No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Tree and the Temple: Echoes of a New Ingathering and Renewed Exile (Mark 11.12–21)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 December 2021
Abstract
This article considers Mark's account of the cursing of the fig tree, read in conjunction with Jesus’ temple action. Having reviewed recent proposals on the literary shape of Mark 11.1–12.12, the article proposes a fresh reading of the section's structure. Triple introductions at 11.11, 11.15 and 11.27 are shown to match triple conclusions at 11.11, 11.19 and 12.12, these constituents framing interwoven units running from 11.11 to 12.12. The pattern of triple intercalation suggests that the cursing of the fig tree and Jesus’ temple action should be interpreted one in light of the other. The article then considers the intertextual relationship between Mark's narrative and the scriptural texts it evokes. The study uncovers previously neglected echoes vital for understanding the significance of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree and temple action. The ‘casting out’ motif in Jeremiah 7–8, as dramatically portrayed in Jesus’ temple action, is set forth as heralding a ‘renewed exile’ for those who reject Jesus’ message, while the mirror motif of ‘ingathering’ in Isa 56.1–8, accentuated by the ‘withered tree’ imagery of 56.3, heralds new opportunity, with those who were previously outsiders to the temple made insiders in the eschatological house of prayer.
Keywords
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
1 Cotter, W. J., ‘“For it Was Not the Season for Figs”’, CBQ 48 (1986) 62–6Google Scholar, at 62.
2 So C. Böttrich, ‘Jesus und der Feigenbaum: Mk 11.12–14, 20–25 in der Diskussion’, NovT 39 (1997) 328–59, at 328.
3 Garland, D. E., A Theology of Mark's Gospel: Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God (Biblical Theology of the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015) 91Google Scholar.
4 See Shepherd, T., ‘The Narrative Function of Markan Intercalation’, NTS 41 (1995) 522–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 522; Brown, S. G., ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, CBQ 64 (2002) 78–89Google Scholar, at 78. Edwards, J. R., ‘Markan Sandwiches: The Significance of Interpolations in Markan Narratives’, NovT 31 (1989) 193–216Google Scholar, at 197–8 proposes nine uses: at 3.20–35; 4.1–20; 5.21–43; 6.7–30; 11.12–21; 14.1–11; 14.17–31; 14.53–72; and 15.40–16.8.
5 W. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Cursing of the Fig-Tree Pericope in Mark's Gospel and its Relation to the Cleansing of the Temple Tradition (JSNTSup; Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 15, 21, 35, 47–8, 163, 238.
6 Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 15; J. R. Donahue, Are you the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBL Dissertation Series; Missoula, MT: SBL, 1973) 42.
7 Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 47–8.
8 Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 238.
9 Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches’, 193–216.
10 Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches’, 196. Significantly, Edwards points out that this narrative device was known in the broader Greco-Roman world, as well as Jewish literature, with authors interpreting one story in concert with another story (p. 200).
11 Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches’, 207–8. Edwards, in conversation with Professor Martin Hengel, points out that in chapter 11 we actually have a double intercalation: temple (vv. 1–11), fig tree (vv. 12–14), temple (vv. 15–19), fig tree (vv. 20–1). As I point out below, I believe a more accurate assessment would limit the first temple pericope merely to 11.11 and would extend the second fig tree passage through 11.25.
12 Shepherd, ‘The Narrative Function of Markan Intercalation’, 523.
13 Shepherd, ‘The Narrative Function of Markan Intercalation’, 531.
14 Shepherd, ‘The Narrative Function of Markan Intercalation’, 536–7, 39.
15 Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, 78–89.
16 Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, 79–80.
17 Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, 81.
18 Gundry, R. H., Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 634Google Scholar.
19 On 11.11 as the beginning of a new unit, see Gundry, Mark, 634.
20 Jesus’ interactions with people in the temple continue until the marker at 13.1, ‘As he was going out of the temple’ (Καὶ ἐκπορɛυομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἱɛροῦ), but after 12.12, the main authorities of the temple do not come back into the narrative until their plot to kill Jesus is mentioned at 14.1.
21 In addition to the references to the fig tree itself in both passages, note the contrast between how Jesus ‘answers’ (ἀποκριθɛίς) the fig tree at 11.14 and how he ‘answers’ (ἀποκριθɛίς) Peter at 11.22. We might also note the parallel in the successive units, 11.12–14 and 11.15–19, that the disciples ‘heard’ Jesus’ words to the tree (ἤκουον, 11.14), and the chief priests and scribes ‘heard’ (ἤκουσαν, 11.18) Jesus’ scriptural pronouncement.
22 Exceptions include, for example, Gundry, Mark, 671–2 and A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 524–55. In response to Yarbro Collins, see Daniel Kirk, J. R., ‘Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12–25’, CBQ 74 (2012) 509–27Google Scholar, at 512.
23 In examining the fig tree and related imagery in the Old Testament, Telford considered particularly Jer 8.13; Isa 28.3–4; Hos 9.10, 16; Mic 7.1; Joel 1.7, 12, as well as a number of supplementary passages. See Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 142–63. On Mic 7.1 as the primary backdrop, see e.g. Birdsall, J. N., ‘Withering of the Fig-tree (Mark 11.12–14, 20–22)’, ExpT 73.6 (1962) 191Google Scholar; de Quetteville Robin, A., ‘Cursing of the Fig Tree in Mark 11: A Hypothesis’, NTS 8 (1962) 276–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Mic 7.1–2 in conjunction with Jer 8.12–13, see Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: A Triple Intercalation?’, 81.
24 E.g. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985) 66–76; Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, 526. Sanders has been answered, for example, by R. Bauckham, ‘Jesus’ Demonstration in the Temple’, Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (ed. B. Lindars; Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988) 72–89; C. A. Evans, ‘Jesus’ Actions in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?’, CBQ 51 (1989) 237–70; B. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), esp. 91–111.
25 C. A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (WBC; Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001) 174–82; R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016) 26–9; R. E. Watts, ‘Mark’, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 111–249, at 208–12; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996) 417–28.
26 E.g. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 176–9; Watts, ‘Mark’, 208–12; Hays, Echoes, 28–9; Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 418–21.
27 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999) 454–459; William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 238–239.
28 P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley and J. F. Drinkard, Jr, Jeremiah 1–25 (WBC 26; Dallas, TX: Word, 1991) 116–20; Hays, Echoes, 28.
29 On the imagery of the ‘den of robbers’, see Gundry, Mark, 644.
30 The parallels here hold regardless of whether one considers the Hebrew or the Greek text of Jeremiah.
31 The meaning of נבל, rendered ‘withered’, is disputed. The Greek translator interpreted the term with καταρρέω, ‘fall off’, when used of vegetation.
32 M. Wojciechowski, ‘Marc 11.14 et Tg. Gn. 3.22. Les fruits de la Loi enlevés a Israel’, NTS 33 (1987) 287–9, at 287.
33 E.g. W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 402; see also M. Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (Black's New Testament Commentary Series; London: A & C Black, 1991) 261; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 158; J. R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 340.
34 Hays, Echoes, 75–6.
35 Cf. Deut 28.16; 1 Kgs 8.35–6.
36 Cf. e.g. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 138, who notes, ‘the fertility of the land bears a direct relationship to the spiritual fruitfulness of the people. Where the nation or a righteous remnant within the nation are faithful, the land, and particularly the trees, will flourish. Where the people are faithless, God will strike the land with a curse.’ Pointing to the curses of Deut 28, he notes that ‘time and again God's curse is actualized through the blasting, smiting or ravaging of the trees and especially of the vine and the fig tree’.
37 Although Mark uses ἐκβάλλω rather than ἀπορίπτω or ἐξωθέω, the -ριπτω word group is used elsewhere in the Septuagint synonymously with ἐκβάλλω, as seen, for instance in Jer 22.28, a passage on exile: ‘Iechonias was dishonored like a vessel which is without its use, which was hurled out (ἐξɛρρίφη), and he was cast out (ἐξɛβλήθη) into a land that he did not know’ (NETS). There are a number of places in the Septuagint where the translators use ἐκβάλλω to refer to Exile (e.g. Deut 29.27; Isa 5.29; 22.17; Jer 12.14). Further, if Jesus himself intended his prophetic temple action to be read in light of Jeremiah's exile motif, it may be that the Hebrew, rather than the Greek text, forms the backdrop for the imagery. It also could be that ἐκβάλλω was simply the much more familiar word in Mark's vocabulary (see Mark 1.12, 34, 39, 43; 3.15, 22–3; 5.40; 6.13; 7.26; 9.18, 28, 38, 47; 11.15; 12.8; 16.9). The former term is only found at Acts 27.43 in the New Testament; similarly, ἐξωθέω, used at Jer 8.3, only occurs in the New Testament at Acts 7.45 and 27.39.
38 Craig Evans points to the prophet Jesus ben Ananias, who used Jeremiah 7 to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in ad 62–69 (Josephus, J. W. 6.300–309). Evans notes the extensive parallels between the story of Jesus ben Ananias and Jesus of Nazareth. See Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 177.
39 The Hebrew reads בביתי at Isa 56.5, but Jer 7.11 reads ‘the house which is called by my name’ (הבית הזה אשר נקרא שמי).
40 So K. H. Tan, The Zion Traditions and the Aims of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) 188–9; D. W. Pao and E. J. Schnabel, ‘Luke’, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 251–414, at 358; see Ps 22.27; Isa 2.2–3; Zeph 3.9–10; Tob 13.11; Pss Sol 17.31, 34; T Benj 9.2.
41 So e.g. R. E. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark (WUNT ii/88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 330. On the mixed role of ‘the nations’ in Isaiah's eschatological vision, see especially Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark, 319–22.
42 Contra R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium. ii. Teil: Kommentar zu Kap. 8,27–16,20 (HTKZNT; Freiburg/Basle/Vienna: Herder, 1980) 199, who sees the ‘dry tree’ of Isa. 56 as insignificant.
43 Gen 1.9–10; 7.22; Exod 4.9; 14.16, 21–2, 29; 15.19; Josh 3.17; 4.22; 9.5; Ps 65.6; 94.5; Job 24.19; Hos 9.14; Jon 1.9; 2.11; Hag 2.6, 21; Isa 9.17; 37.27; 56.3; Ezek 17.24; 21.3; 37.2, 4, 11; 1 Macc 8.23, 32; 4 Macc 18.17; Odes 1.19; Wis 19.7; Sir 6.3; 37.3; 39.22).
44 Contextually, the word picture in Isa 56.3 almost certainly connotes an inability to be fruitful in life, for 56.5 reads, ‘I will give to them, in my house and within my wall, an esteemed place, better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name, and it shall not fail’ (NETS). Thus, temple and withered tree come together, as in Mark.
45 Joel 1.7, 12 constitutes the closest counterpart, but Isa 56.3 has the advantage of being in the immediate context of a verse quoted overtly in Mark's narrative.
46 This particular ‘echo’ meets Richard Hays’ ‘tests’ of availability, volume, recurrence, thematic coherence, historical plausibility and satisfaction. The only one of the tests it does not readily satisfy is ‘history of interpretation’ (R. B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 29–32).
47 K. Snodgrass delineates seven options in the history of interpretation. See K. R. Snodgrass, ‘The Temple Incident’, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus (Darrell Bock and Robert Webb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 429–80, at 462–74.
48 E.g. F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel: Ihre Geschichte im frühen Christentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964) 171, who focuses on restoration of the court for the gentiles; Ben F. Meyer, Aims of Jesus (London: S.C.M. 1979), 170, 201; Pesch, Das Markusevangelium: II. Teil, 200–201; P. C. Böttger, Der König der Juden – das Heil für die Völker (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981) 77–8; C. S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (ABC; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986) 447–50; Gundry, Mark, 640, 642; D. E. Oakman, ‘Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers’ Dens: Pronouncement Stories within Social-Systemic Perspective: Mark 11:12–25 and Parallels’, Semeia 64 (1993) 253–72, at 268; H. D. Betz, ‘Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15–18): A Comparative Approach’, JBL 116 (1997) 455–72, at 467–72; M. Casey, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching (London: T&T Clark, 2010) 413; Snodgrass, ‘The Temple Incident’, 474–5; Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 406; J. Lambrecht, ‘The Cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11,15–19)’, ETL 89 (2013) 103–6, at 106.
49 E.g. W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THZNT; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1977) 311–12, who emphasises that the act was not about reform but served as a pointer to the eschatological house of prayer; D. Juel, Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS; Missoula, MT: SBL, 1977) 198; Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree, 238; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61–71; Edwards, ‘Markan Sandwiches’, 208; J. D. Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991) 357–8; Hooker, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark, 265; B. von Kienle, ‘Mk 11,12–14.20–25: Der verdorrte Feigenbaum’, BN 57 (1991) 17–25, who interprets the prophetic word as directed to Mark's ‘crowd’ rather than Israel (24–5); J. P. Heil, ‘The Narrative Strategy and Pragmatics of the Temple Theme in Mark’, CBQ 59 (1997) 76–100, at 78; Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark, 348; Brown, ‘Mark 11:1–12:12: a Triple Intercalation?’, 81; B. J. Pitre, Jesus, the Τribulation, and the End of the Εxile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006) 371–6; T. H. Carey, ‘Teaching and Tirades: Jesus’ Temple Act and his Teachings in Mark 11:15–19’, Stone-Campbell Journal 10 (2007) 93–105, at 105; J. Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 2009) 791, 793; C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: a Study in its Narrative Role (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 29–30; Kirk, ‘Time for Figs’, 517, 520; Hays, Echoes, 26.
50 E.g. A. Schlatter, Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas (Stuttgart: Carlwer, rev. edn 1961) 117–19; D. Seeley, ‘Jesus’ Temple Act’, CBQ 55 (1993) 263–83, at 283; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 181–2, who emphasises the role of a king in reconstituting the temple; A. J. M. Wedderburn, ‘Jesus’ Action in the Temple: a Key or a Puzzle?’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 97 (2006) 1–22, at 14, 18; R. H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) 516, 521; N. Perrin, Jesus the Temple (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 97–9; M. L. Strauss, Mark (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014) 495; S. J. Joseph, ‘Jesus and the Temple Incident: A New Proposal’, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 14 (2016) 71–95, at 88, 91.
51 This thought is made overt in Luke's pericope on the destruction of Jerusalem, ‘they will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations’ (NRSV; emphasis added) (καὶ πɛσοῦνται στόματι μαχαίρης καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται ɛἰς τὰ ἔθνη πάντα, Luke 21.24; NA28-T). The verb αἰχμαλωτίζω connotes being taken captive and is used, for instance, at 2 Kgs 24.14 of taking the elite of Jerusalem into the Babylonian exile. Eugen Drewermann notes that the cleansing of the temple in Mark evokes Jeremiah's situation, indicating that nothing has changed since the prophet's time, except that now the Romans are the instrument of God's judgement. See E. Drewermann, Das Markusevangelium. Zweiter Teil: Mk 9,14 bis 16,20 (Olten: Walter-Verlag, 1988) 201.
52 On Jesus’ self-understanding as an eschatological prophet see e.g. Hooker, M., The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus (London: SCM, 1997)Google Scholar; Allison, D. C., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 264–5Google Scholar.
53 It is not hard to imagine that for the followers of Jesus, faced with the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple in ad 70, the dramatic, prophetic action of Jesus casting people out of the temple would have been read as fulfilled, with the leaders of that institution, along with most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, killed or scattered throughout the broader Mesopotamian and Mediterranean worlds, a significant contingent taken as slaves to Rome itself. Mary Smallwood states that ‘[t]he Flavian triumph in 71 brought a huge consignment of Jewish prisoners to Rome for slavery’ (E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule from Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2001) 519). John Barclay writes of Rome after the war, ‘The influx of prisoners must have been large … though no doubt Rome disposed of many of the 97,000 in the East’ (J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 bce –117 ce) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996) 310). Only about 40,000 inhabitants remained in Jerusalem (M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973) 201–2, 205.
54 It is interesting that in one of Ezekiel's ‘withered tree’ passages in the Septuagint speaks of just such a reversal:
And all the trees of the plain shall know
that I am the Lord,
he who brings low a high tree
and exalts a low tree
and withers a green tree
and makes a dry tree (ξύλον ξηρόν) flourish.
I, the Lord, have spoken,
and I will do it. (Ezek 17.24 NETS)