The story of Jesus cursing the fig tree is one of the most puzzling episodes in the Gospels. According to both Mark and Matthew, Jesus approached a fig tree looking for food, found no fruit on it, and cursed it so that it withered and died.1, 2 The detail that makes this story particularly problematic is Mark's explicit parenthetical note: "for it was not the season for figs."1 Why would Jesus curse a tree for not bearing fruit when it was not supposed to be bearing fruit? And what does this reveal about the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels?
The biblical accounts
The earliest and most detailed version of the story appears in the Gospel of Mark. The narrative is split into two parts, with the cleansing of the temple sandwiched between them. Mark writes:
"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, 'May no one ever eat fruit from you again.' And his disciples heard it." Mark 11:12-14 (English Standard Version)1
After the temple cleansing episode, Mark continues the fig tree narrative:
"As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, 'Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.' And Jesus answered them, 'Have faith in God.'" Mark 11:20-22 (English Standard Version)3
Matthew's version is more condensed, omitting Mark's parenthetical note about the season and collapsing the two-day timeline into a single immediate event:
"In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, 'May no fruit ever come from you again!' And the fig tree withered at once. When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, 'How did the fig tree wither at once?'" Matthew 21:18-20 (English Standard Version)2
Both accounts present Jesus as genuinely hungry, approaching a real physical tree expecting to find fruit, and reacting with a curse when the tree fails to provide. Mark's version adds the crucial temporal note that underscores the problem: it was not the season for figs.1 The tree could not have been bearing fruit because it was biologically impossible at that time of year.
The core problem
At face value, the story depicts Jesus punishing a tree for failing to do something it was incapable of doing. If a teacher punished a student for not completing an assignment that was never given, or if a judge sentenced someone for breaking a law that did not exist, we would recognize this as unjust. Yet that is precisely the logic of this narrative when taken literally.4
The issue is compounded by the fact that the curse was effective. The tree withered and died, demonstrating Jesus's supernatural power but raising questions about whether that power was used justly.3 As biblical scholar William R. Telford notes in his analysis of the passage, this is "perhaps the most difficult story in the four canonical Gospels," depicting an act that appears "irrational and revolting."5
Mark's explicit statement about the season amplifies the difficulty. The phrase "for it was not the season for figs" (Greek: ou gar ēn kairos sykōn) is a parenthetical explanation, likely added by Mark himself to clarify the temporal context for his readers.6 This editorial note makes it clear that Mark was aware of the problem—the tree had no fruit because it was not supposed to have fruit—yet he includes the story anyway without resolving the moral difficulty it creates.
Fig tree biology and seasons
Understanding the agricultural context helps clarify why Mark's temporal note matters. Fig trees in the ancient Near East produced fruit in two main seasons. The early figs (Hebrew: bikkurah; Greek: olynthos) develop on the previous year's wood and ripen in late spring, typically May or June. The main crop ripens in late summer through early autumn, August through October.7
The Passover season, when this event occurred, falls in early spring—late March or early April by the modern calendar.8 This is too early for the main fig harvest and also too early for the early figs to be fully ripe. While fig trees do produce small edible buds before the leaves fully emerge, these are not the mature fruit one would expect when approaching a tree with the expectation of satisfying hunger.9
Mark states that Jesus saw the tree "in leaf" from a distance and approached it specifically looking for fruit.1 A tree in full leaf at Passover time would have been unusual for a fig tree at higher elevations like Jerusalem, potentially explaining why Jesus thought it might have early fruit. However, the text then clarifies that the reason there was no fruit was not an agricultural anomaly but the simple fact that it was not fig season.1
The symbolic interpretation defense
The most common defense of this passage is that it should not be read literally. Instead, scholars and commentators argue that the fig tree functions as a symbol for Israel or Jerusalem, and the cursing represents prophetic judgment against the Jewish religious establishment for failing to produce spiritual fruit.10, 11
This interpretation draws on Old Testament imagery where the fig tree often represents Israel. Jeremiah 8:13 speaks of God finding no figs on the fig tree as judgment for Israel's unfaithfulness. Hosea 9:10 uses similar imagery. Micah 7:1 describes the righteous as extinct using the metaphor of finding no early figs to eat.12 In this symbolic reading, Jesus is enacting a prophetic sign, not simply reacting to hunger.
Supporting this view is Mark's narrative structure. Mark uses a literary technique called intercalation or "sandwiching," where he splits one story and inserts another between its two parts.13 The cursing of the fig tree brackets the cleansing of the temple: Jesus curses the tree (11:12-14), cleanses the temple (11:15-19), and then the disciples see the withered tree (11:20-25).1, 3 This structure suggests that Mark intends readers to interpret the two events together, with the fig tree symbolizing the temple or Israel's religious system that appears fruitful but produces nothing of value.13
Mark's intercalated structure1, 3
| Passage | Event | Symbolism |
|---|---|---|
| Mark 11:12-14 | Jesus curses the fig tree | Judgment pronounced |
| Mark 11:15-19 | Jesus cleanses the temple | The object of judgment |
| Mark 11:20-25 | The fig tree is found withered | Judgment executed |
Problems with the symbolic interpretation
While the symbolic interpretation resolves some theological difficulties, it creates others and does not fully address the moral problem. First, if the entire episode is symbolic, why does Mark include realistic details that undermine the symbolism? Jesus is said to be genuinely hungry, he approaches the tree from a distance after seeing it in leaf, and Mark feels the need to explain why there was no fruit.1 These details suggest that Mark is narrating an event he believes occurred, not merely constructing a parable.
Second, the symbolic interpretation does not eliminate the problem of punishing something for not doing what it cannot do. If the fig tree represents Israel or the temple, the metaphor still depicts judgment for failing to bear fruit "out of season." The Jewish religious system could be criticized for many things, but not for failing to recognize Jesus during Passover week if it was not yet "the season" for recognizing him. The metaphor, if intended, seems to break down at exactly the point where it most needs to work.14
Third, Matthew's version lacks Mark's intercalated structure. Matthew places the fig tree incident immediately before the temple cleansing rather than bracketing it, and he omits Mark's note about the season.2 This suggests that Matthew either did not recognize Mark's symbolic intention or chose to downplay it, presenting the story more as a demonstration of faith's power (which Jesus discusses in the verses immediately following) than as a prophetic sign about Israel.15
Other apologetic defenses
Beyond the symbolic interpretation, defenders of the passage have offered various explanations to mitigate its difficulties.
The early figs defense
Some commentators argue that even though it was not the season for ripe figs, the tree should have had edible early buds. In Palestinian agriculture, fig trees produce small green figs called taqsh before the leaves fully develop. These are edible, though not as desirable as ripe fruit. A tree with full leaves should have already passed through this stage and would be expected to have these early figs still present.9, 16
This explanation has some agricultural plausibility but does not fully resolve the issue. First, Mark does not say the tree lacked early figs; he says it was not the season for figs, implying that expecting any figs at all was unreasonable at that time.1 Second, if Jesus was looking for early buds rather than mature fruit, it seems strange that Mark would describe Jesus as hoping to satisfy his hunger with them. The narrative presents Jesus as disappointed to find "nothing but leaves," suggesting he expected actual fruit, not merely edible buds.1
The exceptional tree defense
Another defense suggests that this particular tree was exceptional—it had leaves unusually early, so it should have had fruit unusually early as well. Jesus's expectation was reasonable given the tree's premature foliage, and the curse was justified because the tree was displaying false promise.17
This argument reads a great deal into the text. Mark says Jesus saw the tree "in leaf" and went to see "if he could find anything on it."1 The conditional language ("if he could find") suggests uncertainty, not the expectation that this particular tree should definitely have fruit. Moreover, Mark's parenthetical explanation—"for it was not the season for figs"—applies to fig trees generally, not just this one tree. If Mark had meant to say this particular tree was deceptive, he likely would have phrased it differently.6
The theological season defense
A more sophisticated theological defense focuses on the Greek word for "season." The word Mark uses is kairos, which can mean not just a period of time but a decisive moment or appointed time.18 Some scholars argue that Mark is making a theological statement: it was not yet the kairos for Israel to bear fruit for Jesus, but that time was coming soon (at Pentecost), and Israel's failure to produce fruit when the moment arrived would result in judgment.18
This is an intriguing reading, but it requires importing a great deal of later Christian theology into Mark's narrative. Mark uses kairos elsewhere in his Gospel, and it often simply means "time" or "season" without heavy theological freight.19 More importantly, this reading still leaves Jesus cursing a tree (and by extension, the Jewish people) for not bearing fruit before the appointed time for fruit-bearing had arrived—a strange form of anticipatory judgment.
Matthew's modifications
Matthew's version of the story includes significant changes that suggest he found Mark's version problematic. Most notably, Matthew omits Mark's statement that "it was not the season for figs."2 This omission removes the most troubling aspect of the narrative—the explicit note that Jesus was expecting something biologically impossible.
Matthew also compresses the timeline. In Mark, Jesus curses the tree one day and the disciples discover it withered the next morning. In Matthew, the tree withers immediately, and the disciples marvel at the instant miracle.2 This change shifts emphasis from the judgment aspect (a curse that takes effect over time) to the miraculous power aspect (an immediate supernatural event). Matthew then immediately transitions into Jesus's teaching about faith and prayer, making the episode serve primarily as an illustration of spiritual power rather than prophetic judgment.20
These modifications suggest Matthew was uncomfortable with Mark's version and edited it to reduce its difficulties. The fact that Matthew felt the need to revise the story indicates that early Christians recognized the problems it posed.
Luke's omission
Perhaps most tellingly, the Gospel of Luke omits the fig tree cursing entirely. Luke generally follows Mark's outline closely, and he includes material from around the same narrative timeframe—the triumphal entry, the temple cleansing, the debates with religious authorities.21 Yet he skips the fig tree incident completely.
Luke does include a parable about a fig tree in an earlier chapter (Luke 13:6-9). In that parable, a man finds a fig tree in his vineyard that has not produced fruit for three years. He orders it cut down, but the vinedresser asks for one more year to care for it and see if it will bear fruit.22 This parable contains similar themes—a fig tree failing to produce, potential judgment—but with a crucial difference: the owner is willing to wait and give the tree more time. The parable presents patience and additional opportunity, not immediate cursing.
The contrast between Luke's parable and Mark's cursing narrative is striking. Some scholars suggest Luke deliberately substituted his parable for Mark's story, providing a thematically similar teaching while avoiding the moral difficulties of Jesus cursing a tree for being fruitless out of season.23
Comparison across Gospels
Examining how the three Synoptic Gospels handle this material reveals an evolution in how early Christians dealt with the problematic elements of the story.
Gospel treatments of the fig tree1, 2, 21, 22
| Gospel | Approach | Key features |
|---|---|---|
| Mark | Full narrative with problems intact | Includes "not the season," intercalation structure, two-day timeline |
| Matthew | Modified version reducing problems | Omits seasonal note, immediate withering, emphasis on faith teaching |
| Luke | Omission and substitution | No cursing story; includes parable of patience with barren fig tree |
This trajectory suggests that as the Gospel tradition developed, writers increasingly found the story problematic and either modified it (Matthew) or omitted it entirely (Luke). John's Gospel, the latest of the canonical Gospels, also omits the incident despite including other material from Jesus's final week in Jerusalem.24
Historical questions
The variations across the Gospels raise questions about what actually happened, if anything. Did Jesus curse a fig tree? If so, did it wither? And what was the original context and meaning of the event?
Some critical scholars argue that the story originated not as a historical event but as a parable that was later historicized. In this view, Jesus may have told a parable about a fig tree that was cursed or judged (similar to Luke's parable about the barren fig tree), and over time this parable was transformed into a narrative about Jesus performing such an action himself.25 This would explain why the story has such clear symbolic elements while also including awkward realistic details—it combines two genres that do not fit together smoothly.
Others suggest the historical core was a teaching by Jesus about faith, perhaps given near a withered fig tree that served as an object lesson. The tree's withering may have been natural, but the story was later recast as a miracle to demonstrate Jesus's power.26 Mark's intercalation with the temple cleansing would then represent his theological interpretation, connecting the withered tree to the judgment on Jerusalem's temple.
Whatever the historical origins, the fact remains that Mark, writing perhaps around 70 CE, presented this as an actual event and felt the need to include the problematic detail that it was not the season for figs.27 Mark apparently found the story valuable despite—or perhaps because of—its difficulties.
Moral and theological implications
When read literally, the story depicts Jesus punishing a living thing for failing to meet an unreasonable expectation. The fig tree had no moral agency and no ability to choose whether to bear fruit; it was subject to biological and seasonal constraints. Cursing it for not producing fruit out of season seems akin to punishing the sun for not shining at midnight or the tide for not being high at low tide.4
Even if one accepts that the story is primarily symbolic, the choice of symbol is revealing. If the tree represents Israel or unfaithful people, the metaphor still conveys immediate judgment for not producing fruit before the proper season. Applied to human beings, this would represent punishment for failing to respond to Jesus before they had adequate time or information to do so—a troubling theological principle.
The story also raises questions about Jesus's foreknowledge. As traditionally understood in Christian theology, Jesus possessed divine knowledge and would have known that the tree had no fruit and could have no fruit at that time of year.28 This makes his approach to the tree and subsequent cursing even more puzzling. If he knew in advance that the tree was fruitless because of the season, why approach it, why express (or enact) disappointment, and why curse it?
Some theologians argue that the story demonstrates Jesus's humanity—he was genuinely hungry, genuinely disappointed, and genuinely reacted with frustration.29 But this defense undermines the traditional doctrine of Jesus's sinlessness, as cursing an innocent tree for failing to perform a biological impossibility would seem to be a sinful act, rooted in either ignorance or unfair judgment.
Power without justice
The fig tree narrative concludes with Jesus teaching about faith and prayer. In Mark, Jesus says, "Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him."3 In Matthew, the teaching is similar, with Jesus explicitly connecting it to the fig tree: "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen."20
The teaching is about power through faith—the ability to accomplish seemingly impossible things through belief. But power without justice is tyranny. The fig tree episode demonstrates power: Jesus spoke, and the tree withered. But it does not demonstrate justice. Power to destroy is only commendable when coupled with just cause for destruction. A fig tree being fruitless out of season is not just cause.4
This becomes particularly relevant when the teaching is applied to prayer. If Jesus is using the fig tree as a model for how believers should exercise faith, the implication is troubling: believers should have faith that their words can curse and destroy, even when the target of that cursing has done nothing wrong. The teaching would be far more comforting if Jesus had demonstrated power coupled with mercy—perhaps causing a barren tree to suddenly bear fruit, or restoring a withered tree to life.30
Conclusion
The story of Jesus cursing the fig tree remains one of the most difficult passages in the Gospels. Mark's version explicitly states that Jesus cursed a tree for not bearing fruit when "it was not the season for figs."1 Taken literally, this depicts Jesus punishing something for failing to do what it was biologically incapable of doing—a portrait that raises serious questions about justice and proportionality.
Symbolic interpretations that see the tree as representing Israel or the Jerusalem temple provide some theological motivation for the story but do not fully resolve its moral difficulties. The metaphor still depicts judgment for failing to produce fruit out of season. Matthew's modifications to the story and Luke's complete omission suggest that early Christians recognized these problems and handled them differently in their Gospel accounts.
For readers who take the Gospels as historically reliable, the passage presents a challenge: why would Jesus, presented elsewhere as wise, just, and compassionate, curse a tree for not doing something impossible? For readers who see the Gospels as theological literature shaped by early Christian communities, the passage reveals how the writers struggled with problematic traditions, preserving (Mark), modifying (Matthew), or omitting (Luke) material that did not fit comfortably with their understanding of Jesus.
Either way, the story of the cursed fig tree remains troubling—a narrative of power exercised without apparent justification, a demand for fruit out of season, and a permanent judgment on something that could not have acted differently. Whether one reads it as history, parable, or symbolic prophecy, the questions it raises about expectations, judgment, and justice persist.