This story in the bible has always amused me. Jesus is taking out his frustration on a tree that was not purposefully attempting to upset him. A tree cannot do any conscious acts of rebellion or defiance. It is hardly the fault of the tree that it was barren. If fact, if he is all knowing as it is claimed, then he should have already known before approaching the tree that it was bare of any figs. Since he was supposed to be all powerful, why not make the tree bare figs instantaneously as another miracle?
Here is an article that attempts to explain the bizarre verse.
Why did Jesus curse the fig tree, when figs weren't in season?
Was it not unreasonable to curse the tree for being fruitless when, as Mark expressly says, "it was not the season for figs"? The problem is most satisfactorily cleared up in a discussion called "The Barren Fig Tree" published many years ago by W. M. Christie, a Church of Scotland minister in Palestine under the British mandatory regime. He pointed out first the time of year at which the incident is said to have occurred (if, as is probable, Jesus was crucified on April 6th, A.D. 30, the incident occurred during the first days of April). "Now," wrote Christie, "the facts connected with the fig tree are these. Toward the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coincident with [this], and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grown to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off." These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later. So, as Mark says, the time for figs had not yet come. But if the leaves appear without any taqsh, that is a sign that there will be no figs. Since Jesus found "nothing but leaves" - leaves without any taqsh- he knew that "it was an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree" and said as much.
However, this is an absurd argument. If the tree was "an absolutely hopeless, fruitless fig tree" and would never bare any fruit, there was no reason to curse it so that it would never bare any fruit. That would already be the destiny of that tree and the curse would not add anything to the situation. Keep in mind this part of the verse. " When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs". The story tells us that the reason for the tree having no figs was that it was the wrong season. Therefore, to try and claim that Jesus was only cursing the tree since it would never bare fruit is to disregard the test.