Bible Commentaries
Mark 11

Verses 1-33

XI 1-11 The Triumphal Entry Into Jerusalem; cf.Matthew 21:1-11; Luke 19:29-44; John 12:12-19—Here Jesus presents himself to the people as Messias, fulfilling one of the clearest Messianic prophecies, Zach 9:9, in the manner of his triumphal entry. On this occasion Jesus makes no attempt to withdraw from the crowds, and openly approves of their acclamations, Luke 19:39 f. He was truly the Messias, though not the Messias of popular expectation. He had not come to establish an earthly kingdom. This modest and peaceful triumph would not have caused any alarm to the Roman authorities.

1. ’And when they were drawing near to Jerusalem, to (at) Bethphage and Bethany on the Mount of Olives’. Bethphage was between Jerusalem and Bethany, near the summit of Mt Olivet, and is probably the village mentioned in 2.

2-6. It is noteworthy that Jesus himself took the initiative in making these preparations which were intended to fulfil the prophecy of Zacharias; cf.Matthew 21:2f3b. ’The Lord hath need of it, and will at once send it back hither’.

7-10. It was an extraordinary mark of honour to spread their garments on the road before Jesus; cf. 4 Kg 9:13. ’Hosanna’: Heb hôša’-na’ = ’Save, we pray’; cf.Psalms 117:25; Psalms 85:2. The expression had become a cry of acclamation. Here it is a triumphant salutation of Jesus as Messias. He is coming in the name of the Lord (cf.Psalms 117:26) to restore the kingdom of David, i.e. to establish the Messianic kingdom. For the Jews, the coming of the kingdom of David represented the fulfilment of the Messianic promises.

11. As was fitting on this occasion, Jesus visited the temple where he would have noted the abuses which profaned the sanctuary, but owing to the lateness of the hour and possibly in order to allow the excitement of the crowds to die down, he took no action till next day. Meantime he retired to Bethany with the Twelve.

12-14 The Barren Fig-Tree; cf.Matthew 21:18 f.—This incident is to be understood as a symbolic act or parable in action. Such a method of teaching or giving a warning was familiar to the Jews from the OT; cf.Isaiah 20:1-6; Jeremiah 13:1-11; Jeremiah 27:1-11. Some have held that Christ was not really hungry on this occasion, that he merely Simulated hunger in order to lead up to the miracle he was about to perform; cf. Mal donatus , Commentary on Matthew 21:18. But there is no sufficient reason for departing from the obvious meaning of the evangelist’s words. Christ’s hunger was real, and made a very natural starting point for the symbolic action. He did not, however, expect to find fruit on the tree ’for it was not the time for figs’, 13. This strange act on his part, as well as the malediction and subsequent withering of the fig-tree, forms part of the symbolic action. They were intended to impress upon the mind of the Apostles something the sense of which they did not immediately perceive. The chief lesson of the incident is that those who fail to yield the fruit of good works which Christ seeks will be punished; cf.Luke 13:6-9. This lesson applied in the first instance to the Jews who failed to answer his call, but it has an application for all time, especially to Christians. It is probable that the withering of the fig-tree was also intended to be a timely reminder of the power of Jesus. He could have used his power to destroy his enemies, but refrained from doing so and went forward voluntarily to his death: ’the fig-tree was withered for the sake of the disciples in order that they might be encouraged. . . . It was necessary that he should give proof of his power to punish, so that the disciples might learn that although he had power to wither the Jews, he submitted voluntarily’ (Catena in Marc.).

15-19 Christ drives the Sellers from the Temple; cf. Matthew 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-17—It is uncertain whether John and the Synoptic writers are dealing with one and the same incident or two distinct occurrences, one at the beginning of the public ministry (Jn), the other at the final Pasch (Synoptics). Among those who hold that there was only a single expulsion of the sellers, there is a difference of opinion as to the time at which it took place. The majority favour the view that it was at the beginning of the public ministry. They argue that John gives the exact historical setting, while the Synoptic writers, who were less concerned with matters of chronology, relate the incident in connexion with their one description of a visit of Jesus to Jerusalem during the public ministry. 15. Mk, more precise in details of information than Mt or Lk, connects the driving out of the sellers from the temple with the day after the triumphal entry, 12. The fact that Mk gives the precise day is an indication that an expulsion of the sellers from the temple did take place at the final Pasch. Animals and other things required for the sacrifices were being bought and sold. The money-changers took foreign money in exchange for the coinage in which the tax for the temple was paid; cf.Matthew 17:23-26. These commercial activities, conducted with all the clamour of an oriental market-place, were a profanation of the sanctuary.

16. This. detail is found only in Mk; evidently people carrying loads were taking a short cut through the temple area.

17. The Scriptural passages are quoted from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, ’Is my house a robber’s cave?’ Trafficking within the temple precincts, with its exploitation of the pilgrims, had, in effect, turned the place of prayer and worship into a haunt of robbers.

18. Christ’s action was considered an infringement of the authority of the priests, who were responsible for the administration of the temple. The Scribes should have approved the example of zeal for God’s house which Jesus had given, but because of their conflicts with him they joined with the priests in seeking a way to bring about his death.

19. Christ withdrew from the city each evening probably in order to prevent any attempt by the Sanhedrin to seize him before the time when he would voluntarily yield himself to the power of his enemies.

20-26 The Withered Fig-Tree: Faith and Prayer; cf.Matthew 21:19b-22-20-21. Mk again gives more precise information than Mt, mentioning that it was next morning that the disciples noticed that the fig-tree was withered, and that it was Peter who drew Christ’s attention to it.

22-23. Jesus did not explain the symbolism of the incident of the fig-tree, but in the words ’Have faith in God’ he drew attention to that faith which is an essential prerequisite for the performance of deeds of power such as the withering of the fig-tree at his command. By confident faith in God, through whose power miracles are wrought, even that which seems impossible will be accomplished, provided it is reasonable and useful for the kingdom of God; cf. Matthew 17:20.

24. In prayer also it is necessary that we should have confident faith that our requests will be granted. ’Believe that you have received’ (e+?+e?a+´ßete) expresses the confident assurance that the petition will be granted.

25. ’Stand to pray’: standing was the ordinary posture in prayer. To pray on bended knees or prostrate on the ground was a sign of insistent supplication. The disciples are reminded of their duty to forgive others before seeking from God forgiveness of their offences against him, Matthew 6:14 f. Thus prayer will be inspired by charity as well as by faith. 26 is not found in the best Gk MSS.

27-33 Jesus Is questioned about His Authority; cf.Matthew 21:23-27; Luke 20:1-8-27-28. The group who approached Jesus were probably an official delegation from the Sanhedrin, the Jewish supreme council, which was constituted from representatives of the priestly families, the Scribes and the lay aristocracy of the Jews (the ancients.) Their question about Christ’s authority may have arisen from his action in driving the buyers and sellers from the temple. Responsibility for the administration of the temple rested with the priests, and Christ had acted without their authority.

29-30. Instead of giving a direct reply, Jesus put to the delegation a question which would have set them on the right track if they were conscientiously seeking information. They should have had no difficulty in recognizing the heavenly origin and authority of the mission of John the Baptist. A similar conclusion was indicated in the case of Christ, especially as the Baptist had borne witness to him, John 1:29-37; John 3:25-30.31-33. They were not prepared to consider the question in accordance with the evidence. They had shown no enthusiasm for the mission of John. To admit its heavenly origin now would have been to condemn themselves, and yet they dared not deny it because of the popular belief that John was a prophet from God.