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!

Again to Bethany

Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. (Mark 11:11)

Verse 11 says, Jesus entered Jerusalem as a king of peace and stayed there for a while but came out from Jerusalem since it was late. Compare to the scene of bringing a colt and entry to Jerusalem the explanation after entry is too simple. Why did Jesus come out from Jerusalem?

Was it nowhere for Jesus in Jerusalem to stay? It might be. In those days Jerusalem was a capital city of Israel. Jesus came from Nazareth a remote place. It might be not easy to find out the people who could provide Jesus with lodging and eating. Furthermore Jesus was branded a person to be watched by Jew’s leader. Who could hide him in Jerusalem? So it was comfortable for Jesus to return Bethany where his intimate people were residing.

If we think it a little realistically Jesus might need a rest before a big battle against the religious leaders in Jerusalem temple. Then it was better for Jesus rather returned to Bethany lesser noticed place than staying in Jerusalem where hostile people surrounded.

We don’t know clearly about such matter. The author of Bible also might not have much concern on this matter. Reporting temple cleaning incident directly after entry of Jerusalem (Mark 11:15-19) didn’t have any problem and furthermore it was natural proceeding like Matthew’s gospel. Was the author mentioned the incident of returning Bethany in order to deliver a story of fig tree? It is also not clear.

However, I feel a certain sense of pathos between the lines of the word, Jesus returned to Bethany. Perhaps, so awed by the air of Jerusalem’ dignity, might Jesus think to return Nazareth in Galilee momentarily?