Explanatory Notes -- Mark 11:12-19

11:12 And on the next day, them having come from Bethany, he was hungry. 13. And having seen a fig tree from afar having leaf, he came [to see] if then he will find something on it. And, having come upon it, he found nothing except leaves, for the season was of figs was not [yet].

In Mark's account, Jesus throws the money changers out of the temple on Monday. However, before he gets there, he encounters a fig tree. We learn two things about Jesus' humanness in these first two verses. First, we recognize that Jesus got hungry. This observation is probably not surprising to anyone.

Secondly, he did not operate with his omniscience while he was on earth. Jesus has to go and see to find out that this fig tree has no figs yet. From a standpoint of orthodox faith, we believe that the second person of the Trinity cannot not be omniscient. However, the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus as operating with omniscience while on earth. We will see this fact again clearly in Mark 13. From a theological standpoint, we conclude that Jesus in some way did not access his full omniscience on earth.

The tree has leaves but does not yet have figs. This suggests a date in late spring, probably before May. Mark gives us no reason to think that there is anything amiss with the tree. It just doesn't give Jesus the answer he wants in relation to his human hunger. 

11:14 And, having answered, he said to it, "No longer forever from you may anyone eat fruit." And his disciples were hearing.

Here we learn something else about Jesus in his humanness. He could get frustrated. As Ephesians makes clear, anger in itself is not sinful (Eph. 4:26). It is what you do when you are angry.

The text clearly wants us to understand that Jesus is frustrated, even though the tree has done nothing wrong. But there is something more going on here than meets the eye. Mark wants us to take away something from this tree. We will see what it is later in the chapter.

11:15 And he comes into Jerusalem. And having entered into the temple, he began to throw out the [ones] selling and those buying in the temple and the tables of money changers and the seats of the ones selling the doves he overturned. 16. And he was not allowing someone to bring a vessel through the temple. 

This more than any other passage demonstrates both that Jesus in his humanness could get angry and also therefore that anger in itself is not sin. Some of course might argue that Jesus staged this action. Some have argued that Jesus is symbolically enacting the future destruction of Jerusalem. [1] Perhaps, although it is not clear from this passage. In this passage, Jesus seems to be genuinely angry at what he sees as something wrong taking place.

He is overturning tables and chasing people. What a sight that must have been! It must not have lasted too long or else the Romans would have gotten involved. Roman soldiers stood in nearby towers overlooking the temple situation to make sure that nothing went amiss. Order and crowd control were high priorities for the Romans. Jesus is able to teach thereafter, again suggesting that this action did not rise to the level of high concern for the Romans.

This action is also a key debate point in conversations about whether Jesus was a pacifist. My own sense is that Jesus did not teach a thoroughgoing pacifism. He seemed to teach that God will perform acts of violence when Jesus returns to judge the world. The book of Revelation is full of violence in judgment, and John the son of Zebedee would surely have known if Jesus absolutely opposed its use. 

Jesus did teach love of enemy, so we must be careful not to try to wiggle out of his instruction to turn the other cheek. But Jesus arguably did not teach an absolute prohibition of force. It was not time to fight when he was on earth. Christians are people of peace. In most cases, martyrdom is more noble than a just fight. Those who argue for pacifism are more right than wrong about the tenor of Jesus' teaching. But he arguably did not consider it an absolute.

[1] E.g. E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism.  

17. And he was teaching and saying to them, "Has it not been written, 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?' But you have made it a den of plunderers."

Mark gives us hints at why Jesus was so upset at the buying and selling. On the one hand, such buying and selling was necessary. If someone traveled from Italy for the Passover, they were scarcely going to bring their own goat with them. Animals needed to be available, and currency needed to be exchanged.

Still, the sight must have sickened Jesus. This is a place for prayer, and the main thing going on in that courtyard was commerce. The temple of Lord had become the temple of mammon. 

Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7, which prophesies that many who are not Israelites will flock to worship the Lord at the temple. Mark is the only Gospel that includes the part of the verse that says, "for all nations." Writing primarily for Gentiles, Mark no doubt wanted his audience to know that Jesus was sticking up for them long before they heard the good news.

Some have indeed argued that the core problem was that this buying and selling was likely taking place in the Court of the Gentiles. The situation must have looked to say, "Gentiles don't matter here. This is a fine place for us to turn a shekel in the space outside where the real people of God go in." Mark and the other Gospels of course do not explicitly say anything like that.

Then he alludes to Jeremiah 7:11. This is the passage where Jeremiah warns Israel that they cannot expect God's favor just because his temple is in Jerusalem. God will not defend Israel if they do injustice. Israel doesn't have a "get out of righteousness card" just because they are his chosen people. If they are unjust, God will withdraw his favor and allow them to be destroyed. [2] 

Jeremiah critiques the Israel of his day for their oppression of foreigners, their treatment of orphans and widows, their shedding of innocent blood, their going after other gods (7:6). They have figuratively made God's "house" into a den where violent people hide, plunderers, people who lie in wait to do violence to the unsuspecting and innocent.

It is easy to imagine that the moneychangers, like many toll collectors, were making a huge profit off a captive market. With a near monopoly on the sale of "clean" animals and being the nearly exclusive place to get temple coins, they had sincere worshipers over a barrel. Given Jesus' general view of the worldliness of money, it is not hard to imagine he found the scene infuriating. [3]

[2] This is relevant to a Christian attitude toward the nation of Israel today. Because of its place in salvation history, Israel deserves perpetual honor (cf. Rom. 9:4-5). But this fact does not mean that the world suspends all moral critique any more than toward ourselves or any nation. From Paul's standpoint, Israel has not yet arrived at Romans 11:26. 

[3] See notes below on Mark 12:17.

11:18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard and were seeking how they might destroy him, for they were fearing him, for the whole crowd was astonished at his teaching. 19. And when it became late, they were going out of the city.

The Jewish leaders have a nice racket going on. The Sadducees have influence and power. They are the class from which high priests are often taken. They are in favor with the Romans. They have the most to lose if Jesus creates unrest.

The scribes are the experts on the Law. In a culture where religion is the center of everything, the people who interpret God and the Scriptures are very powerful indeed. They decide what the Bible means for the people. Jesus threatens that oh-so-enjoyable status quo. Jesus has no "formal" authority, but his favor with the people gives him incredible "informal" power.

For now, they have to keep quiet. But they are waiting for an opportune moment when the tables might turn. Jesus and his followers are only in the city during the day. At night, they go back to Bethany.