Synoptic Sequences

The two-part story of the withered fig tree

In this “Synoptic Sequences” series, we are working through some of the sequential differences which one finds when comparing Matthew’s Gospel to Mark’s Gospel, with the hope that the differences can be explained in a way that is consistent with my early Matthew proposition. Therefore, we’re approaching these sequential differences with the following assumptions:

  1. Matthew was published coincident with the events in Acts 10–11 and Mark shortly thereafter, with full knowledge of Matthew’s text.
  2. Because Matthew wrote within a decade of the resurrection, his Jewish audience would expect for his account to be chronologically and sequentially accurate, consistent with their knowledge of Jesus.
  3. Mark worked from Peter’s teachings, which Papias says Peter adapted to meet the needs of his audiences, and therefore the stories in Mark’s Gospel are sometimes arranged topically.

The problem statement

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark both pair the story of the withered fig tree with Jesus’ cleansing of the temple (Matt. 21:12–22; Mark 11:12–25). However, Matthew places the whole fig tree story after the cleansing of the temple, whereas Mark places part of the fig tree story before and part after the cleansing of the temple. Which Gospel has the actual chronology and sequence of events, if either? Do we need to defer to Mark’s sequence of events, since he introduces the first part of the fig tree story with “On the following day”?

According to Mark:

On the following day (kai tē epaurion), when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. 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. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it. (Mark 11:12–14 ESV)

Many scholars, believing that Mark was written first and that Mark’s chronological markers are more specific, dismiss Matthew’s chronology, relative to the fig tree and temple clearing. For example:

But, as we have seen, in this part of his narrative Matthew is very concise and specifically ignores chronology.1

Chronologically Mark is more detailed. If the Triumphal Entry was on Sunday, then, according to Mark, the cursing of the fig tree was on Monday; and the disciples’ surprise at the tree’s quick withering, along with Jesus’ words about faith, were on Tuesday. Matthew has simply put the two parts together in a typical topical arrangement.2

Correspondingly, on the assumption that Mark was published first, Licona asserts that Matthew uses “displacement, conflation, and compression,” as Matthew (purportedly) modified Mark’s account.3

Resolving the problem

Is there a case to be made that Matthew has it right and that Mark has broken up the fig tree account for literary reasons? Indeed, there is.

To recap, Mark’s sequence is:

  • Mark 11:1–10. Triumphal entry.
  • Mark 11:11. They enter Jerusalem, tour the temple, then head for Bethany.
  • Mark 11:12–14. “On the following day, when they came from Bethany,” Jesus curses the fig tree and the disciples hear it.
  • Mark 11:15–19. “And they came to Jerusalem” and he cleanses the temple, and at evening they leave the city.
  • Mark 11:20–25. “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots,” etc.

It is commonly recognized that one of Mark’s literary devices involves sandwiching, “or the placing of one basically self-contained episode within another.”4 The result is that “the two related stories illuminate and enrich each other, commenting on and clarifying the meaning, one of the other.”5 This is the situation in Mark 11, as the two parts of the fig tree story are interrupted by the temple cleansing.

Robert Stein explains that this “sandwiching is the result of Mark’s editorial work” and that “Mark’s editorial hand should probably also be seen in the chronological designations tying together” the various sections in chapter 11.6 “Mark indicates that Jesus’s action with respect to the fig tree is a parabolic act serving as the interpretive guide for understanding Jesus’s cleansing the temple.”7 Strauss adds that “both episodes relate symbolically to Israel’s failure to produce fruit and her coming judgment.”8

In contrast, Matthew’s account provides a strong temporal tie between the cursing, the withering, and the disciples’ observance of such:

  • Matt. 21:1–11. Triumphal entry. No mention of an overnight trip to Bethany (or of the fig tree).
  • Matt. 21:12–17. “And Jesus entered the temple” and cleanses it. At night they go to Bethany.
  • Matt. 21:18–22. “In the morning, as he was returning to the city” he curses the fig tree and it “withered at once (parachrēma). When the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once (parachrēma)?”

Hence, the disciples not only heard the curse, but were immediately aware that the tree withered. This is not what is expressed in Mark’s Gospel, where the cursing and the observance of the effect are separated by the cleansing of the temple.

Given our recognition that (1) Mark is prone to editing his material to employ a literary device to bring out theological points and that (2) Matthew uses adverbs to closely knit together the cursing, withering, and observing, do we defer to Mark’s sequence of events or to Matthew’s sequence?

All of this gets us back to needing to deal with Mark’s “On the following day (kai tē epaurion).” The word epaurion is commonly used in the narrative portions of the OT (LXX) and NT to mean “next day”; although, it is only used this one time in Mark. At face value, Mark appears to be using the phrase as a transitional phrase, placing the cursing of the fig tree on the day following his night at Bethany, with everything else following such.

That may be. However, I am going to suggest that in Mark 11:12, Mark is instead using the kai tē epaurion proleptically (anticipatorily) as a means to introduce the fig tree episode which occurs a day later, and in so doing is looking forward past the upcoming cleansing of the temple as he recites the cursing story. But he then interrupts the future (next day) fig tree story to reset back and cover the temple cleansing.

Thus, Mark has split the fig tree story in half in order to sandwich the temple cleansing story, and he is using the “On the following day” (11:12) and the matching “As they passed by in the morning” (11:20) to tell the reader that the fig tree story occurs on the day following the temple cleansing.

With this approach, I award chronological and sequential priority to Matthew’s Gospel, with its strong temporal ties between the cursing, the withering, and the disciples’ observance of such, while asserting that Mark’s Gospel has rearranged the material in order to employ a literary technique for didactic and theological reasons. So once again, my working theory survives, that Matthew wrote an account which is chronological and sequential.

Any suggestions on which sequential difference between Matthew and Mark I should tackle next?


  1. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992), 531. ↩︎
  2. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 444. ↩︎
  3. Michael R. Licona, Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently (Grand Rapids, MI: HarperCollins Christian Publishing, 2024). ↩︎
  4. 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. ↩︎
  5. Ibid. ↩︎
  6. Robert H. Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 510. ↩︎
  7. Ibid., 512. ↩︎
  8. Mark L Strauss, Mark, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 47. ↩︎

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *