign alone would, of course, not do justice to the Gospels either. Jesus' curse of the fig tree has a meaning. It is this meaning that matters. It is this meaning for which the evangelists noted it down. As we have seen before, the curse of the fig tree is connected with Jesus' judicial power. Jesus came to examine the worship in the temple. He was going to find it a purely external show without true inner devotion: leaves without fruit. "These people honour Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me". (Mt. 15:8; cf. 21:12ff; 23:1ff.) Jesus' terrible severity expressed in His drying-up the fig tree, serves as a warning to Jerusalem - but also to us. For just as the Pharisees in the Temple we may make our prayer and religious life an "external show" without true inner love for God. Jesus' words in the gardener's parable (Lk. 13:6-9) prove that He is willing to give us some respite for true conversion,but He will ultimately judge us with full severity; Jesus' curse of the fig tree forces us to acknowledge Jesus as our judge. It also makes us examine our consciences whether we are producing real fruit and not only leaves. Jesus made the incident the occasion of another lesson in prayer. His power can be shared by us if we have trust in God. Of course, Jesus presupposes that we will ask for something that agrees with the promotion of His Kingdom (after all, He did the miracle in the context of promoting His Kingdom). He does not promise therefore, that any silly request of ours will be granted (and often we don't know ourselves how silly our request may be in God's eyes). But if we ask for something we or others need for salvation we may count on God's omnipotence to assist us. We will do greater things than drying-up a fig tree, said Jesus. But for this solid faith, a strong confidence,a complete trust in God is required. (Mt 21-21; Mk 11-22ff.) Conclusion: When reading the gospels we should not allow orselves to get lost in searching for profane details. But we should accept the substantial facts of Jesus' deeds and learn from the meaning which this fact has for our lives. In this way the curse of the fig tree forces us to an examination of conscience and promises God's omnipotent help in reply to our prayers. |