It's an age since we've had anything from the archive. In 1991 an article of mine appeared in Foundations (Issue 26) in their exegesis series. It looks at Mark 11:12-14. It had 29 footnotes. I have incorporated these into the text.
The one thing that all the commentators do agree about regarding Mark 11:12-14 is that it is difficult. ‘This narrative bristles with difficulties’, says Cranfield. (Cambridge NT Commentary St Mark 1972, 354) ‘One of the most perplexing in the Gospels’, wrote A M Hunter. (Torch Bible Commentary St Mark, 1949, 110)
For many exegetes problems arise from their approach to Scripture. For Hunter and others like him the story is ‘frankly incredible’. (Hunter, 110) They have two main problems the incident. They find it both 'irrational and revolting' (Bundy, quoted in Nineham, Pelican Commentary St Mark, 1963, 225). Revolting, because the story ‘does not ring true’ (Barclay, Daily Study Bible mark's Gospel, 1975, 314) with their ideas on Jesus’ character. William Barclay speaks of his ‘petulance’ and J B Phillips of Jesus ‘venting his feeling of frustration and despair upon the fig tree.‘ (Peter's portrait of Jesus, 1976, 104). But there is need neither to accuse Jesus of sin nor to see the story as a legendary concretising’ of Luke 13:6-9 for aetiological purposes. (Cf A W Blunt, Clarendon Bible St Mark, 1939, 226 & Hugh Anderson, New Century Bible Commentary, 263f). As Bengel asserts ‘Whatever does not serve Jesus Christ is unworthy to serve any one of mortals.’ (Gnomon Vol 1, 553).
Then there is verse 13 which, for some, makes Jesus’ behaviour irrational. Certainly there is a problem. ‘The juxtaposition of the two seemingly contradicting assertions heightens the difficulties, for the explicit statement that it was not the season for figs appears to make Jesus’ action arbitrary and meaningless’ (William Lane, NICNT Gospel of Mark, 1974, 399). Of course, some are willing to cut the Gordian knot and remove verse 13, even though it is typical of Mark’s asides. (Cf eg 3:30; 5:42; 7:3,4, etc). Surely the better path is to take comfort in the belief the problem is one ‘which evidently the Evangelist did not feel as he deliberately makes it for us.’ (Richard Glover, A Teacher's Commentary on the Gospel of St Mark, 1957, 208). But what is the solution to this apparent difficulty?
A number of evangelical commentators want to find the solution in the possibility of very late or very early figs. (Eg Barnes, Bengel, Cole, Hendriksen, Ryle and Swift in the New Bible Commentary Revised). However, the idea that Jesus would not have looked for figs without some hope of there being any ‘assumes too much’. Vincent Taylor is scathing about such a line of argument and says it has ‘nothing to commend it’. (Gospel according to Mark, 1952, 458). Bengel’s idea that Jesus may have been looking for inedible figs to miraculously transform is fanciful and bizarre (Bengel, 553).
For many exegetes problems arise from their approach to Scripture. For Hunter and others like him the story is ‘frankly incredible’. (Hunter, 110) They have two main problems the incident. They find it both 'irrational and revolting' (Bundy, quoted in Nineham, Pelican Commentary St Mark, 1963, 225). Revolting, because the story ‘does not ring true’ (Barclay, Daily Study Bible mark's Gospel, 1975, 314) with their ideas on Jesus’ character. William Barclay speaks of his ‘petulance’ and J B Phillips of Jesus ‘venting his feeling of frustration and despair upon the fig tree.‘ (Peter's portrait of Jesus, 1976, 104). But there is need neither to accuse Jesus of sin nor to see the story as a legendary concretising’ of Luke 13:6-9 for aetiological purposes. (Cf A W Blunt, Clarendon Bible St Mark, 1939, 226 & Hugh Anderson, New Century Bible Commentary, 263f). As Bengel asserts ‘Whatever does not serve Jesus Christ is unworthy to serve any one of mortals.’ (Gnomon Vol 1, 553).
Then there is verse 13 which, for some, makes Jesus’ behaviour irrational. Certainly there is a problem. ‘The juxtaposition of the two seemingly contradicting assertions heightens the difficulties, for the explicit statement that it was not the season for figs appears to make Jesus’ action arbitrary and meaningless’ (William Lane, NICNT Gospel of Mark, 1974, 399). Of course, some are willing to cut the Gordian knot and remove verse 13, even though it is typical of Mark’s asides. (Cf eg 3:30; 5:42; 7:3,4, etc). Surely the better path is to take comfort in the belief the problem is one ‘which evidently the Evangelist did not feel as he deliberately makes it for us.’ (Richard Glover, A Teacher's Commentary on the Gospel of St Mark, 1957, 208). But what is the solution to this apparent difficulty?
A number of evangelical commentators want to find the solution in the possibility of very late or very early figs. (Eg Barnes, Bengel, Cole, Hendriksen, Ryle and Swift in the New Bible Commentary Revised). However, the idea that Jesus would not have looked for figs without some hope of there being any ‘assumes too much’. Vincent Taylor is scathing about such a line of argument and says it has ‘nothing to commend it’. (Gospel according to Mark, 1952, 458). Bengel’s idea that Jesus may have been looking for inedible figs to miraculously transform is fanciful and bizarre (Bengel, 553).
1 comment:
Hi Gary very good artcle on the Barren fig Tree.I better tel that over the last two days i have had the flu bug so i will not be able to attendd the Calvin Conference as i was looking so forward to it and seeing you again.My doctor told me that i should rest and not travil.Oh by the way if you found a copy of the Grace hymns can you post it to me please.Hope that you have a good two days at the Calvin Conference.
Post a Comment