I always understood it to be that things exist to be fruitful and multiply. In a sense, a person who does not love, who doesn’t multiply goodness in the world as Jesus modeled, was like the fig tree. Such things could be thought of as cursed, withered and twisted versions of what they could and should be.
So it could be explained that Jesus is a carpenter but not a gardener, and a gardener just look at Jesus and wondering why the heck an adult would curse a fig tree.
Pretty much, only detail missing is that it was the season for fruit. So, there is an added sense that by all natural laws the tree should have had fruit and it’s lack was a particular aberration to a societythat used the fig so much.
Also, thematically, it rounds out God’s domains. Up to this point, there had been miracles showing dominion over weather, matter, human life, animal life, spirits, disease and now there’s plant life.
Except that the gospel of Mark specifically states that it wasn’t fig season. Why did Jesus even look for the figs when he should have known they were out of season. Why then curse the tree when it was just doing what fig trees are supposed to do? Guess Jesus can be an ass when he’s hangry.
The understanding I’ve generally heard, and which seems supported by the context, is that the fig tree symbolises the unfruitfulness of God’s people. This is particularly apparent in that both Matthew and Mark record it as happening alongside Jesus casting out people trading in the temple (Luke records the cleansing of the temple but not the fig tree thing). It is then followed by Jesus telling a series of parables against the religious leaders. There may also be a relation to the parable of the barren fig tree earlier on in Luke 13.
Possibly an extremely contemporary metaphor, where the first-century audience was expected to recognize it as reference to a specific authority figure.
Seriously though, why did Jesus curse that fig tree? He could be weirdly petty.
BTW, myrrh had lots of uses besides embalming.
I always understood it to be that things exist to be fruitful and multiply. In a sense, a person who does not love, who doesn’t multiply goodness in the world as Jesus modeled, was like the fig tree. Such things could be thought of as cursed, withered and twisted versions of what they could and should be.
I am not a Bible scholar though lol.
So it could be explained that Jesus is a carpenter but not a gardener, and a gardener just look at Jesus and wondering why the heck an adult would curse a fig tree.
Pretty much, only detail missing is that it was the season for fruit. So, there is an added sense that by all natural laws the tree should have had fruit and it’s lack was a particular aberration to a societythat used the fig so much.
Also, thematically, it rounds out God’s domains. Up to this point, there had been miracles showing dominion over weather, matter, human life, animal life, spirits, disease and now there’s plant life.
Except that the gospel of Mark specifically states that it wasn’t fig season. Why did Jesus even look for the figs when he should have known they were out of season. Why then curse the tree when it was just doing what fig trees are supposed to do? Guess Jesus can be an ass when he’s hangry.
Dammit Jim!
I’m a carpenter not a fig farmer!
I saw a guy waving a sign to spread awareness, “God Hates Figs”
Or something like that
The understanding I’ve generally heard, and which seems supported by the context, is that the fig tree symbolises the unfruitfulness of God’s people. This is particularly apparent in that both Matthew and Mark record it as happening alongside Jesus casting out people trading in the temple (Luke records the cleansing of the temple but not the fig tree thing). It is then followed by Jesus telling a series of parables against the religious leaders. There may also be a relation to the parable of the barren fig tree earlier on in Luke 13.
I too think this story is very confusing. I think it’s a metaphor saying something like the time / the people aren’t ready for him yet or something
Possibly an extremely contemporary metaphor, where the first-century audience was expected to recognize it as reference to a specific authority figure.
Makes him more relatable.