Anger and the Fig Tree

[roseanneb]

Recently someone asked a question in the Ask An Apologist section regarding anger. He said that in the Bible, Jesus exhibited anger twice - once when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple, and once when he cursed the fig tree for not bearing fruit. Since anger is a mortal sin, then Jesus must have been guilty of sin. Or something like that.

The answer from Fr. Serpa was that Jesus showed righteous anger, and that righteous anger is not a sin.

How does one have righteous anger toward a fig tree? The fig tree has no will or intent to do harm. So it had no fruit - so what? I don’t get it. I know Jesus was not capable of sin, but the explanation that this was righteous anger makes no sense to me.

And who determines what is righteous anger? One would think, for example, that slaves had a right to be angry. But in the time of Jesus, slaves were an accepted part of the social system and I’m pretty sure would have been punished for an angry outburst. Yet later, when people began to see that slavery is wrong, attitudes changed. Slaves were angry, and for good cause. Where’s the absolute truth here?

There’s a lot riding on this interpretation of what is righteous anger. This isn’t supposed to be subject to moral relativism.

Any thoughts?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Roseanne,

Who says anger is a mortal sin ? It all depends on what you do with it. If, in anger, you hit someone and wound him severely and intentionally, that could be a mortal sin. But if you just call them names, that would probably be a venial sin.

Now for “righteous anger”. That is the opposite of the anger we were just talking about. It is anger used for good. If I get angry at a child with a view to modifying its behavior, that could be righteous anger.

But we are not all like Jesus Christ. For the rest of us, it is more prudent not to act in anger.

Verbum

 

[NotWorthy]

Who said Jesus was angry? Jesus was simply performing a sign of what would happen to Jerusalem.

Just as Jesus was performing a sign when He cleansed the Temple.

 

[Della]

There are two accounts in the NT about Jesus cursing the fig tree. In neither one does it say Jesus “got angry” or “lost his temper”. Rather, they simply say he told the tree it would never bear fruit again. In Matthew’s account the effect was immediate–the tree withered on the spot. In Mark’s (which is actually Peter’s recollection of the event) they noticed the tree had withered the next morning. Why is this important? What was Jesus doing? What was he trying to say? Those are the questions that are relevant here, not that Jesus supposedly got angry at a tree, which can neither be guilty or innocent of anything since it doesn’t have a rational soul.

Jesus was warning Israel here. He used the tree as an example of what it would mean for Israel if it remained fruitless. IOW, if Israel denied Jesus as their Messiah they would never bear fruit again–they would “wither” as a nation and a people. Jesus wasn’t “angry” here, but disappointed. He used this as an opportunity to express his disappointment in the way he was being rejected by the priests and elders of Israel.

 

[NotWorthy]

There are two accounts in the NT about Jesus cursing the fig tree. In neither one does it say Jesus “got angry” or “lost his temper”. Rather, they simply say he told the tree it would never bear fruit again. In Matthew’s account the effect was immediate–the tree withered on the spot. In Mark’s (which is actually Peter’s recollection of the event) they noticed the tree had withered the next morning. Why is this important? What was Jesus doing? What was he trying to say? Those are the questions that are relevant here, not that Jesus supposedly got angry at a tree, which can neither be guilty or innocent of anything since it doesn’t have a rational soul.

Jesus was warning Israel here. He used the tree as an example of what it would mean for Israel if it remained fruitless. IOW, if Israel denied Jesus as their Messiah they would never bear fruit again–they would “wither” as a nation and a people. Jesus wasn’t “angry” here, but disappointed. He used this as an opportunity to express his disappointment in the way he was being rejected by the priests and elders of Israel.

Exactly.

Take, for instance, the fact that it wasn’t the time of the year for the fig to even produce fruit. Knowing this, Jesus was performing a sign.

 

[dailey]

Who says anger is a mortal sin? Everyone gets angry, I thought that the way you deal with it determined whether or not it was mortal?

 

[AndrewA]

I don’t think Anger is a sin. Even God can get angry at times I believe.

 

[Mintaka]

Anger is one of the Seven Vices or Seven Deadly Sins. Anger is also the name of an emotion. The emotion of anger, and the sin of anger, are not the same thing, though they are related…

Here’s the old Catholic Encyclopedia on anger:

Anger is “the desire of vengeance. Its ethical rating depends upon the quality of the vengeance and the quantity of the passion. When these are in conformity with the prescriptions of balanced reason, anger is not a sin. It is rather a praiseworthy thing and justifiable with a proper zeal. It becomes sinful when it is sought to wreak vengeance upon one who has not deserved it, or to a greater extent than it has been deserved, or in conflict with the dispositions of law, or from an improper motive. The sin is then in a general sense mortal, as being opposed to justice and charity. It may, however, be venial because the punishment aimed at is but a trifling one or because of lack of full deliberation. Likewise, anger is sinful when there is an undue vehemence in the passion itself, whether inwardly or outwardly. Ordinarily it is then accounted a venial sin unless the excess be so great as to go counter seriously to the love of God or of one’s neighbour.”

 

[Fidelis]

There are two accounts in the NT about Jesus cursing the fig tree. In neither one does it say Jesus “got angry” or “lost his temper”. Rather, they simply say he told the tree it would never bear fruit again. In Matthew’s account the effect was immediate–the tree withered on the spot. In Mark’s (which is actually Peter’s recollection of the event) they noticed the tree had withered the next morning. Why is this important? What was Jesus doing? What was he trying to say? Those are the questions that are relevant here, not that Jesus supposedly got angry at a tree, which can neither be guilty or innocent of anything since it doesn’t have a rational soul.

Jesus was warning Israel here. He used the tree as an example of what it would mean for Israel if it remained fruitless. IOW, if Israel denied Jesus as their Messiah they would never bear fruit again–they would “wither” as a nation and a people. Jesus wasn’t “angry” here, but disappointed. He used this as an opportunity to express his disappointment in the way he was being rejected by the priests and elders of Israel.

Best answer award. :yeah_me:

We also have to be careful about anthropomorphizing (giving semi-human consideration to) non-human objects in the Scriptures. We moderns raised on tales like “Bambi” and “Avatar” might feel sorry for trees and non-rational animals when it seems they are abused, but the ancient Semites were under no such allusions. Jesus wasn’t angry at or being “mean” to this fig tree; he was simply using it for a very strong object lesson to make a larger point.

 

[roveau]

One of the accounts about the miraculously withered fig tree is in near context with a lesson on ‘belief’ - for example, if you ask for the mountain to be moved… and you believe, it will be moved.

So as with Della’s example, it was merely a device to illustrate a more important point.

In my younger days I used to think it a bit mean of Christ to curse a poor defenseless fig tree which wasn’t fruiting out of season.

 

[Della]

Just as a quick follow-up to the OP’s question (a good one, by the way). It illustrates quite nicely that the Bible cannot be read “cold”. It must be understood within the context of Sacred Tradition, which is the whole of the teaching of the Church, oral (“living”) and written. It’s good for all Catholics to learn enough history/1st century culture/sensibilities that passages like this one won’t be so jarring or seem out of place. Jesus wasn’t just a “nice man”–he was/is the Son of God. Everything he did and said had a purpose. We can be assured that his purpose was always right and proper.