Fig Tree Morality

[bigmrpig]

Matthew 21:17-20 state that Jesus was hungry, and after finding a fig tree to be bare, he killed it. I question the morality of this decision.

How can the Bible be a moral guide for other areas of life when it blatantly it shows Jesus killing a living thing after it did nothing wrong? In other times in the Bible when people are killed, sometimes there are obscure or questionable reasons, but for the fig tree, he had no reason to kill the fig tree, and accomplished nothing to do so.

Is Jesus showing us we should succumb to unfounded rage?

I would like to stick to this specific incident. Morality of the whole Bible can be discussed elsewhere, but if in this one instance Jesus' decision cannot be found to be moral, I don't see why any other controversial part should be.

So, to reiterate... how is killing a fig tree for having no figs moral?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

And no city was surrounded and razed to the ground by Jesus if no one followed His teachings.

Really? Are you sure of that. They did do a bit of damage.

Jesus niether committed nor propagated such actions. No where in the text do such attrocities find justification. Jesus' message was clear and consistant:

Luke 6:27
Luke 6:35
Ephesians 4:32
Colosians 4:6
2 Timothy 2:24
Ephesians 4:2
Titus 3:2
2 Timothy 2:25
Romans 12:10
Colosians 3:14

I believe these verses accurately exemplify Jesus' character. No offense, but the use of the fig tree parable to demonstrate his supposed lack of morality seems like a rather despondent attempt. In the disposing of the tree he illustrated a valuable lesson in purpose, self worth, and work ethic. It's demise adversely effected no one (aside from the plant itself of course, which was described as being wretched and sickly anyway). Being strictly callous and indifferent, I can't imagine it felt any pain, physical nor emotional. The only detrimental effect of it's demise is the potential consequence to the surrounding ecosystem, which must have been little to none.

[inobaba]

Hey, Jesus is human afterall, it was his dad that was "perfect". Jesus is allowed to take out his anger on something lol.

[concerro]

And no city was surrounded and razed to the ground by Jesus if no one followed His teachings.

Really? Are you sure of that. They did do a bit of damage.

Jesus niether committed nor propagated such actions. No where in the text do such attrocities find justification. Jesus' message was clear and consistant:

Luke 6:27
Luke 6:35
Ephesians 4:32
Colosians 4:6
2 Timothy 2:24
Ephesians 4:2
Titus 3:2
2 Timothy 2:25
Romans 12:10
Colosians 3:14

I believe these verses accurately exemplify Jesus' character. No offense, but the use of the fig tree parable to demonstrate his supposed lack of morality seems like a rather despondent attempt. In the disposing of the tree he illustrated a valuable lesson in purpose, self worth, and work ethic. It's demise adversely effected no one (aside from the plant itself of course, which was described as being wretched and sickly anyway). Being strictly callous and indifferent, I can't imagine it felt any pain, physical nor emotional. The only detrimental effect of it's demise is the potential consequence to the surrounding ecosystem, which must have been little to none.

i beleive the point in questin is jesus commiting the act out of anger which some would regard as a sin

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Hey, Jesus is human afterall, it was his dad that was "perfect". Jesus is allowed to take out his anger on something lol.

Jesus was perfect too. Assuming he was really the son of God, of course.
2 Collosians 5:21
God had Christ, who was sinless, take our sin so that we might receive God's approval through him.

Why is Jesus' anger an issue? Where does the Bible command us not to get angry? Anger is inevitable; we are merely instructed not to let it get out of hand and cause us to sin.

But even if I am wrong, the Bible still grants God the right to be angry.
Rom 12:19
"Don't take revenge, dear friends. Instead, let God's anger take care of it. After all, Scripture says, "I alone have the right to take revenge. I will pay back, says the Lord."

Since Jesus=God (as displayed in the first chapter of John), we can only assume that Jesus has the right to display anger as well.

That is, if "anger" is really how you would describe Jesus' feelings towards the fruitless tree. Seems to me that his anger was mock- intended to better exemplify the parable.

But really. Overall, how many times in the Bible does Christ become iritable? Basicly just in the instance with the fig tree (questionable), and when he threw the moneychangers/prostitutes out of the temple courtyard (also questionable). His wrath seems to be used very sparingly, and most notably, it never caused him to sin.

I believe his true character is best illustrated in verses such as Matt 11:29. "Gentle and humble".

[steen]

Has anyone stopped to talk about the nature of Jesus's parable's to begin with?

So you mean that even reported events in the bible can be parables?

That must get the literalists where it hurts