Most scholars believe that the book of Mark was the first gospel written, probably around 65 AD. There is strong evidence that Mark relied heavily on the eyewitness testimony of the Apostle Peter. Peter looms large in Mark’s narrative, being mentioned much more often compared to the other gospels. Peter is both the first & the last disciple Mark mentions in his narrative. In ancient literature, writers often placed the name of a key eyewitness at the beginning & end of their work, thereby revealing the identity of the primary source from whom the author had gotten his story. (This technique is called a literary “inclusio.”) Additionally, several of the early church fathers (particularly Bishop Papias of Hierapolis c60-135 AD) confirm that Mark’s gospel was based on the preaching of Peter.
Mark sometimes used another literary technique which is appropriately called a “sandwich.” The author begins by telling part of a story, but then pauses & inserts a second story before coming back to finish the first. Ancient authors used this technique in order to indicate that two events, which might at first seem unrelated, were in fact closely connected. The central story (the meat) helps reveal the meaning of the surrounding material (the bread). Likewise, the surrounding narrative provides insight into the proper interpretation of the central story.
The quintessential example of a Markan sandwich is found in Mark 11:12-25.
Just after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus withdrew to the nearby village of Bethany. The next morning, Jesus & his disciples headed back to Jerusalem: “The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing 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. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.”
Mark does not immediately reveal the outcome of the Lord’s curse upon the fig tree. Instead, he pauses in order to describe one of the most famous episodes of Jesus’ career: what is often referred to as the “cleansing” of the temple.
Mark’s narrative then returns to the subject of the tree: “In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
The account of the fig tree strikes many Bible readers as exceedingly strange. Why would Mark think that this would be important enough to include in his gospel? Surely there are much more important matters than could have been addressed? Why waste ink describing the fate of a single fruitless tree?
The incident seems even more odd considering that it was not even the season for figs. Why would Jesus curse a plant with no conscious will? And why curse a tree for failing to bear fruit, precisely when it’s not the season for figs? Was Jesus just being petulant?
These questions have very good answers, which we shall elucidate in the next blog. But in order to grasp the importance of the fig tree, we must first address the “meat” of Mark’s sandwich – the dramatic confrontation which took place in the temple courts.
“On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts 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, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And 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.’”
Many Christians fail to grasp the full significance of Jesus’ action in the temple courts.
We should first note that Jesus’ actions were not a spontaneous fit of pique. He didn’t just stroll into the temple courts, observe the corruption & suddenly decide to start upending tables. On the contrary, this moment was carefully orchestrated well in advance.
Mark gives us a clue by informing his readers that after the triumphal entry, Jesus had already gone into the temple courts, “looked around at everything” and quietly left. (Mark 11:11) Clearly, if Jesus’ actions were the result of a spontaneous burst of anger, this disturbance would have happened the previous evening.
It makes much more sense to recognize that Jesus had been to the temple many times before and knew exactly what was going on there. Jesus had carefully thought through what he wanted to do, but was waiting for the right moment in order to maximize the impact of his demonstration.
What message was Jesus’ sending?
The key is to understand the scripture which Jesus quotes, Isaiah 56:7: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” Jesus saw that Israel had been called to fulfill the role marked out for humanity from the beginning. Humans were made to reflect the image of God, governing the creation wisely so that the world might flourish. God had rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt & brought them into the promised land. He had given them the law, so that they might worship him alone & live in obedience to his commands. If the people of Israel were faithful to the covenant, they would bring blessing upon themselves.
But God’s purposes were never limited to Israel alone. They had been called, not just for their own sake, but to be the instrument that God would use in order reveal himself to all nations. By quoting Isaiah’s words, Jesus was emphasizing Israel’s vocation to be the light of the world. The temple was not just for the sake of ethnic Jews. Rather, it was to be the place where people of every nation might come and encounter the God who made all things.
Like the prophets of old, Jesus recognized that Israel had failed in her divine vocation. Instead of being the light of the world, Israel had been stumbling about in the darkness. Like the idolatrous pagan nations around her, Israel was manifestly guilty of injustice, violence & immorality. Because of her unfaithfulness, Israel was under God’s curse.
Most Christians think far too narrowly about “the cleansing of the temple.” This phrase which has been used by countless pastors and is frequently employed as the section heading for this passage. But it must be noted that the actual text says nothing about “cleansing.” Unfortunately, this terminology is misleading. “Cleansing” suggests that Jesus merely intended to mop up a group of greedy & dishonest money changers. But Jesus’ words & actions went far beyond the precincts of the temple itself. How so?
The temple in Jerusalem was central to the life & purpose of Israel. The United States has several iconic buildings which Americans readily recognize. The White House famously serves as the Presidential residence, Congress assembles at the Capital Building and the War Department operates from the Pentagon. But these buildings carry meaning far beyond just the brick & mortar of which they are composed. They’re symbols of our entire nation. For millions of Americans, these structures represent freedom, prosperity & justice – the qualities which have made our nation great.
For the nation of Israel, the temple was like the White House, the Capital & the Pentagon all rolled into one. It symbolized Israel’s calling as the covenant people of the one true God.
The moneychangers in the temple courts were undoubtedly guilty of greed & dishonesty. But they were only a symptom which revealed a much deeper sickness. By temporarily halting the temple worship & sacrifice, Jesus was acting like one of the prophets of old. He was symbolically pronouncing God’s curse upon the nation Israel as a whole. In other words, Jesus had not come to cleanse the temple but to condemn it. And not just the temple, but everything that the temple represented.
What did Jesus think his protest would accomplish?
Jesus was under no illusion that his brief protest would somehow cure everything that had gone wrong in Israel. He didn’t even think that his disruption would put a stop to the corruption which transpired every day in the temple courts. We can be sure that the money changers soon regathered their coins & set their tables back in place.
Jesus knew that redemption of Israel would require something far more drastic. Israel had been infected by dark forces which impelled her to sin & rebellion against God. She stood under God’s curse. Jesus believed that he was the Messiah, the king of Israel, the one who represented his people. Israel’s deliverance would only come about through his own suffering & death. By taking the curse upon himself, his people could be set free.
Jesus knew that his actions in the temple would provoke a violent response from the authorities. It would surely lead to his arrest & condemnation. And that, of course, is exactly what happened. Paradoxically, Jesus’ symbolic condemnation of the Israel was the event which led to her redemption.
