Tuesday, April 12, 2022

Explanatory Notes -- Mark 11:20-33

11:20 And going along early, he saw the fig tree having been withered from [its] roots. 21. And Peter, having remembered, says to him, "Teacher, look. The fig tree that you cursed has withered."

Tuesday. As in the story of the woman with a hemorrhage, Mark has set up a "sandwich" with the story of the fig tree as the bread and Jesus' action in the temple as the meat. [1] Jesus curses the tree, "cleanses the temple," then the fig tree is withered. The implicit effect is that the two stories help interpret each other. Because the fig tree did not bear fruit, Jesus cursed it, and it withered. 

Similarly, because Israel had not born fruit, God would allow the Romans to destroy the city and temple in AD70. Jesus has just quoted Jeremiah 7:11, which was a parallel situation. Because Israel in Jeremiah's day did not bear the fruits of righteousness, God allowed the Babylonians to destroy the city and temple.

The fig tree thus represents Israel. Luke 19 will bring out this dimension even more starkly, even though it omits the story of the fig tree. Jesus weeps at a Jerusalem that would not recognize the things that have to do with peace, resulting in its destruction (Luke 19:41-44).

Peter, the sanguine person who often speaks without thinking, brings to Jesus' attention what he no doubt already knows. We once again remember that, according to tradition, the Gospel of Mark had as its main source the preaching of Peter. The tradition is that Mark helped translate for him into Greek.

[1] In inductive Bible study we call this sort of literary structure an "intercalation."

11:22 And having answered, Jesus says to them, "If you have trust of God, 23. Amen, I say to you that whoever should say to this mountain, 'Be raised and be cast into the sea,' and would not doubt in his [or her] heart but have faith that what s/he says is coming to be, it will be to him [or her].

Mark does not explicitly mention the implications for Jerusalem. Instead, Mark uses the moment as an opportunity to give Jesus' teaching on faith. The expression in 11:22 could be rendered "If you have faith of God." It is not an expression we use, but it is helpful in the interpretation of Paul to know that the expression can indeed mean, "faith in God." 

The expression "trust of God" gets at the meaning of faith in this passage. It is about confidence in God. If someone trusts God enough, they will see miraculous things happen. We know from the whole of Scripture that it is not a guarantee. God sometimes says no to our requests, even when we believe God can do the impossible (e.g., 2 Cor. 12:8-9). 

Jesus highlights the fact that nothing is impossible for God. God has the power. God has the willingness to help. If it is God's will, the only possible flaw is in our faith that it will be so.

11:24 Because of this [fact], I say to you, everything whatever you pray and ask, have faith that you have received, and it will be to you. 

Often, when it is God's will to do the miraculous, the Spirit gives us the surety and confidence that it will be done. We are filled with boldness to pray for healing or that which seems impossible. There is a cooperation between our faith and God's assurance. Our wills are aligned.

The faith to ask and receive is thus not purely a matter of our will or our doing. It is a gift from God for the right moment. That is not to say that there are not moments where God is willing and the only missing piece is whether we will have enough faith. But these verses should not be used to beat yourself (or others) up because the miraculous didn't happen. 

Sometimes, it simply is not God's will to heal. There are those who have led themselves or others to their death because they thought reliance on medicine indicated a lack of faith. There are those who have died feeling a failure of faith because they were not healed. This is simply not how it works. We always must pray, "if the Lord wills" (Jas. 4:15).

25. And whenever you stand praying, forgive if you have something against someone so that your Father in the skies might forgive you your transgressions." 

A prerequisite is that we have forgiven those we have something against. God will not forgive our transgressions if we have not forgiven others for the wrongs they have done against us. To forgive does not mean that we allow them to continue to do us wrong. We can forgive an abuser without staying in an abusive situation. 

Nor do we empower or enable them to harm or do wrong to others. One of the reasons for justice is to protect others from harm, which is a righteous pursuit. Justice does not contradict forgiveness because it protects others from bad behavior and gives the wrongdoer an opportunity to change for their own good.

It will often not be easy to forget that others have done us wrong. Forgiveness frees us from the power that memory has over us. Forgiveness frees us from the fear that memory has over us.

Forgiveness is an openness to the restoration of the offender. We are willing for God to forgive them. We are willing for it to be just as if they had never done the wrong. We are willing to welcome back the prodigal. Indeed, we want them to be restored. We want them to be forgiven by God. We want them to return. We are no longer bitter. We are no longer angry. We have a calm peace about them.

Forgiveness is a miracle of God's grace. We do not typically have the power to forgive others without the help of the Holy Spirit. Often our prayer must be, "Lord, I cannot forgive on my own, but I am willing for you to empower me."

You might notice from the numbering that most modern translations have concluded that 11:26 was not in the original of Mark. It reads, "And if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in the skies forgive your transgressions." There is of course nothing wrong with this verse whatsoever. It is what is found in Matthew 6:15. It just was not likely in the original version of Mark.

What likely happened is that some scribe added this verse so that the saying matched what is in Matthew 6. There would be no reason to take it out, and it is not in the earliest and best manuscripts of Mark. The impulse of the copyists was to harmonize and make the texts smoother, especially as these texts began to be used more formally in worship after Christianity became a legal religion.

11:27 And he comes again into Jerusalem, and in the temple, him walking, the high priests and the scribes and the elders come to him. 28. And they were saying to them, "By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave to you this authority that you should do these things?"

Tuesday of Passion Week is the day that various individuals and groups argue with Jesus. Jewish culture at this time was very much a "debate culture." Anticipating the rabbinic Judaism that would more fully emerge after the destruction of Jerusalem, teachers liked to debate each other over the fine points of the Law. Pharisees debated with Pharisees. Pharisees debated with Sadducees. Essenes debated (perhaps from afar) with Pharisees and Sadducees. It was what we call an "agonistic" culture.

The first question comes to Jesus from Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. The high priests were responsible for order in the temple and city. The Romans held them accountable for that. The elders are on the Sanhedrin, the ruling council. They once again are invested with the leadership of the city. The scribes are lawyer types who are known for their great knowledge of the Law.

They ask about Jesus' legitimacy. Israel was not an individual culture, where individuals just made up their own mind what they thought. It was not a place where you just designate yourself a teacher. What gives you the authority to teach? What gives you the authority to disagree with us? What group are you with? You are not a Pharisee. You are not a Sadducee? Are you with the Essenes? What is up with you?

11:29 And Jesus said to them, "I will ask you one thing. And answer me and I will say to you by what authority I am doing these things. 30. The baptism of John, was [it] from heaven or from mortals? Answer me."

The authority of John came from the Holy Spirit. There are of course debates over whether he might have been an Essene. If so, that fact plays no role in John's authority in Scripture. John is a prophet, anointed directly by God. His credentials were the power of the Holy Spirit. In a group-oriented world, prophets were the individualistic exception. As annoying as they might be, they were group-sanctioned deviants of a sort.

Jesus answers their question with a question. The answer is, "My authority is like the authority of John. It comes directly from God the Father." As with the rest of Jesus' answers, it ingeniously avoids the trap that is set for him because he does not answer them directly.

11:31 And they were debating to themselves, saying, "What should we say? If we say, 'from heaven,' he will say, 'For what reason, therefore, did you not believe him?' 32. But should we say, 'from mortals' ..." -- They feared the people, for all were holding John that he was truly a prophet. 33. And having answered Jesus, they say, "We do not know." 

He puts them into a conundrum. They did not believe in the authority of John, and they certainly didn't want to side with his undermining of Roman-sanctioned authority. John lost his head for criticizing Herod Antipas, who was the designated Roman official over the jurisdiction where John was preaching. Also, John was calling Israel to repent, which was the precursor to the kingdom of God arriving. The Romans liked their kingdom just the way it was.

They do not want to acknowledge John, for that would mean they agree with reform and perhaps revolution. But the people had flocked to him. They did not want to lose the quasi-support of the people. At the very least they did not want the open opposition of the people. 

They play it safe. "We do not know," although everyone knew their true answer.

And Jesus says to them, "Neither am I saying to you by what authority I do these things." 

Jesus wins round one. He answers their question without answering their question. He does not get himself into a position where they can accuse him of sedition or being a false prophet because of his answer. He beats them at their own game.

1 comment:

Martin LaBar said...

Good summary. Thanks.