The dispute about authority (3)

Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.(Mark 11:29)

Now Jesus is disputing with the high posting religious leaders in Jerusalem temple about authority. Jesus didn’t give a direct answer for the question of “By what authority are you doing these things?” Instead, Jesus would ask one question. If they answered then Jesus would give them answer. There were two reasons in Jesus that Jesus used indirection method.

First, Jesus might know their question was a question for question; furthermore it was a question to corner Jesus into trap. Even in classroom such question is given. Especially this phenomenon is distinguished to the seminary students who are with full of conviction of their faith. In fact they don’t want to know theology but confirm their good faith. For example, “Professor, do you believe the virgin birth of Jesus or not?” Or “Do you believe the Bible as a revelation of God or not?”

Second, Jesus’ authority is secured of its certainty not by the word of man but by the Holy Spirit. In those days the people with religious vested right judged people externally couldn’t understand Jesus’ real authority. According to John’s gospel, when the Pharisees picked hole that Jesus’ witness was false Jesus said, “my other witness is the Father, who sent me” pointing out that they judged by human standards. (John 8:15-18) He said, the one who sent Jesus (Father God) was with his teaching and activities. It's like preaching to deaf ears to explain to the high priests.

Jesus authority was the same with it’s of God. At such level, early Christians confessed that Jesus was sitting on God’s right side. A real authority comes from God only.

The dispute about authority (2)

"By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you authority to do this?" (Mark 11:28)

The question of the high priest, the scribe and the elder, the representative of three parties in Sanhedrin was two.

First, “By what authority are you doing these things?” ‘these thing’ might mean narrowly a temple cleaning incident and widely the entire things that Jesus had done in his official life. Considering this question only they seemed did not bother about Jesus’ activity itself. They asked about his authority to do these things, which was his qualification. It meant, “You are not a priest, a scribe and an elder then by what qualification do you teach people, heal the diseases and argue the rights and wrong of the merchandizing activities in the temple?”

Second, “And who gave you authority to do this?” It was a resource of his authority. Jesus didn’t receive a regular Rabbi education. They knew it. Despite knowing this point they questioned such question to Jesus in order to corner Jesus. The fact Jesus was acquitted of the sin of blasphemy later already predicted in such question.

It is no exaggeration to say that Jesus was crucified on the cross by a religious authority. Considering the essence of religion the religious leaders should try to save life. However, they killed the one who strived for saving life. This fact is related to not merely religious matter but the entire human history. The authority often used violence to others.

Of course we cannot flatly reject authority. The authority as a teacher, a doctor and a conductor is compulsory. The problem will be authoritarianism. Authority is the power internally given but authoritarianism is the power externally made. Authority is a volunteering power but authoritarianism is oppressing power. Those who do not have authority eventually take the way of authoritarianism.

The dispute about authority (1)

They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. (11:27)

According to Mark’s report, Jesus is now entering into Jerusalem third times. Riding on a donkey was the first (Mark 11:1), the time to clean the temple was the second (Mark 11:15) and the incident happened in the above verse was the third. The atmosphere was getting worse. Finally an incident happened at the third entry.

The content says when Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the teachers of the law and the elders came to Jesus. They belonged to the three parties to represent Sanhedrin, the supreme court of Israel in those days. There were the temple guard and officers in the temple. Their coming to Jesus signifies they seriously accepted the matter related to Jesus. The matter might be the temple clearing incident of the previous day.

For them the temple was an absolute object. Not only they but all the people in Israel thought like that. Even Roman Empire which colonized Israel allowed autonomy for such religious sacred place. Jesus also didn’t intention to devalue the temple clearly. The problem was that Jesus wasn’t able to neglect those merchandising activities which were happening in the temple. Jesus put the authority of the temple not in outward but inward. Jesus should put it right when such inner authority lost its prestige.

Now the highest power group of those days appeared before Jesus thinking that he didn’t recognize the authority of the temple. If we see the weight of authority that expressed in the surface it couldn’t be comparable. Jesus was a mere simple wandering preacher while others were a kernel power group of Sanhedrin centering in Jerusalem temple. They now began to dispute. The theme of disputing was what was a real authority?

A short aphorism (3): forgiveness

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father who is in heaven forgive your sins." (11:25, 26)

The above verse about prayer is mentioned in Matthew 6:5-15, the end part of series of teaching about a prayer. “But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Though Mark stated it positively while Matthew negatively the contents are same.

Forgiveness is the most important part in human relationship but the most difficult part to put into practice. It is important for a broken human relationship only can be restored by this. It is difficult for we don’t know how to forgive others.

I’m not saying the forgiveness which is practiced formally. We forgive others by saying but actually we don’t do the work of forgiving others. As we see the parable of a prodigal son, if my son asks forgiveness then I may forgive him. If my friend who insulted me or cheated me asks forgiveness then I may forgive him. However, if others don’t recognize their fault or do not ask forgiveness then it is hard for us to forgive them. Furthermore, there remains certain level of scars though I have forgiven them from my heart. This is an existential limitation of human, hard to overcome.

In my point of view, this problem also may be overcome by relationship with God only. So the author of gospel might say that the way to be forgiven by God is to forgive others. Those who know God’s forgiveness only are able to forgive man’s fault.

There are some who feel difficult to forgive the fault of friend, family, relative and fellow Christian. They may suffer from a guilty conscience due to this. We have to find out a new way. Entering into the fact that God has forgiven us through Jesus’ Christ is the way.

A short aphorism (2): prayer

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (11:24)

The original form of the above verse about prayer is Matthew 11:22, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." The aphorism about prayer has changed little by little according to the process of transmission. However, the above verse is sure about prayer.

First, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it. Here what we have to ask is not mentioned. It signifies believing that we have received whatever we asked for is important. It is the word about how do we depend on God. It points out an absolute dependence. We never have any work to do with our own. The root of existence is not in us. Our breathing also is not our independent ability. If there is no air to breathe our will to breathe air has no meaning at all. The word, “Believe that you have received it” means to entrust our life into God absolutely.

Second, it says, “if we ask for in prayer it will be ours.” No one may read it as an actual language. It doesn’t mean to throw the mountain into the sea or everybody can be a rich. Though we may get these things in this way we cannot get our spiritual satisfaction. Compare to the past we are living as a king with an affluent life but not happy with this.

If I say it in a little deeper level, the entire life is the answer of prayer to those who pray truthfully. The matter is we haven’t realized it yet. When a child was refused from his mother as he requested a knife, it even in fact what the child want. For it was the way to protect his life.

A Short aphorism (1): Faith

"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.(11:23)

After a fig tree incident Jesus narrates three aphorisms, faith (23), prayer (24) and forgiveness (25). These aphorisms might be Jesus’ direct word. According to the Bible scholars’ explanation, these aphorisms have formed before Mark’s gospel’s writing and it each shows its independent tradition. Let’s see faith first.

Luke’s gospel says about faith as following, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.” (Luke 17:6) Matthew 17:20 also has a similar content. However, Mark’s gospel doesn’t have the important expression of Luke and Matthew’s gospel, “a mustard seed’. And Luke’s gospel examples ‘a mulberry tree’ while Matthew and Mark ‘a mountain’. Matthew 21:21, the report of a fig tree tradition repeats the same phrase ‘a mountain will be thrown into the sea.’ All these facts clearly signify that such form of phrase already had settled in the early Christianity era.

This sort of expression is hyperbole. Though you may have strong faith you cannot throw a mountain into the sea. Through such hyperbole the authors of the gospel delivers the fact that Jesus is Messiah. Messiah is a savior. Nothing is impossible for the savior. So the thing to wither a fig tree and to throw a mountain into sea should be possible for him.

If we think here we also can do the same as we have faith, it is embarrassing. We are saved by believing the fact that Jesus is Messiah. In other word, we are participated in the messianic event by believing Messiah.

HAVE FAITH IN GOD

"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. (Mark 11:22)

Hearing Peter’s report of a withering fig tree, Jesus said unexpectedly, “Have faith in God.” What relationship does it have between a withered fig tree that had cursed in the morning and withered in the evening and the matter of having faith in God?

The answer was given by yesterday’s meditation. A fig tree signifies Israel. They didn’t bear fruit. They didn’t believe God truthfully. Such Israel was not different from a withered fig tree and they would be thrown into the same destiny. Does it really right diagnosis?

Israel was the truest nation to believe God at view of the Bible history. They thought they were the people chosen by God. Practically their religious tradition was peerless. The spiritual inheritances to mankind also are marvelous. The Sabbath system and prophet’s spirituality are incomparably great.

However it cannot be an index of faith. On the contrary, the more such things they have the lesser possibility would be having faith in God. Ironically, there are many cases of lacking of the power of faith despite glittering outer shape. In those days Israel’s religion already had fossilized and became to lose its life. The Sabbath day that should give life to the people rather operated as an absolute regulation which was nothing related to life. Under such status, faith couldn’t but be chocked.

It had happened to Israel for they didn’t think the fact seriously that there were not much relation between a religious activity and the faith toward God. It can be applied to us today too. So do we too live without much concern on God by indulging our various faith programs?

The Kingdom of God (5)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”(1:15)

Just like we could not experience God directly and so not understand Him vividly, we cannot understand the kingdom of God in such a viewpoint. This problem has been exposed already when we said that God and the kingdom of God are in accord. So it is possible to insist that the kingdom of God is meaningless to us because we cannot experience the kingdom of God as well as God Himself directly and totally in full understanding. But that is not true. In spite of not having full understanding, it is not unrelated with us. For example, in spite of children’s not having full understanding of their parents’ thinking, we cannot say that their parents not related with them or they are meaningless. Jesus was explaining the kingdom of God by parables, which is definitely being related with our lives directly, and what’s more, would make up our lives ultimately even though it is not exposed as real. Without parables it is impossible to explain the kingdom of God.

According to Jesus’ parables, the kingdom of God is like various fields where the seeds were thrown. The kingdom of God is like a master who brings daily laborers to work in his vineyard. It is like a father who has been waiting for a prodigal son, and like the yeast in three bags of flour. Jesus’ parables are original teachings to explain God and the kingdom of God.

And then the next thing is very important. Parables are not direct explanations about something, but indirect one. What Jesus explains the kingdom of God by parables means that the kingdom of God is not decisive or not finished. We could approach to the kingdom of God figuratively, but not experience as reality. But today there are lots of people who listen to the parables for the kingdom of God, and then regard it as reality. The way of living in this world as their happiest moment is sometimes regarded as the kingdom of God. It is possible for us, being thrown out to live in this world, to understand the kingdom of God only through the parables.

In Jesus’ parables about the kingdom of God, there is similarity. First of all, the kingdom is change. Yeast raises flour, and a seed grows. A father is waiting for a prodigal son. The feast is filled with guests in whatsoever way. The kingdom of God is a power to change our lives and social law and order. That power will be able to change our life form. Nobody knows how life form could be changed, but nothing could be left as it was before the kingdom of God.

Today we should be able to think a new parable about the kingdom of God. We should think what kind of parable could explain the kingdom of God to Korean people who are living in a divided country as south and north. As Jesus compares the kingdom of God as the master of a vineyard who gives the same amount of one denarius to each of the workers regardless of how long they work, we need spiritual imagination in order to overcome neo-liberalism which forces us to compete extremely. How about this parable? The kingdom of God is like an owner of a factory who gives the same wages both to native workers and to foreign workers. It is like a festival where the soldiers from the north and the south are dancing together without their weapons. The kingdom of God could control your lives as much as possible in which your imagination could reach.

Lord. We’ve lost the parables for the kingdom of God today. Give us power of imagination in parables. Amen.

The Kingdom of God (4)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”(1:15)

We are now sinking down deeper and deeper into a bog of theological thinking. It is said Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God. And the kingdom of God means God’s reigning. And then it means Jesus proclaimed God’s reigning. It is not that hard to understand up to now. But next comes the problem. Early Christianity made Jesus’ proclamation for the kingdom of God and His reigning in harmony with Jesus himself. Like description of a theologian, the one who proclaims are identified with the being proclaimed. Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as his object, and by early Christianity the object and the subject of the kingdom of God became one in harmony. Jesus and God are in harmony.

How could it be possible? What kind of universal validity did early Christian’s recognition like this achieve? Jesus’ himself sayings like “Daddy, Father” or that he saw God or that God is his witness could be one of proofs. But it is impossible to be valid only through his sayings for the basis of truth for Christian’s proposal that God and Jesus are one ultimately.

The events that happened during Jesus’ official life might be proof. The healings for the sick or the miracle of “two fish and five loaves of bread” might be one of them. The authors of the Gospel should have been kept in mind that Jesus is Messiah, when they wrote those happenings. In here Messiah means God himself. But in ancient times those kinds of miracles happened often. And those miracles happened to Jesus are not the same kinds such as those supernatural miracles from general point of view today.

In here the cross could be much decisive event than other miracles. Because the cross is a messianic proof for the salvation of mankind. But the cross was one of general happenings. Lots of people were executed on the cross. So his death on the cross could not be absolute prerequisite for the synonym that Jesus and God are one.

And then the last thing is His resurrection. His official life was spotlighted after his resurrection from a new perspective. His teachings and his death on the cross, not being understood until then, have been analyzed by a theory of salvation. As all we know well, the gospels are divided between reports before and after his resurrection. Basically in them there are faithful confessions about Jesus’ resurrection. Today we cannot mention in details Jesus’ resurrection in here. But it is sure enough for us to understand that early Christians made it sure that Jesus and God are one, through their experiences with resurrected Jesus and confessions that He was Messiah.

But this kind of problem has not been solved perfectly. It is not proven perfectly yet that Jesus is ultimately the same as God. Maybe this kind of dispute will keep on happening until the end of time. Even though this problem is still disputable, the truth in Christianity could not be damaged. Rather it is the opposite. When it is put down in the middle of the truth dispute, Christianity could be recognized for its justification. In here we do not have to be puzzled. In this world not any religions, any studies, any sciences have not been decided as an ultimate truth. Christianity now is competing with any of them with good will.

Jesus Christ is the basis of life, and in that sense, we should do our best with all our hearts to prove that He is the same one as God. We cannot solve this problem with “I believe”, but with explanations on the basis of universal truth. If you agree with the fact that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, you should not fear the disputes for the truth. Because like early Christians we believe that Jesus, who proclaimed the kingdom of God, is the kingdom itself.

Lord, help us to recognize deeply that you are the kingdom of God and His reigning. Amen.

The withered fig tree

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" (11:20,21)

Now Jesus and his followers who arrived at Jerusalem from the remote place Galilee after long journey in order to celebrate Passover were in and out Jerusalem. It was because they might not have a proper place to stay in Jerusalem and arranged their lodging place in Bethany. The fig tree cursed by Jesus might be in between Jerusalem and Bethany or near to Bethany. Jesus and his followers saw the fig tree again on the way to Bethany and surprisingly it withered from the root. Peter intimated it to Jesus.

The fig tree cursed by Jesus in the morning not to bear fruit any more withered in the evening. What does the author of the Gospel want to tell us with this writing? More prior to this, is it a true fact? The second question doesn’t have much meaning for we don’t have any ability to figure out. Then some of you may doubt isn’t it a fact? There are historical facts in the gospels and some are not. However, those are not fact even have its meaning. All stories in the Gospels are important at the point that it was the Gospel communities’ experience, faith and interpretation about Jesus.

As I told you from the previous story that Jesus cursed the fruitless fig tree (Mark 11:13), the fig tree indicate Israel. They didn’t bear fruit. They didn’t believe God rightfully. They couldn’t but take the same step the withered fig tree. Likewise the gospel author rearranged Jesus’ public life incident based on their faith and their own historical experience: if one doesn’t have faith in God, then it withers.

At Jerusalem Temple(8)

When evening came, they[e] went out of the city.(11:19)

The above verse seems to describe the calmness the night before storm. Jesus and his followers quietly withdrew from Jerusalem as they had done before whether they knew the high priests and the scribes were conspiring to get rid of Jesus or not. When we see this scene only, it is rather romantic. After sunset they went to the sleeping place, probably Bethany. However, the shadow of death that handed down to Jesus slowly getting thicker.

The cause of such phenomena was Jerusalem temple cleaning incident. The high priests and the subscribers began to be afraid of Jesus through this incident. The incident seemed to be a violent act and we might think it is something specific incident distinguished from other incidents of Jesus. It is not. It is deeply related to the entire life of Jesus.

Jesus only sought the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Such life couldn’t but crash against the order of power and greedy. Such crush wasn’t happened only between the people with vested right. It was the same with the publics. As we know very well, the publics refused to accept Pilate’s suggestion to release Jesus. Those who followed Jesus fervently left Jesus immediately when they realized Jesus wouldn’t fitted to their expectation.

To Jesus who only tried to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness, the temple cleaning was already anticipated. If Jesus didn’t enter into the temple it wouldn’t happen but once he entered in and saw those merchandizing actives then he couldn’t but fight against the vested power group of the temple. Now Jesus reached an impasse. He had no choice but to fight with his back to the wall. What would be the result? It was an act of hitting a rock by an egg to crush it. However, the result was not important for him. He simply said yes for yes and no for no.

The Kingdom of God (3)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”(1:15)

In the sentence “the kingdom of God is near”, we easily misunderstand between God and the kingdom of God. It is not correct to divide between God’s existence and His kingdom, which means his reigning. God and the kingdom of God are in accord. That means that God exists as His kingdom. The kingdom of God is a way of His existence. Beforehand the kingdom was mentioned as reigning, and then it means that God exists as reigning itself. With explanation a little more detailed, God is reigning, doing, and power. He exists as the kingdom having personality with peace, justice, joy and freedom. He exists as love, which is the core for all of them. God is love.

Sometimes some people say they listen to God directly or meet Him. There is no such God. How could we directly experience “the kingdom”? How could we directly meet “love”? How could we directly meet “the wind”? Of course we could face a refreshing breeze, but it is not a whole part of wind. Just like we could only experience wind partially, we could experience only a part of the kingdom of God, not all of them. If we can’t experience the whole, it means we do not experience God directly. Of course in the Bible there are not a few texts that describe like having direct confront with God. We should not misunderstand those reports. The Biblical reports are just like poems. Poets write poems just like they talk with the objects directly. ”The wind sings” if a person regards this sentence as real description, he must not know poetry. The reports of the Biblical authors are just like that. They understood the kingdom of God or God’s reigning in a higher spiritual level. Those recognitions they described as Yaweh was talking to them directly. Maybe some of you might be dissatisfied with this kind explanation. They might like to say that Basically I agree with that opinion. the Bible, being revelation of God, could not be degraded by human epistemology. Not putting the Bible in a limited category of human epistemology, I am now explaining about an epistemological passage between God’s actions and human being who should understand those. Even though God’s ontological power in the mystery of His being and revelations has more superior control over our faith and actions, human epistemology could not be destroyed. Today the destruction of reasonable epistemology is the problem emerging from the heresy or the leaders of cult who insist that they got God’s visions directly from Him.

Today in Korean churches, how could the image of God be understood? It could be like a king, a father, and a man. If it could not be one of them, he could be regarded at least as a spirit in the mountains. Even for a person who has a little more open heart, it is not possible to think that God, the kingdom of God, and his actions could be one. It is necessary to change the image of God from the inactive to the active from now on. This is not defined by our necessity but it is a true image of God in the Bible. We limit such an active God inside the boundary of a small world we understand. Now look with open eyes how the events of life begin in this world. The power of life is God Himself. To live with total trust on Him is a Biblical faith.

Lord, help us to understand deeply that your “kingdom” means yourself. Amen!

The Kingdom of God (2)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”(1:15)

According to the appendix for Greek English dictionary edited by several scholars including Kurt Aland, ‘basileia’ is translated in English like this: reign, rule, kingdom, domain. And then “the kingdom of God” means sovereignty of God, the kingdom of God, the domain of God. Considering these meanings in the dictionary, the kingdom of God means the spatial space as well as power moving around inside of that space. But with the preposition that God does not be restricted in a limited space, the kingdom of God should be interpreted as a concept of sovereignty. This means that the kingdom of God is God’s reigning.

For understanding the kingdom as reigning, first of all we should overcome the idea of substantial metaphysics. Substantial metaphysics is an idea that there is an original substance forming this world. Whether that is Plato’s Idea or Aristotle’s phenomenon, westerners used to think that substance exist. According to this kind of substantial metaphysics, the kingdom must exist as substance. Just like a heaven that we Christians imagine we might go after we die.

But does that substance ultimately exist? Modern physics already has denied that idea of substance. The idea that the least unit for forming material is an atom had been destroyed already. And also Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” points out that it is impossible to prove the phenomenon of material objectively in the world of quantum. It is saying that because quantum is always changing by the observer, it is impossible to observe the quantum objectively. And if it is impossible to observe quantum objectively, it could not be regarded as a theory of natural science. From this point of view it is true that today’s physics pass over beyond the boundary of psycho-science. It means that material and mind could be totally differentiated. We are getting aside a little much. Maybe I was saying what I don’t know much exactly. But if you see a big frame of the picture, it could be correct. Now let’s get back to our main topic.

To a person who regards the kingdom of God as God’s reigning, this world should not have to be understood or possessed by his own idea. Instead, he opens his heart to God’s reigning. But the problem is that God’s reigning or his control could be not felt by our sense, because his way of reigning is always beyond our expectations. Generally speaking, it is easy to think world’s history had been written by cause and effect or by virtue and vice. Neo-liberalism is regarded as the most highly ideology by a tacit agreement that only economic power could save uman beings. The authors in the Bible did not judge history like that. They point out that the most powerful king, empire, authority, and power in Bible age were so vain in front of God. The simple example is that Israelites walked through the Red Sea like on dry land, but the most powerful Egyptian bands of army submerged into water. That is a confession of faith that God’s reigning is out of the center of our expectation.

How could we experience God’s reigning today? Maybe still we are controlled by empirical order. Maybe still we are restricted by worldly system of economic power. Maybe we might think we possess the kingdom of God. That’s why we are wasting our time for expanding that kind of sphere. Does God control our private lives? Or do we surrender our fate to God’s reigning? Maybe we don’t have any concern about God’s reigning, because we have been already conquered by possession-centered principles of life.

Jesus said God’s reigning is near. But it seems to be not possible for anybody to understand the imminent God’s reigning. Those days for Jesus there were not many to understand his life and teaching. There were not many to regard Jesus on the cross as Messiah. If we think we recognize God’s reigning because we believe in Jesus as Messiah, it is a misunderstanding pretty much. To us to believe in Jesus is changed as a kind of power. Our reality is that reigning of God becomes so powerless by the power of church leaders who has revived church a lot. I don’t have to take some examples in here, I think. Many people who know the atmosphere of the churches could already feel it.

Now we should pay attention to what God’s reigning means. The reigning of God to be said it is very near. Just like musicians find reason for his existence only in music, Christians should find reason for his being in God’s reigning so near to us.

Lord, I want to be a person who accepts totally God’s reigning. Amen.

At Jerusalem temple (7)

The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching. (Mark 11:18)

The high priests and the scribes were greatly shocked by Jesus’ deed and teaching showing in the temple. They might look for a way to kill Jesus due to this shock. It’s unfair to call them as mobs or personality bankrupted people by seeing this only. They were top class religious leaders and theologians of those days. So to speak, they were the most popular figure of the times with good character and intelligence. They were not to kill Jesus groundlessly.

According to today’s content, they planned to kill Jesus with fear under a certain situation. They were afraid of people’s amazing for Jesus’ teaching. Amazement occurs from new experience. People experienced from Jesus new things that was totally different from previous religious teaching.

What was newness of Jesus? There was the kingdom of God in him. Jews regarded the kingdom of God as a political upheaval to establish Israel-centered world. However, Jesus declared totally different level of the kingdom of God, different from a political liberation. He declared the kingdom of God was near. And also he proclaimed the kingdom was the kingdom of life given not by political, economical power but by God.

Before the kingdom of God, the law, Jews regarded it as an absolute one, would be abolished. Tax collectors and sinners also will enter the kingdom. However, the Pharisees who have kept the law thoroughly cannot enter it. The high priests and the scribes clearly saw it from Jesus’ temple cleaning incident. It was threaten for their religious foundation and authority. So how they couldn’t but think to remove him?

At Jerusalem temple (6)

And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" (Mark 11:17)

Jesus quoted 7:11, “But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’” Jeremiah rebuked their hypocritical faith. They said “We are safe” by doing all evil things, steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods they had not known. It was a detestable thing. (Jer. 7:10)

Even in those days Jerusalem temple diligently practiced a traditional sacrifice. They were fervently and earnestly eager in religious performance greater than any other times. However, all these were hypocrisy. Problem here is that they never thought it was hypocrisy. Though some people felt authenticity but it was nothing but hypocritical authenticity.

Whether did they practically make the temple into a den of robbers or not also is not easy matter to certify. People are not able to notice such thing easily. If everybody knows it then solution for the problem can be easily made. That is problem. In the time of Martyn Luther’s religious reformation, many Catholic fathers and scholars regarded the indulgence and infallibility of Pops as granted.

Can Korean Protestant church today boldly say that they didn’t make a church as a den of robbers? For someone it is hidden for there is their own authenticity in a den of robbers. They have their own fidelity. A cook or a sweeper may be truthful. However, a den of robbers is still a den of robbers and it cannot be a temple. The criterion of such status is, according to Jeremiah’s teaching, discordance between one's faith and one's life. In order word, it is religious hypocrisy.

At Jerusalem temple (5)

And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" (Mark 11:17)


Jesus quoted 56:7, “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The temple is a house of prayer for all nations. The core here is a house of prayer.

The most important function of temple, of course, is offering a sacrifice. It might be prayed at a certain part of temple as Jews recite the Psalm or pray at the Wall of Mourning. A sacrifice and a prayer can be distinguished strictly but it is not necessary here to do that for both are related to God. When we see the original contents from Isaiah, the above quoted sentence is followed after “Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar.” It is very clear that both are used as the same meaning.

The reason of today we go to church also worship and prayer. It is our religious activities to pour out all our spiritual concern to God. What does it point out practically? Firstly, it may remove all our desires of mundane world. As we fall into reading interesting books, only the Trinity God occupies our spiritual world.

It is not a simple thing like that. The reason is that his revelation, being method of God penetrates our life. It means there are many cases we are not able to distinguish what is a secular desire for ourselves and what is our concern toward God. The most important criterion is life; precisely speaking it is the mystery of life. If our soul is captured by the mystery of life that is fulfilled by God we are a true prayer to God and God worshippers.

At Jerusalem temple (4)

And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: "'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'" (Mark 11:17)

After driving out the merchants or overturning benches, Jesus told about the essentiality of temple. It is quoted from the Old Testament, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" and “Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you?”

A house of prayer and a den of robbers are completely contradictive conception. If a spiritual fellowship occurs at a house of prayer then a den of robbers is ruled by greedy. The word of Jesus to make the holiest place into the ugliest place shocks us mightily.

It is not a high-flown expression but an exact diagnosis for our reality. If we simply understand this word as a warning for the corruption of church then it is embarrassing thing. Though it has such meaning too it says further fundamental something.

It urges us to dismantle our thought about holiness and secular. We like a high position in society and admire those who sit on that place. On the contrary we see a low post bad and look down those who were fallen down. Outwardly we say there is no difference between man and man and even their occupations but inwardly always give a line between them and think, judge and lives like that. This is really great misunderstanding.

It is the same in pastor’s world too. Normally a pastor is called as a sacred occupation. Though an occupation of pastor is distinguished it is exactly same as the occupation of the secular world. In other words, a pastor is nothing different from shoemaker or keysmith. There are tiny differences between a sacred and a secular. Or is the same as both sides of coin. At any moment a sacred becomes a secular and a secular a sacred.

At Jerusalem temple (3)

“… and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.” (Mark 11:16)

Jesus drove out the buyers and sellers from the temple and overturned the benches. It might be a unique violence of Jesus in the gospels. What was more, Jesus would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple court. Why did Jesus show such violent action? Jesus surely knew the temple market was for the pilgrims.

If we think differently it is a story related to essential and unessential fact of religious activities. The essentiality of temple is confirmed only through sacrificial rituals. If the religious ritual that glorifies to God only is not practiced rightfully the temple’s reason for being disappears. However, the problem lies at the point that the essentiality cannot be kept naturally. The essentiality can be so easily absorbed or is played by inessentiality. It is because we have a difficulty to pry into essentiality only.

Think of worship service today. How much do we regard seriously the fact of worshiping the Trinity God and experience and feel the reality? We easily fall into mannerism of worship service. We utilize various audio-video aids or modern music in order to overcome this mannerism we cannot overcome it by such aids.

The first important step for us to enter into the essentiality of worship is to fully understand the spiritual meaning of each worship order and to secure the wholeness of worship. It is similar to be absorbed on symphony music at a classic music concert. For this, people must know what music is first. The players also should play properly. If such process is omitted people thinks else or sleeps. Jesus violence might be an expression of self-awakening of essentiality of the temple.

At Jerusalem temple (2)

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, (Mark 11:15)

Jesus saw the merchants at the temple in the Jerusalem. They were buyer, seller, money changers and those selling doves. According the Bible scholars, the temple market was very big. At the important festival it opened at the gentiles’ courtyard, the size of 475 m width and 300 m length. In addition to this, other courtyards and other building were included.

Such temple market was for the convenience of pilgrims who came from a remote place. They had to change a certain sort of coin settled by the temple in order to pay a temple tax. The pilgrims from Egypt couldn’t but change his money at the market of Jerusalem temple. The animals for offering to the Lord also should be flawlessness. In order to prepare the temple standard animal it was safe to buy it from the market in the temple. The temple market naturally began according to practical needy.

What exactly the officer of Jerusalem temple had derived improper benefit from the market is unknown. Though we cannot say about improper benefit, there might be possibility of improper trading. In those days the exchange commission of money was between 2.1% to 4.2%. There might be high possibility to pay certain prices to the temple officers from money changers and merchants in order to get secured status.

Then is it reasonable thing to abolish the temple market? It is not realistic way. If it is abolished then Jerusalem temple may be fallen into a great disorder. The temple priests also might be in such agony. They might be kept such status thinking that it was a necessary evil.

At Jerusalem temple (1)

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, (Mark 11:15)

Jerusalem temple clearing incident was the most important cause that determined Jesus’ destiny. So, all four gospels are dealing with this incident. John’s gospel sets it up at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry while other synoptic gospel the last week. It was important for Jesus was directly confronted by the leaders of Jerusalem temple at this incident.

Jew’s system centered round Jerusalem was like a stronghold. Firstly the history and tradition of Jerusalem was great. If we trace back the history of Jerusalem temple to its origin there are David and Solomon. David prepared material foundation to build the temple and Solomon practically built it. If we trace a little more back we can meet Moses. In the law he received all the detailed enforcement regulations about temple and worship activities.

Jerusalem temple not merely exercised the religious vested rights but collected a fixed temple tax from the pilgrims. They could collect much money and goods at the important festival. Imagine how much the amount would be. The government of Roman Empire, the ruler of Israel didn’t interrupt such activities of the leaders of Jerusalem temple. Think of the offering of those mega churches in Korea. Of course other religions also have the same phenomena.

In common parlance, Jesus a rustic from Nazareth fought against the power of Jerusalem temple, the origin of Israel religion. The result of this fighting was forgone conclusion. The temple clearing incident was a catalyzer to make his destiny of crucifixion earlier.

Jesus’ curse

Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it. (Mark 11:14)

According to the above verse, Jesus acted a little peculiarly. Jesus cursed the tree not to bear fruit any more. Came to unseasonable time and cursed it for he had not found a fig was illogical. If someone insists bases on this verse that this incident is rightly the proof of Jesus’ messianic character for Jesus even can cruse a tree and his curse is fulfilled then it is a great perversion. As I pointed out in yesterday’s meditation, the author of Mark would like to say totally different one, which was Jesus’ judgment for Israel had been symbolized as a fig tree.

Here we may raise a question is Jesus’ judgment shown by a fig tree historical fact? It is really completed to inquire these matters one by one. It is not easy to distinguish an actual fact, from where to where. It is because many quotations from Jesus and his activities has newly interpreted and settled in Early Christian community as various forms of tradition. The authors of the Bible didn’t try to restore the biography of Jesus but concerned on the fact that Jesus is Christ. So to speak this is a theological interpretation of Mark and Matthew’s community for Jesus and his destiny. So they could boldly report a story like fable.

At the author of Mark’s view, Israel who denied the fact that Jesus was Christ was similar to a fruitless fig tree. If we premise the fact that Israel executed Jesus on the cross, then it could be understandable Jesus’ curse that the author emphasized. Those who didn’t recognize the fact Jesus is Christ cannot escape from judgment.

The time of fig

Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. (Mark 11:13)

Only Matthew’s gospel and Mark’s gospel deal with a fig tree incident. The basic structure is following. When Jesus was hungry he wanted to find out figs from a fig tree but he found nothing then he cursed it and it dried and died. When the disciples thought strange Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." (Matt. 21:22) Mark separated Jesus’ curse and the later story but Matthew combined it.

Verse 13 we read today focused, different from Matthew, that it was not the season for figs in order to emphasize the meaning of this incident. It is really strange. If it is not the season for figs then Jesus who demanded figs is wrong. Furthermore, he cursed the fig tree when he couldn’t find out a fig. It really is pitiful thing for the fig tree.

When we read such story the important point we should focus on is the editing intention of the author of the Bible. The author of Mark’s gospel doesn’t deliver the fact that Jesus was hungry and even he wanted to eat figs. I told you in yesterday’s meditation under the title, ‘Hungry Jesus’ about the importance of Jesus’ human nature but it is not the core of this story. The author of Mark’s gospel intended to deliver another fact.

If we want to know another fact we have to premise what a fig signifies in the Old Testament. The fig points out Israel. (Hos. 9:10, Jer. 24:1-10, Mic. 7:1) No fruit in a fig tree means Israel didn’t bear a fruit as the people of God. The most decisive proof is that they didn’t accept Jesus. The mention that it is not the season for figs points out rightly that.

Hungry Jesus

The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry.(Mark 11:12)

There is a story little difficult to understand in Mark 11:12-14 that Jesus cursed a fig tree. It is rare possibility to be a true. More correctly speaking, though a similar incident happened it wasn’t the same content that the author of Mark’s gospel delivered. If we compare it with a parallel phrase Matthew 21:18-22 we can somewhat follow the authors’ writing intention. Let’s think of it later.

Mark and Matthew narrated the beginning of this incident a little farcical way, Jesus was hungry. So Jesus tried to find out something to eat from a fig tree. A thirsty man seeks for water and a hungry people looks for food is natural and it seems nothing strange that Jesus was searching for a fig. However, it seems awaked for our Christian who believes Jesus as the Son of God. Though he was hungry he would bear of it. His action to search for food hurriedly makes lose his face.

Why the author of the Bible didn’t hide Jesus’ humanity that could be losing business of Jesus. This is nothing strange. The Church Father who theologically systemized the faith of the author of the Bible recognized Jesus a true God and a true man. They said for Jesus these two natures make an identity without mixing each other. We have to pay attention to ‘a true man’ (vere Homer) here. Jesus was a perfect human being like us. He had lived in this world with our human condition and limitation.

If Jesus was hungry he would get many moments to be lonely. He might be afraid of clashing with the religious leaders of Jerusalem. We can well imagine Jesus distress when he thought God had forsaken him. The Jesus who was hungry is the very Saviour of us.

The Kingdom of God (1)

“‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”(1:15)

For the time being, we will discuss “the kingdom of God” which Jesus said it is near. I am not sure it could be a week or a couple of weeks, or it could be a month, but I think I need enough time for that. There are two reasons. One is the fact that everything for Christianity is related with this kingdom of God directly, and the other is that the kingdom of God is so important but not understood enough in these days.

The kingdom of God is described in Greek Basileia tou Deu. It is alright to say simply “basileia”. From now on we will think about “basileia” from various kinds of viewpoints, but it is necessary to make it sure that Christianity totally depends upon the kingdom of God. Today’s text is saying that the kingdom of God is near. Maybe in Revelation it might be expressed that Jesus is knocking on the door. Christian faith and the gospels have the preposition that the kingdom of God is imminent. Every context in the New Testament has meaning just in front of this fact. If the fact of the imminent kingdom of God might be loose, the tension of the gospels will evaporate right away.

Nevertheless, the preaching podium does not take the topic of the kingdom of God. We are in the process of forgetting the kingdom of God. Instead, we pay more attention to growth of church as well as religious desire of Christians. It is a crisis to Christian faith to enlarge and reproduce the development of church and religious sensitivity with losing a cosmological horizon of the kingdom of God. But how many people do realize that this is a crisis? How many preachers and believers do feel this reality in which the kingdom of God is not preached at all as a crisis?

I would not explain in details why people could not realize this crisis as a crisis today. If we logically inquire into the reasons, it is possible for us to damage the basics of this writing. I would like to say shortly. Even though the kingdom of God is not proclaimed, but if we do not have any sense of crisis, it is because we don’t have any curiosity about the kingdom of God. Not having curiosity means not knowing the kingdom of God.

In church environment we are more used to the heaven, that is heavenly sphere, than to the kingdom of God. Even the New Testament sometimes differentiates the kingdom of God from the heaven. For example, in the beatitudes in Matthew chapter 5 verse 3, the Greek “Basileia tou ouranon” is used for the meaning of the heavenly kingdom. But there is no definite difference between these two words, regarding that ancient people use these words of heaven and God with the same meaning.

In the practical sense at church, “the heaven” was understood as next stage after life in here. Even there are some people who insist that in the heaven there must be distinction between one with a golden crown and the other with a hat made of dog’s hair. This shows that the heaven is understood like an insurance policy of old age. If there is no heaven like that after death, many people might leave from the church. I don’t mean that there is no life after we die. That could be another topic, and now I am telling you the basic reality why the kingdom of God is misunderstood.
Maybe someone who is a little bit impatient might ask like this. Putting aside the question whether it could be the kingdom of God or the heaven, does the kingdom of God exist or not? Considering Jesus’ saying that the kingdom of God is near”, definitely it does exist. But it does not exist according to the dimension of time and space, as I explained the misuse of the lexicon of heaven. Just like the Garden of Eden in Genesis or the holy city the New Jerusalem, it is not the place with all kinds of beautiful things with perfect welfare system. Basileia could be beyond our description with our imagination. But it is clear that it is very imminent.

From tomorrow we would discuss this problem in more details. Without any prejudice I’ll try to get closer into the fact. But do not expect too much. I don’t know anything that much. Probably I think I have a little bit more, or almost not much being meaningful I could describe a theological frame of the kingdom of God. In the bottom of what we should talk, it must be the words of Jesus “the kingdom of God is near”.

Lord, I like to listen to spiritual message of your words “the kingdom of God is near”. Amen!