Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in ... · Time for Figs, Temple...

Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, andHouses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25

J. R. DANIEL KIRKFuller Theological SeminaryMenio Park, CA 94026

THE SCHOLARLY LITERATURE on Mark 11:12-25 is rife with attempts to makesense of its numerous enigmas, and it is replete with pronouncements that suchsense is not to be had. Interpreters have wondered at the ctirsing of the fig treeitself, Mark's counterintuitive note that Jesus found no figs because it was not thetime for figs, the ensuing discussion of prayer that appears to epitomize nonsequitur, the significance of the temple action that is enveloped in the strange storyof the fig tree, and the teaching material that accompanies the temple clearing.' Inboth the episode of the fig free and the temple-clearing pericope a chief factor ofinterpretive difficulty lies in the apparent dissonance between the voice of the nar-rator and the teachings of Jesus. Can Jesus' actions in the temple be interpreted inkeeping with his citations of Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11? Are his sayings on faith, prayer,and forgiveness in any way related to the cursing of the free?

Although redactional studies have continued to play a significant role inscholars' perceptions of the tensions in the text, devoting attention to redactionalseams has hindered the articulation of a compelling, integrated reading of the prod-uct that the compiler (or compilers) has produced. Building on these and other pre-cursors, in the current study I will argue for a literary coherence to the passage asa whole. Mark has crafted a story that depicts the communify of Jesus' followers

I wish to thank Marianne Meye Thompson for comments in review of an earlier draft of thisessay.

' The challenges presented by this passage, with particular attention to the fig tree, are exhaus-tively chronicled by Christfried Böttrich, "Jesus und der Feigenbaum: Mk 11:12-14;20-25 in derDiskussion," NovTi9 (1997) 328-59.

509

510 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 74,2012

performing the function of the eschatological temple of God. That community isthe house of prayer for all peoples, the place of eschatological in-gathering thatendures after God's judgment comes upon the bandits' den that is the Jerusalemtemple.

By focusing on the implications of the teaching material in Mark 11:17 as itfalls within a narrative that predicts the temple's destruction, including the storyof the cursed fig free (11:12-14, 20-23), a unified understanding of the entire pas-sage will become possible. Rightly apprehending the dissonance between Isaiah's"house of prayer" (Mark 11:17; Isa 56:7) and Jeremiah's "den of brigands" (Mark11:17; Jer 7:11) provides a window through which we can see Mark's consistentnarrative about the temple's looming judgment and the communities of faith thatwill replace it (11:22-25).2

The importance of these biblical citations for reading Mark's (or the historicalJesus') story aright has often been contested. E. P. Sanders suggests that they con-fradict the symbolism of the historical Jesus' prophetic act, which was intended todemonstrate the temple's destruction.^ Joel Marcus asserts that John's allusion toZech 14:21 is more to the point of Jesus' actions than Mark's choice of texts.''AndAdela Yarbro Collins contends that the saying in Mark "does not fit Jesus' actionsvery well," coming as it does in a narrative with no obvious concern for the templeor gentiles, and in a physical location that was not yet referred to as "the Court ofthe Gentiles."^ In confrast to this scholarly chorus, I will argue that the dual citationreinforces the conclusion that Jesus' action prophesies the temple's destruction.Moreover, the verses lead to such a conclusion even within the framework ofrestoration eschatology that Sanders himself uses to explain the deed.

The interpretation of the teaching material in Mark 11:17 that I propose willnot only explain how the verse is integral to the narrative of the temple-clearingincident; it will also bring into sharper focus the intercalation of the episode withinthe ctirsing of the fig free. In particular, by giving due place to the biblical allusionsin the temple-clearing episode, two peculiar aspects of its surrounding story willfind ready explanation. First, why does Mark tell us that it was not the time for

2 Richard B. Hays ("Can the Gospels Teach Us How to Read the Old Testament?" Pro Eccle-sia 11 [2002] 402-18) offers the suggestion that these verses are crucial for understanding the peri-cope as a whole, a hint worked out in greater detail in the current article.

' E. P. Sanders, Jei«.s and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 66; he avers that the saying,if original, would indicate that trade and sacrifice were what bothered Jesus, a position he is at painsto refute on pp. 61-71. See Karen J. Wenell, "Contested Temple Space and Visionary KingdomSpace in Mark 11-12," Biblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 323-37, for a discussion of Mark's contrastof the temple in Jerusalem with the sacred space of the kingdom of God more in step with the per-spective offered here.

•* Joel Marcus, Mark 8-16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AnchorYale Bible 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 788.

^ Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 526.

HOUSES OF PRAYER IN MARK 11:12-25 511

figs (11:13)? And, second, why does the explanation of the cursed fig tree seem todevolve into a tangential saying on the power of prayer?

I. The Context of Jesus' Scriptural Citatiotis: Cleansitig orProphesyitig Destructioti?

In his classic study in 1980, William R. Telford explores the cursing of thefig tree as the key to understanding Mark's rendition of Jesus' actions in the temple.Together they symbolize God's coming judgment.* Telford not only argues thatthe fig tree itself represents Israel, with a special emphasis on the temple, but alsosuggests that Jesus' explanatory remark about commanding the mountain to becast into the sea speaks directly of judgment coming upon the Temple Mount(11:23).^ From a redaction-critical perspective, a majority of Marcan scholars nowagree that the symbolic intent of depicting the temple's destruction is establishedby the intercalation of the temple-clearing hicident with the cursing of the fig tree.^

In her recent commentary, however, Collins has demurred. She draws atten-tion to studies that suggest intercalation to be a function of the essentially oralnature of reading in the ancient world.^ She concludes from these studies that suchliterary techniques are the author's way of aiding the listener and that therefore"critics should be cautious about exaggerating the degree to which the intercalatedstories are intended to interpret one another"'" She goes on to suggest that, how-ever illuminating such connections might be to the modem reader, they are notlikely to refiect the author's intention."

Collins's conclusion, however, is precisely the opposite of the argumentsmade in the study she cites to make her case, Paul J. Achtemeier's "Omne VerbumSonat."^^ The argument that Achtemeier mounts relies heavily on the fact thatancient writing lacked the conventions of punctuation and grouping that we use in

^ William R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Fig Tree (JSNTSup 1 ; Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1980).

' Ibid., 58-59; cf N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. \, Jesus andthe Victory of God (Mmne&poWs: Fortress, 1996)422.

* E.g., John R Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2, Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New York:Doubleday, 1994) 886-88; Brendan Byrne, A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark'sGo.s/7e/(CoUegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2008) 177-81 ; Marcus, Mori, 788-96.

'Collins,Mari:, 524-25.I" Ibid., 525." Ibid.' Paul J. Achtemeier, "Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment

of Late Western Antiquity," Jß£ 109 (1990) 3-27. Even more strongly than by Collins, the idea thatthe fig tree is supposed to represent the temple's destruction is opposed by Robert H. Gundry (Mark:A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993] 671-82). His argu-ments, like Collins's, concentrate on what could be expected of the reader, and they, too, fall underthe weight of Achtemeier's study.


modem literature to convey "information about the organization and developmentof the content."'^ Achtemeier argues that oral indicators such as the inclusio aregeared toward providing audible indications of how the information is structured,similar to the way in which a paragraph might function in later written communi-cation.''' The conclusion to be drawn, against Collins, is that oral indicators of nar-rative structure such as intercalation strengthen, rather than diminish, the likelihoodthat the two stories constituting a Marcan sandwich are intended by the author tobe mutually interpreting. Like sentences in a common paragraph, the two storiesshould be understood and interpreted together.'^ Thus, from studies on orality aswell as from a literary point of view, the interpretive significance of intercalationhas been well established,'* and in the particular case of Mark 11:12-25 the cursingof the fig tree points us squarely toward prophetic destruction as the intentionbehind Jesus' temple-clearing action.'^

In addition to Telford's redaction-critical approach, historical Jesus studieshave also sought to establish that Jesus' actions in the temple intend to demonsfrateprophetically the temple's coming destruction. Sanders championed this perspec-tive, summing up his study with these words:

Thus we conclude that Jesus publicly predicted or threatened the destruction of thetemple, that the statement was shaped by his expectation of the arrival of the eschaton,that he probably also expected a new temple to be given by God from heaven, andthat he made a demonstration which prophetically symbolized the coming event.'*

In particular, Sanders is keen to distance such a radical statement of judgment fromthe tamer notion that Jesus was attempting to cleanse the temple (or show that itneeded cleansing).'^ These conclusions are driven most strongly by two relatedpieces of data. First, the exchange of money and selling of pure animals in or nearthe temple were virtual necessities; and, second, the action of Jesus is not directed

' Achtemeier, "Omne," 17.'"Ibid., 17-18.' This, in fact, seems to be Achtemeier's own conclusion ("Omne," 21-22). Another line of

argument to the contrary, that judgment on the temple is not how Mark's redactional hand is at workin the text, is offered by Philip F. Esler, "The Incident of the Withered Fig Tree in Mark 11 : A NewSource and Redactional Explanation," J^AT 28 (2005) 41-67. His insistence that the sandwichmerely refiects Mark's source, in which the fig tree incident was already spread over two days,unduly discounts the importance of the sandwiching technique throughout the evangelist's work.

'* On the importance of intercalation in Mark's literary technique, see Scott G. Brown, "Mark11:1-12:12: A Triple Intercalation?" CBQ 64 (2002) 78-89.

" More recently, the literary resonance between the crucifixion and the temple scene has beenput forward as further supporting evidence that the destruction of the temple is in view; see J. BradleyChance, "The Cursing of the Temple and the Tearing of the Veil in the Gospel of Mark," BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 268-91.

'* Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 75; see also Wright, Je5w.s, 421-24." Sanders, Je.jM.s and Judaism, 61-63, 75.


against the priesthood in particular.^" Although Sanders is arguing at the level ofthe historical Jesus, he raises important considerations for making sense of Mark.

Sanders rightly presents us with an either/or. Although a prophecy of destmc-tion can always be attended with the caveat that such disaster will be averted ifthe people repent, without such an out clause, a prophecy of coming destmcfion isnot simultaneously an attempt to reform.^' The idea that Jesus is both prophesyingthe temple's destmction and calling for it to be cleansed holds together two incom-patible outcomes.^2 Sanders's placement of Jesus' act within the orb of Jewishrestoration eschatology provides the historical framework for making sense of theaction as a prophetic demonstration of destmction—a signal that the judgmentantecedent to ñiU and final restoration is drawing near.

II. Scriptures of Exile and Restoration

Sanders studies the pericopes from the perspective of the historical Jesus, andone key component of his reconstmction is his elimination of the sayings materialin Mark 11:17 and parallels. Those biblical cifafions, he claims, evince fhe evan-gelists' embarrassment about Jesus' prophecy of the temple's destmction, providinginstead the softened picture of a Jesus who wants to purify the temple from

2° Ibid., 63-66; cf Wright, Jesus, 423; Jacob Neusner, "Money Changers in the Temple: TheMishnah's Explanation," NTS 35 (1989) 287-90. Sanders's second point might be contested. It isclear in Mark's narrative that the action stands as a direct challenge to the chief priests as well asthe scribes (11:18,27). Craig A. Evans's substantive critique of Sanders's defense of the priests isapt, even if one does not wish to follow Evans back to the "cleansing" interpretation ("Jesus' Actionin the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?" CBQ 51 [ 1989] 237-70).

^' The way this is framed, looking at two potential outcomes, is the point at which I part withNicholas Perrin's attempt to hold the two ideas of "cleansing" and "destruction" together in Jesusthe Temple (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 89. He differentiates them as though the onerefers to ethics and the other to eschatology. The point, however, is not the manner in which Jesusspeaks or whether he sees certain actions as essential. The difference between cleansing andprophetic destruction is what outcome Jesus meant to evoke or proclaim: exhortation to a changeof life or proclamation of coming destruction.

" Marcus contests Sanders's either/or, suggesting that Jesus may have found fault with thebuying and selling going on in the temple and that Mark might be depicting both an attempt atreform that would inevitably fail and the temple's coming destruction (Mark, 782-83). But whenMarcus subsequently comments on the temple clearing, he says that Mark's redactional activity,sandwiching the clearing in the middle of the tree-cursing, indicates that Mark has cast "the sanc-tuary in the role of the fruitless tree, barren and cursed" (Mark, 789). Marcus continues to work outthe notion that the fig tree is representative of the temple that will be destroyed in 70 C.E., concluding,"Jesus has predicted the Temple's destruction in symbolic words . . . he will now act it out beforetheir eyes, in a parabolic demonstration" (Mark, 790). Thus, despite his arguments to the contrary,the majority of Marcus's work commends Sanders's position that Jesus intended to prophesy thetemple's destruction, not effect its purification. To similar effect is the mixed language of purificationand looming destruction in the comments by R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (NIGTC; GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 437.


As noted above, recent commentators join Sanders in perceiving suchdissonance between the action and the biblical citations, even when they do not soclearly apprehend "destruction" as the interpretation of Jesus' act. But severalpieces of evidence work against the claim that Mark sought to soften the meaningof Jesus' prophetic demonstration.^'' The first is that the intercalation of the storywithin the narrative of the fig tree shows that Mark was not skittish about the ideaof a prophesied destruction. Moreover, in the immediately subsequent text, Jesusresponds to the leaders' unwillingness to discuss John the Baptist's authority bytelling the parable of the vineyard, itself a stark parable of judgment and destruction(12:1-12).^^ Even more directly, 13:1-2 clearly indicates that Mark's Jesus antici-pated the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in particular. Finally, and per-haps most important, discounting the connection between Jesus' prophecy ofdestruction and the OT texts, cited fails to give due attention to the ftinction per-formed by the verses in their OT contexts.^* When we read the citations in dialoguewith their sotirces, we discover that they fit Mark's context like a glove and providea lens for making sense of the whole. I will begin by demonstrating how a closeintertextual reading of the OT citations points in one possible direction for inter-preting Jesus' actions. I will then turn my attention to the other elements in Mark'sstory that help cement this interpretation as lying along the trajectory that Markhimself has plotted.

A. Isaiah 56:7

After overturning the tables and hindering those who would carry vesselsthrough the temple, Mark depicts Jesus teaching ftom Isa 56:7, "Is it not writtenthat 'my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the gentiles [ndaiv TOÎÇ

ë0vEaiv]'?" Dissatisfaction with this verse as a suitable teaching to accompanyJesus' action springs fi"om several sotirces. As indicated above, Sanders's historical-Jesus approach leads him to see the verse as indicating an anachronistic concernwith the gentiles, and perhaps one that points in the direction of Jesus' desiringthe temple to be cleansed rather than prophesying its destruction.^' Collins simi-larly sees as anachronistic the gentile concern and even the idea that the court inwhich the action was performed being identified with the gentiles.^^ Marcusregards the verse as befitting Mark's more inclusive stance toward the gentiles butnot entirely appropriate to Jesus' actions themselves.^'

•' Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 66-67.2" See Evans, "Jesus'Action," 238-39.25 Ibid., 240-41." Hays ("Can the Gospels?" 408 n.l 1) rightly critiques Sanders on this point.2' Sanders, Je.su.s and Judaism, 68.28 Collins, Mark, 526.2'Marcus,Maryt, 788, 791-93.


Although Mark's later hand may very well be in evidence in the impositionof the OT verses in the story, I do not agree that they fransform the meaning of theaction from prophetic destruction to temple cleansing. To a story that Mark himselfhas likely framed with a withering fig tree so as to indicate its significance as aprophetic destruction, it is much more likely that Mark has added two biblical allu-sions that support, rather than mitigate against, this same meaning.^"

In fact, the accusation that a place has failed to live up to the vision of Isa56:7 is singularly appropriate to explain an enacted prophecy of the temple'sdestruction. Isaiah 56 begins with a call to "maintain justice, and do what is right,"in light of a coming act of deliverance: "for soon my salvation will come, and mydeliverance will be revealed" (v. 1 NRSV). Sabbath keeping, in particular, lies atthe heart of faithftal obedience to God and becomes a means by which even for-eigners (Ó aWoyeviii;; v. 3) can be joined to God's people (w. 2, 3, 4, 5). But thisgathering, within which the temple becomes "a house of prayer for all people,"still lies in the future (v. 8). In fact, in the Isaiah text Israel's leadership seems tobe a singular obstacle in the path of such a gathering: "Israel's sentinels are blind,they are all without knowledge" (v. 10 NRSV). This prophecy, likely spoken tothose who had already been restored from Babylonian exile, indicates that Isa 56:7is part of a vision for the as-yet-future intervention of God to save Israel.-" Suchan intervention becomes a part of Israel's ongoing expectations for the futtire inthe Second Temple period.

In early Jewish literature we see several clear markers that both a new templeitself and such a place as the locale for gentile inclusion were common expecta-tions. Thus we find in Tobit, which is variously dated from the third to second cen-tury B.C.E., the expectation of a coming restoration that includes a glorious templeand gathering of a people who will include gentiles (13:8-11; 14:5-7). The AnimalApocalypse of 7 Enoch, written during the upheaval under Antiochus IVEpiphanes, similarly attests to this pairing of hopes. The old temple is torn down,replaced by a new one to which not only Israel but also all people are drawn as anew humanity is formed (7 Enoch 90:28-39). Without reference to gentiles beinggathered in, the Temple Scroll from Qumran anticipates a new temple in the escha-ton, ftill of the glory of God (llQT" [11Q19] 29.7-10). From various moments inthe history of Second Temple Judaism, and from different theological perspectives,each of these texts testifies to the expectation that the second temple is not the

•"* Other narrative indications that Mark sees a deep critique of the temple are explored byJohn Paul Heil, "The Narrative Strategy and Pragmatics of the Temple Theme in Mark," CBQ 59(1997)76-100.

^' Perrin (Jesus the Temple, 85) offers a similar reading of Isaiah but reads Jesus' words as anindication that "the future is now present." Such an implication, however, undermines the functionof the verse as an indictment against Jesus' contemporaries. It is, in fact, the failure of the temple toevince this reality, demonstrating that it is not yet the time of eschatological blessing, that accountsfor its presence in the text.


temple anticipated in Israel's prophetic tradition of the nation's glorious restoration.Jews were looking to the future as the time when Isaiah's and Ezekiel's visions ofthe future would come to pass.

Fitting comfortably within this stream of early Jewish assessment of the sec-ond temple, Jesus' critique draws on the prophetic visions of what was to come inorder to declare that Isaiah's glorious expectations are not met in Herod's temple.This temple is not the house of prayer for all the nations about which Isaiah writes,not the signal of Israel's full and final restoration. In fact, the verse cited is not anisolated verse about the temple but sits within some of the most important biblicalmaterial from which Israel's eschatological expectations developed.

Sanders himself has made an argument about Jewish eschatological expecta-tion within which this citation fits perfectly.^^ Isaiah 56 is one biblical text thathelps give rise to the expectation that the temple will be renewed at some point inthe nature as part of the complex of expectations that Sanders labels "restorationeschatology." This is what we see refiected in the Tobit, 1 Enoch, and Qumranpassages cited above.^^ Indeed, Second and Third Isaiah populate the bulk of thelist of verses that Sanders gathers to point to Israel's hope that the temple wouldbe rebuilt, that the scattered of Israel would be restored, and that the gentiles wouldbe subjected to (or, we might add, incorporated into) Israel.^'' By citing a versethat was read within the framework of Jewish restoration eschatology, Mark's Jesusasserts that the Herodian temple is not the house of glory that the prophets antici-pated. Jesus, in keeping with some ofhis contemporaries' expectations that Godwas going to (destroy the second temple and) establish another, proclaims that thetemple in Jemsalem is not the prophesied, glorious house.-' Israel is not a peopleupon whom the eschatological age of blessing has come, or is just about to come,without further ado. Though Jesus is depicted as the Davidic Messiah in his "tri-umphal entry," it is not as a Messiah who has come to vindicate the status quoamong the Jewish leadership and its temple.

Thus, Jesus' citation of Isa 56:7 should not be read simply as a statementabout a desired state of affairs that Jesus did not find when he entered the templeprecincts.^* Nor is it likely to be simply about the means by which gentiles mightbe joined to the people of God, namely, by adopting Jewish practices.-'^ It is a verseembedded in a passage that anticipates the coming of an age of eschatological,

•' Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 77-90." Ibid., 79." Ibid.^ Here is where Perrin's view does not look sufficiently forward to a yet-to-come time of

restoration (Jesus the Temple, 85).^ Mary Healy (The Gospel of Mark [Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture; Grand

Rapids; Baker Academic, 2008] 228) sees the activity in the Court of Gentiles squeezing the nationsout from the worship of Israel's God. Cf Byrne, Costly Freedom, 180.

" So Collins, WorA:, 530-31.


glorious restoration.-'^ The citation of Isa 56:7 serves as a word of prophetic judg-ment that Herod's temple does not fill the role of God's promised place of dwellingwith God's people.

The eschatological overtones of Isaiah 56, as it would likely be heard withinthe larger mafrix of early Jewish restoration eschatology, provide a key marker forunderstanding the function of Mark 11:17 within the temple-clearing narrative.Not only is Isaiah 56 a passage that refers to the eschatological temple and thefinal ingathering of God's people; it is also one that predicts a place for gentilesamong that eschatological people of God.-'' Jesus, while prophesying the temple'sdestruction through his actions, tells the people that this temple is not a place wherethe nations gather for prayer. Taken together, this action and his proclamation donot suggest that the precincts should be cleansed for the purpose of greater gentileinclusion. Instead, Jesus is demonsfrating that the current temple is not the one towhich gentiles will be drawn. Though in itself the verse from Isaiah 56 could goeither in the direction of cleansing or in the direction of destruction, in the contextof the overturned tables, the cursed fig tree, and the subsequent quotation ofJeremiah (see below), we should resist the notion that Jesus is seeking "to bringabout Isaiah's vision of the eschatological role of the temple.'"*" No, Jesus is notsfriving to bring it about but declaring in the sfrongest terms that the current templedoes not, and will not, attain to it. A day of judgment is coming that will entail thetemple's destruction; something else will fulfill the role of "house of prayer for allthe gentiles." What that "something else" is, however, the reader does not yet know.

Rikki E. Watts has argued differently. Though agreeing with the eschatolog-ical bent of Jesus' action, as evidenced through the larger context of the Isaian cita-tion and the future indication of the verb KX^ÖiiaeTai ("shall be called"). Watts seesJesus' action as one that "orients the Temple toward its final goal.'"" But in basinghis cleansing-oriented view on the fact that Jesus does not speak of the temple'sreplacement, he underplays the destructive implications of the actions that Jesus'words are interpreting. This temple building will not ftilfill God's eschatologicalpurpose, as 13:1-2 subsequently makes clear. Watts's assessment of this verse as

^' Gundry downplays the eschatological overtones here, arguing that the scenario differs onthis point from the "end-times woes" with which the temple's destruction is associated in chap. 13(Mark, 675). His arguments miss the inaugurated nature of the eschatological context of Jesus' min-istry: Jesus' ministry is the time of God's visitation, and the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E. isbeing written into that apocalyptic drama. On the pervasiveness of this theme throughout the NT,see Dale C. Allison, Jr, The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion andResurrection of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

2' See Hays, "Can the Gospels?" 407.'"' France, Mark, 446. Evans ("Jesus'Action," 239-40) rightly critiques Sanders for overlook-

ing the significance of the fig-tree frame when judging Mark's interpretation of the temple-clearingincident.

"" Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark (rev. updated ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-demic, 2000) 324.


pointing toward a "cleansing" also stands in some tension with his later argumentthat the femple as presenfly consfituted sfands under God's judgmenf and may, infact, soon be destroyed.''^

To say that the current temple is not "a house of prayer for all the gentiles" isto give a partial answer to fhe quesfion, "Whaf does it mean fhaf fhe time has beenfulfilled, and fhe reign of God af hand?" That partial answer is, "If is nof yet thetime of eschafological blessing." Some ofher divine infervention will be requiredfor God's promises fo Israel regarding its temple to be fulfilled. The next biblicalallusion furfhers fhe poinf fhat fhe fime of blessing is fufure and fhaf a fime of judg-ment is at hand.

B. Jeremiah 7:11

If the inferprefation of Isa 56:7 in the context of Mark 11 has been overlyinfluenced by the possibility fhaf fhe acfion took place in the Court of the Gentiles,the interpretation of Jer 7:11 has been overly influenced by the fact that Jesus over-turns fhe fables of money changers and those engaged in commerce. The confrasfMark 11:17 draws fo the temple being a "house of prayer for all nations" is that ithas been made "a den of brigands" (omiXiov XriaTtöv), echoing Jeremiah's owntemple sermon. This stafement in particular leads Sanders fo fhe conclusion fhafthe Synoptic Gospels themselves transform the story of prophetic destmction intoa story of cleansing.''^

The notion fhat omiXiov Xriartüv refers to exforfionisf practices within thetemple gates can be sustained only so long as the narrative context hinders ourseeing fhe meaning of ÜTUÍXIOV. A "den" (be it of thieves or of brigands) is not aplace where robberies are committed, but a place to which nefarious charactersrefreaf for safefy after commifting their acts of banditry or robbery. If the presenceof this phrase is meant to provide an interpretive grid for an action that demon-strates Jesus' desire to ptirify the temple of its cormpt business practices, it doesso not only at the expense of fhe likely historical meaning of the action and theapparent literary significance of the fig-tree episode, but also at the expense of fhemeaning of fhe word a7tr|Xiovand its significance in Jer 7:11. Moreover, althoughXdOTiic; can mean "robber," its more likely cotmotation is bandit or brigand, some-one who does not merely rob but makes money by means of violence or extor-

"2 Ibid., 330."5 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 89. Hays ("Can the Gospels?" 408 n. 11) rightly rebuffs

Sanders's reading on this point.** See the helpful brief discussion in Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah

(LEC 7; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 165-66. The connotation of "bandit" or "brigand" seemsto be a near consensus among modem commentators (e.g., Byrne, Costly Freedom, 179 n. 15;France, Mark, 446; Marcus, Mark, 784), though Collins could go either way (Mark, 531-32).


Jeremiah 7:11 itself points away fi-om the notion of corrupt business practicesin the temple. The sermon in Jeremiah 7 rebtikes the people of Israel for oppressingthe orphan and the widow, shedding innocent blood, and idolatry—and warns suchpeople against treating the temple as a good-luck charm that will preserve themagainst their enemies (w. 1-15). In Jeremiah, the phrase aniiXiov XrioTtuv is aptlychosen to represent the practice of a people who see the temple as a place of safetyto which they can fiee after committing various forms of injustice in other spheres.They see the temple as an impregnable reftige, a den of safety. But because ofthe people's injustices, the prophet predicts that God will, indeed, destroy thetemple.'*^

Thus, if Isa 56:7 tells us what the temple is not, Jer 7:11 tells us more accu-rately what it is; or, better, it tells us "when" the temple is. Rather than resting inthe time of eschatological restoration, Herod's edifice parallels the first temple inthe days of Jeremiah: it stands awaiting God's judgment.''* If Isa 56:7 tells us thatthe temple is falling short of Isaiah's depiction of the blessed precinct of the lastdays, Jer 7:11 tells us that it is like the cursed temple of old, awaiting divinedestruction by the hands of Israel's enemies.'" Jerusalem is on the verge not ofexaltation but of another coming judgment.''^ Contrary to Sanders's assertion, theallusion to Jer 7:11 does not tindermine Jesus' intention to prophesy the temple'sdestruction; it rather proves the point.""

We should interpret the words attributed to Jesus as communicating their truelexical meaning: that the people have turned the temple into a place where theyenvision themselves safe, despite idolatrous or unjust actions committed in otherspheres of life. In other words, the citation is not a call to cease commerce or topurify the buying and selling occurring in the temple, but a warning against think-ing that the temple will harbor God's people safely when they are otherwise notacting the part of God's faithful people.

Here I should clarify that the point of this argument is not that the historicalJesus uftered these particular sayings upon performing his action in the temple.^"Instead, I am making the case that what Sanders recognizes as the intentions ofthe historical Jesus are substantiated by the Marcan narrative once we take accountof what the OT citations tell us about the place of the temple in the tmfolding drama

''5 See Hays, "Can the Gospels?" 407-8. Perrin (Jesus the Temple, 87) emphasizes the corrup-tion being denounced rather than the divine response of temple destruction. The latter, however,holds together the prophetic action with Jeremiah's prophecy.

•** See Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus, 330."" This reading of Jer 7:11 is more regularly recognized and understood to fit Jesus' program-

matic prophecy of judgment on the temple than is the passage from Isaiah (e.g., Wright, Jesus,419-21).

•• See also Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New WorldDisorder (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 91-98.

" ' Hays, "Can the Gospels?" 408.'" This is Perrin's point (Jesus the Temple, 83-88), which I find insufficiently corroborated.


of God's warnings, promises, and actions in the narrative of Israel. Jesus inMark 11, like Jeremiah before him, is prophesying the temple's destruction. AndJesus in this story, like Third Isaiah before him, is drawing the eyes of Mark's read-ers forward to a future fulfillment of God's promises for the temple. ThoughMark's readers no doubt read these prophecies with attention to the events unfold-ing in their own day, perhaps even with an eye toward the revolutionaries who hadsought safety in the temple precincts (Josephus, B.J. 4.3.7-9 §§151-61), such con-nections with current events are neither antithetical to Jesus' actions nor in awk-ward juxtaposition to them.^' Jesus' actions predict the temple's destruction, andthe OT allusions state the same: it is not the time of eschatological purity and bless-ing but of renewed judgment and destruction.

III. The Temple Clearing and the Fig Tree

As I argued above, contemporary scholars are right to read the cursing of thefig tree and Jesus' temple-clearing action in tandem. Such a mutually interpretingstory pair would lend fiirther credibility to the notion that Mark intends to showJesus prophesying the temple's looming destruction rather than enacting its cleans-ing. ^ A free withered from the roots up makes for a poor illustration of a purifiedtemple. Moreover, if Telford is correct that Mark is responsible for redacting thetemple-clearing incident into the story of the fig free, then we should anticipatethat if Mark is responsible for the addition of the biblical allusions, such an additionwould make the same point.

I turn now to explore how the reading of the OT citations proposed here mightaid our understanding also of the fig-free episode. Three otherwise ptizzling fea-tures of the pericope of the fig free become comprehensible once we recognizethat the biblical allusions to the destruction of the temple and its restoration areintegral to Mark's telling of the story.

A. Not the Time for Figs

First, there is the strange editorial remark that Jesus found no figs "becauseit was not the time for figs" (ó yap Katpôç OÙK i v OÚKCÜV; Mark 11:13). This com-ment has generated speculation that the scene was originally one set at the feast ofTabernacles in the fall. ^ On such a theory, Mark's comment infroduces an expla-nation that fransposes a story that did, in fact, occur during the time for figs (the

^ ' See Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark," JBL 111(1992) 441 -62,esp. 448-51.

" See Hays, "Can the Gospels?" 407-8." T. W. Manson, "The Cleansing of the Temple," BJRL 33 (1951) 271-82.


fall) into the early spring context of Passover when it was not. Yet such a movewould seem to sabotage Mark's own story. If it is not the time for figs, then Jesus'reaction appears arbitrary at best, a petulant fit of irrationality at worst. Why cursea fig tree for not doing what it is not supposed to be doing?

A common response is to link the leafy fig tree with the bustling temple: bothshow extensive signs of life, but both are devoid of tme fhiit. The parallel betweenthe leafy, fhiitless tree and the bustling yet inadequate activity in the sanctuarymight be apt. But this still does not get us very far in understanding the commentthat it is not the time for figs, as such a parallel works just as well (if not better)without it.

Once we have the framework of destmction and eschatological glory on thetable, though, we can see that the fig tree's symbolism is potentially even moredramatic. '* As an emblem of the temple into which Jesus is about to enter, the figtree images not a false representation of fmitfulness but a particular kind of fruitwhose time has not yet come. The strange editorial comment interjects the questionof what time it might be into the fig-tree/temple-clearing unit. ^ The answer pro-vided by the biblical allusions is that it is not the time of harvest, representative ofeschatological glory, but instead the time for judgment, for stripping the tree bare.This is even more the case if the story intends to allude to a scriptural passage suchas Mic 7:1, where the failed search for a righteous person is expressed in terms ofa failed search for first-ripe figs—and that in the context of God's looming judg-ment on the people.^^

The idea that Mark wants his readers to grapple with the implications of whattime it is, on a cosmic scale, is clearly indicated elsewhere in the Gospel—mostpointedly as Jesus begins his proclamation with "The time is fulfilled" (TtenXiÍptü-tatÓKaipóc;; 1:15).' Moreover, questions of what time it might be with reference

'" See also Marcus, Mark, 789-90.'^ On the significance of Kaipóc here, in connection with Mark's Gospel more generally, see

Douglas E. Oakman, "Cursing Fig Trees and Robbers' Dens: Pronouncement Stories within Social-Systemic Perspective: Mark 11:11 -25 and Parallels," Semeia 64 ( 1993) 253-72, esp. 256.

" See Telford, Barren Temple, 135. Other possible biblical allusions exist as well, pointerseither to a barren fig tree as an emblem of Israel's failure to live righteously before its God (e.g.,Jer 8:13) or to a destroyed fig tree as a metaphor or image of Israel's judgment (e.g., Hos 2:12;Joel 1;7, 12; Amos 4;9); so Brown, "Mark 11;1-12:12," 80-81. See also Healy, Afof/t, 225. Gundry(Mark, 672) argues that Mark gives clear evidence ofhis readers' lack of awareness of biblicaland Jewish traditions in 7:2-4, and that such biblical references are therefore moot. Such a conclu-sion does not give sufficient weight to the way in which the Gospel is introduced as the culminationof Israel's biblical narrative in 1:1 -3, or the way in which the subsequent narrative is suffused withnot only quotations but also allusions to Israel's Scriptures (see Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus, e.g.,312).

^' Watts (Isaiah's New Exodus, 315-17) highlights other ways that this passage may be tiedto the opening chapter, especially as John the Baptist is depicted as Malachi's Elijah and Jesus is"the lord suddenly coming to his temple."


to the coming judgment and blessing of God suffuse Jesus' speech in the discourseon the Mount of Olives—itself a lengthy discussion of, first, the destruction ofJerusalem and the temple and then of the Son of Man's final enthronement andglory (13:1-4, 8, 14-16, 21-27, 28-30, 35-37). Mark's Gospel not only invites itsreaders to see in the story indications of where Israel might lie on the timeline ofthe overarching story of God's relationship to Israel; it clearly works out the ques-tion with special reference to the temple's destruction. We thus are well within theparameters of Mark's own storytelling to see the indication that it was not the timefor figs as an invitation to wrestle with the question of what time it is in the ensuingnarrative units.^^ The answer Jesus gives through both act and speech in the templeis that it is not the time of eschatological blessing in response to a fruitful Israelbut, instead, the time of looming judgment before that eschatological restorationcan be realized.^'

I have argued that the biblical allusions touch on the timing and implicationsof God's eschatological judgment and glorification of Israel. The fig-free imageitself also makes sense in such a scenario.^° Images of agricultural fhiitfulness ingeneral, and fhiit-bearing fig frees in particular, suffuse Israel's prophetic antici-pations of coming judgment (e.g., Isa 28:4; 34:4; Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12) and its hopesof vindication (e.g., Joel 2:22; Mic 4:4; Zech 3:10). These latter hopes, in tum, arelater transniuted into eschatological expectations.^' Thus, the cursing of the figfree, together with the indications that a new exilic state for the temple is looming,make a stark statement about the state of the temple and likely its leadership,according to Jesus. Not being a time for fruit, it is a time for judgment.

B. This Mountain

I tum now to the latter half of the frame. After Jesus has both cursed the figtree and enacted his prophecy of the temple's destruction, he and the disciplesretum to the tree. When Peter expresses his astonishment about the withered free(11:21), Mark depicts Jesus as going into a series of sayings that appear to tum to

^* Gundry demurs, arguing that this puts too great a demand on Mark's readers (Mark, 674).The response, however, is that Mark has placed the question here as an invitation to readers to pauseto consider what sense the story makes, given that it is not the time for figs. Recently David Konstanhas argued ("The Active Reader in Classical Antiquity," Argos: Revista de la Asociación Argentinade Estudios Clásicos 30 [2006] 5-16) that just such invitations to active reading were, in contrast tomodem-day reading strategies, common practice in antiquity. Moreover, Gundry's minimalist asser-tion that "Mark carefully avoids saying that Jesus went to find fruit" (Mark, 673) is an overly woodeninterpretation of a story that mentions Jesus' hungry approach to a fruit tree.

^' Oakman ("Cursing," 261-62) argues to much the same effect by building a case for the figtree's fruitlessness as representative of the same oppressive power structures that would have beenbenefiting fi^om the temple system.

^ See France, Mark, 439.*' Telford, Barren Temple, 132-41, 154-56.


the efficacy of prayer in general and leave behind the specific references to thetemple for which I have been arguing here (11:22-25).*^

The first of these remarks is the comment, "Have faith in God! Tmly I say toyou that whoever should say to this mountain [TW opei TOUTW], 'Be taken up andcast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he sayswill be, so it shall be for that person" (11:22-23). Telford has argued that theseverses bear clear indications of Mark's own hand, and he thus concludes that theyshould be read in step with the larger narrative.^-' He therefore maintains fhaf "fhismountain" is a reference to the specific mountain from which Jesus had departedthe day before and fo which he was retuming, the mount fhat one could imaginebeing visible from this cursed fig tree between Bethany and Jemsalem: the TempleMount itself^'' The demonstrative TOÚTÍÍ is thus neither superfluous nor merelyillustrative buf fmly demonsfrafive, indicafing fhaf Jesus' authority to pronouncejudgment finds its import not in the fig tree hut in the temple of which it is emblem-atic.*^ Thus, even if fhe saying is originally a generic, proverbial image of animpossible feat, the literary context established by Mark, within which the sayingties the cursed fig tree together with the judged temple, sustains Telford's argu-ment.^*

The notion of looming judgment on fhe Temple Mount is reiterated as Jesusand his disciples leave the temple complex in 13:1-2. In response to the disciples'awe, Jesus declares that not one stone of fhaf facility will be left upon another.Moreover, fhe moving of mountains is part of Israel's stock of metaphors for thecoming judgmenf of God and/or destmcfion of mighfy fortresses (Isa 5:25; 40:4;41:15; 64:3; Jer 4:24; Ezek 38:20; Hos 10:8; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Hab 3:6-10; Zech4:7). The saying about the mountain being cast into the sea is not merely anappended statement on the efficacy of faithful prayer. It is tied to the particularactions fhaf Jesus has performed, his own aufhority fo speak a word of judgmentagainst the house of God, and likely the aufhority that his own followers have foconfinue Jesus' prophefic ministry. This last element is the poinf of fhe final insfmc-fions about prayer with belief and about forgiveness.

C. Communities of Prayer and Forgiveness

The idea that Jesus' words about mountain-moving faith are somewhat awk-ward add-ons to the story of the fig tree finds prima facie support in fhe concludingspeech maferial. He concludes his statement with a generalization about the effi-

" So, e.g., Healy, Mark, 230-31." Telford, Barren Temple, 49-59.^ Ibid., 58-59; see also Wright, Jesus, 494-95." See Marcus, Mark, 785-87; pace France, Mark, 449.** Collins (Mark, 535) objects, based on her separation of the two stories, but this contention,

as I argued above, is not sustainable.


cacy ofhis followers' prayers: "For this reason I say to you, everything that youpray and ask for, believe that you have received it and it will be so for you. Andwhen you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone, so that yourFather who is in heaven might also forgive you your transgressions" (11:24-25).Here Telford and others see evidence that sayings material that was originally notpart of this narrative, and that fits somewhat awkwardly, has been added by a redac-tor. Telford argues that v. 25, like v. 26, which has been relegated to the footnotesin most modem translations, is the product of later scribal activity, after Mark hadcompleted his story.*' Its placement on such a reading is determined by its thematicsimilarity to Jesus' earlier words about asking and receiving. Alternatively, ErnestBest asserts that the dissonance of the verses with the larger context of the templecleansing indicates that the verses were added before they came to Mark, an addi-tion to story of the fig tree highlighting that such power as Jesus exercised is avail-able also to his followers.*^ Best's motivation for such an assessment is similar toTelford's alternative explanation: "they do not fit into the larger context."*' Thesame inability to see how Jesus' teaching about faith and prayer is connected tothe temple incident leads Philip F. Esler to discount the entire idea that the fig-treeincident should be interpreted in tandem with Jesus' temple clearing.'" For Esler,Mark's editorial hand is to be found only in interpreting the fig-tree incident bymeans of these teachings on prayer and faith."

But there is a line of questioning that might shed light on the presence of theseseemingly awkward verses. Once we recognize that Isa 56:7 is an integral part ofthe story in which Jesus prophesies the temple's destruction, we are confrontedwith the question of what sort of eschatological temple we are to envision as itsreplacement.'^ What will be the house of prayer for all peoples?

There is little evidence for the idea that Jesus expected a new building, thoughsuch an expectation would be clearly in step with many Jewish, scriptural antici-pations of the age-to-come.'^ In light of such a paucity of evidence, N. T. Wrighthas suggested that Jesus understood himself to be the eschatological temple ofGod.''' This assertion, however, is under-supported. Although Wright regularly andpersuasively shows that Jesus saw himself at the middle of God's eschatological

" Telford, Barren Temple, 56.* Ernest Best, "Mark's Preservation of the Tradition," in The Interpretation of Mark (ed.

William R. Telford; 2nd ed.; Studies in New Testament Interpretation; Edinburgh: Clark, 1995) 153-68, here 160.

«' Ibid.™ Esler, "Incident," 49-50" Ibid., 49-50.'2 So France, Mark, 448.'• E.g., Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 251.'" Wright, Jesus, 426.


visitation of Israel (including the destruction of the temple), such an agency isamenable to any number of interpretations about the temple's future. A third pos-sibility is that the Gospels depict the community Jesus was forming around himselfas playing the role of Isaiah's eschatological temple. It is this last possibility thatdoes greatest justice to the larger unit of text, as it contains not only the temple-clearing pericope but also the instructions on faithful prayer.'^

If there is a narrative link between the closing verses appended to the pericopeof the fig free and the temple-clearing episode, it is to be found in the theme ofprayer.'* This is not only the subject of Jesus' exposition of the fig tree to the dis-ciples; it is also the standard by which the temple is assessed as failing to live upto its eschatological purpose." Jesus indicates that the temple is not, as Isaiah fore-sees it, "a house of prayer for all people" (Mark 11:17; Isa 56:7); instead it will bedesfroyed. Where, then, is the hope of Isaiah going to be realized? These versestell us that the place of prayer will be found in the community of Jesus' faithfulfollowers.'*

Jesus' instructions are not merely about prayer but about the one thing forwhich the temple was absolutely vital: the forgiveness of sins.'^ Mark's narrativehas ah-eady sfretched forgiveness of sins into unexpected territory. First, John offersforgiveness through his baptismal rite, in anticipation of the coming work of Jesus(1:4-8). Then, Jesus forgives the sins of the paralytic (2:1-12). This, the first con-froversy story, lays the groundwork for the opposition to Jesus' ministry that crys-

" See Chance, "Cursing," 273.'* Collins (Mark, 531-37) is willing to see the citation of Isa 56:7 as a preparation for the

theme of prayer, but she interprets the fig-tree incident and having faith in God's wonder-workingpower as touching on different subject matter. The reaiding offered here improves on this by findinga literary coherence that does not jump back and forth among tangentially related topics.

" The connection is made by France (Mark, 441), though the statement that "the temple isno longer able to function as an okoc Ttpoaeuxfjc;" seems to miss the eschatological significance ofthe Isaian citation, especially as it includes the gentiles: this was a divinely promised ftjture, notsomething that had once been true of the temple but was no longer so.

'* See Sharyn E. Dowd, Prayer, Power, and the Problem of Suffering: Mark ¡1:22-25 in theContext ofMarkan Theology (SBLDS 105; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 45-53; Marcus, Mark,794. Byrne (Costly Freedom, 180-81) makes a similar suggestion while somewhat puzzlingly con-tinuing to suggest that the comments on prayer are an "odd commentary" on the fig-tree incident.If the whole series of events is, in fact, about God's judgment on Israel as focused on the temple,and if that temple's failure is depicted in terms of its not being a house of prayer for all the nations,then a commentary that bestows such a calling on Jesus' followers hardly seems odd. For a moregeneral discussion of the community of Jesus' followers as the new temple in Mark, see Joel Marcus,The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the dd Testament in the Gospel of Mark (Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1992) 122-24, as well as Heil, "Narrative Strategy," 76-100.

" Gundry's argument that the passage is primarily about forgiveness and faith, not prayer,and is therefore no counterpoint to the temple clearing ignores that prayer is the means by whichfaithful asking of God is accomplished throughout the text (Mark, 678).


tallizes in his arrest and death in the passion narrative. Not coincidentally, the sub-ject of dispute in Mark 2 is the authority Jesus has for such an action—the veryquestion with which he is confronted when he retums to the temple in the pericopeimmediately following his instmctions on prayer (11:27-33). In the narrative worldof Mark's Gospel, the temple as the locus established by God for forgiveness ofsins is being displaced by the personal authority of Jesus, an authority that is sub-sequently embodied in the community ofhis followers. To be a follower of Jesusin Mark's Gospel is to inherit Jesus' prophetic ministry, representing the reign ofGod to the earth. ** The prophetic authority by which Jesus pronounced judgment(11:22-24; cf 11:15-21; 13:1-26), worked powerfrilly (11:24; cf esp. 9:29), andextended forgiveness of sins (11:25; cf 2:1-12) would be vested in his followers.They will be the house of prayer for all the nations, the locus from which Godextends forgiveness of sins. Jesus has told his disciples "that forgiveness is avail-able without the Temple on the basis ofhis own word ('Amen, I say to you')."^'The disciples will be the conduits of this forgiveness to the world.

Thus, when read in cormection with the biblical citations, Mark's appendingof the prayer tradition at this point in the story is neither fortuitous nor awkward.The temple incident in 11:16-17 moves from a prophetic act symbolizing the tem-ple's destmction, to an articulation of what the eschatological temple will look like(Isa 56:7), to a declaration that the current temple awaits judgment rather than sucheschatological glory (Jer 7:11). The fig-tree incident, picturing this coming destmc-tion, moves from the free itself (Mark 11:20-21), to the looming destmction of theTemple Mount (11:22-23), to the surprising eschatological fulfillment of Isaiah'svision of the temple as a house of prayer and forgiveness within the community ofJesus' followers (ll:24-25).«2

Indeed, here we might even have an explanation for why Isa 56:7 was chosenas the picture of eschatological blessing with which to contrast the current templein Jemsalem. While other interpretations of this verse have concentrated on thetables being set up in the Court of the Gentiles and, therefore, perhaps as shuttingthe gentiles out, and while others have seen this verse pointing to God's preferencefor intemal acts of piety over sacrificial worship, the ensuing narrative points inanother direction. Isaiah 56:7 is chosen as the OT picture because that vision of ahouse of prayer for all the nations is one that is fulfilled in the praying communitiesJesus leaves behind. It is a prophecy of the future of the people of God that is ful-filled not in the Jemsalem temple but in the (perhaps largely gentile) communitiesthat formed in the wake of Jesus' death and resurrection.

8" See Collins, Mark, 534-35.^'Marcus, Mar/t, 796.8 Recognizing this web of connections, I suggest that the important goal of holding together

the sayings material with the fig-tree cursing, sought by Esler ("Incident") is not to be had at theexpense of the interpretive clues provided by the intercalation of the two stories.


Mark reinterprets Israel's expectations: the time of the Messiah's arrival isnot the time of the nations being gathered to a glorified Jerusalem with a glorifiedtemple. Instead, it is a time in which the house of God becomes the disciples' com-munities of faith.

rV. Conclusion

Readers of Mark increasingly recognize the skill with which the Gospel'sstory has been rendered. From the heyday of redaction criticism, where Mark'sown hand could be most clearly seen in the inconcinnities, literary critics havemoved the discussion to the point where Mark's narrative is often praised in themost glowing terms:

The author has used sophisticated storytelling techniques, developed the charactersand the conflicts, and built suspense with deliberateness, telling the story to generatecertain insights and responses in the reader. The ending has a surprising twist thatleads readers to reflect on their own relation to the drama. As a whole, the story seeksto shatter the readers' way of seeing the world and invites them to embrace another,thus impelling them to action.*^

Although many scholars will no doubt find such effusive praise overstated, thegrowing recognition that Mark was, at the very least, a competent storyteller shouldgive us pause when we run up against teaching material that stands in apparenttension with the narrative. Mark is striving to tell a story, and apparent tensionsare just as likely to be due to our own need to grapple once more with possibleconnections that were not at first apparent to us as they are likely to be due toMark's clumsy redaction. Not only do we as Mark's readers participate in whatFrank Kermode describes as "the necessary upspringing of meaning" when weinterpret the text; Mark was, himself, a participant in this process—and his Gospelis the result.^''

In this case, patient investigation of the text reveals a greater coherence thanmany have admitted. Not otily does the fig-tree narrative interpret the temple-clearingincident, but the teaching in 11:17 that invokes Israel's prophets substantiates thetemple-judgment narrative, and the teaching on prayer establishes the communityas God's eschatological replacement to that physical place of prayer and forgive-ness.

'^ David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to theNarrative of a Gospel (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999) 1.

^ Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative (Charles EliotNorton Lectures 1977-78; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979) 75-99.

Copyright of Catholic Biblical Quarterly is the property of Catholic Biblical Association of America and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in ... · Time for Figs, Temple...

Documents

Transcript of Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in ... · Time for Figs, Temple...