Isaiah 45:7 (King James Version)
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7 (American Standard Version)
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.
In his famous commentary, Matthew Henry here claims that when God says he creates evil he only means the evil of punishment. Adam Clark says God is referring to the evils of war, which he defines as the privation of peace. Thus, they try to side-step the issue of God being the author of moral evil. This requires, of course, that you accept the premise that evil punishment—or subjecting people to war when it is in your power not to do so—does not constitute moral evil. For people with working brain cells, this is problematic.
The revered Ryrie Study Bible says about this verse, “745:7 peace. I.e., wholeness and well-being. evil. The opposite of peace, including calamities as well as moral evil. Included in God’s plan are all things”. Then, as if realizing what he has said, Ryrie gives us a bit of linguistic sleight-of-hand: “though the responsibility for committing sin rests on the creature, not the Creator.” He does not explain how God can create moral evil but not be responsible for it, he merely asserts this dogmatically, hoping that the reader will not question it.
Of course, having abandoned reason by adopting the view that the Bible is inerrant, perfect and infallible, true-believers feel no need or obligation to resolve the massive logical inconsistency in the claim that the creator of evil is not responsible for it. When they try, they apply wife-beater logic and say that disobedient people are responsible because they bring the evil upon themselves. Apparently God, who is supposed to be all-powerful, is yet somehow held in thrall to a spell or something that prevents him from exercising free-will; he has no choice but to punish—as opposed, say, to forgive, correct and encourage—wayward folk, whom he allegedly loves. The alternative is that God, exercising free-will, apparently prefers to punish (in the most severe ways imaginable) rather than correct and forgive errant people. The wife makes her abuser mad by burning the toast, so naturally he must beat her because she made him do it. When people disobey this God, what he does in response is not his fault, they make him inflict them with disease, invasion, war, captivity and privation. If people are forced to eat their own children (see Jeremiah 19:9, Lamentations 4:10 and Ezekiel 5:10), it is their own fault. They brought it upon themselves by straying from the commandments of the just and loving God. One wonders what the children did (or will do) to deserve their fate, but this is conveniently not mentioned.
Notes for Lk 14:26 (NKJV)
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Hmmm. The fundamentalists loudly proclaim that the Bible is perfect, inerrant, complete and infallible. Every word is “the living word of God.” So is Jesus (who is God, in case you have forgotten about the doctrine of the trinity) really saying that to follow him you must hate your family and our own life? Are these the authentic, eye-witnessed words of the Prince of Peace, the God of Love? Let’s take a look.
Title: Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
Edition: Third
Author: James Strong
Publisher: QuickVerse
μισέω
miseō
mis-eh'-o
From a primary word μι~σος misos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less:―hate (-ful).
What does "by extension" mean? Extension of what? What standards apply to citing "by extension?" When is applying this convention acceptable, and under what conditions?
Dictionary
detest |diˈtest|
verb [ trans. ]
dislike intensely : democratic socialism was feared and detested by doctrinaire Marxists. note at despise .
DERIVATIVES
detester |dəˈtɛstər| |diˈtɛstər|noun
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Latin detestari, from de- ‘down’ + testari ‘witness, call upon to witness’ (from testis ‘a witness’ ).
Dictionary
love |ləv|
noun
1 an intense feeling of deep affection : babies fill parents with intense feelings of love | their love for their country.
• a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone : it was love at first sight | they were both in love with her | we were slowly falling in love.
• ( Love) a personified figure of love, often represented as Cupid.
• a great interest and pleasure in something : his love for football | we share a love of music.
• affectionate greetings conveyed to someone on one's behalf.
• a formula for ending an affectionate letter : take care, lots of love, Judy.
2 a person or thing that one loves : she was the love of his life | their two great loves are tobacco and whiskey.
• Brit., informal a friendly form of address : it's all right, love.
• ( a love)Brit., informal to express affectionate approval for someone : don't fret, there's a love.
3 (in tennis, squash, and some other sports) a score of zero; nil : love fifteen | he was down two sets to love. [ORIGIN: apparently from the phrase play for love (i.e., the love of the game, not for money); folk etymology has connected the word with French l'oeuf ‘egg,’ the resemblance in shape between an egg and a zero.]
verb [ trans. ]
feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone) : do you love me?
• like very much; find pleasure in : I'd love a cup of tea, thanks | I just love dancing | [as adj., in combination ] ( -loving) a fun-loving girl.
PHRASES
for love for pleasure not profit : he played for the love of the game.
for the love of God used to express annoyance, surprise, or urgent pleading : for the love of God, get me out of here!
for the love of Mike informal to accompany an exasperated request or to express dismay.
love me, love my dog proverb you love someone, you must accept everything about them, even their faults or weaknesses.
make love 1 have sexual intercourse. 2 ( make love to)dated amorous attention to (someone).
not for love or money informal for any inducement or in any circumstances : they'll not return for love or money.
there's no (or little not much) love lost between is mutual dislike between (two or more people mentioned).
DERIVATIVES
loveless |ˈləvləs|adjective
lovelessly |ˈləvləsli|adverb
lovelessness |ˈləvləsnəs|noun
loveworthy |-ˌwərðē| |ˈləvˈwərði|adjective
ORIGIN Old English lufu, of Germanic origin; from an Indo-European root shared by Sanskrit lubhyati ‘desires,’ libet ‘it is pleasing,’ libido ‘desire,’ by leave 2 lief .
Well, now we have a problem. Unless we are going to reject the authority of our standard language references (in this case the Apple English Dictionary, version 2.0.2 [51.4], copyright 2005-2007), by comparing the definitions for detest and love we see that they are opposite in meaning. There is no definition of love that can be reasonably applied to make loving less a derivative of detesting.
So, how is it reasonable to say that in this passage Jesus is not saying you must hate your family to be his disciple, but that you must love them less than you love him? Literate minds want to know. Was Jesus/God a good communicator or not? When he spoke, did he know what he wanted to say, and what he was saying? Was he capable of making the distinction between despise and love? Did Jesus say what he meant or not? Did the supposedly divinely inspired author of Luke get it right, or not? If he did, then we must assume that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant, a Messiah’s faithful one-hundred percent. Either that, or the Bible is not perfect, infallible, etc.
It comes down to this. If you insist that the Bible is infallible, etc. then you must accept that Jesus knew exactly what he was saying and said exactly what the gospel of Luke says he said. If the Bible is perfect and infallible, then Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries is flawed, and in this case ridiculous, seeing as how the meaning of despise cannot be reconciled with the meaning of love.
If you do not believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, then there is room to believe that this is a flawed passage. It may have been mistranslated, or it may have been added to the text after the original was composed. Jesus may have never said anything remotely like this.
Of course, that would mean you have to abandon fundamentalist dogma, and consequently, fundamentalist theology. Especially if you want to hang onto the notion that the God the Bible represents to us is good and moral.
Notes on Mark 11:12-14; 11:19-26 (KJV)
Mark 11:12 –Mark 11:14
And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
Mark 11:19 –Mark 11:26
And when even was come, he went out of the city.
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
This episode of Jesus cursing a fig tree for not producing fruit out of season is confusing for most readers. If you consider it in light of the dogma that Jesus is God, and therefore omniscient it becomes even more so, for why would Jesus/God, knowing it was not the season for figs, and knowing there was no fruit on the tree nevertheless do this inscrutable thing?
The lesson Jesus relates later when Peter points out the withered tree does little, if anything, to shed light on why he cursed it. Instead, it raises more troubling questions.
The first thing Jesus says is have faith in God. Well, duh. What else is a messiah supposed to say? Then he says (verily, even) that if a faithful person tells a mountain to be removed and cast into the sea, and he has no doubt in his heart; if he believes those things he says shall come to pass, it will happen. Ok, but what does this have to do with the fig tree? Jesus did not tell the tree to bear fruit, so it is not like the tree somehow overcame the divine power of a direct command from Jesus, who we presume had faith in God/Himself, and by an act of supreme vegetative will refused to bear fruit.
Our mystery remains unsolved.
Then Jesus says that if you have faith (this is implied from the beginning of the lesson, as this is a continuance of it), you will get whatever you pray for. How nice. But it still has no relation to the fig tree, as Jesus did not pray for figs.
Jesus finishes his non-sequitur lesson by instructing, when one prays, to forgive anyone you have any complaints about, so that God (“your Father”) will forgive your own trespasses. For if you do not forgive, God will also not forgive you.
Since Jesus did not forgive the fig tree, we can presume from this lesson that he will not forgive his own sins if/when the time comes for this transaction to occur. It is a good thing for Jesus that he never did anything wrong. Apparently, dispensing senseless curses is not a sin. But if our snide observation has any validity, it raises a pointed theological question: How can an unforgiven God (even though technically blameless) forgive the sins of His faithful followers?
We are still stumped about the whole fig tree incident. The only rational conclusion we can draw so far is that apparently Jesus wanted to make an example of the fig tree. But what sort of example, and why? Let us turn to Adam Clark, who echoes the great Matthew Henry on this matter, but with more comprehensible language.
Title: Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the New Testament
Edition: First
Author: Clarke, Adam
Publisher: QuickVerse
Mark 11:13
For the time of figs was not yet—Rather, For it was not the season of gathering figs yet. This I am fully persuaded is the true sense of this passage, ου γαρ ην καιρος συκων . For a proof that καιρος here signifies the time of gathering the figs, see the Lxx. in Psalm 1:3 . He bringeth forth his fruit, εν καιρω αυτου , in his season; i.e. in the time in which fruit should be ripe, and fit for gathering. See also Mark 12:2 :—And at the season, τῳ καιρῳ , the time of gathering the fruits of the vineyard. Matthew 21:34 :—When the time of the fruit drew near; ὁ καιρος των καρπων , the time in which the fruits were to be gathered, for it was then that the Lord of the vineyard sent his servants to receive the fruits; i.e. so much of them as the holder of the vineyard was to pay to the owner by way of rent; for in those times rent was paid in kind.
To the above may be added, Job 5:26 :—Thou shalt come to thy grave in Full Age, like as a shock of corn cometh in his season; κατα καιρον , in the time in which it should be reaped.
When our Lord saw this fig tree by the way-side, apparently flourishing, he went to it to gather some of the figs: being on the way-side, it was not private, but public property; and any traveler had an equal right to its fruit. As it was not as yet the time for gathering in the fruits, and yet about the time when they were ready to be gathered, our Lord with propriety expected to find some. But as this happened about five days before that passover on which Christ suffered, and the passover that year fell on the beginning of April, it has been asked, “How could our Lord expect to find ripe figs in the end of March?” Answer, Because figs were ripe in Judea as early as the passover. Besides, the fig tree puts forth its fruit first, and afterwards its leaves. Indeed, this tree, in the climate which is proper for it, has fruit on it all the year round, as I have often seen. All the difficulty in the text may be easily removed by considering that the climate of Judea is widely different from that of Great Britain. The summer begins there in March, and the harvest at the passover, as all travelers into those countries testify; therefore, as our Lord met with this tree five days before the passover, it is evident,—1st. That it was the time of ripe figs: and, 2ndly. That it was not the time of gathering them, because this did not begin till the passover, and the transaction here mentioned took place five days before.
For farther satisfaction on this point, let us suppose:—
I. That this tree was intended to point out the state of the Jewish people.
1. They made a profession of the true religion.
2. They considered themselves the peculiar people of God, and despised and reprobated all others.
3. They were only hypocrites, having nothing of religion but the profession—leaves, and no fruit.
II. That our Lord’s conduct towards this tree is to be considered as emblematical of the treatment and final perdition which was to come upon this hypocritical and ungodly nation.
1. It was a proper time for them to have borne fruit: Jesus had been preaching the doctrine of repentance and salvation among them for more than three years; the choicest influences of Heaven had descended upon them; and every thing was done in this vineyard that ought to be done, in order to make it fruitful.
2. The time was now at hand in which God would require fruit, good fruit; and, if it did not produce such, the tree should be hewn down by the Roman axe.
Therefore,
1. The tree is properly the Jewish nation.
2. Christ’s curse the sentence of destruction which had now gone out against it; and,
3. Its withering away, the final and total ruin of the Jewish state by the Romans.
His cursing the fig tree was not occasioned by any resentment at being disappointed at not finding fruit on it, but to point out unto his disciples the wrath which was coming upon a people who had nearly filled up the measure of their iniquity.
A fruitless soul, that has had much cultivation bestowed on it, may expect to be dealt with as God did with this unrighteous nation. See on Matthew 21:19 ( note ), etc.
Ah. Now it is all clear. Jesus cursed the fig tree as an act of prefigurative Holy anti-Semitism. And as a warning to all that if you do not “bear fruit” by being a good obedient slave and ridding yourself of all of your God-given powers of thought, if you do not blindly obey with “faith”, your ever-loving God will smite you mightily. For it is clear that God’s love is backed by the threat of overwhelming violence and eternal punishment. Now, that’s love.
On the other hand….
For the sake of argument, let us accept as axiomatic certain basic assumptions and see if we can construct a more reasonable interpretation of this episode.
Let us assume that Jesus was a real person in the historical period and circumstances that encompass his story. Let us further assume that he was a Jewish rabbi of, to our knowledge, uncertain extraction. Whatever his theological lineage, the way he is depicted in the gospel stories—and especially here in Mark—shows him to be, at the least, a reformer and a prophet. In our interpretation of this incident, Jesus' status as a—or the—messiah or God is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is whether the fig tree in question was a real fig tree or if Jesus actually cursed it, and it suffered the attending physical repercussions. What is important is the image of the fig tree and the symbolism of the event.
Finally, let us accept, with some modification, the conclusion that the fig tree represents, not the Jewish nation as such, but the contemporary authorities of the Jewish people in Jerusalem. Specifically, the fig tree represents the amalgamation of the major factions within the leadership—the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes—the Sanhedrin and the high priest of the temple.
The Sadducees did not accept a doctrine of resurrection. They denied the existence of angels and, to put it mildly, they were skeptical of the existence of an afterlife. They were also flamboyant, wearing expensive, conspicuous clothes and generally having an overbearing, superior attitude. The Pharisees were hair-splitting legalists in regard to Mosaic law, and the record shows they were somewhat more inclined to show mercy in legal matters than the Sadducees. Among Christian apologists, the Pharisees are depicted as hypocrites, practicing their religion in outer form only, but not inwardly. The Essenes were a seperatist movement that broke off from mainstream Judaism at around 100 b.c.e. in response to what they perceived as the corruption of the religion. Calling themselves the "pure ones", they established their community in the desert in the Qumran region and set about preserving what they considered to be the essential and pure form of traditional Jewish religion. In Jesus' time the Essenes were a militant party bent on overthrowing Roman rule. Oddly, though they had much impact on the events of the times, they are not directly mentioned in the New Testament.
The Sanhedrin was the judicial and administrative council of the Jewish community in Jerusalem. In effect, they were a puppet proxy for Roman rule of the Jewish community, enforcing within the bounds of Roman law the Jewish laws and carrying the bulk of the burden of daily administration of secular affairs in the city.
The high priest of the temple was the nominal religious authority of the Jewish community. He was a political appointee, not a descendant of the priestly line of Zadok from the time of David and Solomon, as tradition required.
Given how Jesus is portrayed lambasting the Sadducees and Pharisees as vipers, liars and hypocrites, it is not unreasonable to speculate that he was an Essene rabbi. If so, he likely split off from them before he started his public ministry or early into it, as he did not share their militant attitude. This is not especially important in our current context, but it would be significant in the greater context of his story, as being an Essene would have contributed to Roman perception of him as a rabble-rouser and traitor.
The religious and social context that provides the backdrop for the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree is that at that time the high priest and the Sanhedrin were perceived accurately as collaborators with the Roman Empire. In regard to the temple, such collaboration by the high priest would be a desecration of the temple, and thus the entire Jewish community. Furthermore, paying tribute to Rome from the coffers of the temple would constitute religious adultery, rebellion against Yahweh and idolatry by proxy, as such tribute would be a nominal acknowledgment of the superiority of the Roman gods.
If the fig tree in our story represented the Jewish leadership to Jesus, then he would immediately be repulsed by how it symbolized the current state of affairs, the hypocrisy of the Sadducees and Pharisees, the corruption of the Sanhedrin and the gross desecration of the temple, the very house of God, by the high priest, who was a political appointee, a collaborator with Roman imperial power—and thus an accessory to the abuses of Roman power—and a national and religious traitor who made a mockery of his office by denying the primacy of Yahweh and whoring with foreign gods by paying tribute to them.
Under these circumstances it would not be unreasonable for Jesus, a rabbi, to be reminded of Jeremiah 29: 15-17, which is quoted here from the New King James translation:
Because you have said, “The Lord has raised up prophets for us in Babylon”— therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king who sits on the throne of David, concerning all the people who dwell in this city, and concerning your brethren who have not gone out with you into captivity— thus says the Lord of hosts: Behold, I will send on them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like rotten figs that cannot be eaten, they are so bad.
Not only is the fig tree bereft of fruit, an apt image under the circumstances, but any fruit the figurative fig tree of the Jewish leadership is likely to produce will be rotten. And so Jesus is moved by his disgust and anger to curse the tree and all it represents.
In this interpretation, Jesus is not cursing the Jewish nation for unfaithfulness, and presumably for its future rejection of him as the messiah. He is cursing the contemporary leadership of the Jewish community for collaborating and cooperating with the abusive foreign power of the Roman state and their desecration of Jewish nationality, culture, religion, tradition and history.
He is cursing them for treason and for turning away from God even while they outwardly pretend to serve him. And he is cursing them for leading the people falsely and thus bringing judgment upon the nation of Israel.
That is our interpretation. Not that it leads us to endorse the religion or the "God" of the Bible.
Posts
