Our journey through Passion Week continues from yesterday.
1. In Mark, it is on Monday that Jesus takes action in the temple. On Sunday, he arrives late in the day. The next day, he takes the two mile journey from Bethany again. This time, disgusted by what he sees taking place there, he overturns the tables of those who are selling doves and stops commerce from taking place (11:16).
What was so disturbing to him? He quotes Jeremiah 7:11, where the prophet Jeremiah indicted Israel for acting like it was worshiping Yahweh while serving other gods and committing all sorts of injustices. The temple, which should have been a means of approaching God, had become a means of iniquity.
Accordingly, some have suggested that Jesus' action was bigger than a moment of anger. For example, E. P. Sanders suggested that Jesus was symbolically acting out the future destruction of the temple. [1] However, while Jesus does predict the temple's destruction in Mark 13, there is no hint of that message here.
2. Some have pointed out that this commerce must be taking place in the outer Court of the Gentiles. They thus suggest that Jesus is upset that Gentiles cannot properly worship God because of all the distraction of commerce there. "What do the Gentiles matter?" would be the underlying prejudice in play, and Jesus would be upset at the prevention of their worship.
In Matthew, Mark, and Luke (called the "Synoptic" Gospels for the similar way they look at Jesus), Jesus quotes Isaiah 56:7 in addition to Jeremiah 7. The temple is supposed to be a house of prayer, but the activities of selling doves and other sacrificial animals was getting in the way. Mark alone adds the part of Isaiah 56 that says the temple is supposed to be a house of prayer "for all nations." This addition fits with the likelihood that Mark had a non-Jewish audience. Jesus was thinking of Mark's audience long before they even knew about him.
In general, the sale of sacrificial animals was an important part of the temple's operations. Individuals traveling to Jerusalem from far away would not bring doves or goats with them over land and sea. They would need some way to purchase these items in Jerusalem. Futher, the animals needed to meet a certain standard of purity.
Therefore, something beyond the mere sale of animals must have been going on. It must have been something about the way this buying and selling was taking place that angered Jesus. There is the possible location, as we have mentioned. There is the possibility of abuse -- charging unreasonable prices for the animals. And there is the possibility that their activity triggered some broader issue.
3. In fact, all three of these suggestions could be true at the same time. Jesus comes to the temple. It should be a place where Yahweh is worshiped. What does he see? He sees people making money off God. Are they abusing the system? Does it trigger Jesus' critique of the whole leadership of Israel? Does it remind him of Jeremiah's critique of the temple some 650 years earlier?
Mark indicates that the chief priests and scribes immediately want to get rid of him. This fact suggests that his action was broader than a moment of anger. It suggests the leaders knew that his action was aimed at them beyond whatever was happening in the outer court.
On a side note, Jesus demonstrates that it is not a sin to be angry in itself. "In your anger, do not sin," Ephesians 4:26 says. The verse implies that, while anger can easily lead to sin, it is not sinful in itself. Jesus act does not hurt anyone, but it is an act of force. While some like John Howard Yoder have tried to downplay Jesus' use of force in this incident, it seems inescapable that Jesus did use force to stop the use of commerce for at least a moment.
4. The incident with the fig tree brackets Jesus' action in the temple. On Monday morning, while on his way to the temple, Jesus is hungry and observes a fig tree. Seeing that it is without fruit, he curses the tree (11:14). Then on Tuesday morning, on his way into town again, his disciples observe that the tree has withered (11:20).
This incident has sometimes puzzled readers. It seems somewhat random and capricious on Jesus' part, especially since figs may not have been in season (11:13). However, the story seems to play a larger role in Mark's account. You could argue that the incident with the fig tree "sandwiches" Jesus' action in the temple.
Jesus is going to the temple. He curses the fig tree. The next morning the fig tree has withered. This sandwich structure is sometimes called an "intercalation." The "bread" of the sandwich helps inform the meaning of the meat in the middle and vice versa.
In this case, the fig tree can be said to represent Israel. It thus becomes symbolic of the coming judgment and destruction of Israel. Just as the fig tree did not bear fruit and was condemned, so Israel largely did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. While John the Baptist brought a message of repentance, Israel on the whole did not repent. So, like the fig tree, Jerusalem stood judged before God.
The temple would be destroyed by the Romans in AD70.
5. Interestingly, Mark shifts the focus of the incident a little with a dialog between Jesus and the disciples on faith. Matthew and Luke move away from the act's political significance even more. It's possible that this teaching on faith was a known saying of Jesus without a context and that Mark has used this incident as a way to include it in the Gospel.
Jesus' teaching is that, if we do not doubt, our faith can move mountains. He thus encourages his disciples to trust in God when they pray. If our will is aligned with God's will, then we will receive whatever we pray for. Jesus also warns that one must not harbor unforgiveness, though, when we pray. "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us" (Luke 11:4). Luke and Matthew incorporate this saying into the Lord's Prayer.
[1] E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism. So also N. T. Wright.
No comments:
Post a Comment