Mark 11

CHAPTER XI

Mark 11:1

1 By naming the locality Mark again marks a minor part of the Gospel. The three parts concerned with Jerusalem belong together, 10:32; 11:1; 13:1; see the remarks on 10:32. And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, toward the Mount of Olives, he commissions two of his disciples and says to them. Be going into the village opposite you; and immediately on going into it you shall find a colt that has been tied, on which no man ever yet sat. Loose him and be bringing him. And if anyone shall say to you, Why are you doing this? say, The Lord has need of him! And immediately he sends him hither again.

John supplements the accounts of the synoptists. From him we learn that the day was the Sunday before Jesus’ death. While Jesus makes ready to ride into Jerusalem, the multitude of festival pilgrims in the city, having heard of his coming, starts out to meet and receive him (John 12:12). Matt. 21:9 distinguishes two multitudes, the one coming from the city and the other that was with Jesus when he started for the city. From John we learn also that the enthusiasm mounted so high because of the raising of Lazarus, and that Jesus, after spending the Sabbath (Saturday) in Bethany, started upon his entry into the city from this village.

Mark is quite exact. The destination was really Jerusalem, Bethphage and Bethany being two villages along the road to the city, and the general locality was “toward” (πρός, R. 624) the Mount of Olives. Judging from the way in which the two villages are mentioned, they must have been quite near to each other. All trace of Bethphage has disappeared, and its location can no longer be determined, but Bethany is still existing, being located a little over the far side of the ridge of Mount Olivet. Mark is correct in naming Bethphage before Bethany, for Jesus left Bethany, where he had lodged over the Sabbath, and walked toward Bethphage. The distance was quite short.

Here he pauses, for he will this time not walk into Jerusalem as he had done hitherto but will ride. So he commissions two of his disciples to bring him the necessary mount. Nobody knows who these two were, but we hazard the guess that Peter was one of them, seeing that Mark has so many details that seem to have come from an eyewitness.

Mark 11:2

2 These two receive the most detailed orders. They are to go into the village over against them, and just as they are going in, without the least difficulty, they will find the animal that Jesus wants, tied as if awaiting them. Mark named Bethphage, the smaller place, first to indicate that it was now “over against them.” Jesus had just left Bethany (John), and Matthew tells us that the ass came from Bethphage. Mark and Luke speak only of the colt, for this was the animal that Jesus wanted to ride; Matthew tells us that the dam of this colt was also to be brought. Jesus did not want to distress the animals by separating them. When he rode the colt, the dam trotted along contentedly.

By mentioning the dam Matthew seems to hint at what Mark and Luke report, namely, that Jesus described the colt as one on which “no one of men” (idiomatic) ever yet sat. Some take objection to this clause by claiming that Jesus could not have made this remark and that Mark (and Luke) put it into Jesus’ mouth. But it is Jesus himself who here says why he wanted the colt, why it and not the dam or any other ass that had been ridden was the animal that was fit especially for this occasion. We have analogies in Num. 19:2; Deut. 21:3; 1 Sam. 6:7. The aorist λύσατε indicates the one act of untying, and the present φέρετε the longer act of bringing the colt.

Mark 11:3

3 The two disciples are further told just what to answer in case anyone says anything to them about taking the animals. One word will be enough: “The Lord has need of him” (the colt). There will be no difficulty whatever. We draw the obvious conclusion that the owners were very good friends of Jesus and his disciples and ready to grant him every favor. But it is conjecture to say that the colt was to be found in Bethany and to make Lazarus its owner. In the clause: “and immediately he will send him hither again,” πάλιν, “again,” seems puzzling.

But it cannot be cancelled, and it means just what it says, that the colt was now on the road leading to Jerusalem, where Jesus was waiting, and had only recently been taken into the little village and tied there. This πάλιν is one of the very exact touches in the story and valuable on that account.

The explicit orders of Jesus to his disciples reveal his supernatural knowledge, of which, like his other divine powers, he makes such use as his great work requires. And here especially, in fulfilling one of the remarkable prophecies concerning the Messiah (Zech. 9:9), it was eminently fitting that his divine personality should reveal itself.

Mark 11:4

4 And they went away and found a colt having been tied near the door outside on the way that leads around, and they loosen him. And some of those standing there went on to say to them, What are you doing, loosening the colt? And they said to them even as Jesus said. And they let them.

Mark reports at length just how the two disciples carried out their instructions. When he says that they found the colt tied near the door outside on the way that leads around, we feel that this exactness must come from Peter (whose teaching Mark reproduces), and that Peter must have been one of the two to go for the colt. The perfect participle δεδεμένον, “having been tied,” has the same present implication it had in v. 2: having been and being still tied. Πρός has its first meaning “near” (R. 622) as it has in v. 1. The article in πρὸςτὴνθύραν means the door of the house where the owner of the colt lived; likewise the article in ἐπὶτοῦἀμφόδου, the way that led around that house. In other words, the colt was tied outside the door of the house where the owner lived and could hardly be removed without his knowledge, having also just been brought from the road where Jesus was (πάλιν in v. 3). As they had been directed, the disciples at once proceed to untie the colt.

Mark 11:5

5 Mark says that “some of those standing there” asked the disciples what they were doing by untying the colt; Luke identifies these as the owners of the colt, the people of the house, who were standing nearby. The perfect ἕστηκα and the participle ἑστηκώς are used in the present sense. The imperfect ἔλεγον means that they started to ask and intimates that an answer followed.

Mark 11:6

6 The disciples follow instructions and reply as Jesus had directed them to answer, and the owners at once let them proceed. We have already indicated that they must have been good friends of Jesus, but we may add another point. Jesus had but a short time ago raised Lazarus from the dead. This miracle had caused such a sensation that even now crowds were coming out to Bethany to see Lazarus (John 12:18). The owners of this colt, living so near to Bethany, must have known about this miracle and were thus glad to let Jesus use the colt.

Mark 11:7

7 And they bring the colt to Jesus, and they throw upon him their robes, and he sat upon him.

Just the facts are recorded and nothing more. The fact that Jesus wanted to ride the colt into Jerusalem is taken for granted. So the animal is prepared. The subject of “they bring” are the two disciples, but the subject of “they throw upon” may well be extended to include more than these two, the construction being ad sensum. They throw their long, thin outer robes across the back of the young ass in order to make as fine a seat as possible for Jesus; the colt was thus caparisoned for him, the robes were the trappings. So Jesus sat on the colt in order to ride into the city.

Mark 11:8

8 And many spread their robes in the road, and others masses of leaves, having cut them out of the fields. And those going before and those following kept shouting: Hosanna! Blessed the One coming in the Lord’s name! Blessed the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!

As Jesus starts to ride toward the city, the multitude, actuated by the same feelings as the disciples, made a carpet of its himatia or robes on the dusty road for him to ride over (compare 2 Kings 9:13). This act is one of submission combined with the highest honor. In fact, the multitude outdoes itself and exhausts its resources for honoring Jesus as its Messiah-King. The people cut branches from the trees, Mark says στιβάδας, “masses of leaves,” and spread them in the way. It is John who tells us that these were branches cut from the palm trees. Palms have long ago disappeared from Olivet, in fact, the whole country has been denuded of forests and trees generally.

All that the evangelists report is that the crowds made a path for Jesus which was carpeted with their long, loose outer robes and with palm branches. It is also possible that they waved branches although none of the evangelists states this. To refer to the custom of carrying a “lulab” or festive spray as was done in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles is unwarranted. On the character of palms see the author’s commentary on John 12:13.

Mark 11:9

9 Mark, like Matthew, plainly distinguishes two crowds, “those going before” and “those following.” We might suppose that this was just one multitude, which was spread out along the road before and behind Jesus, but John informs us that there were two crowds. One had assembled in Bethany to see Jesus and Lazarus raised from the dead, and this crowd started to Jerusalem with him; the other came out from Jerusalem to meet him when it got word that he was coming. The crowd that met him was thus the one that was in front. From Luke 19:37 we learn that this crowd joined the other near the top of Olivet where it slopes down toward Jerusalem. And here the shout arose and continued (ἔκραζον, imperfect) which acclaimed Jesus as the Messiah. The words shouted are taken from Ps. 118:25, 26, to which interpretative additions are made, some shouting one, some another expression (compare the different evangelists).

Psalms 113–118 constituted the Hallel which was sung at the Passover when the festive procession was received by the priests and also in connection with the Passover meal (14:26). The most distinctive part of the chant was “Hosanna”; three of the evangelists record the Hebrew transliteration Hoshi’ah-na, schaffe Heil, “grant salvation” (“save now,” A. V.). It is hardly safe to assume that the people did not understand the real meaning of Hosanna although in this instance they seem to use it less like a prayer and more like a joyful acclamation like our “all hail!” This is more apparent when the dative is added as it is in Matthew’s account: “to the Son of David.”

All four evangelists report the shout: “Blessed the One coming in the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) name!” and Luke and John add the word “King,” by which the people expressed more exactly whom they meant. This was really a shout of welcome. The perfect participle εὐλογημένος, “having been blessed,” has its usual force: “having been and still being blessed.” But ὁἐρχόμενος is strictly a Messianic title among the Jews who constantly called the Messiah “the One coming.” This title the people re-enforce with the phrase “in the Lord’s name.” This phrase does not mean “by the Lord’s authority,” for in all such phrases the ὄνομα is the divine revelation by which the Lord makes himself known (see 9:37). The enthusiastic multitudes thus acclaim Jesus as one who has been blessed by Jehovah, not merely with a verbal benediction but, as Jehovah always blesses, with all the gifts and treasures that are implied in the benedictory words. They acclaim him as coming and bringing all these blessings to them and to their capital and their nation. Moreover, they say, Jesus does this “in connection with the onoma or revelation of Yahweh” which was made to Israel by Moses and the prophets.

Mark 11:10

10 While Luke and John preserve the title “King,” Mark preserves the whole clause about the “kingdom”: “Blessed the coming kingdom of our father David!” “The One coming” and “the coming kingdom” go together. As the King is the coming One, so his kingdom is one that is coming. Both were promised to the Jews and were in this sense “coming.” Both of these present participles contain the note of absolute certainty: “coming” without fail. The crowd calls this “the coming kingdom of our father David.” The people distinguish between the past kingdom which David ruled, the earthly nation Israel, and the everlasting spiritual kingdom which was promised to David’s heir. Note that before Jericho Jesus had been called the Son of David. The main point in the acclaim of the multitude is the fact that in Jesus there has appeared the coming One, the Messianic King, who is about to assume his rule and the kingdom of David.

The full import of all that was done in connection with this welcoming of Jesus even the disciples did not realize until later as John 12:16 confesses. But this in no way alters the acclaim of the multitude. There is no need to speculate on what it meant when it used the words of the psalm as it did. Whatever of wrong, earthly expectation still clouded the vision of the “disciples” (Luke) and of the multitude of pilgrims, this is certain: a holy enthusiasm caught their hearts on this Sunday, a wave of real spiritual feeling and joy, the direct product of “all the mighty works they had seen” (Luke), which moved them when they were thus welcoming Jesus to “praise God” (Luke). Jesus had to be welcomed to Jerusalem in his true character. That, too, is why he accepted this welcome and by his every act lent himself to this enthusiasm and rode into the city as the King of Israel that he was.

“Hosanna” is repeated in the shouting, but now with the added phrase “in the highest,” a neuter plural, ἐντοῖςὑψίστοις, which signifies the abode of God (R. 670) and resembles “out of the house of the Lord” in the psalm. If ἐν is regarded as a locative as the grammarians prefer (R. 525), the hosanna is to sound in heaven itself; but in its first and fundamental meaning ἐν signifies “in connection with,” hence, “in connection with God’s abode.” It is like the previous phrase with ὄνομα: “in connection with Jehovah’s revelation.” “In the highest” does not mean “in the highest degree” but connects the hosanna with God’s exalted abode.

This great Messianic King comes riding into his capital on an ass and thus symbolizes the kind of a king that he is. The animal is nothing but the common ass of the Orient, of which it has been well said: “The ass, the camel, and the woman are the burden-bearers.” All efforts to regard the ass on which Jesus rode as being a very superior beast (Smith, Bible Dictionary, and others), one that has nothing to do with the lowliness and meekness of Jesus, are unsatisfactory. Since the times of Solomon no king rode on an ass. Zechariah’s prophecy (9:9) spoke of “an ass and a colt of asses” (such as asses have), which the LXX translated “a burden-beast, a new colt,” and Matthew rendered “a colt, son of a burden-beast.” This is rather plain. Whatever asses of superior type and breeding existed, the animal that Jesus used was the common burden-bearer; nor would Bethphage have a man who owned very superior stock.

Neither can we say that the ass is more peaceful than the horse, it is only inferior. The idea of peace can be brought in only by noting that asses were employed in the humble tasks that go with times of peace whereas horses were used especially in wartimes. To call the colt “untamed” and thus to see in its use by Jesus a symbol of his power over nature is unwarranted. The colt was gentle enough—any man could have ridden it.

Mark 11:11

11 And he came into Jerusalem, into the Temple. And having looked around on everything, since the hour was already late, he went out to Bethany together with the Twelve.

We take it that the entry into the city took place on the late afternoon of Sunday. Jesus proceeded to the Temple but did nothing more on this afternoon than to look around upon “all things” going on in the Temple courts, presently, because the hour was already late, quietly retiring to Bethany with the Twelve.

The ἱερόν is the entire Temple area with all its courts and buildings. Jesus walked around in the court of the Gentiles especially and viewed the abuses that had crept in again after his first cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13, etc.). He returned to Bethany in order to be safe, for the authorities were anxious to arrest him and put him out of the way. It would have been too dangerous for him to have remained in the city. Jesus left it every night of this week. The second cleansing of the Temple took place on Monday morning.

Mark 11:12

12 And on the morrow, when they came out from Bethany, he was hungry. And when he saw a fig tree from afar having leaves, he came, if thus he shall find anything thereon. And having come to it, he found nothing except leaves, for it was not the season of figs. And, speaking up, he said to it, Henceforth may no one eat fruit of thee forever! And his disciples were hearing it.

Mark is exact in recording the time. It is Monday morning. The detail that we cannot explain from the records is the fact that Jesus was allowed to go away from Bethany without breakfast, hungry. The supposition that he rose before daylight and slipped away for prayer has little to commend its acceptance. Despite his love for details Mark states only the fact that Jesus was hungry.

Mark 11:13

13 It should be noted that the fig tree which Jesus saw stood “by the road” (Matthew), which means that it was ownerless; Jesus did not blast another man’s property. From afar Jesus saw a fig tree in full foliage. That is what made him come to it with the expectation of finding something, i.e., a few edible figs, thereon. “If” is elliptical, and ἄρα always denotes correspondence, hence it does not mean “if haply” (our versions) but “if thus,” “if so he shall find,” etc. If the tree had not had full foliage, Jesus would not have gone to it, for the other fig trees were just sending out leaves since, as the γάρ clause explains, “it was not the season of figs,” i.e., thus early. Here, then, was an exceptional fig tree that was growing, as it would seem, in a spot that was so favored that it was already in full foliage, far ahead of the other fig trees. Since the fig tree grows its fruit first in the spring and lets its leaves gradually follow, the full foliage of this tree offered the promise of well-advanced fruit.

Three crops of figs follow each other: the early ones are ripe in June, the second in August, and the third in December, which latter sometimes hang to the tree until spring. See the discussion on Mark in Smith, Bible Dictionary.

Jesus was thoroughly disappointed. When he came to the tree “he found nothing on it except leaves,” not even green, unripe fruit; for what this “nothing except leaves” means is a point that is sometimes overlooked. Jesus would not have blasted this tree if it had had even a little immature fruit on it. But here was this tree with its grand display of foliage which was nothing but empty pretense; whereas it led one to expect that it might have at least a few figs that were already fit to eat it had absolutely nothing at all, “nothing but leaves”! It is, of course, unwarranted to say that this lying tree made Jesus angry, and that he vented his anger by cursing it. The character of Jesus needs no defense against such a charge.

But did Jesus not know in advance that this tree had no fruit? It is strange that at one time all supernatural knowledge is denied to Jesus, and at another he is blamed for not exercising, i.e., not having it. Some think that he knows nothing save in the ordinary way, others feel that he must know everything in an extraordinary way. But we have already had occasion to note that Jesus used his divine power to know just as he used his divine power to do only when and where it was needed for his great mission. No supernatural knowledge was needed in this instance, Jesus went up and looked at the tree.

Trench offers the explanation that, whereas Jesus looked for fruit where he already knew none was to be found and led men to think that he expected fruit when he really did not, he was only acting out a parable which was itself not an actual fact and yet was true in a higher sense, in the lesson it conveyed. But such an explanation is of doubtful value. A man’s acts are not parables, and Jesus never acted out a parable. And here the parable would not lie in this act of Jesus’ seeking fruit but in the tree which had only leaves and no fruit.

Mark 11:14

14Ἀποκριθείς is at times used in a wide sense as when one responds to a situation that calls for a word. So Jesus here states what the tree that has nothing but foliage deserves. For no man ever to eat fruit of this fruitless tree is to say most effectively that it shall never bear fruit, i.e., that it shall die. The optative of wish, φάγοι, is equal to an imperative (R. 939) and with μή forms a prohibition (R. 913), and the aorist may be regarded as ingressive (R. 854). The imperfect ἤκουον wants us to observe that the disciples were noting what Jesus said, for something more is presently to follow (v. 20, etc.).

Mark 11:15

15 And they came to Jerusalem. And having gone into the Temple, he began to throw out those selling and those buying in the Temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves he upset; and he was not permitting that anyone carry a vessel through the Temple.

The cleansing of the Temple reported in John 2:13, etc., is not the same as the one reported by the synoptists. To assert that what they placed at the very end of Christ’s ministry John placed at its very beginning is to undermine the credibility of the Gospels. If these books contain such contradictions or take such liberties, who can be certain of anything they state? The thesis that John corrects the synoptists is untenable, for if these needed such correction they should be discarded.

To be sure, the effect of the first cleansing did not endure. Is anything needed to explain that fact beyond the hostility of the Sanhedrin to Jesus? So Jesus cleanses the Temple again. Both are Temple cleansings and thus resemble each other. But why overlook the differences, especially the greater ones? In the first, Jesus is at once confronted by the authorities, and his reply is made to them; in the second, no one dares to confront him and challenge his act, and the word he utters is addressed only to the mob which he throws out.

In the first, his word is first a rebuke and secondly a challenge; in the second, his word is the most scathing rebuke. In the first, Jesus uses words of his own; in the second, he quotes (even “robbers’ den” is a quotation). In the first, the disciples recall Ps. 69:9; in the second, they recall nothing.

When Jesus returned to Jerusalem on Monday morning he went to the ἱερόν, “the sacred place,” the Temple, i.e., its courts; the Sanctuary itself is always called ναός, and into it priests alone dared to enter. Facing the Sanctuary and the court of the priests was the court of the men, and behind it the court of the women, and then came a large area, the court of the Gentiles, into which alone Gentiles were allowed to enter. It was this extensive court of the Gentiles in which the present scene is enacted.

Cattle and doves were a necessity for the prescribed sacrifices but a poor excuse for making this great court of the Temple itself a stockyard. Places to change money were also a need, for a tax was collected from every Israelite who was twenty years old, Exod. 30:11–16. This was due during the month preceding the Passover (Matt. 17:24) and was either sent in by those living at a distance or paid in person by those attending, who then, however, had to have the Jewish coin, which fact compelled those coming from foreign parts to have their money changed. A small rate was charged for this. But this necessity again was no excuse for making the Temple itself a mart of petty bankers who were intent on money business and rates of exchange. Moreover, the Temple authorities themselves controlled this volume of trade and in typical Jewish fashion operated what amounted to a grand, lucrative monopoly. If one bought his animals in the Temple, these animals would be accepted; otherwise he might have trouble on that score.

What this did to the great Temple court may be imagined, consult Farrar, The Life of Christ, 455, etc., which is quoted in the author’s commentary on John 12:14. This outrageous sight was always the first that greeted the visitor when he was passing through the outer gates. Mark arranges the verbs chiastically by placing “to throw out” in front of its objects and “he upsets” after its objects. The fact that the former act was by no means gentle is shown by the latter, upsetting the little, stool-like tables of the money-changers behind which they sat cross-legged on the pavement, upsetting likewise the far larger benches on which the dove-sellers had their crates piled. Jesus most likely just kicked these over. The picture of Jesus presented does not please the tender souls who think only of “the gentle Jesus” and not also of the holy, fiery indignation that makes him here act as he does.

But read Mal. 3:3. The κολλυβιστής is named from the κόλλυβος or small coin which he charges for making the exchange of money.

Did Jesus again make and wield a scourge made of cattle cords? At this second cleansing he met as little resistance as he had at the first. Yet at the former Jesus came as one who was unknown, now as the great Messiah-King who had been acclaimed by the multitude of festival pilgrims. The explanation of moral cowardice on the part of these transgressors is not satisfactory. Sin is often arrogant, especially where money is at stake. And were these sellers not within their legal rights after having duly paid for their concessions and doing business under the highest authorization?

The buyers, of course, got away quickly; they are mentioned as helping in the Temple desecration. In regard to this second cleansing as in regard to the first only one explanation suffices: the Son of man wielded his divine authority.

But, it is asked, what good was this outward cleansing as long as the hearts were not cleansed? Let us say at once that if it was the object of Jesus only to stop the outward abuse he would sink to the level of our modern reformers: why try to mend the leaking ship by repairing the rigging? Against flagrant abuse the law, together with the light and knowledge that men have, must be applied. Nor is there a difference en this point between the first and the second cleansing. Both are filled with the dire threat of the divine law. The first cleansing already tells the Sanhedrists that they will end by destroying their own Temple; and we need not ask how long God will tolerate a Temple that is called his House and is yet turned into a robbers’ den.

What good is the law and its vindication by God? It surely does one thing, it does vindicate God, his holiness and his justice.

Mark 11:16

16 Jesus seems to have taken complete command of the situation in the court of the Gentiles. After he is rid of all the traffic he was not letting (ἤφιεν, imperfect, R. 1216) anyone carry as much as a vessel or utensil through this court. This cannot be restricted to carrying things for lucrative purposes. To make a mere convenience of the court was already to desecrate it. Jesus must have remained in this outer court for some time in order to enforce this regulation. No Temple police and no Sanhedrists hurry up to him to stop him or to question his authority as they did about three years ago.

Did they know his authority by this time? The change wrought by Jesus must have been astounding: all the turmoil was gone, no one was even carrying things across the court; everything was quiet and decorous as it should be in God’s House.

Mark 11:17

17 And he engaged in teaching and went on to say to them, Has it not been written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you on your part have made it a robbers’ den.

The court is quiet after the uproar. Jesus now proceeds to use this court as God intended it to be used, “he engaged in teaching” (note the durative imperfect), and the subject of what Jesus had to say was right before the eyes of his hearers. Hundreds of them must have run together when Jesus cleansed the court of all the traffic. When Jesus asks: “Has it not been written (and thus stands forever, Isa. 56:7),” he is rebuking the Jews for so flagrantly disregarding what their own Scriptures say in regard to the Temple. God himself says: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations,” it shall have that name and be known thus everywhere. This Temple was to be the house and dwelling place of Yahweh, where he might dispense the riches of his grace to the worshippers, and where these might draw nigh unto him and in return bring him the offerings of prayer, προσευχή, which is often, as here, used in the wider sense of worship since prayer in some form is at the bottom of all true worship of the true God.

Mark writes for Gentile Christians and is therefore careful to add the phrase from Isaiah πᾶσιτοῖςἔθνεσιν, “for all the nations,” i.e., not only for the one ἔθνος or nation of the Jews. That is why the Temple contained this great court of the Gentiles, which was greater than all the other courts into which all Gentiles were freely admitted. In the very structure of the Temple the universality of the true religion was expressed. Yet right here in this important court of the Temple what a sight met the eyes of any visiting Gentiles—and there were always many! What must they think of a Temple whose greatest court was thus desecrated and of the God to whom such a temple belonged?

Note the adversative δέ and the emphatic ὑμεῖς. What did these Jews care for what was written and what God himself declared concerning his house? They on their part had made that house “a robbers’ den.” When Jeremiah (7:10) used this expression in the threat which Yahweh commanded him to pronounce upon the Temple he did not mean that the Jews robbed in the Temple. A robbers’ den is not used for robbing but as a refuge for robbers. What Jeremiah says is that the Jews, after perpetrating the worst kind of wickedness, went to the Temple, thinking and saying: “We are delivered to do all these abominations,” we can go on in them as long as we have the Temple; compare also v. 4. It was thus that they made the Temple a regular robbers’ den and refuge.

It is exactly this that the Jews are now repeating. No matter what they do, even grossly violating the sanctity of their own Temple, they imagine that their adherence to this Temple will protect and shield them from any penalty. They think that they can sit safely in their Temple as the robbers do in their den.

But no, God will not let his Temple serve as a refuge for robbers. The Temple will not protect the wicked who show in the very Temple how they regard the God of the Temple. The church has no refuge for sinners who go on in their sin and think that they are safe when they run to the church; and certainly not for the sinners who support the church by desecrating the church and justify their desecration by crying, “It is for the church!” Jer. 7:12–15 declares what God would do with his house: he would destroy it even as he destroyed Shiloh for the same cause. So the word of Jesus prepares us for Matt. 23:28; 24:2 even as the same threat appears in John 2:19.

Mark 11:18

18 And the high priests and the scribes heard it and began to seek how they shall destroy him, for they were fearing him, for all the multitude were astonished at his teaching.

The two groups, “the high priests and the scribes,” are named when the Sanhedrin is referred to. It is this judicial body, the high court of the Jews, that “heard.” The verb needs no object since this object is all that precedes: Jesus’ cleansing the Temple again and using the words of Isaiah. The imperfect ἐζήτουν is probably ingressive, “began to seek.” The Sanhedrin had long ago determined the destruction of Jesus; what they begin to seek now is some method actually to destroy him. The thing must be done, and some way to do it must be found. R. 995 calls the πῶς clause an indirect deliberative question.

Mark explains why the Sanhedrin was seeking means to destroy Jesus by saying that it was in fear of him. It was filled with the fear that Jesus would draw all the people to him and thus rob the Sanhedrin of its standing and its authority. The Sanhedrin saw a dangerous rival in Jesus.

Mark also explains (by a second γάρ) how the Sanhedrists arrived at this fear. All the multitude, meaning the hosts of festival pilgrims who had come from far and near, was being filled with astonishment at the teaching of Jesus. The imperfect ἐξεπλήσσετο describes the condition in which the people were. The teaching that produced this condition is the teaching which the people heard from Jesus; of course, not merely that spoken on this day as mentioned in v. 17. It is noteworthy that it was “his teaching” that so moved the people, for this means more than to be attracted by the miracles, some of which Jesus wrought here in the Temple (Matt. 21:14). When the teaching takes hold of people, they are in a fair way to turn away from all other authorities and to follow Jesus alone. That was exactly what the Sanhedrin feared.

Mark 11:19

19 And whenever it got late, he would go on outside of the city.

Jesus spent Sunday night at Bethany (v. 11); it is Monday night, and this, too, Jesus spent in Bethany (Matt. 21:17). On both these nights Jesus probably stayed at the home of Lazarus. What Mark tells us is that from Monday night onward Jesus always left the city when it got late. We are not certain where Jesus slept on Tuesday and on Wednesday nights, the only two nights for which we have to account. It is often assumed that he was in Bethany as he had been on the two preceding nights, but none of the evangelists says this. Jesus did not remain in Jerusalem overnight because of the plotting of the Sanhedrin.

If the members of the Sanhedrin had discovered where he spent the night they might have arrested him. So he went outside of the city. We know that he went to Bethany on two nights. But it is probable that he chose other places for the next two nights, for the regular stay at Bethany might have become known to his enemies, who might then have arrested him with the same ease as if he had lodged in the city.

Jesus never acted in a foolhardy way; he always used proper prudence. Although he knew that no one could lay hands on him until his hour would come he never presumed on this and disregarded danger. Jesus has left us a good example in this.

Mark 11:20

20 And passing by in the morning, they saw the fig tree having dried up from the roots. And Peter, having remembered, says to him, Rabbi, see, the fig tree which thou didst curse has dried up.

It was Tuesday morning when the disciples, on returning with Jesus from Bethany to Jerusalem, again saw the fig tree. When they passed along that way the night before, it was too dark to see the tree. The modernistic interpretation of Matthew’s account as if “right before the eyes of the disciples, while they stood there and watched,” the very morning when Jesus cursed the tree, it proceeded to dry up, is unwarranted. The process of disintegration was very rapid; in twenty-four hours the tree had dried up, and the perfect participle ἐξηραμμένην has its present connotation. “now dried up.” The blight started at the roots and not at the top.

Mark 11:21

21 Mark had heard from Peter directly that it was he who recalled what Jesus had said to the tree on the previous morning, and that he now called the attention of Jesus to the tree. The address “Rabbi” is only the Aramaic for “Teacher” and was much used by the disciples. All that Peter does is to point out that the tree is dead; ἴδε, with the accent forward, is the regular second aorist imperative “see” and not the interjection “lo.” While the words of Peter only draw attention to the remarkable fact that the tree which was cursed yesterday is dried up today they really contain a question that asks for an explanation even as Matthew relates that the disciples marvelled and said, “How did the fig tree wither forthwith?” Peter understood rightly that Jesus had cursed the tree, and he uses the perfect tense ἐξήρανται with its present connotation, “is now dried up.” The implied question is: “How is this possible?”

Mark 11:22

22 This is the question that Jesus answers. The question as to why Jesus cursed and withered the tree is not a question as far as the disciples are concerned. The tree was worthless. For if it was this spring in leaf unseasonably, without a single fig on it, it would stand as worthless every spring. It deserved to be destroyed. Any parabolic feature in the blasting of such a tree is therefore minor.

The disciples and Jesus concern themselves with the major point. And answering Jesus says to them, Be having faith in God! Note that the aorist ἀποκριθείς is simultaneous with the action of λέγει, R. 861. Mark reports this summary answer of Jesus in regard to what the dried-up fig tree teaches the disciples. They must go on having πίοτις, “faith,” trust, complete reliance on God. Θεοῦ is the objective genitive, God is the object of the verbal idea contained in πίστις, namely πιστεύειν; R. 500 explains it differently: “the God kind of faith.”

Mark 11:23

23 How the dead tree preaches faith to the disciples is now made plain by a most solemn assurance. Amen, I say to you, whoever shall say to the mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea and shall not doubt in his heart but shall be believing that what he utters comes to pass, he shall have it. For this reason I say to you, all things such as you go on praying for and asking for, go on believing that you did receive them, and you shall have them.

The formula of verity and authority is explained in 3:28. By it Jesus impresses the certainty of what he says upon the disciples. On the basis of 1 Cor. 13:2 (also 12:9) and Matt. 7:22 we note that Jesus is here speaking of charismatic faith, which it is possible to have even without saving faith, which one may also lose without losing saving faith. In their great future work charismatic faith was highly necessary for the disciples. The language which Jesus uses is figurative, this telling a mountain to drop into the sea and instantly having it do so—a supreme example of what is impossible for a human being and yet (let it not be overlooked) the easiest thing for God. In Matt. 17:20 Jesus himself interprets this language for us: “nothing shall be impossible unto you” (compare Mark 10:27). A thing may seem so, but it never is so.

Jesus is, of course, speaking of his disciples and of what they will meet in their calling. Infidelic literalism may challenge a disciple to move a mountain or two and laugh when he is unable to do so; blind fanatics may tempt the Lord to fulfill his word, to do what that word never intended, and may even persuade themselves that their folly has come to pass. But neither of these affects the promise as it stands. God does no silly things, no useless things, none for mere display; yet it is his power that he places behind Jesus’ disciples to do the things that he lays upon them as such disciples. Consider how Gideon did the impossible with 300 men; how the apostles after Pentecost penetrated Judaism and the world with the gospel; and how God’s power has wrought in many saints in all the ages.

The ὃςἄν expresses expectancy; Jesus considers that some will, indeed, do what he says. Both ἄρθητι and βλήθητι are passives: “be thou taken up and be thou cast into the sea.” The agent back of these passives is God. The disciple only uses God’s power when he does the seemingly impossible in his calling. These words are more impressive to one who has actually stood on this Mount of Olives. From its ridge one is able to look down into the Dead Sea, 1, 600 feet below sea level. “This mountain” would disappear altogether in that deep depression. The middle of διακρίνειν has the passive in the aorist and really means “to be in conflict with oneself,” to hesitate and waver, one thought pulling us in one direction, the other thought in the opposite direction: the deed can be done—cannot be done. Jesus uses both the negative and the positive and thus makes the necessity of faith very strong: “shall not doubt but shall go on believing.” The doubt is expressed by an aorist, it is like one act that interrupts and stops faith; but believing is expressed by the present tense as going right on without interruption or cessation.

Note also that Jesus says of the believer ὃλαλεῖ, “what he utters,” not ὃλέγει, “what he says.” The latter would be the product of the disciple’s own, perhaps mistaken, thinking; the former is done without his own thinking, it is just opening his mouth to utter what God thinks and wills. The present tense γίνεται is inchoative (R. 880): “come to be.” The Greek idiom “it shall be to him”==“he shall have it.” This future is positive assurance which no one can question. The greatest faith can rest on this tense.

Mark 11:24

24Διὰτοῦτο takes the assurance just uttered as the basis of prayer and thus gives to prayer the identical assurance: “you shall have it.” But the statement is now made personal with “you” whereas it was before general and objective, “whoever.” Jesus uses two verbs: προσεύχεσθε, the present tense, “shall go on praying for,” the verb being regularly used with reference to prayer to God; and another durative present αἰτεῖσθε, “shall go on asking for,” the middle voice meaning “in your business” as disciples (R. 805). The thought is that of appeal to God in some matter which he has made it our business to do or to have. Any and all things (πάνταὅσα) that are concerned with this are included. Jesus simply commands us, “Go on believing that you did receive them.” The aorist ἐλάβετε, “did receive,” seems strange and is yet perfectly in order, especially with πιστεύετε, “go on believing.” The disciples are to go on believing while they are praying that God has already granted their prayer, which will appear in due time even as Jesus now adds: “and you shall have it,” the same idiom that occurs in v. 23 and with the same assurance.

Mark 11:25

25 And whenever you stand praying, remit, if you have anything against anyone, in order that your Father also, the one in the heavens, may remit to you your trespasses.

Verse 26 (A. V.) is textually doubtful and may be an adaptation from Matt. 6:15. Verse 25 has not been questioned on textual grounds, but commentators have questioned whether Jesus spoke these words in the present connection and assume that this was not the case since Matt. 21:22 also does not have these words. But Matthew has practically the same thought already in 6:14, etc., and again in 18:35, which amply explains any omission after 21:22. It is most vital for acceptable prayer that the petitioner forgive all his fellow men. Let us not delude ourselves that we are most firmly believing and filling our prayers with faith while secretly, in our hearts, we hold something against somebody.

This is one of the few instances in the New Testament in which ὅταν is definite and thus has the indicative. Jesus is conceiving these occurrences as actually happening and not merely as being expected or as possible. This way of stating the matter makes it more impressive for the disciples. The position of standing while praying is very ancient; it signifies that we honor God as being present, before whom we cannot sit but must stand. On ἀφίημι as used for remitting sins see 2:5. Jesus wisely says that we are to remit, send away into oblivion where it will never be seen or heard of again “anything we have against anyone.”

Note the all-inclusiveness of “anything” and “anyone.” Jesus is careful not to say “any sin” or “any trespass.” Whether the thing be a sin in God’s judgment or not, whatever it be, as long as we hold it “against (κατά, down on)” anybody, fellow disciple or nondisciple, Jesus says: “remit it,” get rid of it. When? After the person admits our charge, confesses it, and asks remission? The Scriptures fix no such time. The remission is to take place at once, the moment we feel aggrieved against anyone.

This does not mean that we are not to say anything to the person involved; if the thing be a sin in our estimation, Matt. 18:15, etc., tells us what to do. But we must have a clean heart before we follow Matthew’s advice. Whatever attitude the offender takes makes no difference as far as we are concerned; our part is to remit, and that at once, without stipulating any conditions. That frees us before God. The person who wronged us, if he did wrong us in fact and not merely in our imagination, has himself to answer even as we do if we wrong another. Whether he asks pardon and makes amends or not makes no difference as regards the course that we must take. The reason Jesus says that we are to remit when we pray is that when we stand in the presence of God to pray we shall have more cause than ever to cleanse our hearts so that no evil in us may prevent God from answering our prayer.

That is the sense of the ἵνα clause “in order that God may forgive us.” Note the same verb ἀφῇ: “may be remitting,” present, iterative, as we need remission from day to day, just as the command is directed to us, ἀφίετε, “be remitting” every time it becomes necessary. But Jesus now says τὰπαραπτώματαὑμῶν, “your missteps.” The word παράπτωμα means any act by which one falls to the side (πίπτω plus παρά), thus “a misstep,” “a blunder.” It is used extensively as a designation for sin. We cannot call it a mild term as some do; for it indicates only one side of a sin, a fatal misstep, just as ἀμαρτία denotes another, the missing of the mark; and the same is true with regard to other terms. Only in this passage does Mark use “your Father, the one in the heavens,” an expression that is found frequently in Matthew. The claim that this passage is therefore drawn from Matthew would be hasty. Jesus used this expression frequently, and it is thus no surprise that Mark has used it at least once in his record.

If Mark copied from Matthew he would have used it more frequently. Adding the phrase “in the heavens” by means of a second article makes it a kind of apposition and climax, R. 776, and lifts this Father above all others who are fathers only here on earth.

The answer of Jesus to Peter pertains only to one part of what the blasting of the fig tree meant. The other part is made plain in the following discourses. For it was at once evident to the disciples that a tree has no moral responsibility, and that what Jesus did with this tree was merely to use it for a higher end. It was all of one piece with the illustrations he uses in Matt. 7:17–20; 12:33; Luke 13:6–9, which refer to trees; it was like the Old Testament vine and tree, Joel 1:7; Ezek. 17:24; Ps. 1:3, not withering; Hos. 14:8, “from me is thy fruit found”; Num. 17:8, Aaron’s dead rod blossomed. This fig tree had only a pretense of fruit (leaves), a great pretense at that; it had no actual fruit, not even a little green fruit. Men certainly remove fruitless fruit trees.

This tree pictured unbelieving Judaism. Its withering at the word of Jesus pictured the divine judgment that blasted this nation—Judaism stands blasted from the roots to this day. Read the agonized prayer for obdurate Israel in Isa. 63:7; 64:12, and then the Lord’s answer of judgment on this Israel in 65:3–7 and compare the author’s Old Testament Eisenach Selections, 118, etc. Jesus used only a tree for this one miracle of his which revealed the dreadful, deadly, and irrevocable divine judgment. As far as men were concerned, he had not come to judge them now (John 3:17), that would follow in due time (John 5:27; also the Baptist’s word with its imagery of the ax at the foot of the tree, Matt. 3:10).

Moffatt’s commentary (modernistic, “critical”) interprets thus: “Late in the evening” the disciples saw that the tree was dead. But one should not overlook the fact that Mark says, “In the morning,” i.e., of the next day. Mark and Matthew disagree, one has the tree wither in a day, the other on the instant. In Mark’s account Jesus sees that the tree is about to wither away, it appeared to be diseased—which repeats the opinion of the rationalist Paulus who regarded all miracles as natural occurrences. Mark thus “leaves open the possibility that the words of Jesus have been misunderstood”—a favorite modernistic method to avoid the plain sense of Scripture statements. All that is left, we are told, is “a little lesson on faith,” for no man would certainly say to a mountain to throw itself into the sea (Jesus used passives!) “and have no doubt”!

If this is a miracle it is a slur on the character of Jesus for blasting a tree for disappointing him. The “critical” suggestion is also introduced that we here have Luke 13:6–9 “transformed into a miracle by tradition.” At any rate, the above-mentioned misunderstanding gave Jesus an opportunity for “a short lesson on faith”—and this, we are to suppose, casts no slur on the character of Jesus! All modernistic interpretations leave the searcher for comforting understanding unsatisfied.

Mark 11:27

27 And they come again into Jerusalem. And while he is walking about in the Temple there come to him the high priests and the scribes and the elders and proceeded to say to him, In connection with what authority art thou doing these things? or, who gave thee this authority so that thou dost these things?

It is Tuesday morning, the day after Jesus cleansed the Temple. Matthew and Luke state that the Sanhedrists came to Jesus while he was teaching in the Temple court. From Mark we gather that these high dignitaries did not interrupt Jesus in his teaching and preaching the gospel (Luke) but waited until he was through, until Jesus began to walk around in the court. Then they came to him in all formality but only in order to question him regarding his authority, not to arrest him, not even to stop him in his work, and, when they had their crushing answer, to retire and to attempt no more. By waiting until Tuesday with their challenge and then making it as they did these rulers showed that they feared the pilgrims who overflowed the city during these days.

On the three groups (high priests, scribes, elders) that composed the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews, see 8:31. It is generally enough to mention only high priests and scribes when the Sanhedrin is referred to. In the present case Matthew names the high priests and the elders because the business in hand was probably executive and not legislative; he does not, of course, intend to deny the presence of the scribes. The main point is that Jesus receives an important inquiry from no less a body than the Jewish High Court, which appeared in person. It must have caused no little stir among the crowds of pilgrims to see all these Sanhedrists, and they wondered what they wanted with Jesus.

Mark 11:28

28 The Sanhedrists come with a challenge, which they, however, make mild by couching it in the form of a question. There is really only one question, for “what” authority would be made plain when the author of this authority is named. The word ἐξουσία means both the right and the power that goes with that right. “These things” as well as the verb ποιεῖν (used twice) cannot refer only to the teaching of Jesus. Any rabbi had the right to teach in the Temple or elsewhere. “These things,” which are disturbing the great Sanhedrin, are the royal entry of Jesus, the cleansing of the Temple, the whole bearing of Jesus, and also his miracles. The Sanhedrin has always known that Jesus claimed authority from God, his Father. These men expect Jesus again to assert that authority.

They are now set on demanding from Jesus the fullest proof that such, indeed, was his authority; and they were ready on their part to deny the validity of any proof that Jesus might venture to offer in answer to their demand. They had undoubtedly carefully discussed the matter and had planned their procedure. Yet we see that in three years they had not advanced a single step beyond the very first challenge they made in John 2:18. Unbelief is really nonprogressive. The clause ἵναταῦταποιῇς is consecutive and expresses result: “so that thou doest these things.” On this extension of ἵνα see R. 999.

Mark 11:29

29 But Jesus said to them, I will inquire of you one thing, and do you answer me, and I will tell you in connection with what authority I am doing these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men? Answer me!

The Sanhedrists were acquainted with the authority on which Jesus acted; they were not inquiring for information. Their one purpose was to deny him this authority, for to admit it was to accept Jesus as the Messiah sent of God, against which everything in them rebelled. But even so, by his counterquestion Jesus does not really refuse to declare to these Sanhedrists what he had declared and even proved long ago and all along. His counterquestion is the opposite of an evasion. Jesus merely returns the question of the Sanhedrists to them by substituting John the Baptist for himself.

The two ἐκ denote origin, but origin here involves authority: if “from heaven,” then John had divine authority: if “from men,” then his authority amounted to nothing. The authority of John and of Jesus is identical. Their work, too, was one. So Jesus says: “If you will answer me, I will answer you.” The correct answer to the question about John was the correct answer to the question about Jesus. All he would need to do was to hand it back to the Sanhedrists. A subtle irony is involved: these men ask of Jesus what they ought already to know from John.

Note the dignified ἐπερωτήσω—Jesus says: “I will inquire”; see Trench, Synonyms, I, 195, on ἐρωτᾶν. Jesus is not asking something that he needs to know, he is inquiring about something that he knows well. His inquiry is made for the sake of his questioners. In ἕναλόγον the idea is “just one matter,” no more.

Mark 11:30

30 The entire tone of Jesus is superior. If these great dignitaries intended to impress him with their number, Jesus is not overawed for one moment. “The baptism” sums up the essentials of John’s ministry, for which reason he is also called “the Baptist.” Jesus uses a deadly dilemma, a form of logic which caught the Sanhedrists with its two horns. The baptism of John was either “from heaven” or it was “from men”; it was either divine or not divine (only human). Tertium non datur. A third possibility was excluded, it could not be assumed even in argument. The Sanhedrists were compelled to choose one of the two horns; whichever they chose meant that they would impale themselves on it. Note the second authoritative demand: “Answer me!” which is peremptory with its aorist.

Mark 11:31

31 And they were reasoning with themselves, saying, If we say, From heaven! he will say, Why, then, did you not believe him? But if we say, From men!—they were afraid of the people, for all really held that John was a prophet. And answering Jesus they say, We do not know. And Jesus says to them, Neither do I say to you in connection with what authority I do these things.

The imperfect διελογίζοντο pictures the quiet discussion that went on in the midst of the Sanhedrists. They test both horns of the dilemma and find that they dare risk neither. It was their unbelief that caught them and the type of dishonesty that always goes together with unbelief and is used in its defense. These Sanhedrists were not concerned about the truth regarding John, what counted with them were the consequences involved in the two possible answers they could give. In the one case they would have to face the question: “Why, then, did you not believe him,” give credence to his word and do what he told you? Διατί asks for the reason, and they certainly had none to offer and would stand self-condemned.

Mark 11:32

32 The other horn of the dilemma offers, if anything, even less comfort. If the first alternative meant open self-condemnation, the second meant danger from the people. Mark breaks off their dialog with themselves and himself tells us that they were in fear of the people, ὁλαός is often used as a designation of the Jewish people. The great hosts of festival pilgrims are referred to, thousands of whom thronged the city. As Orientals they were highly excitable. All of them really held that John was a prophet, no matter how untrue they had been to his message of repentance and to his baptism.

The discussion of the Sanhedrists with Jesus takes place in the open Temple court. Any number of pilgrims stood about and heard what was said. If the Sanhedrists would have denied the divine origin of John’s baptism, this would have spread like wildfire, and no one could predict what the inflamed multitudes would do. Note the aposiopesis, the suppression of what ought to follow after ἐξἀνθρώπων, R. 1203. The people held that he “was” a prophet, ἦν refers to the time when he was still alive, R. 887.

Mark 11:33

33 The action indicated by the aorist ἀποκριθέντες is simultaneous with that of λέγουσιν, R. 861. The Sanhedrists dared to take neither horn of the dilemma. They were hopelessly caught. They see only one way out, which really did not let them out. They say: “We do not know.” This was a most pitiful and disgraceful surrender. They dodge the issue that no Jew dared to dodge. As Sanhedrists it was their supreme duty to know, and they dare to say here that they do not know. Yet they rejected John, never raised a finger when Herod first imprisoned and then killed him, in fact, were glad to be rid of Him.

The reply of Jesus implies that these Sanhedrists refuse to answer his question, deliberately refuse as dishonest cowards. Since the correct answer to Jesus’ question is also the correct answer to the question of the Sanhedrists, by refusing to give the one they refuse to receive the other. And so Jesus is compelled to refuse to offer it to them. They stand miserably discredited, not only before Jesus, but also before all the people that stood around.

While the Sanhedrists still face Jesus, he utters the scathing parables that now follow, see Matt. 21:28, etc. Mark and Luke have preserved only the second parable.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.