Fig Tree and Temple Cleansing Chronology > Mark 11:12-33 vs Matthew 21:12-27

Question

Synoptic Accounts

Matthew and Mark have different arrangements of the chronology of Jesus' withering of the fig tree:

Matthew has Jesus' triumphal entry (1) and clearing of the temple (2) on day one of his time in Jerusalem, and on day two Jesus curses the fig tree (3), the fig tree withers (4) immediately, and he enters the Temple where he is confronted by the chief priests and elders (5).

Mark has Jesus' triumphal entry (1) followed by a quick look around the temple on day one, and then on day two he curses the fig tree (3), clears the temple (2), and then on day three they find the withered fig tree (4) and have their confrontation with the chief priests and elders (5).

Luke omits the account of the fig tree altogether, although has a unique parable of an unfruitful fig tree in Luke 13:6-9 which may possibly be related.

---

Observations

Mark is usually taken as the benchmark due to the theory of Markan Priority, but in this case there appears to be something of a parallelism in his structuring of 2-3 and 4-5, and so this may be evidence that the author did not entirely structure the events around chronological accuracy.

Matthew gives a more straightforward rendering of the fig tree events, but his overall account seems to have an added dramatic sense which is not present in Mark - i.e. Jesus enters the city on the donkey and essentially storms the temple, and the children are still singing "Hosanna to the son of David!" as if not a moment has been lost.

Luke omits the story altogether - but at face value does appear to share Matthew's single-day approach of Jesus entering Jerusalem and clearing the Temple... though it isn't so explicit as Mark that it's all definitely on one day, so it could be said he's ambiguous on this point.

---

Question

How can we determine the most chronologically accurate account of the withering of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple? Are there any textual hallmarks, features or anything else which may help us determine which account may be more historically accurate?

Answer 1

Mark 11:13-20 is a literary sandwich, sometimes called a Markan intercalation because Mark's Gospel is where the best examples are in a theological context. A sandwich consists of two mutually reinforcing passages, A and B, in the form A1-B-B2. In this case, the cursing of the fig tree is A1, the expulsion of the moneychangers and merchants is B, and finding the cursed fig tree to be dead is A2.¹ Bracketing the fig tree around the events in temple adds depth and drama to the temple episode. The early readers of Mark might also have noticed, with wonder, that the temple which Jesus implicitly cursed had also 'died' not long previously.

The author of Matthew usually tried to copy Mark as faithfully as possible, but clearly did not understand Mark's use of literary devices. Seeing no need to draw out the story of the fig tree, he simply completed the curse and the consequence of the curse in the one passage, creating drama by the amazement of the disciples that the tree withered so quickly.

The act of cursing a fig tree just because it did not bear fruit out of season would appear to present Jesus in a bad light. After all, a rational person would not expect a tree to bear fruit out of season. The author of Luke tended to omit passages that presented characters that he admired in a bad light, so it could have been for this reason he omitted the fig tree episode, which in any case he would have seen as being of little importance.

If you are looking for historical accuracy, it is hard to go past Mark not only because it is the earlier account from which Matthew was copied, but also because we can see the literary reasons for the differences that exist between Mark and Matthew.

---

_{¹James R. Edwards. "Markan sandwiches: The significance of interpolations in Markan narratives." Novum Testamentum XXXI, 3 (1989), 193, 198, 206-8. Retrieved from http://jbburnett.com/resources/mark/Edwards_Markan-Sandwiches.pdf.}

Answer 2

I would agree that the chronology presented by Mark is probably correct, because Mark has many time references while Matthew has very few. This is probably because of the different audiences. The Jews were more concerned with connecting themes than with chronology, whereas the Greek audience for Mark would be more concerned about chronology. I do not agree that Mark was written before Matthew, but that is not essential for the argument, since Mark clearly had other sources apart from Matthew. It is generally assumed that Mark heard many stories from Peter. Peter is singled out in Mark 11:21, and it is clear that this incident made a lasting impression on him. If Mark has the correct chronology, the cleansing took place on the Monday morning rather than Sunday afternoon.

An interesting feature is the symbolic meaning behind the fig tree. While the vineyard is a symbol of Israel as a people, the fig tree is a symbol of the Jewish leaders. When Jesus cursed the fig tree, it was a symbol of the Jewish leaders, especially the Pharisees, who looked to be very devout on the outside with beautiful "leaves", but there was no spiritual fruit in their lives. Luk 13 has the parable of the fig tree inside the vineyard with a similar symbolic meaning where the fig tree bears no fruit, even though they had seen the miracles of Jesus for almost 3 years. So, it makes sense that the fig tree should be cursed before the cleansing of the temple which was an indictment of the Jewish leaders.

Answer 3

I am going to vote for the chronology of Matthew as being correct.

As one respondent indicated several years ago, Mark's Gospel is prone to using sandwiching as a literary technique.¹ With sandwiching, “one basically self-contained episode [is placed] within another,” with the result that “the two related stories illuminate and enrich each other, commenting on and clarifying the meaning, one of the other.”² This is indeed the situation in Mark 11, as the two parts of the fig tree story are interrupted by the temple cleansing. Since we recognize that this is a favored literary technique, we should be hesitant in assuming that Mark is also trying to convey a chronological sequence of events.

Another respondent has deferred to Mark "because Mark has many time references while Matthew has very few."³ Presumably, this is in reference to the "On the following day, when they came from Bethany" as Jesus cursed the tree (Mark 11:12 ESV) and the subsequent "As they passed by in the morning" when the disciples saw the fig tree withered (Mark 11:20). However, we must recognize that another one of Mark's literary techniques is his employment of both "foreshadowing (which anticipates later events) and retrospection (which recalls earlier events)."⁴ As a variation on foreshadowing, I suggest that what we see in Mark 11:12–14 is essentially a "flash forward," interrupted by the continuation of a story in the present.

Accordingly:

• Mark 11:1–11. The triumphal entry, with Jesus entering Jerusalem and the temple, then Jesus goes to Bethany with the twelve for the night of Day 1.
• Morning of Day 2.
• Mark 11:12–14. A flash-forward to "the following day" [Day 3] for the cursing, creating the first layer of the sandwich.
• Mark 11:15–19. The fig tree story is interrupted with the temple cleansing on Day 2, with Jesus and the disciples returning to Bethany for the evening.
• Mark 11:20–21. The completion of the fig tree story on Day 3 as they head again to the temple, providing the final layer of the sandwich.

We must also give some weight to Matthew's chronological markers. Matthew states that when Jesus cursed the tree, "the fig tree withered at once," and "when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, "How did the fig tree wither at once?" (Matt. 21:19–20). Matthew's chronology does not allow for an overnight delay between the cursing and the disciples' observation of such. Hence, given that there is a reasonable explanation for what Mark has done per his literary proclivities, I give more weight to Matthew's chronology.

Finally, I'll also push back against the deference and weight which some give to Mark, as being the earlier Gospel and therefore the more accurate chronologically, and as being the Gospel from which Matthew poorly copied, since he did "not understand Mark's use of literary devices."⁵ Rather, as I've argued elsewhere, there is solid grounds for the premise that Matthew was published a few years before Mark.

---

¹ @DickHarfield.

² More technically, these are called intercalations. Scott G. Brown, “Mark 11:1-12:12: A Triple Intercalation?,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64, no. 1 (2002): 79.

³ @IverLarsen.

⁴ David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, Third Edition. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 48.

⁵ Per Dick Harfield's response.

Answer 4

If Jesus cursed two different trees on two different days Matthew and Mark are in harmony. Mark records the first tree being cursed and the results were recognized by Peter the following day. Matthew records the second tree being cursed and the disciples (having seen the first tree) saw the results immediately. The sequence would be:

• First day: Jesus curses tree #1 (Mark) – Cleanse the Temple (Matthew and Mark)
• Second day: Peter discovers tree #1 (Mark) + Jesus curses tree #2 (Matthew)

Day 1
12 On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry.13 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. 14 And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it. (Mark 11:12-14 ESV) [Tree #1]

Jesus Cleanses the Temple (Mark 11:15-19 and Matthew 21:12-17)

Day 2
20 As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. 21 And Peter remembered and said to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered.” (Mark 11:20-21 ESV) [Tree #1]

18 In the morning, as he was returning to the city, he became hungry.19 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. 20 When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” (Matthew 21:18-20 ESV) [Tree #2]

The fig tree events in Mark and Matthew are similar; they also have significant differences. In addition to who notices the tree, Peter (Mark) and the disciples (Matthew), there is what Jesus says to each tree:

Mark: May no one ever eat fruit from you again.
Matthew: May no fruit ever come from you again.

In Mark the emphasis is on people not eating fruit. The potential exists for this to be be fulfilled even if the tree continued to produce fruit. The cursed tree, like the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, has fruit which should not be eaten. In Matthew the emphasis is on the tree not producing fruit. The immediate withering in Matthew follows the command by Jesus and this tree will never again produce fruit.

After Peter notices the first tree, all the disciples are paying attention when Jesus curses a different tree, with a different curse.

Finally Luke does not describe either of these events, yet he does include a detail which pertains to the trees in Mark and Matthew:

28 And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 When he drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount that is called Olivet, he sent two of the disciples (Luke 19:28-29 ESV)

Bethphage means "house of unripe figs" [G967-Bethphage]. The implication is the figs which were supposed to be on the trees had been harvested and are in the house of unripe figs. Thus there are 3 reasons why fruit from those trees will not be eaten in the future:

• The tree withers and stops producing fruit
• The fruit on the tree is avoided since the tree was cursed
• The fruit on the tree was removed and placed into storage before it had ripened