2. The Gospel references to the fig-tree include both parables and incidents, and make allusion to phenomena both of its leafage and its fruitage. As questions arise to how great an extent the in- cidents may not be symbolic, parables becoming concrete in process of repetition, or even pure symbols, it is best to consider first the two in- stances in which the fig-tree is made the subject of undoubted parable by our Lord.
(a) The parable nf the Fig-Tree (Mk IS^"*- -^ = Mt 2432.33^ paraphrased and interpreted Lk 2P''-^') is based on the early verdure of the tree. Its general sense is clear from Lk 12'«f- ( = Mt 16'^- ^ /3 text), a passage which leads to the insertion in Lk ■2l--> of p^i-KovTe^ d(t> iavrCv (cf. 12"). The meaning is: As you judge by the softening, burgeoning twigs of the fig-tree that the harvest season is approach- ing, so read the signs of the times. Tiiese (ravra ; Mk 13=* treats the preceding context as if only premonitions of the Day had been spoken of, over- looking vv.2^-" ; but cf. Lk 12"-53- 66 with Mk 13'" "• 29 ; ttAvto. Tavra, Mt 2i^ is more specific but less correct) sighs prove that the judgment, the glean- ing of God (cf. Mk 4=», not ' the kingdom of God,' Lk 2P') is close at hand. As regards closer exe- gesis and criticism, we must say, with E. Schwartz (' Der verfluchte Feigenbaum ' m ZNTW i. p. 81) : ' Whoever would interpret with exactitucle will meet with more than one difficulty.' Besides Schwartz, the reader may consult Gould, Swete, and Wellhausen, ad Ice. The paraphrase of Lk. is the earliest attempt to interpret, but smooths over difficulties (note, e.g., the additions 'and all the trees,' 'the kingdom of God,' and other changes).
(b) The parable of the Barren Fig-Tree (Lk 13""") stands in the same eschatological context as the warning to read the signs of the times (Lk I2^=- IS" paralleled by Mk n^-^- is- is), and forms its climax. One is tempted to conjecture that tlie problematic 'parable' referred to in Mk 13-», Mt
VOL. I.— 38
24^- (ciTro &i TJjs avKfji /idflere Tr]v irapafiok-qv, cf. I\Ik7" as against Lk 21-^ /cat elir^v -napa^oKriv) was once no other than this. At all events it simply applies, in fuller form, the figure credited in Mt 3"'=Lk 3" to the Baptist.
This is the common prophetic doctrine of the Divine avoxh, the present a time of suspension of the Divine sentence to leave opportunity for re- pentance.
The once favourite allegorizing method of interpretation (e.g. the gardener = the .Messiah, the three years = thc three (?) Pass- overs of Christ's public ministry)ia now fortunately discredited. Yet it is incorrect, with Wellhausen {Ev. iMcce, ad loc.) to say that the fig-tree stands for the individual. Not merely is the girdled fig-tree an OT emblem of the punishment of Israel (Jl 17, cf. Lk 2331), but the parable concludes a context wherein the men of Jerusalem, overwhelmed by the fall of the tower in Siloam, and the GaUlseans, cut down by the sword of Pilate, are brought forward as 'signs of the times.' The warning, accordingly, is certainly against 'the overthrow of the Jewish people ' (T. K. Cheyne, Encyc. Bihl. s.v. 'Fig-tree,' col. 1521), 'Except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish ' is not spoken of the fate of individuals, but of the common overthrow, however this may be avoided by individual repentance ; cf. Mt 1238-«=Lk 1129-32
3. The cursing of the fig-tree (Mk ll"-"-2o-25=Mt 2118-22) — Parabolic symbolism is so slightly con- cealed under the narrative features of this story that the majority of critics are disposed to regard it as a mere endowment of the Lukan parable of the Barren Fig-tree with concrete form, just as the parable of the Good Samaritan, and others, were long treated as instances of historical fact.
In favour of this explanation are several features of the narrative and its setting.
(a) The generally admitted incorporation of Mk. by Lk. implies that the omission of Mk lli"""- ^"-''^ was deliberate. The most natural explanation of it is that St. Luke regarded the story as a double of his parable, Lk 13''"'. Conversely the parable does not appear in Mt. or Mark.
(b) The withering of the tree (Mk ll=»-=6), a sequel of the next day after the cursing (U'^"'-'), occupies a ditl'erent position in Mt 21'*''"", taking place 'on the spot.' In both Gospels this appended sequel proves itself a secondary attachment, both by its material and its language. The contents of Mk 1120-25 consist in the main of two logia, torn from their proper context (cf. Mt 17=°, Lk 17^ and Mt 6"- '6) and characterized by non-Markan expressions (cf. 'your Father in heaven,' Mk lp6). Such loose agglomerations of stray logia are frequent in our Second Gospel (Mk ^--^ 4i'- '=■ =>-=° S'*- 3-1-36 942-50 10'"-'- etc.). In Mt 21""'-== the language is alien {wapaxpfiij.a, ' on the spot,' vv."""- =», occurs 17 times in Lk. and Acts, whereas Mt. and Mk. have invari- ably elsewhere eiiffus or ivdiois), and the logia taken from Mk. produce duplication of Mt 17=° and almost of 6'^- '6. Bjr transposing the sequel into immediate juxtaposition with the cursing, and abridging Mk 11="-==, Mt. avoids one of the two interruptions of the principal narrative of the purging of the temple and its consequences (Mk 111-10. 15-18. 27ff.)_ and heightens the marvel, but fails to remove the evidence of his own dependence afforded by the duplication of 17'-°, and only brings into stronger relief the supplementary and super- erogatory character of the sequel.