> Izz:
> Till responded to this post of mine, asking for a resolution of the Fig Tree
> Contradiction:
>
> >Dear Christian Members of the Errancy List:
> >Would one of you, such as Rev. McDonald, please explain why the following is
> >not a contradiction in the Bible: In Matthew 21:19 Jesus cursed the fig tree
> >AFTER having cleansed the Temple. In Mark 11:14 he cursed it BEFORE
> cleansing
> >he Temple. So my question is, is this not a contradiction?
>
> Till replied:
> .... why couldn't it be possible that Jesus cursed a tree going in and on
> the way out cursed another one? It's a simple matter of if he cursed two,
> then he cursed one.
>
> Izz responds:
> Is a solution that makes Jesus do something stupid, a valid solution? Having
> already been turned away hungry once, are we to believe Jesus, the Lamb of
> God, The Son of God, The King of Kings, the Christ, goes again to another fig
> tree expecting to find fruit out of season?
>
> If so, then fundies take note, this is how your Bible reads:
>
> Jesus enters Jerusalem. He looks around the temple and leaves. He spends the
> night at Bethany. On the way back the next morning, he is hungry, and
> expecting to find fruit, he goes to a fig tree, finds no fruit, and curses
> the tree. He then cleanses the temple. He goes back to Bethany. The next
> morning, again he is on the road, and goes to another tree, again expecting
> to find fruit, again coming away empty, and again cursing another tree.
>
> BUT:
> Since Matthew omits to mention that Jesus had cursed another tree the day
> before, the reader of Matthew would then be mislead to believe that Jesus was
> approaching a fig tree without having just had the experience of being turned
> away already yesterday. The reader thus sees Jesus's action in quite a
> different light, than if he knew that Jesus had already done the same thing
> the day before. Matthew's ommission of a relevant detail makes his account an
> errant one, and the offered solution that Jesus cursed two fig trees, does
> not therefore solve the problem of the Fig Tree Contradiction, while still
> mantaining the doctrine of inerrancy.
>
> Remember, Matthew's ommission is not real, but is a consequence of the
> assertion that Matthew did in fact omit some material, and that two fig trees
> were cursed, not one.
>
> Izz
>
>
>
> McDonald 4/3
There has been much speculation about what we (inerrantists)
would say concerning the so-called difficulty between Mt. 21:19 and
Mk. 11:14. Let me give you a response that you might not have
thought of.
By not reading the contexts of both passages (Mt. 21:19 & Mk.
11:14) you have not been able to come up with a valid solution to the
so-called difficulty.
If you will read the whole context you will find that Matthew
mentions Jesus going into the temple twice while Mark mentions him
going into the temple three times. In Matthew's account Jesus comes
into Jerusalem riding the donkey and goes into the temple cleanses it
(vs: 12-16). Then Jesus goes to Bethany and the next day he curses
the fig tree (vs: 17-22). Then he goes back into the temple and this
is where the chief priests and elders come to him and ask him by what
authority he does these things.
Marks account is different. He has Jesus coming into Jerusalem
and immediately entering the temple (v:11). Then he has Jesus
leaving the temple and going to Bethany (vs:11,12). The next day
when they left Bethany Jesus saw the fig tree and cursed it
(vs:13,14). Then Jesus goes into the temple and cleanses it
(vs:15-19). Jesus leaves the city (v:19) and the next day goes back
into the temple where he is met by the chief priests and elders
(vs:27ff).
So as you can see Matthew has him going into the temple only
once while Mark has him going into the temple three times. What is
the explanation for this? Matthew's style of writing is that once he
starts writing on a subject he tries to finish the subject before
going on. His account of the gospel is not meant to be a
chronological account of every aspect of Jesus' life. His style is
more topical. He shows Jesus going into the temple and while he is
writing this he includes the part about Jesus cleansing the temple,
while Mark shows the chronological account of Jesus entering
Jerusalem.
I believe that this explains the so-called difficulty. Even
though there is not an atheist on the list who will agree with me,
you at least have heard what one Christian has to say on the matter
rather than speculate on what we would say.
In Christ's Service,
Jerry McDonald