Why curse a perfectly good tree?

[Athetotheist]

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
(Mark 11:12-14)

Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
(Matthew 21:19)

Question 1: If "through him all things were made", why didn't Jesus know that there wouldn't be any fruit on a tree when its fruit was not in season?

Question 2: If there should have been fruit on the tree because the fruit was in season, why did the author of Mark make the false statement that it wasn't in season?

Question 3: How was Jesus's cursing of the tree a righteous act when both versions of the curse [the one in Mark and the one in Matthew] assume that the tree would have produced fruit again [and Mark's version specifically assumes that it would produce fruit again when the fruit was in season]?

[1213]

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
(Mark 11:12-14)

Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered.
(Matthew 21:19)

Question 1: If "through him all things were made", why didn't Jesus know that there wouldn't be any fruit on a tree when its fruit was not in season?

Question 2: If there should have been fruit on the tree because the fruit was in season, why did the author of Mark make the false statement that it wasn't in season?

Question 3: How was Jesus's cursing of the tree a righteous act when both versions of the curse [the one in Mark and the one in Matthew] assume that the tree would have produced fruit again [and Mark's version specifically assumes that it would produce fruit again when the fruit was in season]?

I think there can be two reasons:
a) there were no sings that the tree would ever produce fruit. Finding only leaves could mean that the tree also had never produced any fruit.
b) fig trees can produce fruit also out of the main season. Maybe there should have been sings of the early crop.

Some fig trees bear fruit as early as May or June, and continue producing until the first frost of the season (as late as November in some areas). It is also important to remember that some varieties of fig trees can produce fruit twice per year once they are mature. The first harvest of figs is called the Breba crop, and it usually occurs in May or early June. According to Rutgers, this early Breba crop of figs ripens on the previous year’s branches.
https://greenupside.com/when-does-a-fig ... uce-fruit/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

I think there can be two reasons:
a) there were no sings that the tree would ever produce fruit. Finding only leaves could mean that the tree also had never produced any fruit.
b) fig trees can produce fruit also out of the main season. Maybe there should have been sings of the early crop.

Again, Jesus's curse assumes that the tree would bear fruit in the future. He would have had no motivation to curse the tree to produce no more fruit if it wasn't going to do so anyway.

Some fig trees bear fruit as early as May or June, and continue producing until the first frost of the season (as late as November in some areas). It is also important to remember that some varieties of fig trees can produce fruit twice per year once they are mature. The first harvest of figs is called the Breba crop, and it usually occurs in May or early June. According to Rutgers, this early Breba crop of figs ripens on the previous year’s branches.

The story tells us that Jesus sees the tree on his way into Jerusalem a few days before the Passover, which takes place in March/April. That would place the encounter too early for a typical Breba crop, which would make perfect sense in the context of the Mark author's statement that "it was not the season for figs".

[1213]

Again, Jesus's curse assumes that the tree would bear fruit in the future. He would have had no motivation to curse the tree to produce no more fruit if it wasn't going to do so anyway.

Ok, I can accept that. It may be that the tree would have produced fruit in some other year.

But, if Jesus found only leaves from the tree, it means it was not "a perfectly good tree", because fig trees can produce fruits before leaves. If there was no signs of that, it may have been the reason for what Jesus said.

The Surprising Ability Of Fig Trees To Produce Fruit Before Leaves
https://shuncy.com/article/do-fig-trees ... ore-leaves

Some fig trees bear fruit as early as May or June, and continue producing until the first frost of the season (as late as November in some areas). It is also important to remember that some varieties of fig trees can produce fruit twice per year once they are mature. The first harvest of figs is called the Breba crop, and it usually occurs in May or early June. According to Rutgers, this early Breba crop of figs ripens on the previous year’s branches.

The story tells us that Jesus sees the tree on his way into Jerusalem a few days before the Passover, which takes place in March/April. That would place the encounter too early for a typical Breba crop, which would make perfect sense in the context of the Mark author's statement that "it was not the season for figs".

Fig trees bear fruit as early as May and continue as late as first frost (November in some areas).
https://greenupside.com/when-does-a-fig ... uce-fruit/

Passover is in April and if the tree would produce the early crop, there should be sings of it, after all, the fruits doesn't usually just magically appear instantly ready one day to the tree. According to my knowledge, the fruits of a fig tree usually take several months to ripen, which is why I think there should have been something more than just leaves, especially when the fig trees can produce the fruit before the leaves.

According to the story, there was only leaves, which means it was not a good tree. Maybe it could have produced some fruit in some later time, but because it was not a good tree, Jesus said what he said.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

According to the story, there was only leaves, which means it was not a good tree. Maybe it could have produced some fruit in some later time, but because it was not a good tree, Jesus said what he said.

According to the story, there were only leaves "because it was not the season for figs" (Mark 11:13), which indicates that there was nothing wrong with the tree and that Jesus was simply looking for the fruit at the wrong time.

What I think is more likely is that early Christians saw a dead fig tree outside of Jerusalem and made up a story about it.

[Difflugia]

What I think is more likely is that early Christians saw a dead fig tree outside of Jerusalem and made up a story about it.

I think it's a parable about both the disciples and the Jewish people at large.

Remember that Mark's message for his contemporaries is that the New Age is coming, but time is short for those alive now. Salvation is for those that heed Jesus' call now, rather than those that wait until the Kingdom comes in glory. The end of Mark is actually a similar form of parable: all of Jesus' disciples betray him by fleeing. For Mark, the disciples failed and the heroes will be those fortunate enough to hear his Gospel and heed Jesus' call. The cursing of the tree is because the tree has decided to wait until all of the other trees produce their fruit in their season. A true disciple would be bearing fruit for Jesus now.

This is a warning for those reading or hearing Mark. Jesus has left the Earth and his disciples have fled. The audience of Mark's Gospel has a short time to bear fruit for the New Kingdom before they will be judged. If they don't bear fruit now, even though the New Age hasn't arrived yet, they will wither just like the tree.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #6]

This is a warning for those reading or hearing Mark. Jesus has left the Earth and his disciples have fled. The audience of Mark's Gospel has a short time to bear fruit for the New Kingdom before they will be judged. If they don't bear fruit now, even though the New Age hasn't arrived yet, they will wither just like the tree.

That's a popular take on it, but I think there's one thing working against it. When the disciples marvel at the withering of the tree, all Jesus has to say about it is this:

“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
(Mark 11:22-24)

Nothing about salvation, nothing about the time being near......just that.

[Difflugia]

That's a popular take on it, but I think there's one thing working against it. When the disciples marvel at the withering of the tree, all Jesus has to say about it is this:

“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
(Mark 11:22-24)

Nothing about salvation, nothing about the time being near......just that.

If we were talking about Matthew, I'd agree with you. Mark doesn't explain things like Scripture references or prophecy the way Matthew does, though. Mark's story about the tree is warning the readers against lack of faith in the same way that Mark's Jesus is warning the disciples. The disciples fled at Gethsemane out of fear. Peter returned, but denied Jesus out of fear. Once Jesus was on the cross, the only one that showed faith was the centurion. The robbers on the cross were a callback to 10:35-45; the disciples claimed that they would be with Jesus until the end, but they weren't. Finally, at the tomb, the women fled in fear without telling anyone anything. Mark doesn't explain the theology of any of this explicitly, but it all ties together.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #8]

If we were talking about Matthew, I'd agree with you.

The same thing happens in Matthew.

Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
(Matthew 21:21-22)

As does Mark, Matthew then has Jesus proceed into Jerusalem and move on to other issues. Neither of them has him link the fig tree incident to anything else.

[Difflugia]

If we were talking about Matthew, I'd agree with you.

The same thing happens in Matthew.

As does Mark, Matthew then has Jesus proceed into Jerusalem and move on to other issues. Neither of them has him link the fig tree incident to anything else.

But Matthew removes the bit about it being unseasonal for figs. Matthew feels the need to quote things from Mark, even if they don't advance his narrative, but he also sometimes changes them if he doesn't think they make sense.

He quotes the baptism and theophany. He recognizes that the baptism doesnt quite fit his Christology, so he adds the "fulfill all righteousness" bit, changes the Holy Spirit's descent into Jesus into upon, and has God address everyone with "this is my son" rather than "you are my son." Matthew includes Jesus' "the lord said to my lord" bit from Mark, but in Mark it's a rhetorical device intended to deny that the Messiah required Davidic descent. Matthew included it anyway, even though Matthew's genealogy included David.

Matthew's disciples learn of his resurrection and go on to meet him in his risen form. That changes the theology of the New Kingdom. It's then neither a surprise that Matthew again quotes something in Mark that doesn't fit as-is, but he changes it a little so that it does.