A lHI(Q)1UslE (Q) IF IP lltA,1flE llt

Mark 11:12-24
There have always been men and women figuring out ways to separate other men and women from
their assets-some legally and some illegally. But the most despicable of all are those who do it in the
name of God
One of the most popular began his ministry in 1959with only $70and has profited handsomely. His
current personal wealth, though unknown for sure, isestimated at $500million to $2billion. His empire
iscomprised of both non-profit and for-profit operations. He created "The Family Channel" in 1977with
apersonal investment of $183,000and sold it to Foxin1997, for about $1.5billion. He owns or has owned
Dorothy Hamil's Ice Capades, Mary Tyler Moore Entertainment, ahotel, International J et Charter, and
interests in diamond and gold extraction businesses inAfrica.
There is something fundamentally flawed when a"preacher" can take $70and funds from donors for
spreading the gospel, gain personal control of much of it and multiply it in twenty or soyears to become
one of the wealthiest men in America.
And there are many just like him with private jets, massive ministries, and luxurious homes who
have turned God's house, ahouse of prayer, into aden of robbers.
This past week Evan Davis loaned me an interesting book by Dave Shiflett, Exodus, Why Americans
Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity. His fundamental conclusion is that people are
leaving liberal churches in droves because those churches have abandoned the gospel, biblical truths
about the deity, incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Lord J esus, aswell asbiblical standards of mo-
rality. Consequently, they have nothing to offer that cannot be found in most civic clubs. He quotes the
English theologian P. T. Forsythe who said, "If within us we have nothing above us we soon succumb to
what is around us." The standard sermon in liberal churches runs something like this: "God is love.
God's love isinclusive. God acts injustice to seethat everyone isincluded. Wetherefore ought to be co-
actors and co-creators with God to make the world over in the way hewishes." He continiues:
. . . churches that abandon traditional faith and take up worldly
causes ... are likely to embrace severe decline, if not extinction. There
may not be much left ... now: by one accounting, there are nearly twice
asmany lesbians in the United States as Episcopalians (1.5percent of the
population asopposed to 0.78percent) .
. . . (theological) innovators have reduced God to about one-third of
His former self. This God .... has ideals for the future, and he tries to
lure us to actualize those ideals, but he does not control each individual
or occasion. ..
This 30 percent God is a Wee Deity-WD-30, we might call Him-
and attractive inthe sense that no one need fear such aGod, or heed Him
either. .. What percentage of power, then, does God have in this
scheme? Does hehave 20percent and the advancing world has the other
80percent? Isit 30/70? And if that's the case, why isheworth worship-
ping?"
InJ esus' day, as we see in today's text, there were religious leaders who turned the temple that was
meant to be ahouse of prayer into aden of robbers where the poor were exploited for pure profit That's
what I want to talk. about, but first
LET'S PRAY ABOUT IT!
Merciful and gracious God inheaven, we thank You for Your sure word that has stood and will stand
the test of time. Weask You to guide us as we consider this difficult passage. Keep us faithful to the text
that we may clearly hear from You. Deliver us from even the temptation to make You like ourselves. I
ask all these things inJ esus' name, for his sake, and by hismerit alone. Amen.
Turn in your pew Bibles to the passage we read earlier, Mark 11:12-24 (Page 994). As I said earlier,
this passage about the Lord's cursing the fig tree is a very difficult and troublesome passage. William
Barclay, who has difficulty with almost everything supernatural, contends that it is, without exception,
the most difficult story in the gospel narrative and to take it as literal, factual history presents difficulties,
which are well-nigh impossible to overcome. He writes, and several commentators to agreater or lesser
extent reflect his views, that
(1) The story does not ring true. ... the whole incident does not
seem worthy of J esus. There seems acertain petulance to it. It isjust the
kind of story that is told of other wonder-workers but which is never
1 Dave Shiflett, Exodus- Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity (New
York: ThePenguin Group, 2005), P'P: 41-42, 57-58.
1
told of J esus. Still further, we have this basic difficulty. J esus ... would
not tum the stones into bread in the desert to satisfy His own hunger. He
would not use His own miraculous powers to escape from His enemies.
He never used His power for His own sake; ..
(2) Still worse, the whole action was unreasonable. This was the
Passover Season, that isthe middle of April. The fig-tree in a sheltered
spot may bear fig leaves as early as March, but never did afig-tree bear
figs until late Mayor early J une. Mark says it was not the season for figs.
Why blast the tree for failing to do that which it was not possible for it to
do? Itisboth unreasonable and unjust.'
Others contend that fig-trees in early April produce quite a crop of small knobs, not real figs but a
kind of early forerunner that grow to the size of green almonds that are eaten by peasants and others
when they are hungry.' Some commentators note that they are a delicacy and others that they are not at
all tasty.
Look at the text where we see that Mark begins his account of the fig-tree incident (verses 12-14),
sandwiches J esus' activity inthe temple (verses 15-19), and then returns to his account of the fig tree
(verses 20-24). Remember, J esus had made His entry into J erusalem amid the worshipping crowds,
where the whole city-according to Matthew-had been moved or shaken (the Greek word from which
we get our English word "seismic") by His presence. And as we saw last week, He looked around the
temple area asif surveying ascene for battle, did nothing, and went toBethany to spend the night
Let's consider the text the way Matthew has it-first J esus on the temple mount and then the cursing
of the fig-tree-verses 15-17. Put your finger at Matthew 21:10-17 (Page 968).
15Sothey came to Jerusalem. Then Jesus went into the temple and be-
gan to drive out those who bought and sold in the temple, and over-
turned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold
doves. 16And He would not allow anyone to carry wares through the
temple. 17Then Hetaught, saying to them, "Is it not written, "My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it a
'den of thieves.' "
Here's the picture. It's Monday and only days before the Lord's crucifixion. He has come to J erusa-
lem to die for the sins of His people. He had, just the day before, ridden into the city on a donkey as a
peaceful and gentle king and accepted the praise and adoration of the people as Messiah. Now He re-
turns to the city and the temple area to begin the Messiah's work as prophesied in Malachi 3:1-4 (Page
942).
I "Behold, I send My messenget, and he will prepare the way before Me.
And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even
the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is com-
ing," says the LORD of hosts. 2. "But who can endure the day of His
coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He islike a refiner's
fire and like launderers' soap. ~ He will sit as a refiner and a purifier of
silver; He will purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer to the LORD an offering in righteousness. ~ Then
the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasant to the LORD, as in
the days of old, as in former years.
When J esus strode through the temple grounds overturning the tables of the moneychangers and
those who sold sacrificial animals, He was presenting an acted-out parable. Matthew, who wrote primar-
ily for aJ ewish audience and was attuned to nuances that spoke more clearly to J ews, begins hisaccount
of the temple incident by noting that the multitudes described Him asJ esus, the prophet from Nazareth
of Galilee, not "a" prophet, but "the" prophet in fulfillment of Moses declaration in Deuteronomy 18:15
that the Lord God would raise up aprophet like himself.
By looking at both Mark and Matthew we get a clear picture of the Lord J esus, the Pharisees and
priests, and what angered each of them. For the Lord J esus, the supreme blasphemy was that this place-
the outer court of the Gentiles-which was to have been a place of prayer for non-J ewish people of every
2 William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark - The Daily Study Bible Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1956), p.p. 28O-28l.
3Walter C. Kaiser, J r., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings oj the Bible,
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), P'P: 441-442.
2
nation had become a place of business and dishonest business at that.
4
You see, the temple area was a
huge religious complex. The temple itself consisted of the Holy Place, where the priests ministered and
the Most Holy Place where only the high priest entered once ayear. J ames Montgomery Boicewrites that
... this comparatively small building was surrounded by several
concentric courts, the outermost of which was the very large Court of the
Gentiles. This is where the money changing and selling of sacrificial
animals took place because ... it was not thought of as particularly sa-
cred.
Two kinds of business were transacted. The first was the exchange
of various national currencies for the temple coins used to pay the tem-
ple tax...
The other kind of trade was the sale of sacrificial animals. Worship-
ers did not need to buy them at the temple; they could bring their sacri-
ficeswith them. But this was inconvenient for pilgrims coming from dis-
tant areas ... Moreover, the law stipulated that the animals had to be
without blemish. Whether they were or not was determined by the
priests, and there was always achance that the priests would reject an of-
fering even after it had been brought along way.
The money changers charge ... was about half aday's wage for ala-
boring man ... and apair of doves (the poor man's sacrifice) could cost
fifty times more inside the temple area than outside. .. Clearly, by the
time of the Passover at which J esus presented Himself as Israel's King
and Messiah, thetemple had become abazaar."
And it istrue that the high priestly families did gain wealth from their control of the merchants and
their stalls and were guilty of corruption. Part of the problem was an unholy mixture of religion and
money.
David Garland, on the other hand, suggests that J esus had more in mind than dealing with the cor-
rupt merchants and religious leaders who. profited from scalping the poor. Hebelieves that the events in
the temple area that day were intended not to attack and purify abuses but to signal an end of the temple
itself and itsfunction. He writes:
If money cannot be exchanged into the holy currency, then monetary
support for the temple sacrifices and the priesthood must end. If sacrifi-
cial animals cannot be purchased, then sacrifice must end. .. J esus does
not seek to purify current temple worship but symbolically attacks the
very function of the temple and heralds itsdestruction."
He also contends that the reference to the "den of robbers" has nothing to with the trade in the tem-
plebut denounces the false security the temple sacrifices breed.
Inother words, the robbers are not swindlers but bandits, and they
do not do their robbing in their den. The den isthe place where robbers
retreat after having committed their crimes. It istheir hideout, aplace of
security and refuge. Calling the temple a robbers' den is therefore not a
cry of outrage against any dishonest business practices in the temple. J e-
sus indirectly attacks them for allowing the temple to degenerate into a
safe hiding place where people think that they find forgiveness and fel-
lowship with God no matter how they act on the outside. .. The leaders
of the people think that they can rob widows' houses (Mark 12:40) and
then perform the prescribed sacrifices according to the prescribed pat-
terns at the prescribed times in the prescribed purity in the prescribed
sacred space and then be safe and secure fromall alarms ...
The sanctuary, supposedly sanctified by God, has become a sanctu-
ary for bandits who think that they are protected from God's judgment
The phrase "I have been watching" (J eremiah 7:11) matches the descrip-
tion of J esus' visit to the temple on the previous day, when he "looked
4 R. Alan Cole, Mark=Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1961 [1999]), p. 252.
5J ames Montgomery Boice, TheGospel of Matthew: Volume 2, The Triumph of the King 18-28(Grand Rapids:
Baker Publishing Co., 2001), p. p. 442-443.
6David E. Garland, The NW Application Commentary-Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p.p. 436-
437.
3
around at everything" (Mark 11:11) turning that visit into an inspection ..
. He has seen what the people are doing and pronounces God's judg-
ment,"
The Pharisees and priests on the other hand were offended, according to Matthew (21:14-16 Page
968), by the words of the children calling out inthe temple.
14 Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed
them. 15But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things
that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "Ho-
sanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant 16 and said to Him,
"Do You hear what these are saying?" And Jesus said to them, "Yes.
Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You
have perfected praise'?"
They understood the implication of the fact that while He drove out the money changers and mer-
chants, He welcomed the blind and lame the authorities kept from the temple grounds and healed them.
They understood the cries of the children aswell asJ esus' quotation from Isaiah 56:7and J eremiah 7:11
and determined to eliminate Himaswe seein Mark 11:18-19.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it and sought how they might
destroy Him; far they feared Him, because all the people were astonished
at His teaching. 19 When evening had come, He went out of the city.
Look at the text again, verses 12-14 and 20-21 and the fig tree episode.
1 2 . Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, He was
hungry. 13And seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, He went to see
if perhaps He would find something on it. When He came to it, He
found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 In re-
sponse Jesus said to it, "Let no one eat fruit from you ever again." And
His disciples heard it. .. ~Now in the morning, as they passed by, they
saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. 21 And Peter, remembering, said
to Him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away."
Alan Cole reminds us that unless we realize that this whole event was an acted parable we will be
puzzled by all sorts of irrelevant questions, such as the ones raised by Barclay and others. Again, Gar-
land isvery helpful.
This action is not about a particular unfruitful fig tree; it has to do
with the temple. The :word "season" (kairos) is not the botanical term
from the growing season but the religious term found in 1:14-15 denot-
ing the time of the kingdom of God...
Time can run out for fruitless trees and prayerless temples ... J ust as
the fig tree was not pruned and manured so that it might bear fruit but
cursed so that it died, so the temple was not cleansed so that it could
continue in more fitting service to God, rather, it would soon come to an
end... The locus of salvation now shifts from the temple toJ esus and his
death and resurrection. .. Thus when J esus dies, the curtain of the tem-
ple istom fromtop to bottom.
. . . For a fig tree infull leaf to shrivel so completely within aday isa
miracle, and it conveys that the temple's condemnation is not a tempo-
rary measure."
Listen! Frederick Bruner had it right when he wrote:
The Lord J esus comes, not only as a merciful and modest king, he is
also amighty and awful judge. Heisnot only love; heisalso justice."
And for this we should say, "Hallelujah! Praise His holy name!
Now look at the text again and the Lord J esus' response in verses 22-26.
22 So Jesus answered and said to them, "Have faith in God. 23 For as-
suredly/ 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. 24
7 David E. Garland, The NIV Application Commentary-Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p.p. 438-
439.
8David E. Garland, TheNIV Application Commentary-Mark (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 440.
9Frederick L. Bruner, Matthew- Volume 2, The Churchbook, Matthew 13-28(Dallas: Word Publishing, 1987),
p.753.
4
Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe
that you receive them, and you will have them. 25 And whenever you
stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that
your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. 26 But if
you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your tres-
passes."
This is an interesting and often misused passage and so it's important that we keep it inits context. It
isnot, asmany claim, ablank check with God. J esus is not saying How To Write Your Own Ticket With God
asone author wrote in afull page advertisement promoting his ministry. Nor as the late Kenneth Hagin
who said the Lord J esus promised him, "If anybody, anywhere, will take these four steps or put these
four principles into operation, he will always receive whatever he wants from Me or from God the Fa-
ther."
Listen! If the disciples are amodel of anything in the gospels, it isof little faith and incredulity. Pe-
ter's response in verse 21 to the cursed fig tree, even after witnessing miracle after miracle after miracle
for three years was, "Wow! Look at that! Thefig tree you cursed isalready withered!"
So what is theLord J esus teaching? First, heis rebuking the disciples' unbelief and amazement at the
fig tree. Second, He isnot speaking of literally moving mountains. That was acommon rabbinic saying
related to any extremely difficult task. Second, faith is not chosen arbitrarily as acondition of prayer but
the basic condition of all our relationship with God (Hebrews 11:6). Third, some have taken His words,
"Have faith in God," or asMatthew puts it, "if you have faith and do not doubt," "you can have anything
you ask for," asacommand to work on having more faith. But it isalso possible that J esus was encourag-
ing them to remember that God's promises are grounded in God's faithfulness and not man's ability to
banish every doubt from his heart. As William Laneput it
The man who bows his head before the hidden glory of God in the
fullness of faith does so in the certainty that God can deal with every
situation and any difficulty and that with him nothing isimpossible."
Finally, as we see in verses 25-26, J esus gives another "condition" of prayer-the forgiveness of oth-
ers. Listen! We have no inherent right to be heard by God! It isall by His grace and undeserved favor!
But, unless we forgive others, it shows we have no consciousness of the grace that we ourselves have re-
ceived and need and shows that we are expecting tobeheard on our own merits and that cannot be.'!
Let's wrap this up. This isan important passage for us because of our attachment to things. Several
years ago Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in agraduation speech at Harvard said that practical Western materi-
alismisasbad and perhaps even worse than the philosophical materialism of communism. Communism
claims that matter isall that is. But Western materialism believes that matter isall that matters. Wetalk of
heaven but we strive for things. For most of us, enough is never enough. We see this, asJ ames Mont-
gomery Boice noted, in denominations in which the only "unforgivable sin" is for acongregation to at-
tempt to leave the denomination with its property. And many churches are property centered. This is
something we must be particularly cautious about. It is a great blessing to have been on this piece of
property for 200 years and to have abeautiful and historic sanctuary. But we must always remember that
it isto beused for God's glory and honor lest it become an object of worship-an idol inour lives.
As we look at the church at large, we see that we live in an age of advertising and promotion with
billboards, newspaper and TV advertising, and clever direct mail pieces that sometimes betrays more
trust inmethod thanmessage. Wehave, inmany cases, made the word "prayer" little more than code for
"financial support."
A trip to many, if not most, Christian bookstores isenough to make one sick. For example, some of
you will remember the popular WWJ D (What Would J esus Do) bracelets and plaques. Others will re-
member the Prayer of [abez craze with every conceivable ''Prayer of [abez" trinket. Do things like these
honor God or fundamentally take His name invain.
Then there are the ubiquitous televangelists promising power, fame, and riches to any and all who
will plant aseed of faith, a.k.a. "money" in their ministry.
Finally, there is the liberal church Dave Shiflett wrote about, churches that don't care whether J esus
was crucified at Calvary or shot at Bunker Hill but are determined to be on the cutting edge of societal
accommodation and evolution.
Wemust also remember that the faith that moves mountains isnothing more or less than confidence
in God's power, wisdom, and goodwill towards believers--grounded in His promises, His Word, and
10William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark- The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), p. 410.
II R Alan Cole, Mark- Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1961 [1999]), p. 256.
5
---------- -------- ---- ---- --------------------
His character. It is not faith infaith and cannot be. The last words of J esus in today's passage was the
sobering reminder that no prayers can be heard that comefrom an unforgiving heart because we have no
right to look for mercy if we are not ready to extend mercy to our brothers and sisters in Christ, in the
church, inZion church. Bishop Ryleput it this way:
Do we know what it isto be of aforgiving spirit? Can we look over
the injuries that we receive from time to time in this evil world? ... If
not, where isour Christianity? ... Let us resolve to amend our ways in
this matter. Let us determine by God's grace to forgive, even aswe hope
to beforgiven."
Question? Do you believe inthe Lord J esus Christ asthe Son of God and Savior of sinners? Are you
trusting in Him alone for salvation as he is offered in the gospel? Rev. Martyn Minns, a high profile
member of the (conservative) American Anglican Council was right on the money inhis2004Easter mes-
sage, a message that was once common inmainline churches but now marks him as a dissident. He re-
minded his hearers that
God will not be mocked if we declare what God calls
sin to be not sin.
God will not be mocked even ifwe claim that God's
Word isno longer relevant to the complexities
of modern life.
God will not be mocked by a church that believes
that it can change foundational truth by a
majority vote.
God will not be mocked even if we do seem to be
getting away with for a while.
God win have the final word.
13
SHALL WE PRAY
Great God in heaven, make Your Word alive inour hearts and minds. Grant us faith that moves
mountains, a life of fruitfulness, and a forgiving heart to others. I ask this inJ esus' name, for His sake,
and by His merit alone. Amen.
[4147)
12J . C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels -Matthew &Mark (Cambridge: J ames Clarke &Co. Ltd.,
[1856] 1983), Mark, p. 240
13Dave Shiflett, Exodus- Why Americans Are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity (New
York: The Penguin Group, 2005), p.p. 41-42.
6