Isaiah 55:1-9; Psalm 63:1-8; 1 Corinthians 10:1-13; Luke 13:1-9
Again, my reflection comes from Ched Myers' Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (20th Anniversary Edition) Orbis Books, 1988, 2008.Again, I know that we are in the midst of Year B (which has Luke as the dominate Gospel text), but I think that Myers' reading of Mark's Gospel might shed some light on - or at least conversation with - Luke's account. Where possible, I will be referring to the parallel Markan accounts of Luke's passages.
This week, there is a direct parallel with Mark 11:12-14 in which Jesus also curses a fig tree. In Mark's account follows Jesus' entry (upon donkey) into Jerusalem, at which point, we are told he "scopes" out the temple, then returns to Bethany.
The following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it." (Mark 11:12-14 - NRSV).What follows is a political action in the temple: Jesus (and others?) drive out those selling and those who were buying, over turned the money changers tables, the seats of those who sold doves, and wouldn't let anyone carry anything. In essence, he shut down the temple. He teaches a bit and leaves Jerusalem.
The next day, "In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots." (Mark 11:20 - NRSV).
Now that we have the setting of where the "cursing of the fig tree" occurs within Marks' Gospel, how does Myers respond? What insights do we achieve?
Myers starts by noting that the "cursing" episode is the first of three (a. curing of the fig tree; b. temple action; c. fig tree results and parables about faith moving mountains). Myers draws our attention to the ways in which the fig tree drama "sandwiches" the temple action. As such, Myers posits that the fig tree is an acted parable critiquing the temple system itself.*
We are left, then, with a direct parable-type action, criticizing the temple as symbolic center for the Judaen social order and oppressor of the people, rather than running as a means of re-distributing the resources of a community/nation/people, the temple had become a power-hungry means of keeping the people poor.[Myers] discussion will draw heavily upon W. Telford's detailed study of the background of Mark's metaphorical imagery here ([Telford. The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree.] 1980).Jesus, returning to Jerusalem from Bethany for the start of his ministry of confrontation, curses a fig tree unable to relieve his hunger because it is not the "time" (kairos) for figs (11:13f.). The disciples "hear" this curse (11:14c), and find the next day that the tree has withered (11:20f.). Tleford has demonstrated how the Hebrew Bible as well as contemporaneous Jewish and Christian literature clarify the semantic field of this odd magical tale. He points out that even if it were not narratively juxtaposed with the temple action, the fig tree image would have been recognized as a metaphor for the temple-based nation and its cultus.Pointing out that the Old Testament literature "on the whole knows very little of nonsymbolical trees," Telford examines five primary (Jer. 8:13; Is 28:3; Hos 9:10,16; Mi 7:1; Jl 1:7,12) and several supplementary texts. He concludes:The fig tree was an emblem of peace, security, and prosperity and is prominent when descriptions of the Golden Age of Israel's history, past, present, and future, are given - the Garden of Eden, the Exodus, the Wilderness, the Promised Land, the reigns of Solomon and Simon Maccabaeus, and the coming Messianic Age. It figures predominately in the prophetic books and very often in passages with an echatological import. ...The blossoming of the fig-tree and its giving of its fruits is a descriptive element in passages which depict Yahweh's visiting his people with blessing, while the withering of the fig-tree, the destruction or withholding of its fruit, figures in imagery describing Yahweh's judgement upon his people or their enemies. The theme of judgement is, if anything, more pronounced in the prophetic books. Very often the reason given ... is cultic aberration ... a corrupt Temple cultus and sacrificial system. In some cases, indeed, the fig or fig-tree ... can be used expressly as a symbol for the nation itself. ... Who could doubt, then, the extraordinary impact that Jesus' cursing of the fig-tree would have produced upon the Markan reader, schooled to recognized symbolism wherever it occured [1980:161f., emphasis in the original].This intertextual evidence is further confirmed in later Jewish material, especially the halakah and haggadah. Again, Telford summerizes his findings:We have seen how important the fig-tree was in the everyday life of Palestine, and the high esteem with which this, the most fruitful of all the trees, was regarded ... its fruits being among the principal First-fruits to be brought to the sanctuary. ... In the Rabbinic imagery and symbolism ... the good fig is the godly man, or collectively God's righteous people, and the search for figs a picture of Israel's God, seeking out those who are his own. ...In the Jewish Haggadah ... we found a world of ideation within the context of which the Markan story has its rightful place. Features of the story that are problematic for the modern reader were found to be consonant with the haggadic view of nature and the affairs of mean. In these stories, the world is endowed with human characteristics. The trees are sensitive to the moral dimension. They can be addressed. They can give or withold their fruit in response to human need (whatever the season). Their blossoming or withering has moral and symbolic significance. In the world of the haggadah, the Rabbi's curse has incontrovertible efficacy. ...We took note, too, of the connection existing in the Jewish mind between the fruitfulness of the trees and the maintenance of the Temple service. According to Rabbis of the first and second centuries, the fruits had lost their savour when the Temple had been destroyed, a state of affairs that was, however, to be reversed in the Messianic Age. ... By placing the story ... in the context of Jesus' visit to the Temple, Mark has dramatically indicated that the expected fruitfulness associated with that institution is not to be true. Its destiny is rather to be withered, and that - ek rhizon [to the roots]! (1980:193-96).The same semantic field informs Mark at several points, notably the parables (especially the parable of the vineyard, 12:1ff.).Indeed, the image of "withering to the roots" has already been introduced in the parable of the sower (4:6). thus, the symbolic action of Jesus' cursing of the fig tree is Mark's own little haggadic tale, as well as a midrash on Hosea 9:16 ... . Its narrative function is to begin Jesus' ideological project of subverting the temple-centered social order. The reappearance of the fig tree in the apocalyptic parable (13:28-32) at the conclusion to this section confirms this. In the second sermon, the leafy (i.e. fruitless) fig tree is offered as a sign of the "end time." The world that is coming to an end is the world of the temple-based state .... [BtSM:297-9].
If Lent calls us to look at our-selves closely (not just as individuals, but as a society-at-large), which I think Lent does, then in what ways are we participating in keeping the poor poor? What re-distribution systems are no longer working in our society/culture at large? What would be the symbol Jesus would curse and cause to wither-to-its-roots to get the message across to us?
If we have ears to "hear" and eyes to "see" (unlike the disciples who remain "deaf" and "blind", or at least hard of hearing and seeing), this is a tough lesson to wrestle with.
Blessed Be,
Joel
_____________________
*(See "INTO THE HOLY PLACE: SYMBOLIC DIRECT ACTION (11:11-26)" Binding the Strong Man:297ff.)
No comments:
Post a Comment