THE NEXT DAY as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
“‘My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations’?
But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
18The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19When evening came, they went out of the city.
20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
22“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. 23“I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”
27They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28“By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”
29Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!”
31They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32But if we say, ‘From men’.…” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)
33So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”
Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
Original Meaning
JESUS’ DEMONSTRATION OF outrage in the temple and at a fruitless fig tree is unexpected and puzzling. Why this sudden violent outburst? Why this withering curse on what seems to be an innocent fig tree that fails to satisfy his hunger? Why does he vent such anger on an inanimate object that fails to produce fruit out of season? Klausner calls it “a gross injustice on a tree which was guilty of no wrong and had but performed its natural function.”1 Manson comments: “It is a tale of miraculous power wasted in the service of ill-temper (for the supernatural energy employed to blast the unfortunate tree might have been more usefully expended in forcing a crop of figs out of season); and as it stands is simply incredible.”2
Mark’s bracketing technique offers a solution to this puzzle and corrects any view that Jesus succumbs to a fit of irrational temper.3 The fig tree incident sandwiches the temple incident. Interpreting either in isolation from the other leads one in the wrong direction. We will first look at Jesus’ actions in the temple and then show how the cursing of the fig tree helps explain what it means. It is common to refer to this event as the temple cleansing. The cursing of the fig tree brings that interpretation into question.
The Temple Action (11:15–19)
JESUS’ ACTIONS IN the temple. Many suggestions have been offered to explain Jesus’ actions in the temple. Some go so far as to claim that he is engaging in an act of insurgency, striking the first blow in what he hopes will spark an armed revolt. This interpretation has nothing to commend it. The clash is only a modest engagement with the servants of the temple market and is largely symbolic, like his entry into Jerusalem. Otherwise, the temple police or Roman soldiers patrolling from the vantage point of the Fortress Antonia would have been quick to intervene (see Acts 21:27–36). Those involved are probably momentarily stunned by the power of his moral fury and not by any physical means he employs.
Most other interpretations attribute Jesus’ ferocity to his righteous indignation over flagrant abuses. They assume that Jesus is acting to reform the temple, but they differ over what precisely he is trying to reform. Some claim that Jesus opposes the buyers and sellers because they impede Gentile worship in the outer court.4 Who can worship amidst a raucous bazaar where venders haggle to get the highest price? The noisy commerce prevents the temple from being a house of prayer for all nations.
Gundry argues that the audience would think that Jesus is simply reclaiming commercial space for its proper use for prayer.5 The problem with this view is that the small temple market for cultic provisions was probably located inside the Royal Stoa and not spread out all over the outer court.6 Also, this outer court was not viewed positively as the place where Gentiles could worship but was regarded instead as the place beyond which Gentiles could not go.7 Gentiles could not enter the temple proper, and a balustrade surrounding the sanctuary had warning signs cautioning Gentiles against going any further on penalty of death (see Acts 21:27–30).8 Clearing a quiet place for Gentiles to pray in the forecourt would not remove the barrier that kept them from the sacred place of God’s presence. Jesus also could not have expected the area to remain clear simply because of his fierce protest. As Hooker admits, “as an act of reforming zeal it would have to be judged a failure: the money changers no doubt soon recovered their coins, and the place was restored to order.”9
Another view contends that Jesus’ concern for the temple’s purity prompts his action. He is irate that profane, commercial activity has intruded into the sacred space of the temple precincts (see Zech. 14:21) and desecrated the spiritual purpose of this place of worship. There is little evidence that the forecourt was regarded as sacred space. Schweizer suggests that it was like “the square before a church visited by pilgrims.”10 The market for animals and birds to sacrifice in the temple cult was vital for the operation of the cult and did not desecrate the sanctuary.
The phrase “den of robbers” has influenced the most common view of the causes behind Jesus’ action. It assumes that Jesus is protesting because the temple has become a crooked business, defrauding worshipers. The high priestly families did gain wealth from their control of the temple’s fiscal affairs, and they were guilty of corruption. Josephus, for example, calls the high priest Ananias the “great procurer of money” (Ant. 20.9.2 §205; see 20.8.1. §181; 20.9.2. §§206–7). Jesus may have objected to “the way the financial side of the sacrificial system was run.”11
While some assume that the crowd responds enthusiastically to Jesus’ protest for them, the text only says that they are “amazed at his teaching.” The verb “amaze” appears elsewhere in Mark (1:22; 6:2; 7:37; 10:26) and refers to those who were “stupefied” by Jesus. Mark does not describe the crowd as applauding what Jesus has done so much as being baffled by it. Neusner helps explain why. The tables were set up to receive the annual half-shekel tax that was required of every Jewish male and that funded the daily sacrifices in the temple for the atonement of sin (t. Seqal. 1:6). He writes that Jesus’ overturning the tables of the money changers
will have provoked astonishment, since it will have called into question the very simple fact that the daily whole offering effected atonement and brought about expiation for sin, and God had so instructed Moses in the Torah. Accordingly, only someone who rejected the Torah’s explicit teaching concerning the daily whole offering could have overturned the tables—or … someone who had in mind setting up a different table, and for a different purpose: for the action carries the entire message, both negative and positive. Indeed, the money-changers’ presence made possible the cultic participation of every Israelite, and it was not a blemish on the cult but its perfection.12
Nothing in 11:15–16 suggests that Jesus’ ire over dishonest business practices or profiteering provokes his attack on the money changers and animal merchants. He throws out both the buyers and sellers.
A key question to ask is why Jesus would attempt to reform or purify something that he predicts, without any great anguish, will soon be destroyed (13:2)? The best answer is that he does not intend to reform the temple. Jesus has been acclaimed as a prophet. Prophets do not simply make announcements; they also engage in prophetic actions to communicate.13 Jesus appears in the temple as a charismatic prophet and graphically acts out God’s rejection of the temple cult and its coming destruction. While actions may speak louder than words, they are not always as clear.
Sanders argues that Jesus’ actions are designed “to make a point rather than to have a concrete result.”14 His demonstration is a prophetic protest that symbolically stops the activities that contribute to the temple’s normal functioning. As the one who comes in the name of the Lord (11:9), he trains his sights on three things: the fiscal foundation of the temple, a vital component of its sacrifices, and a crucial element of its liturgy. If money cannot be exchanged into the holy currency, then monetary support for the temple sacrifices and the priesthood must end. If sacrificial animals cannot be purchased, then sacrifice must end. If no vessel can be carried through the temple, then all cultic activity must cease.15 Jesus does not seek to purify current temple worship but symbolically attacks the very function of the temple and heralds its destruction.16 The temple’s glory days are coming to an end. In private, Jesus will predict to his disciples that the temple will be destroyed (13:1–2), and his hostility to the temple emerges as a charge at his trial (14:58) and as a taunt at the cross (15:29).
The interpretation that Jesus gives to his action is crucial for understanding what he intended. This teaching transforms a simple display of protest into an announcement of divine judgment (see 12:9). The disciples and the readers of Mark’s Gospel also have the added advantage for understanding this incident because they see the cursing of the fig tree.
The quotation from Isaiah. The passage cited from Isaiah 56:7, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations,” means that God did not plan for the temple to become a national shrine for Israel. Isaiah 56:1–8 contains God’ promise of blessing for all who might think they are excluded from God’s salvation: the foreigner who has joined himself to the people (56:3), the eunuch (56:4, who was not allowed to enter the temple, according to the regulations of Deut. 23:1), and the outcasts of Israel (Isa. 56:8). Most assumed that Isaiah 56 spoke of some distant future, but Jesus expects it to be fulfilled now!
During his entire ministry Jesus has been gathering in the impure outcasts and the physically maimed, and has even reached out to Gentiles. He expects the temple to embody this inclusive love. The various purity barriers in the temple, however, have been preventing that. Gentiles were not allowed entry into the temple proper.17 Would Jesus have envisioned the nations gathered to Mount Zion and then forced to cool their heels in the outer court? Would he have condoned segregation—separate and unequal—in God’s temple? What kind of beacon is it that would draw the nations to Jerusalem only to partition them from the main body of worshipers in the temple?
In Jesus’ day the temple had become a nationalistic symbol that served only to divide Israel from the nations. If it were to become what God intended, “a house of prayer for all nations,” walls would have to crumble. Indeed, walls will soon collapse and barriers will be breached. When Jesus dies, the temple veil is split from top to bottom, and a Gentile confesses that he is the Son of God (15:38–39).
The quotation from Jeremiah. By quoting from Jeremiah 7, Jesus reminds the people that something holy can be perverted. He claims that the same abuses that sullied the temple cult in the time of Jeremiah taint it now. The temple, God’s house, has been made into “a den of robbers.” One needs to read the context of Jeremiah 7:1–15 to understand the allusion.
This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Stand at the gate of the LORD’s house and there proclaim this message:
“‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. Do not trust in deceptive words: and say “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!” If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.
“‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD.
“‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the LORD, I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will do now to the house the bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim.’”
The reference to the “den of robbers” has nothing to do with the trade in the temple. Instead, it denounces the false security that the sacrificial cult breeds.
In other words, the robbers are not swindlers but bandits, and they do not do their robbing in their den. The den is the place where robbers retreat after having committed their crimes. It is their hideout, a place of security and refuge.18 Calling the temple a robbers’ den is therefore not a cry of outrage against any dishonest business practices in the temple. Jesus indirectly attacks them for allowing the temple to degenerate into a safe hiding place where people think that they find forgiveness and fellowship with God no matter how they act on the outside. Jesus’ prophetic action and words attack a false trust in the efficacy of the temple sacrificial system. The leaders of the people think that they can rob widows’ houses (Mark 12:40) and then perform the prescribed sacrifices according to the prescribed patterns at the prescribed times in the prescribed purity in the prescribed sacred space and then be safe and secure from all alarms. They are wrong. The sacrifice of animals will not enable them to evade the doom that God purposes for those guilty of lying, stealing, violence, and adultery (see 7:21–23).
The sanctuary, supposedly sanctified by God, has become a sanctuary for bandits who think that they are protected from God’s judgment. The phrase “I have been watching” (Jer. 7:11) matches the description of Jesus’ visit to the temple on the previous day, when he “looked around at everything” (Mark 11:11), turning that visit into an inspection. Jesus shares the purview of God. He has seen what the people are doing and pronounces God’s judgment.
The Cursing of the Fig Tree (11:12–14, 20–25)
THE INCIDENT AND its significance. The fig tree incident brackets the temple action and interprets it. It reveals more clearly that Jesus does not intend to cleanse the temple. Instead, his actions visually announce its disqualification. The fig tree that has not borne fruit is cursed, not reformed or cleansed. The parable of the tenants of the vineyard (12:1–11) makes the same point. As Jesus seeks fruit from the fig tree, so God, the owner of the vineyard, seeks fruit from the vineyard. When no fruit is to be found or when it is withheld, destruction follows.
Mark alone mentions that the tree did not bear anything more than leaves “because it was not the season for figs,” and it makes Jesus’ action seem even more outlandish. Why curse a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season? Jesus surely knows it is not fig season. This detail is a clue for the reader to look beyond the surface meaning and to see its symbolic meaning.19 This action is not about a particular unfruitful fig tree; it has to do with the temple. The word “season” (kairos) is not the botanical term for the growing season but the religious term found in 1:14–15 denoting the time of the kingdom of God (see 13:33). Moreover, the tenants do not produce the fruits of the vineyard “at harvest time” (12:2; lit., “in season”). The barren fig tree represents the barrenness of temple Judaism that is unprepared to accept Jesus’ messianic reign.
As the fig tree’s time is barren (cf. Luke 13:6–9), so is the temple’s. Time can run out for fruitless tress and prayerless temples. Fruitlessness now when the Messiah has come means fruitlessness forever.20 It is not the time of the temple’s consummation but its consumption. Just as the fig tree was not pruned and manured so that it might bear fruit but cursed so that it died, so the temple was not cleansed so that it could continue in more fitting service to God; rather, it would soon come to an end. The locus of salvation now shifts from the temple to Jesus and his death and resurrection. Faith in him will become the way to God, not the sacrifice of animals in the temple. Thus when Jesus dies, the curtain of the temple is torn from top to bottom.21
When Jesus and his disciples pass by the tree on the next day, they confirm the effectiveness of the curse. The fig tree is “withered from the roots.” For a fig tree in full leaf to shrivel so completely within a day is a miracle, and it conveys that the temple’s condemnation is not a temporary measure. It is everlasting. This event also contrasts the sterility of temple Judaism with the authority and power of Jesus. Jesus is said to “answer” the tree (NIV, “he said,” 11:14). What he answers is the tree’s false advertising with leaves that hide its fruitlessness. The tree gives the impression that it might have something to eat, just as the temple gives the impression that it is a place dedicated to the service of God. The temple profits only the priestly hierarchy; it profits nothing for God.
Sayings on faith, prayer and forgiveness. The reader may find it surprising that Jesus does not explain to the disciples the significance of what happened to the tree when they marvel. Instead, he places an emphasis on faith and prayer in 11:22, 24.22 Some commentators assume that the fig tree incident has been included as a prop to add traditional sayings on the subject of prayer and forgiveness, or that these sayings were added when the original meaning of the cursing of the fig tree as a prophetic sign of God’s judgment on the temple was no longer an immediate concern of the church. These sayings, however, are integrally related to context. They reveal the essence of the new order that replaces the old. The new order is based on faith in God (11:22) that overcomes insurmountable odds (11:23), is sustained by grace (11:24), and is characterized by forgiveness (11:25).
We have generalized Jesus’ statement, “If anyone says to this mountain …” into a proverb about a difficult task, “faith is able to move mountains” (see Matt. 17:20; 1 Cor. 13:2). Jesus does not say “mountains” but specifies “this mountain.” In the Markan context he is most likely referring to the temple mount, Mount Zion.23 Contrary to expectations, the mountain of the Lord’s house would not be exalted (Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1) but would be cast into the sea, where the demons that infested the pigs drowned (5:13) and those who caused little ones to stumble would be thrown (9:42).24 In spite of the temple’s immense power and holiness, it would be destroyed. In spite of the widespread belief that God’s earthly address was the Holy of Holies, the temple, Jerusalem, the Holy Land, the temple would no longer be the focal point of God’s presence among the people. God can no more be confined to one spot than Jesus could be contained in a tomb. God’s people can function without a holy space or cultic functionaries. The holy place is wherever disciples preach Jesus’ gospel and wherever his people, Jews and Gentiles, gather.
Most Jews regarded the temple as the place where prayer was particularly effective.25 This belief is stated most clearly in 3 Maccabees 2:10 (written sometime between A.D. 30 and 70): “and because you love the house of Israel, you promised that if we should have reverses and tribulation should overtake us, you would listen to our petition when we come to this place and pray” (NRSV).26 This idea continues in later Jewish traditions. A late rabbinic commentary on Psalm 91:7 reads: “When a man prays in Jerusalem, it is as though he prays before the throne of glory, for the gate of heaven is in Jerusalem, and a door is always open for the hearing of prayer, as it is said, ‘This is the gate of heaven’ (Gen. 28:17).” Other rabbis said:
From the day on which the Temple was destroyed, the gates of prayer have closed, as it says, “Yea, when I cry for help, He shutteth out my prayer” (Lam. 3:8).… Since the day that the Temple was destroyed, a wall of iron divides between Israel and their Father in Heaven.27
By contrast, Jesus assures his disciples that the effectiveness of prayer has nothing to with the temple or its sacrifices.28 When he dies on the cross, access to God is not closed off but opened up for all. His death creates a new house of prayer, a temple not made with hands, which will be without barriers or limitations (see John 2:18–22; 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 12:27; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:20–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5).
Jesus concludes his explanation with the promise, “And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” Relationship with God is based simply on faith and forgiveness. If one can unleash God’s power by faith and find forgiveness through prayer and a forgiving spirit, the temple cultus has been bypassed, and a house of prayer that has become a den of brigands has no more use than a dead fig tree. God’s power will become available to those, including Gentiles, who have faith that it can be unleashed apart from the temple. The temple with its priesthood, sacrifices, and taxes is no longer the place of God’s presence, where one meets God and where sins are forgiven. By the time Mark writes, the temple is either besieged or already destroyed. He wants to convey to his readers that broken altars do not prejudice atonement with God.
The Reaction of the High Priests (11:18a, 27–33)
THE HIGH PRIESTS and teachers of the law fully understand the implications of Jesus’ actions and words and look “for a way to kill him” (11:18). Earlier the Pharisees and Herodians took council “how they might kill Jesus” (3:6); now it is only a question of deciding the right situation. They saw themselves as licensed by heaven to rule over God’s temple and now fear losing control of the crowds to this upstart prophet. Jesus, an outsider, is usurping their power. But they must hold off carrying out their plan against him because of his popularity. They are a savvy lot who do not kick people while they are up. To rid themselves of this threat and to debunk his messianic pretensions, they will enlist the help of the Roman governor to sentence him to death—death by crucifixion.
The chief priests (former high priests and priests with permanent duties in the temple), the teachers of the law (learned legal experts), and the elders (laymen drawn from the wealthy aristocracy) are the very ones Jesus predicted would conspire to kill him (8:31). They challenge Jesus to present his credentials: “By what authority are you doing these things?” (11:28). In Mark’s context, “these things” have to do with Jesus’ actions in the temple, which also include his teaching (cf. John 2:18). The reader knows that Jesus acts by the authority of God. If teachers of the law do not accept his authority to forgive (Mark 2:1–12), however, priests are not likely to accept his authority to condemn the temple.29
In Mark, those who approach Jesus with hostility never receive direct answers or incontrovertible proofs from him. To have the kind of faith that Jesus seeks, one has to infer on one’s own who has authorized Jesus to do and say what he does. As is his custom, Jesus here fends off his adversaries with his own question. He asks them about John’s baptism and twice demands that they “answer” him (11:29, 30). They ask by what authority Jesus could assail the cultic system, and he refers back to the ministry of John the Baptizer. John came preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins that bypassed the temple cult (1:4). It was free; no sacrifice was required except that of a repentant heart. No money exchanged hands. Jesus implicitly aligns himself with the ministry of John, and if John’s ministry was from heaven, then the temple has become passé.30
The authorities attempt to sidestep the challenge, but the damage is done. They debate the options among themselves and worry that their answer might subvert their own domination. If they answer that John’s baptism was “from heaven,” they presume that Jesus will score them for not believing. This option reveals they do not care if someone is commissioned by heaven or not; they will do as they please and ignore him. If they answer that his baptism was “from men,” they will ignite the ire of the crowds, who esteemed John a prophet, and prophets always increased in authority after their deaths. These corrupt leaders do not want to lose credibility with the crowds or alienate them because that may disrupt their scheme to do away with Jesus. Mark’s comment that “they feared the people” (11:32) reveals that their authority derives from humans because they do not fear heaven. These leaders only dread losing face before the crowds and will ultimately lose their souls. They may evade Jesus’ question, but they cannot evade God’s judgment.
Their logic reveals something about Jesus as well as themselves. On the one hand, it underscores how John’s and Jesus’ destinies intertwine (see 1:14; 2:18; 6:14–29; 9:11–13). The reference to “John’s baptism” and the phrase “from heaven” recalls Jesus’ own baptism, when the heavens ripped open, the Spirit descended on him, and the voice from heaven announced that he was “my Son.” On the other hand, their answer, “We don’t know,” reveals that they have no understanding of God’s working and consequently no authority. They must admit that they cannot tell the difference between what is from God and what is from men (or, for that matter, from Satan; see 3:20–21).
Thus these Jewish leaders cannot recognize the portents of the temple’s destruction. Jesus will not answer them directly, only in parables, because they are outsiders. They understand that Jesus’ answer in the parable of the wicked tenants contains an implicit threat to their tenancy of the temple, but they do not understand the significance about giving fruit and killing the beloved son.
Bridging Contexts
JESUS’ LAST MIRACLE in Mark is the only one that brings death, not life. It raises many questions. Jesus can predict precisely where and how the disciples will find a colt, but he is unable to ascertain from a distance whether a tree has anything edible on it or not. He can read people’s thoughts (2:8); why can he not read trees? Why is it that the one who could feed five thousand is stymied by a fig tree? Why does he spitefully take out his frustrations on an inanimate object?
There is a danger for modern readers to shift their sympathy to the tree because they do not appreciate the symbolism. But those at home in the Old Testament know that trees are frequently used as symbols and are portrayed as sensitive to their moral surroundings.31 Instead of recognizing the guilt of an unproductive tree, modern readers tend to be appalled and embarrassed by Jesus’ seemingly irrational and petulant behavior. The cursing of the fig tree is not bizarre, however, if one interprets it as a symbolic action (see Jer. 7:16, 20).32 What happens to the fig tree parallels what happens to the veil in the temple, ripped from top to bottom. No one feels sorry for the veil or for the temple property and grounds committee. They recognize that this event points to the judgment on the temple and illuminates the significance of Jesus’ death. In the same way, the withering of this fig tree to its very root within a day points to God’s judgment on this fruitless temple.
One should therefore no longer title this incident “the cleansing of the temple.” This is a story about the denunciation of religious corruption that defiles even the most holy things. The temple was the central institution of Israel’s religious, political, and economic life. Economically, it dominated more than just the skyline of Jerusalem. It also served as the central bank, the capital building, and Wall Street. For most people living in the city, the temple was their means of employment. Politically, the temple was the power base and source of wealth for the priestly hierarchy, who ruled Judea under the Roman governor. Religiously, the temple marked the separation between the holy and secular, and it became the symbol of God’s abiding favor and presence among the people. The Holy of Holies was regarded as a radioactive core of holiness that could fend off and purify the evil that surrounded Israel. As Waetjen puts it well, the temple was “the one place where heaven and earth are united, that absolute point of reference which, like the North Star, serves as a compass and guarantees a divine security in the passage through life.”33
Later rabbis depict the temple “as the capstone that prevents the abyss from rising again to inundate the world and undo the work of creation.”34 To attack something so important, so holy, so massive took enormous courage and sealed Jesus’ fate. The impact of his denunciation of the temple, however, has lost its force two thousand years later. Most dispassionately assume that the temple was corrupt and deserving of God’s judgment, and they are unable to imagine how they would have felt about Jesus’ actions and words had they witnessed it firsthand. Nothing in our pluralistic culture holds such a dominating place in our lives as the temple did in the lives of Jesus’ contemporaries, but sacred cows still exist for different communities and believers.
To bridge the contexts, therefore, one needs to identify and reflect on parallel phenomena in our own religious and political life. This text should cause us to reexamine the institutions we regard as sacrosanct. Is it all show, all leaves and no fruit? Are the leaders corrupt, intent on furthering their own careers and reputations while feathering their own nests? Does self-interest and popular opinion reign supreme? Does it offer people a false security? Does it allow people to get away with ritual repentance that never affects the heart and how they live? Has it become a source of pride? Is it something that separates us from others and bestows special status only on an elite?
We also have our sacred places, groups, organizations, and ways of doing things. The entire system can become rotten to the core, but the veneer of piety and an aura of holiness make it seem inviolable. It seems a massive mountain, and those who challenge it appear as though they are tilting at windmills. Jesus affirms that for those who have faith, “the world can be remade.”35 One should remember, however, that this will not happen without prayer (see 9:29). One should also take heed. If one takes on religious or political corruption, it has its costs. Those invested in such institutions do not sit idly by when someone challenges their hold on power. It cost Jesus his life.
Jesus has been taking the place of the temple during his ministry. He announces forgiveness, heals the sick, and restores persons to society. He replaces the tables of the money changers, where worshipers had to pay for atonement, with the Lord’s table, where he announces that his free offering of his life provides forgiveness of sins. The pouring out of his blood will replace once and for all the system of animal sacrifice for atonement. His death is where humankind can be reconciled to God.
Contemporary Significance
JESUS AND THE temple. This incident in Mark 11 should cause us to examine the theological and political ramifications of Jesus’ actions and words. (1) Attacking religious corruption is no less dangerous than attacking political corruption. Feelings run deep. People are easily hoodwinked by a show of piety. If one attacked a similar sacred cow today, one could meet with the same results. Martin Luther, in An Open Letter to Pope Leo X (September 6, 1520), protested a similar corruption:
The Roman church, once the holiest of all, has become the most licentious den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death, and hell. It is so bad that even Antichrist himself, if he should come, could think of nothing to add to its wickedness.
(2) Jesus’ attack made clear that God’s requirements are not ritual but ethical. “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Hos. 6:6). Cultic sacrifice is meaningless because everything is a matter of the heart: faith, prayer, and forgiveness of others.
(3) By denouncing the temple, Jesus also denounces the system of domination it represented. Nouwen writes that Jesus’ “appearance in our midst has made it undeniably clear that changing the human heart and changing human society are not separate tasks, but are as interconnected as the two beams of the cross.”36 The temple had become the center of power for the nobility who dominated, controlled, indoctrinated, and exploited others who ranked lower on the social scale. The temple preserved the status quo by extending privileges to the few and by resisting the transforming power of the kingdom of God in society. Jesus did not simply help individual poor people; he went to the very source of much of the injustice in society in his day—the temple and its priestly hierarchy.
Myers argues that Jesus attacked the sacrificial accoutrements that compounded the oppression of the poor (doves were the sacrifice for those who were poor, Lev. 5:7; 12:8; 14:22, 30). He writes that they
represented the concrete mechanisms of oppression within a political economy that doubly exploited the poor and unclean. Not only were they considered second-class citizens, but the cult obligated them to make reparation, through sacrifices, for their inferior status—from which the marketers profited. Jesus action here is fully consistent with his first direct action campaign to discredit the socio-symbolic apparati that discriminated against the “weak” and the “sinners.”37
Myers’ comments are a helpful pointer to why Jesus may have deplored the sacrificial system. The theology buttressing this system said that you are poor, suffering, and oppressed because you have sinned against God. To be forgiven you must offer sacrifice, which ultimately lined the pockets of those primarily responsible for the oppression of the poor. When Jesus pronounced forgiveness of sins by God (Mark 2:5, 10), he bypassed the sacrificial cult and subverted one of the repressive factors in society. If the church becomes a tool in repressing the people, it needs to be condemned.
(4) The temple system fostered xenophobia and ethnocentrism. The strain between Jew and Gentile, male and female, would never be settled (Gal. 3:28) as long as the temple stood with its series of holy barriers, each saying to a different group, “No entry!” Jesus calls for an end to the exclusivism that allows prayer and sacrifice for only a select group. Schweizer argues, “As a place of prayer the temple should reflect the attitude that man has nothing to achieve or offer to God, consequently it should be open to all men.”38 God’s house accepts one and all, including the outcasts of Israel, lepers, menstruants, blind men, eunuchs, and Gentiles—who all come in a spirit of prayer. If any can say of a church fellowship, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for some people to be accepted there,” it needs to be condemned.
(5) Jesus attacks the merchandising of religion that obstructed the access of others to God. No ministry can legitimately take advantage of the presence of God to make a profit or to give the impression that they are hawking a religious commodity.
The power of prayer. People regarded the temple as the place of prayer. Jesus expected it to be a house of prayer for all nations, though he went on to predict its destruction. In his explanation of the fig tree’s withering, Jesus envisioned a future without a temple. But its demise would not bring an end to effective prayer; “there will be a new praying community.”39 As Marshall writes, “The massive, institutionalized power of the existing religious establishment must give way to the kingdom community whose power lies solely in faith-borne prayer.”40 What does prayer look like in this community?
(1) The community needs to pray receptively. Prayer is not imposing our will on God but opening up our lives to God’s will. True prayer is not an endeavor to get God to change his will but an endeavor to release that will in our own lives. Prayer is like a boat hook that a boatman uses to pull the craft to its anchoring place. The boatman does not try to pull the shore to the boat, but the other way around. So in prayer we should draw ourselves to God and not try to pull God down to us. Jesus provides an example of this receptive praying in Gethsemane, when he boldly entreats God but concludes: “Not what I will, but what you will” (14:36).
(2) The people are to pray confidently. This text does not invite one to attempt magical miracles. We are not to test our faith by going to a mountain and saying, “Be moved!” We must also guard against treating prayer as if it were a magic wand that allows us to get whatever we want. When Christians pray with confident faith that their prayers will have power, they can, like Jesus, overcome even the greatest oppression. Nothing is impossible. Prayer is not an engine by which we overcome the unwillingness of God. Jesus taught that God is ever ready to grant what is good for us. We do not need to wheedle or to beg God in prayer. The pagans mistakenly believed that it was the squeaky wheel that would get the grease, and so they plied the diffident gods with extended invocations, sometimes including magical formulae, to solicit their attention (see 1 Kings 18:26–29). Prayer is to be founded on the goodness of God as a loving parent and lays hold on God’s benevolence.
When Christians pray in Jesus’ name, they may be confident of God’s response; but what they ask must be compatible with his teaching, life, and death. Contrast Jesus’ promise, “Whatever you ask” (11:24), with Herod’s empty boast, “Ask me for anything you want” (6:22). There are some things that Christians should not ask and some things that God will not give. As a parent gives to a child from his or her wisdom what the child needs, so does God. Consequently, we may receive answers we do not want, find things we are not looking for, and have doors open we do not expect. Paul prayed three times (time and again) for the thorn in the flesh to be removed. The answer came back that he would have to live with the thorn: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. 12:9). It was not the answer he wanted, but it was an answer that gave him life.
(3) The new community is to pray expectantly and without discouragement. Our prayers should not only focus on our own small worlds and our immediate futures but should fix our attention on the long term and the large scale. How many times have people offered up the prayer “Your kingdom come” over the centuries? That prayer should never fade from the lips and hearts of Christians. Frequently the church is dumbfounded in the face of liberation.
(4) The community is to pray with a forgiving spirit. We cannot make peace with God if we bear animosity for others.