Part 4: The Apocalyptic Arrival of the King | Gospel According to Mark Semester Discussion Guide

Part 4: The Apocalyptic Arrival of the King | Mark 11:1-13:37

[Return to The Gospel According to Mark Semester Discussion Guide]

The following should be read aloud as a group, with each person reading one paragraph before passing on to the next person. Afterwards, a discussion will follow with the provided discussion questions.

Now that the reader knows that Jesus is the Messiah destined to suffer and die, Mark sets the stage for Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion by intensifying the conflict between Jesus and the Jerusalem religious leaders (namely the Sadducees, who controlled the temple and the high priesthood, and the Pharisees, a purist sect of Judaism demanding strict adherence to the law of Moses). This intensifying conflict begins with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and his cleansing of the temple and progresses through several hostile interactions between Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Sadducees in the temple complex. This intensity comes to its apex with Jesus’ prediction that the temple itself will be destroyed.

Now when they drew near Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, He sent two of His disciples; and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you; and as soon as you have entered it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.” (11:1-3)

Here the last verse is perhaps better rendered by the Revised Standard Version: “‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’” The detail that Jesus will send the colt “back here immediately” is significant. In the ancient world, it was expected and assumed that a king could commandeer the property of commoners, such as horses or donkeys, if it so suited the purposes of the king. The king was under no obligation to send said donkey or horse back to its original owner. Jesus, however, in contradiction to kings who “lord it over” others (Mark 10:42), does not do this and instead sends the donkey back immediately, which he was under no obligation to do by the customs of the time.1 This humility of Jesus in his kingly entry into Jerusalem foreshadows the shame and humiliation of his upcoming death.

Now in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.”

So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.

“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (11:20–26)

Similar to how in chapters eight and nine Mark sandwiches the transfiguration between Jesus’ comments about his crucifixion and resurrection, here Mark sandwiches Jesus’ cleansing of the temple between Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and the disciples seeing that the fig tree has withered the next day (Mark 11:21). It is clear, therefore, that Mark expects his readers to understand that Jesus’ condemnation of the hypocrisy of the temple and the cursing of the fig tree are connected. Jesus himself gives the connection between these things: “Have faithfulness to God.” (ἔχετε πίστιν Θεοῦ). The lack of faithfulness to God is why the temple is brought under the judgement of Christ. The fig tree which is cursed because it bears no fruit is an image of the temple complex which is cursed because it bears no spiritual fruit – instead of becoming “a house of prayer for all nations,” the means by which God, through Abraham and his descendants, would call the Gentiles back into right relationship with him, it has become “a den of thieves,” that is, a place for those who desire to personally profit off of God’s commanded temple sacrifices to hide in (Mark 11:17). This further connects with the temple’s inability to show the fruits of prayer, which parallels with Jesus teaching on true prayer and its connection to forgiveness in 11:25-26.2

Then He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a place for the wine vat and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now at vintage-time he sent a servant to the vinedressers, that he might receive some of the fruit of the vineyard from the vinedressers. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent them another servant, and at him they threw stones, wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully treated. And again he sent another, and him they killed; and many others, beating some and killing some. Therefore still having one son, his beloved, he also sent him to them last, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But those vinedressers said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard.

“Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others. Have you not even read this Scripture:

    ‘The stone which the builders rejected

    Has become the chief cornerstone.

    This was the LORD’s doing,

    And it is marvelous in our eyes’?”

And they sought to lay hands on Him, but feared the multitude, for they knew He had spoken the parable against them. So they left Him and went away. (12:1–12)

This is the closest Jesus comes to directly telling the Sadducees and Pharisees that they are going to kill him. This parable, unlike other parables which are mysteries revealed only to those on the inside, is understood by all (cf. Mark 4:10-13). This parable is directly parallel to a parable of judgement told by Isaiah:

“I will sing now to the loved one a song of my beloved concerning my vineyard. The loved one got a vineyard, at a corner in a fertile place. And I placed a fence around it, and I fenced it in, and I planted a vine of Sorekh, and I built a tower in the middle of it, and I dug a vat in it, and I waited for it to produce grapes, and it produced thorns. And now, O those inhabiting Jerusalem, and person of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more shall I do for my vineyard that I did not do for it? Because I waited for it to produce grapes, but it produced thorns. But now I announce to you what I will do to my vineyard. I will take away its fence, and it will become plunder; and I will take down its wall, and it will become a trampling ground. And I will release my vineyard, and it will certainly not be trimmed or dug, and thorns will rise up in it as in a dry place, and I will command the clouds that the rain not wet it. For the vineyard of the Lord Sabaoth is the house of Israel, and the person of Judah is the beloved new plant. I waited for it to produce fair judgment, but it produced lawlessness, and it produced not righteousness but screaming.”3

The detail given by St. Mark that one of the last servants was “wounded in the head” is possibly a reference to John the Baptist, who was executed via beheading prior to Christ’s entry into Jerusalem (cf. Mark 6:14-29). The remark that the vineyard owner (i.e., God) “will come and destroy the vinedressers, and give the vineyard to others” is a prophecy of how the Jews who rejected Christ are cast out of the people of God and have their temple destroyed while Gentiles faithful to Christ will be brought into the people of God. St. Theophylact of Ohrid says the following:

“Last of all God sent His Son, who is called ‘man’ because of His mercy and love for mankind, saying: ‘They will reverence My Son.’ Not as if ignorant of what was to be, did He say this, but declaring what ought to happen and what might reasonably have been expected. But the wicked farmers, when they learned that this was the Son of God, cast Him out of the vineyard — that is, out of Jerusalem — and killed Him, for outside it He was crucified. The Lord of the vineyard — the Father of the slain Son, and indeed the slain Son Himself — destroyed the farmers, delivering them to the Romans, and entrusted the people to other farmers, namely, the apostles.”4

An added irony is that the verse Jesus quotes to them at the end of the parable as something they had “not even read” is from the same Psalm they were chanting earlier during his entry into Jerusalem (cf. Mark 11:9)! “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” and “The stone which the builders rejected” both come from Psalm 117 LXX and form part of the beginning of every Orthodox Matins service.5

Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:

    ‘The LORD said to my Lord,

    “Sit at My right hand,

    Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’

Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

And the common people heard Him gladly. (12:35–37)

While this passage to us seems cryptic, the meaning is more straightforward once some context is given from the theological and cultural background of second-temple Judaism in Jesus’ day. Quoting Psalm 109 LXX (a well-known Messianic psalm from the time) and referencing the scriptural belief that the Messiah would be a descendant of David, Jesus asks how David can call the Messiah “Lord.” This question is based on the fact that, in ancient cultures, a son always ranks lower than his father, and therefore, it is a mystery as to how David recognizes the honor of his son (the Messiah) above himself by calling him “Lord.” The answer to this is that David’s son, the Messiah, is also divine, and therefore, by being divine, David’s son ranks higher than David does. This is a reference to the widespread “two powers in heaven” theology at the time, in which many second-temple Jews believed that there were at least two (and perhaps more) distinct divine persons in the God of Israel. This was connected to passages like Daniel 7:9-14, where a human figure identified as “the Son of Man” is enthroned next to the Ancient of Days and shares a throne and rules the world with the Ancient of Days. In other words, there is God (the Ancient of Days) and a human figure of equal honor and power to God (the Son of Man) that are both due worship. This question and scriptural citation is a covert way for Jesus to claim to be this Son of Man figure that is both David’s Lord and David’s son.6 This claim of Jesus to be this Son of Man figure from Daniel 7 will feature prominently in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. St. Bede the Venerable says the following:

“The question of Jesus is useful for us even now against the Jews; for they, acknowledging that Christ is to come, assert that He is a mere man, a holy Person descended from David. Let us then ask them, as our Lord has taught us, if He be a mere man, and only the son of David, how David in the Holy Spirit calls Him Lord. They are not, however, reproved for calling Him David’s son, but for not believing Him to be the Son of God.”7

And Jesus, answering them, began to say: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and will deceive many. But when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be troubled; for such things must happen, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be earthquakes in various places, and there will be famines and troubles. These are the beginnings of sorrows. (13:5–8)

The “I am He” in this passage is better rendered simply as “I am” (ἐγώ εἰμι), again a reference to Exodus 3:14 where the God speaking to Moses through the burning bush identifies himself by the phrase, “I am the One Who Is.” Thus, if false christs will come in Jesus’ name claiming “I am,” this should be understood as attempts of false christs to pass themselves off as divine. This fits perfectly with St. Paul’s description of the “man of iniquity” in 2 Thessalonians, identified by the Church Fathers as the final antichrist who will appear shortly before Christ’s second coming. St. Paul says that this man of iniquity will “take his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4 RSV). Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev remarks:

“The main characteristics of the Antichrist will be apostasy, resistance to God and the desire to pass himself off as God. St Paul writes that ‘the mystery of iniquity doth already work’ (2 Thess 2:7). The war of the Antichrist against Christ began at the moment of Christ’s first coming but the final battle, vividly described in the Apocalypse, will take place at his second coming.”8

However, from a historical perspective, it should also be pointed out that the immediate historical context of this passage is the coming destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the first and second Jewish-Roman wars, which featured many people falsely claiming to be the Messiah, prominent among them Simon bar Kokhba. Jesus here is warning of the great suffering preceding the destruction of the temple by the Romans and warning people to be on guard against false messiahs that will appear during this time; he likewise here issues admonitions for his followers to be alert and ready for his second coming. N.T. Wright says:

“…[this will] be a time when deceivers will run riot and lead many astray. Again, Josephus tells us of many would-be messiahs, many prophets, during the Roman-Jewish war of AD 66–70. They were offering rescue, trying to gain a following, promising signs and wonders. They all came to nothing. But the climax of it all—the destruction of the Temple itself—can only be spoken of through prophetic words, summoning up the image of cosmic catastrophe. Consider what was happening. In the year AD 69 one Roman emperor succeeded another—four in all, Nero, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian—each time with violence, murder and civil war. And as Vespasian made his way to Rome to receive the crown, his adopted son Titus entered Jerusalem, burnt the Temple, destroyed the city and crucified thousands of Jews. What language could one use to describe such a year? It won’t do simply to list the events, ghastly though they are. The only way of doing justice to such a time is in prophetic language, used originally (in Isaiah 13:10 and 34:4) to describe the fall of Babylon and Edom: the language of a dark sun and a quenched moon, of stars falling from the sky.”9

Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. It is like a man going to a far country, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning—lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!” (13:33–37)

Here the reference to the master of the house coming “at the crowing of the rooster” is clear foreshadowing of Peter’s thrice denial of Christ at the crowing of the rooster (Mark 14:66-72). This passage mainly serves as an injunction to us all to remain alert and prepared for Christ’s second coming. St. Athanasius of Alexandria likewise connects this passage with each Christian being ready for their moment of death in the same way as they are ready for Christ’s coming:

“The end of all things is concealed from us. For in the end of all is the end of each, and in the end of each is the end of all [on the last day]. Whereas this time is uncertain and always in prospect, we may advance day by day as if summoned, reaching forward to the things before us and forgetting the things behind. For who, if they knew the day of the end, would not disregard the interval? But if ignorant, would they not be more ready day by day? It was on this account that the Savior said: ‘Watch; for you do not know when the time will come.’”10

In the next section, Mark will come to its conclusion by showing us the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as revealing who Christ is in his fullness.

_____

1: Mark Strauss, Mark: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, pg. 479. <https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Zondervan-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/0310243580>.

2: J.R. Daniel Kirk, “Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25,” <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298294306_Time_for_Figs_Temple_Destruction_and_Houses_of_Prayer_in_Mark_1112-25>.

3: Isaiah 5:1-6 Lexham English Septuagint.

4: Blessed Theophylact of Ohrid, “The Collected Commentaries of the Gospels.” <https://www.amazon.com/Collected-Commentaries-Gospels-Blessed-Theophylact-ebook/dp/B0GX2SPG4V/146-6451021-4138616?psc=1>.

5: cf. “The Office of Daily Matins,” The Orthodox Church in America. <https://www.oca.org/files/PDF/Music/Rubrics/Horologion/office-daily-matins.pdf>.

6: Micahel Heiser, “Two Powers in Heaven.” <https://drmsh.com/the-naked-bible/two-powers-in-heaven/>.

7: St. Bede the Venerable, excerpted from Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Mark. <https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-52.shtml>.

8: Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, “Eschatology.” Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-orthodox-christian-theology/5B308EAC3984059E7453F3B4F84A7263>.

9: N.T. Wright, “Mark for Everyone.” <https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Everyone-Tom-Wright/dp/0281071918>.

10: St. Athanasius of Alexandria, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” Quoted in Mark (Revised), Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. <https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Ancient-Christian-Commentary-Scripture/dp/0830814183>.