Part 6
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
In Matthew 21 and Mark 11, Jesus did curse a fig tree for being fruitless, even though it was not fig season, but he did not do it "irrationally". It is, in fact, irrational to suppose that Matthew and Mark included this story to show that Jesus did things for no reason. There are two common interpretations of this incident. The simplest is that it was another object lesson in the power of faith, as indicated by the verses which follow in each Gospel. The less obvious, but no less reasonable, interpretation is that the fruitlessness, cursing, and withering of the fig tree were intended to be symbolic of the state of the religious elite, as indicated by the proximity of this story to that of the clearing of the temple, again, in both Gospels.
The non-tract's statement about Mark 2:23 is completely false. First, the verse only states that the disciples, not Jesus, gathered the "corn" (actually, it's a form of wheat). Secondly, in the following verse, the Pharisees are not accusing anyone of stealing. In Deuteronomy 23:24-25, the Law gave explicit permission for people to take some grapes or grain from anyone's vineyard or field. Therefore, Jesus and the disciples were not stealing the corn, and the Pharisees did not make any such claim against them. The "unlawful" thing was harvesting and threshing the corn on the Sabbath. The Pharisaic code was so detailed and strict that one was not allowed to expectorate on the Sabbath on the theory that the spittle might displace some dirt, which would be considered "plowing". If Jesus and the disciples had been guilty of stealing, the Pharisees could have had them arrested right then. Jesus goes on to show that religious rules should not be used to create hardships for people or deny them their basic needs, a view many non-religious people share.
The non-tract makes another false statement about Matthew 21. Jesus tells two of his disciples to fetch a donkey and her colt, not a horse. Even if the non-tract had not made this rather careless error, it is completely unreasonable to assert that Matthew would show Jesus to be a thief within the same narrative that he's trying to show that Jesus is Messiah. It is clear from v. 3 that Jesus knew there would be no real objection. The parallel accounts (Mark 11 and Luke 19) have the disciples being questioned, but experiencing no problem taking the animals. Even though Matthew doesn't explicitly include the questioning, v. 6 shows that the disciples "did as Jesus commanded them", which could very reasonably include giving answer as in v. 3. The simplest explanation is that this was a pre-arranged operation, completed with the owner's permission. Therefore, it's not stealing.
The only way that the cited words of Jesus in Matthew 12 can be construed as un-"humble" is if they are also construed as untrue. If Jesus really was the Son of God, as he claims here, then he really was greater than the temple, all the prophets, and all the kings, put together. In addition, he is making these claims due to explicit challenges and questions from the Pharisees. In this chapter alone, he's accused of Sabbath-breaking (v. 2) and being in league with the devil (v. 24). Jesus cannot be diagnosed with "paranoia" because he had real enemies who really were out to "destroy him" (v. 14). And, in that place, with that audience, after those claims of divinity (and a number of miracles to back them up), there really was no neutral ground. Any of the religious leaders who did not choose to support him were declaring him a liar and a false prophet, either explicitly or tacitly.
The non-tract has again completely failed to support its thesis. While it would be inappopriate for us to make some of these statements or take some of these actions, that is due to the fact that we aren't qualified to do so, not that Jesus was a bad example. We aren't the Christ, the Son of God. We can't teach a lesson by withering a fig tree. We can't honestly claim to be "Lord even of the sabbath day". We can't back up any claims to this kind of authority by performing numerous healing miracles. The non-tract, in its attempts to make its point, has completely ignored the authors' purposes, the cultural background, normal contextual considerations, and even the simplest rules of English.