The Barren Fig-Tree Blasted

    Here is a concurrence of circumstances, which, in connexion with the conduct of Jesus on the occasion, no well-instructed Christian will call accidental. Was it in wrath, or in peevishness, that Jesus cursed the tree? Whatever was the cause of the barrenness of the fig-tree, was not the ultimate cause to be found in God himself? In man, all the guilt of sin is to be found in himself; but in the productions of the earth, the barrenness, as well as the fertility, is to be ascribed ultimately to God. In cursing the fig-tree, then, Jesus had a reference to spiritual barrenness, which is a just object of the divine displeasure, and which will be punished as it deserves. If, then, Jesus had this design in his rebuke of the barren fig-tree, the circumstances that led to the cursing of the tree must all be providential. "And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig-tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig-tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig-tree withered away!"—Matt. xxi. 17-20. The hungering of Jesus at that time was a providential circumstance. Why was he attacked with hunger, just at the spot where stood the barren fig-tree? Was it not to give him an occasion to seek fruit from the tree? Why was that fig-tree barren on that occasion? Was it not to afford an occasion for what Christ did at that time? Why was it the season that figs should be found on the trees? The time of gathering the figs had not yet arrived, and fruit should have been on the tree, had it been good. Does not every circumstance, even in this trifling matter, that afforded illustration to the things taught by Jesus, appear providentially arranged for the purpose?