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?

[jerickson314]

1.) A fig tree is not a person. It is not a sin to kill plants.

2.) The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

[Dilettante]

1.) A fig tree is not a person. It is not a sin to kill plants.

2.) The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

What if it had been an animal, or a group of animals, as in the incident with the demon-possessed man and the pigs? (See Luke 8:26-32) Was it necessary for the pigs to die? Shouldn't the demons have been punished instead of the swine herd?

The Healing of a Demon-possessed Man

26They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes,[a] which is across the lake from Galilee. 27When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. 28When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!" 29For Jesus had commanded the evil spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.

30Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"

"Legion," he replied, because many demons had gone into him. 31And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss.

32A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into them, and he gave them permission. 33When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned.

[McCulloch]

The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

Enlighten me. What object lesson was provided? God's demands can be unreasonable and arbitrary but you better obey or else?

[bigmrpig]

1.) A fig tree is not a person. It is not a sin to kill plants.

2.) The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

You're right, a fig tree is not a person, and I don't see anything morally wrong with killing trees. My issue is that he killed it because it had no fruit; he killed it out of rage... succumbing to rage, even if the only thing you hurt is a tree, seems morally wrong to me.

[jerickson314]

Enlighten me. What object lesson was provided?

If you read the remainder of that chapter, the lesson is fairly clear.

21 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly I tell you, if you have faith, and don’t doubt, you will not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if you told this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it would be done. 22 All things, whatever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive.”
23 When he had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority do you do these things? Who gave you this authority?”
24 Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you one question, which if you tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?”
They reasoned with themselves, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we fear the multitude, for all hold John as a prophet.” 27 They answered Jesus, and said, “We don’t know.”
He also said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Sorry about the verse dividers. It would take too long to delete all those, and I am a bit short on time.

He is showing the authority given to Him by God over even nature.

The passage doesn't really tell us whether his attitude was truly rage or rather just tongue-in-cheek humor.

With the pigs, again pigs aren't people. Our best clue to his intentions seems to be Matthew 8:31.

The demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of pigs.”

Perhaps it was His sense of humor again. Maybe he was compassionate toward demons by giving them what they wanted, and they reacted by killing the pigs. Perhaps Jesus ironically gave them what they wanted before the pigs were to die anyway. I don't really know.

Also, we are not told whether the pigs were wild or whether they were owned. Presumably, they were probably wild pigs.

[Corvus]

1.) A fig tree is not a person. It is not a sin to kill plants.

2.) The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

You're right, a fig tree is not a person, and I don't see anything morally wrong with killing trees. My issue is that he killed it because it had no fruit; he killed it out of rage... succumbing to rage, even if the only thing you hurt is a tree, seems morally wrong to me.

I disagree. Succumbing to rage is wrong because there is the possibility of hurting someone, not because rage is in itself a bad thing. However, Jesus also stated that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman commits adultery in his own heart, and that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgement, even if it comes to nothing.

I must admit, destroying the fig tree does seem out of keeping with the whole Christian tenor of "take it as it comes" and "blessed are the meek" . "Love thine enemies, but smite unfruitful fig trees!"

I have to say too, that the lesson of the fig tree is lost on me. Maybe it offered a convenient way to illustrate that faith without works (fruit) is dead? I doubt it, though, as unlike most metaphors, he doesn't explain it. All that happens is that the disciples were awe-struck and Jesus said, "You can do this too if you have faith in God!" But if that ever happened, I don't think they wrote about it.

[jerickson314]

I disagree. Succumbing to rage is wrong because there is the possibility of hurting someone, not because rage is in itself a bad thing. However, Jesus also stated that anyone who looks lustfully at a woman commits adultery in his own heart, and that anyone who is angry with his brother is subject to judgement, even if it comes to nothing.

I haven't seen proof that it was rage, rather than humor or something. Or just for the lesson.

I must admit, destroying the fig tree does seem out of keeping with the whole Christian tenor of "take it as it comes" and "blessed are the meek" . "Love thine enemies, but smite unfruitful fig trees!"

"Take it as it comes" isn't really biblical. We are to actively love others.

I have to say too, that the lesson of the fig tree is lost on me. Maybe it offered a convenient way to illustrate that faith without works (fruit) is dead? I doubt it, though, as unlike most metaphors, he doesn't explain it. All that happens is that the disciples were awe-struck and Jesus said, "You can do this too if you have faith in God!" But if that ever happened, I don't think they wrote about it.

Read verse 21-22. He does explain it.

[Corvus]

I must admit, destroying the fig tree does seem out of keeping with the whole Christian tenor of "take it as it comes" and "blessed are the meek" . "Love thine enemies, but smite unfruitful fig trees!"

"Take it as it comes" isn't really biblical. We are to actively love others.

Granted, but blessed are the oppressed, the meek and the sexually frustrated. What I mean is that patient suffering is shown as a virtue.

I have to say too, that the lesson of the fig tree is lost on me. Maybe it offered a convenient way to illustrate that faith without works (fruit) is dead? I doubt it, though, as unlike most metaphors, he doesn't explain it. All that happens is that the disciples were awe-struck and Jesus said, "You can do this too if you have faith in God!" But if that ever happened, I don't think they wrote about it.

Read verse 21-22. He does explain it.

Er.. it's just as I say. The lesson only appears to be "You can do this too if you have faith in God!" but the tree itself isn't a metaphor for anything. The lesson isn't particular profound.

[Curious]

The killing of the tree provided an object lesson for the disciples.

Enlighten me. What object lesson was provided? God's demands can be unreasonable and arbitrary but you better obey or else?

The fig tree example is not meant as a lesson of morality but of expediency. Were the fig tree to produce fruit it's survival would be protected as it is beneficial to it's environment (or those sharing the environment). If the tree bears no fruit then what is to stop someone chopping it down without a second thought.