On Sunday my pastor preached on Mk. 11.12-26. As I listened to his sermon and read through the passage some things about it became more apparent. In this passage Jesus sees a fig tree that has no figs on it because it is out of season. He curses the fig tree and then he goes to the Temple. In the Temple he finds a corrupt economic system has overthrown the intent of the Temple to be “a house of prayer for all the nations” (v. 17). Rather than being a place that welcomes Jews from abroad and Gentiles seeking to learn more about Israel’s God, the Temple has become Wall Street. Jesus creates chaos by overthrowing their tables as well as the place where doves were being sold to the poorer, likely also for a profit.
Once Jesus has completed his judgment on the Temple he walks back outside Jerusalem past the fig tree that he had cursed. It is dead. The disciples note this and it becomes a vivid analogy for what will happen to the Temple which no longer bears the intended fruit.
In v. 23 Jesus says words that used to haunt me when I was a Pentecostal. He says that if one says to “this mountain” (τῷ ὄρει τούτῳ) that it should “Be taken and cast into the sea” and this is done without doubt it will happen. Of course, those influenced by the Word of Faith Movement used this as a proof text that certain “levels” of faith brought various results.
Since no Christian in the history of the church has successfully thrown a mountain into the sea it seemed like a bit of a mute point anyways. Even Jesus didn’t do it. I always assumed that this was hyperbolic, but I think I understand it a bit better now.
In v. 17 when Jesus says that the Temple will be a house of prayer for all the nations he is lifting this from Is. 56.7b where YHWH says of his holy mountain, Zion, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” In v. 3 he says that the foreigner that comes to Israel as a proselytite should not feel abandoned by YHWH. Also, the eunuch should not think of himself as “a dry tree” (v. 3b). Israel is to welcome the nations into the Temple to serve the true God.
By the time of Jesus this is exactly what is not happening. Gentiles are not welcome. There are warning signs of their demise if they enter the Temple inappropriately. The money changers are making a profit on anyone who has foreign currency. Gentiles do not feel close to YHWH; they feel like a dry, dying tree.
Yet as Jesus’ actions show it is the Temple official who are the dying tree. They are symbolized by the fig tree whom Jesus cursed. Jesus enacts God’s judgement on Israel’s Temple system because Israel has failed to listen to the words of their God spoken in Is. 56.
What of “this mountain”? I think I first read mention of this interpretation somewhere in the writings of N.T. Wright, but it was likely a half decade ago (maybe The New Testament and the People of God ?). In Is. 56.7-8 we see that Israel was to bring the nations to the mountain of God where the Temple was to welcome them. Now the Temple prohibits the nations from worshiping Israel’s God.
It is time for the Temple to go.
I think that when Jesus says that the “this mountain” will be tossed into the sea he isn’t speaking of some generic “level of faith = impressive results” concept, but rather it is time to believe that God can do something amazing by removing this mountain where the Temple stands so that it is no longer a barrier to the Gentiles. In other words, Jesus sees Israel ignoring YHWH’s command so he predicts YHWH’s judgement on Israel.
This seems like an imperative for the Gentile mission. As know in 70 AD “this mountain” was devastated and the Temple ceases to exist even to this day. The faith of Jesus has resulted in Israel’s God moving to include the nations without the Temple as part of his plan.
the archives near Emmaus 
How do you think Paul interpreted Jesus’ statement?
Based on ” If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing,” I think Paul took Jesus’ words literally BUT I like your metaphorical interpretation of it.
That is an interesting interpretation, and one that looks like it fits very well.
@CarolJean: Brian isn’t doing any “metaphorical interpretation” of the text. Making connections to Old Testament allusions isn’t really metaphorical. Whatever the case may be with Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ words, Matthew sees Jesus’ words as connected with Isaiah 56.
@ JohnDavid: the temple of Jesus’ day (70 ce) and the mountain being cast into the sea (destroyed) is the metaphor I was referring to.
@CarolJean: I see what you’re saying. I’m only pointing out that Brian isn’t the one making a metaphorical interpretation. If anyone is, it is Matthew. Brian is doing exegesis.
Carol: As JohnDave noted it is more than possible that Paul is alluding to a tradition about the words of Jesus. But Paul does nothing to expound upon it. It is merely an allusion and this does little to dictate Mark’s use.
I don’t know if Paul is any more literal than Mark. Even if an allusion to Jesus’ words it is in the context of much hyperbole regarding great things that can be done yet be useless if not done in love.
Hi Brian, Does it seem a stretch to you to equate “May no one ever eat fruit from you again” to the loss of Israel’s place as the evangelist-nation (thus providing the “fruit” of salvation to the world), and that place being given to the Church? I read recently that it was Judaism’s fierce “ethnic barriers” that kept them from coverting the Roman Empire to the God of Abraham (Cities of God, by Rodney Stark). They didn’t have room for “Egyptian-Jews,” or “Asian-Jews”, etc., as equal citizens of the Kingdom, so they couldn’t find a way for a “Roman-Jew” to really be embraced as an equal, according to their system. So, as I was working on that message, it occurred to me that there is valid reason for applying the “no one eating fruit from you again” curse to the Temple-system that Jesus was purposefully on His way to confront that morning. So, as I see it–when we get worship wrong, particularly in regards to extending the truth and love of God to our surrounding, unregenerate world–we risk becoming chronically fruitless, good for nothing but…..
@Ken: No, I think that you are correct in your observation that the useless, fruitless fig tree foreshadowed the useless, fruitless Temple system. There does seem to be tension between Judean Jews and other Jews (whether as close as Galilee or as far as Spain). While Judean Jews were no purist (Judaism was not able to escape Hellenism) there do seem to be many in Jerusalem who had a low view of other Jews (e.g. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”).
Likewise, I think you correctly noted that the use of Is. 56 here shows that Jesus had that passage in mind where the Gentiles were to come to YHWH because the Temple welcomed people from all nations. Since the Jews had been mistreated by the Gentiles for years (most recently Antiochus Epiphanes and now the Roman Empire) they had a defensive stance toward the nations. While this is understandable it did prevent them from being able to bring the nations to YHWH, which in turn prevented them from bringing the Abrahamic blessing to the world.
They were not worshiping correctly in that they were not inviting the Gentiles to know YHWH. This made them fruitless and it resulted in the judgement of 70 AD.
@John Dave, you wrote: I see what you’re saying. I’m only pointing out that Brian isn’t the one making a metaphorical interpretation. If anyone is, it is Matthew. Brian is doing exegesis.
Using the dried fig tree that Jesus cursed as symbollic of the temple is exegesis? How do you get that directly from the text? It’s creative. I don’t really have a problem with it but I fail to see how that interpretation is exegesis.
Carol: Define “exegesis”. There is a wave of scholarship in recent years that is seeking to take serious echoes of the Hebrew Bible in the writings of the New Testament. When a NT author quotes the OT should we ignore their reference? Should we only focus on the words they quote? This makes little sense of most OT quotations, allusions, and echoes.
No, metalepsis is the key. If I say, “Tomorrow I will get up at five to get the worm.” do you rightly understand me only if you hear what I say word-for-word in that sentence? No. If we share anything you know I am echoing the popular statement, “The early bird gets the worm.” Likewise, NT authors share the OT with their audiences and it influences how the speak. If we see an allusion we err if we do not ask what the broader context of the passage being alluded to entails.
Exegesis is taking the meaning out of the text. I hear echoes of the Hebrew Bible when I read the NT as well. No, of course we shouldn’t ignore the references NT writers use from the OT. The OT scriptures were what the NT writers thought of as the Bible of their day. All of the OT scriptures was important to them and not just what was quoted.
Brian, I liked your post. But maybe the episode with the fig tree had nothing whatsoever to do with the temple at all. It’s possible that it was just an aside. A lesson that Jesus was teaching his disciples about faith and prayer. I don’t have a problem with you linking them (the temple and the fig tree) together as long as you are not insisting that your interpretation is the only, correct interpretation of those two events in Mark 11. Their close proximity in the text lends to making a comparison but was that the intent of why Jesus cursed the fig tree….to use it as an illustration regarding the temple? I don’t know. Maybe Jesus was just hungry.
Carol: I’m not saying my interpretation is the “only, correct interpretation”, but if I think it is the correct interpretation of what the author is trying to do then I think it is the correct interpretation of what the author is trying to do. Therefore, I think it is the correct interpretation.
Your proposal that “Jesus was just hungry” makes little sense of the data. It seems to propose that the evangelists were incoherent story tellers who got easily distracted. So here we have the beginning of a story about the fig tree, a lapse in thought leading to an aside about the temple, then a “Oh yeah, where was I…” moment where we return to the fig tree. I think I will maintain my reading.
@Brian @Carol
Some things that led me to the conclusion that the cursing of the fig tree was a deliberate act designed to teach the disciples regarding the doom of the present Temple-system, and God’s hatred of hypocritical, mercenary religion:
1. Mk 11.11 He was NOT honored and recieved in the Temple the day before when He entered into Jerusalem. Something very, very strange, and very ominous happened… it appears they ignored their Messiah when He came “suddenly into His temple” (Mal 3.1). It is plausible that He then designed His subsequent temple appearances to confront the temple leaders, and to teach His disciples, of the significance of the religious leaders of Jersualem rejecting their Messiah.
2. “…for it was not the season for figs…” = either Jesus didn’t know what (I think) every Galilee-raised boy would know (when it’s time for figs to be ripe), or a more deliberate design on the part of Jesus was unfolding. Plus, this suggests that judgement can come at any time, and not according to human expectation, planning, and seasons.
3. “…And His disciples were listening…” = why is this significant, if the result of the curse was not going to be addressed later (v20)?
4. “…whithered from the roots up…” = this is intriguing, as the last verse of the OT (Mal 4.6) warns that the Lord would come and “smite the land with a curse” if Israel did not respond to the ministry of the Messiah’s forerunner. So, the “smiting” came, literally, from the “land” up, and not from a person who purposefully damaged the tree in Christ’s absence.
5. “…Have faith in God…” = what a strange, inconsistent response to Peter’s statement…unless, this response was actually an answer to the question, “What just happened back there in the Temple, Jesus, and how can a person worship God faithfully if there is no Temple!?”
6. Finally, in cursing the fig tree as a teaching opportunity, Jesus elevated its significance (if that’s possible for a tree), in that we are talking about its life today, 2,000 years later, (unlike the zillions of other fig trees that died, rotted, and were used as fire wood in those days.)
Those are some of the textual and OT texts that I felt had a significant bearing on the passage, of course along with Isa 56 and Jer 7.
Great text, thank you for including it in your discussion, Brian!
Maybe the evangelists were simply and accurately relaying an historical account of what happened. Some of the events may seem disjointed but that’s because it’s history and not a novel. As Luke states, ” Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
And maybe Jesus did not intend to give a visual illustration of the destruction of the temple when he cursed the unfruitful fig tree, maybe he was just hungry and disappointed there was no fruit to eat. Mark 11:12 You have to admit the disciples were a slow bunch when it came to understanding parables and what Jesus meant by the “leaven” of the Pharisees. I don’t know if they would have caught the subtlety of what Jesus did with the fig tree in relation to the destruction of the temple since they weren’t even looking for the destruction of the temple until Mark 13.
So this is what replacement theology looks like! 😉
Really good thoughts on “the mountain.”
@Ken: I fully affirm your exegetical observations.
@Carol: The evangelists are never detached journalist. They always have a point to make. Ancient writers weren’t reporting for your local, small town newspaper in order to make sure there is enough to read. There was an agenda involved.
That being said, we can say “maybe, maybe, maybe” all day long. What we must ask is whether or not one thesis is more probable than another. I am firmly convinced that my reading (and Ken’s) makes much, much more sense than yours.
Let’s assume that the disciples did miss the point (a very odd assertion since there is no reason to assert it), the evangelist did not. Narrators are not confined by the characters of the story. The arrangement of the narrative is his creation.
But the real question is the motivation for your objection. You are either (1) playing devil’s advocate, which is fine and dandy or (2) you are frustrated that this text may not support the whole “levels of faith” idea so you seek to discredit likely interpretations by reminding us that all interpretations could be wrong. No one denies that this interpretation could be wrong, but until you have a better thesis that makes sense of the data your random objections seem like a desperate grasp at maintaining a cherished interpretation that leads to a favored doctrine rather than good exegesis.
And if your thesis is “well, maybe the evangelist is just telling a story about Jesus without any real literary direction” then I must say this is simply not convincing.
@Dan: Replacement theology?
My motivation was not to play the devil’s advocate nor to support a “levels of faith” theory which I have never heard of but to show that although I like your thesis I find it a stretch to link up the temple with the fig tree and claim that Jesus was intentionally teaching that to his disciples because there is no direct link made between the two by Jesus then at that time in that context, nor later in Mark 13 when he is actually teaching about the destruction of the temple, nor by the NT writers after Jesus ascended. There is no “this is that” at all. I cannot see how you can be certain of your reading. I can enjoy what you wrote, find it interesting, and maybe even plausible but I don’t think that is what Christ intended.
I find it much more easy to understand the fig tree incident as Christ having a teaching moment with his disciples concerning faith and prayer. It seems to me you are following the exegesis techniques of Origen or any other of the allegorical teachers. Although not my cup of tea, I like their creativeness.
@Carol: Origen? Seriously? Have you done any work in the subject of the NT’s use of the OT? If so, I am very surprised to see you relegating my reading to something even remotely similar to Origen’s allegorical method. What Origen did and what I am doing is very, very different.
That is fine if you don’t see my interpretation as plausible, but let’s not resort to baseless comparisons. When we are examining metalepsis we are doing the simple exercise of asking why a NT author quoted a particular OT reference. We are assuming that they don’t merely proof-text, but as biblically literate authors they expect their biblically literate audience to understand their allusions. This is not “allegory” or “metaphor”. It is a study done by people is various fields of literature, not only biblical studies.
You may well be right that “this mountain” referred to the Temple Mount. But you may not be quite right in saying that
I remember hearing a story (but I can’t vouch for the truth of it) about the children in a Christian school in Japan (I think). Their school wanted to expand but their way was blocked by a mountain rising behind their property. The children prayed in faith for the mountain to be removed into the sea. They went on their summer vacation and came back to find … no mountain! During the summer the city authorities had quarried away the mountain and thrown it into the sea, to reclaim land for a new port. The school was able to buy the land and expand. An answer to prayer? It certainly looked that way.
@Peter: That is an interesting story. I guess we could say, in some sense, their prayer did lead to the mountain being thrown into the sea.