There is another way of seeking to get over the dif- ficulty by supposing that the tree in question was not of the ordinary kind. Celsius (IJkrob. ii, 385) saj's there is a peculiar fig-tree known to the Jews by the name of Benoth-shuach (nVJ r''3S), which produces grossuli, "small unripe figs" (paf/gim) ever}' year, but only good fruit eveiy third j'ear ; and that our Lord came to this tree at a time when the ordinarj' annual grossuli only were produced ! We are ignorant as to what tree tlie Benoth-shuach may denote, but it is ob- vious that the apparent unreasonableness remains as it was. As to the tree which Whitby {Commentarij in
Marie, 1. c.) identifies with the one in question, that i\ was that kind which Theophrastus {Hist. Plant, iv, 2, § 4) calls ai.i<pv\\ov, "evergreen," it is enough to ob< serve that this is no fig at all, but the carob or locust tree (^Ceratonia siliqua). Ur. Thomson, however, speaks of a large green-colored fig that ripens in May on Lebanon, and probably much eailier in milder po- sitions {Land and Book, i, 538).
But, after all, where is the vnreasonableness of the wholj transaction ? It has been stated above that tho fruit of the fig-tree appears Itefore the leaves (see Hdckett, Ill/ist. of Scripture, p. 133); consequently, if the tree produced leaves, it should also have had some figs as well. As to what natural causes had operated to effect so unusual a thing as for a fig-tree to have leaves in March, it is unimportant to inquire ; but the step- ping out of the way with the possible chance (fi' cipa, si forte, " under the circumstances ;" see Winer, Gram, of JV. Test. Diction, p. 4G5, Masson's transl.) of finding eatable fruit on a fig-tree in leaf at the end of IMarch, would probabl}' be repeated by any observant modern traveller in Palestine. The whole question turns on the pretensions of the tree; had it not proclaimed by its foliage its superiorit}' over other fig-trees, and thus proudly exhibited its precocioustuss ; had our Lord at that season of the year visited an}' of the other fig- trees upon which no leaves had as yet appeared with the prospect of finding fruit, then the case would be altered, and the unreasonableness and injustice real. The words of Mark, therefore, are to be undarstood in the sense which the order of the words naturally sug- gests. The evangelist gives the reason why no fruit was found on tho tree, viz. "because it was not the time for fruit;" wc are left to infer the reason whj- it ouffht to have had fruit if it were true to its pretensions ; and it must be remembered that this miracle had a typical design (see the Christ. A nnotator, i, 228), to show how God would deal with the Jews, who, professing, like this precocious fig-tree, "to be first," should be "last" in his favor, seeing that no fruit was produced in their lives, Init only, as Wordsworth well expresses it, " the rustling leaves of a religious profession, the barren traditions of the Pharisees, the ostentatious display of the law, and vain exuberance of words without the good fruit of works" (comp. Ezek. xvii, 24). So Trench (Notes on the Miracles, p. 438) con- cludes: "All the explanations which go to prove that, according to the natural order of things in a climate like that of Palestine, there might have been, even at this early time of the year, figs on that tree, either winter figs which had survived till spring, or the early figs of spring themselves — all these, ingenious as they often are, yet seem to me beside the matter. For, without entering further into the question whether they prove their point or not, they shatter upon that ov yap ijv Kaipitg uvicwv of Mark, from ickich it is plain that no such calculation of probabilities brought the Lord thither, but those abnormal leaves which he had a right to count would h'lve been accompanied with abnormal fruit.'''' — Smith, s. V.
Monographs on this fig-tree cursed hj the Saviour have been written in Latin by Flensborg (Hafn. 1775), Gosgen (Lips. 1097), Hofmann (Jena, 1070), Iken (Bre. men, 1741), Juster (Abo, 1724), IMuler (Hafnias, 1739), Schmidt (Viteb. 1701), Majus (in Obss. sacr. p. 71 sq.), Simonis (Fr. ad Y. 1089), Withon (in Opusc. p. 159 sq.), Witsius (Lugd. Bat. 1709) ; in German by Pagendarm (Wolfenb. 1755), Ebeling (in Ilamb. gel. Brief cechsel. 1750, p. 513 sq.), Stosch (in Rathlef 's Theohg. 1754, p. 27 sq.), Kunze (in the Studicn u. Krit. 1844, iii, 702), Sec Jesus.
Fight (iTSrtb'a, milchamah' , Deut. ii, 32; 1 King? XX, 20 ; 2 Chron. xxvi, 11 ; xxxii, 2, war or battle, as usually rendered ; or il~'1"'2, maarakah' , 1 Sam. xvii, 20, battle-array, as often rendered ; in other passage* some form of the verbs tnbj ^^^, '^'^c. ; Gr. ttoXc
FIGHT
556
FIGHT