Do the Nature Miracles of Jesus have any Evidential Value? Part 3

In the final part of our series on the nature miracles of Jesus, we will examine the cursing of the fig tree and the miraculous catches of fish to see what spiritual purpose Jesus had for performing them. 

The Cursing of the Fig Tree 

(Matthew 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-24) 

Jesus performed this unusual nature miracle the day after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The Gospels tell us He rode into Jerusalem, went into the temple and performed some healing miracles, then departed for Bethany with the Twelve. 

The next day He and His disciples returned to Jerusalem. On their way into the city, they passed a fig tree. Being hungry, Jesus went to the tree expecting to find figs, but there were none, since it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:13). Consequently, He cursed the tree, saying, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you” (Matthew 21:19, NASB used throughout). 

Critics offer two main objections to this miracle: 

1. There are several apparent contradictions in the two texts. 

2. Jesus would never perform such a rash and senseless act. 

The first discrepancy concerns how long it took for the tree to wither. Matthew says the tree withered “at once” (παραχρῆμα) (parachrēma), the disciples immediately saw it, and Jesus taught them a lesson from it (Matthew 21:19-22). On the other hand, Mark represents the cursing happening on one day and the discovery of it and teaching concerning it on the next (Mark 11:12-14, 20-24). 

The perceived problem here stems from the failure to see the difference between chronological writing and topical. Mark is clearly writing chronologically for he says, “On the next day…” (vs. 12) and “Whenever evening came, they would go out of the city. And as they were passing by in the morning…” (vv. 19-20). 

On the other hand, Matthew writes topically. In Thomas and Gundry’s A Harmony of the Gospels, the authors list Matthew 21:1-11, followed by verses 14-19a, then verses 12-13, and finally verses 19b-22.i In other words, Thomas and Gundry (along with many commentators) are indicating that Christ cursed the fig tree, went on to the temple, and explained the implications of His action the next day, as Mark records. 

There remains the problem of Matthew’s use of the term “at once” or “immediately” (parachrēma). Two possible explanations stand out from the numerous suggestions by commentators. One, the tree could have begun to wither immediately, but the process was not completed until the following day. By that time the very roots would have been exposed, evoking Peter’s striking utterance, “Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which You cursed has withered” (Mark 11:21). 

Two, the entire process was completed before their eyes on the first day, but the disciples did not ask about the miracles until the next day. This leaves the question, why did the disciples not ask about the withered fig tree upon their return to Bethany the previous night? Foster explains that Jesus and the Twelve used two different routes going to and from Bethany: 

All three [Synoptic writers] tell of the custom of Jesus to go forth each night to Bethany and to return in the morning for teaching in the temple. This solves the problem as to why the disciples did not see and discuss the withered fig tree as they came forth from Jerusalem that evening: the winding road around the Mount of Olives was regularly used in climbing up to Bethany and the shorter, steeper road leading straight down from the crest was the usual means of entry to Jerusalem from the east. Entering and leaving the city by these different roads, they did not pass by the fig tree on their return trip in the evening.ii 

Another apparent discrepancy concerns the two accounts of Jesus’s curse. According to Matthew, Jesus, says, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you” (Matthew 21:19). In Mark 11:14, on the other hand, Jesus says, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again!” A simple harmonization treats these statements as an example of Hebrew parallelism, repeating the same statement in two slightly different ways. Matthew records one half of the complete statement and Mark the other. 

Finally, how can we justify an apparently senseless, cruel act by the Prince of Peace toward a harmless tree? Numerous commentators have pointed out that the presence of leaves on the tree indicated that there should have been fruit. However, Mark 11:13 states that it was not the season for figs. Therefore, the tree was unproductive and should have been removed. 

The same commentators also note that the fig tree is a common symbol for Israel in the Old Testament.iii Jesus may have been comparing the tree to the spiritually barren state of Israel and its coming judgment. 

In any case, both Matthew and Mark record Jesus’s teaching on this occasion. He tells the disciples if they have faith in God and pray, they can do much greater miracles than causing a fig tree to wither. Thus, the miracle, yet again, served to illustrate the connection between Christ’s divine power and the disciples’ need for faith. 

The Miraculous Catches of Fish 

(Luke 5:1-11; John 21:1-14) 

There is some debate here as to whether these miracles are acts of creation or foreknowledge, as with the coin in the fish. I believe that while Jesus probably did not create the fish, there was more power exerted than merely knowing they were there. For this reason, I will treat these acts as true miracles. 

Three principal issues have been raised concerning these miracles: 

1. Did Luke and John record two separate miracles or was there only one? 

2. Why don’t Matthew and Mark mention the miracle recorded in Luke when they record the call of the disciples?iv 

3. What spiritual purpose did these miracles serve? 

The first issue is reminiscent of the feedings of the 5,000 and of the 4,000. Similarly, the differences between the two catches of fish indicate that they are two separate events. Luke’s account takes place early in Jesus’s ministry, while John’s happens after the resurrection. In Luke, Jesus is teaching the multitude by the seashore and gets into Peter’s boat to better address the crowd. In John, Jesus is standing on shore as the disciples return from fishing and does not enter the boat.  

According to Luke, when Jesus instructs Peter to put out into deep water and cast out his nets, even though they had caught nothing the night before, Simon acknowledges His command, saying “Master … at Your bidding I will let down the nets.” According to John, the disciples do not recognize Jesus until after they let down their nets and catch a large number of fish. 

In Luke, the result is a catch of fish so great it fills two boats! In John, the catch is numbered at exactly 153 fish, but only one boat is needed to bring the net to shore. Luke says the disciples (including Peter) and Jesus come to shore in the boat. On the other hand, when John tells Peter that the man on shore is Jesus, Peter dives into the water and swims about one hundred yards to shore ahead of the boat. 

Finally, John says Jesus has breakfast prepared for the disciples when they reach the shore. Luke mentions no such meal. Clearly, we are dealing with two separate events. 

The question of the “missing miracle” in Matthew and Mark is most perplexing. Thomas and Gundry argue that differences in details between Matthew and Mark on the one hand, and Luke on the other, indicate these two calls of the disciples occurred at different times, some days apart, allowing time for Jesus to teach in the synagogue of Capernaum, heal Peter’s mother-in-law, and tour Galilee (Mark 1:21-39). 

Mark Moore believes the differences can be harmonized, and that there was only one calling of Peter.v However, this does not account for the omission of the miracle by Matthew and Mark. Foster attempts to resolve the problem by reconstructing the day’s events. Early in the morning, Jesus calls the disciples after a night of fruitless fishing. Later that day, while preaching by the lake shore, Jesus has Peter put his boat out to sea, so Christ might better address the crowd. It was at this time that the miracle was performed.vi 

While this reconstruction sounds plausible, it requires us to take Luke’s narrative out of chronological order. It also remains to be shown why Matthew and Mark omit this miracle. Mark may have overlooked it in another attempt to save face for Peter. More likely though, the miracle was so well known in Galilee that the Gospel saw no need to record this event. However, the same could be said of any of the miracles recorded by only one or two Gospels, such as the raising of Lazarus (John 11). 

The best evidence there were two miraculous catches of fish comes from John’s account. As we mentioned above, the disciples did not recognize Jesus when He first called to them from shore. This may have been because of the distance between them, the early morning darkness (John 21:4), or because Jesus’s appearance had changed since His resurrection.vii However, as soon as the disciples netted the large catch of fish, John immediately told Peter, “It is the Lord!” How did he know? Because he had seen Jesus do it before. 

What spiritual purpose did these miracles serve? Luke says, “And when they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him” (Luke 5:11). Unlike the earlier call in Matthew 4 and Mark 1, this time the disciples would not go back to fishing until after the resurrection. I believe the effect of Jesus’s miracle accounts for their commitment. As for the second miraculous catch of fish, John says that each of the disciples immediately knew that it was the Lord (John 21:12). None of them doubted His identity, resurrection, or deity any longer. 

Thus, we have concluded our study of Jesus’s nature miracles. We have provided, from the Gospels, a reasonable spiritual purpose for each miracle. As to the possibility of such miracles, Paul gives us all the evidence we need when he writes that Jesus “was declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4). If Jesus rose from the dead—the ultimate act of power over nature—then all the other nature miracles were child’s play in His hands.