![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/08\/JesusPalmSunday.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
This is an installment of my replies to a series of articles on Mark<\/a>\u00a0by Dr. David Madison<\/strong>: an atheist who was a Methodist minister for nine years: with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Boston University. His summary article is called,<\/span> \u201cNot-Your-Pastor\u2019s Tour of Mark\u2019s Gospel: The falsification of Christianity made easy\u201d<\/a> (Debunking Christianity<\/em>, 7-17-19). His words will be in\u00a0<\/span>blue<\/span>\u00a0below.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison has utterly ignored<\/em> my twelve refutations<\/a> of his<\/span> \u201cdirty dozen\u201d podcasts against Jesus<\/a>, and I fully expect that stony silence to continue. If he wants to be repeatedly critiqued and make no response, that\u2019s his choice (which would challenge Bob Seidensticker<\/a> as the most intellectually cowardly atheist I know). I will continue on, whatever he decides to do (no skin off my back).<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison believes we are not at all\u00a0sure<\/em>\u00a0whether Jesus in fact said\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0recorded in the Gospels. The atheist always has a convenient \u201cout\u201d (when refuted in argument about some biblical text) that Jesus never said it\u00a0anyway<\/em>\u00a0and that the text in question was simply made up and added later by unscrupulous and \u201ccultish\u201d Christian propagandists. <\/span><\/p>\n I always refuse to play this silly and ultimately intellectually dishonest game, because there is no way to \u201cwin\u201d with such a stacked, subjective deck. I start with the assumption (based on many historical evidences<\/a>) that the manuscripts we have are quite sufficient for us to know what is in<\/em> the Bible (believe<\/em> it or not<\/em>).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison himself \u2014 in<\/span> his anti-Jesus project<\/a>\u00a0noted above, granted my outlook, strictly in terms of\u00a0practical<\/em>\u00a0\u201cx vs. y\u201d debate purposes:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cFor the sake of argument, I\u2019m willing to say, okay, Jesus was real and, yes, we have gospels that tell the story.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And in the combox:<\/span>\u00a0\u201cSo, we can go along with their insistence that he did exist. We\u2019ll play on their field, i.e., the gospels.\u201d Excellent! Otherwise, there would be no possible discussion at all.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Dr. Madison called this installment: \u201cThe Day Jesus Cursed a Fig Tree: \u2026and followed the deed with bad theology\u201d<\/a> (1-25-19)<\/span><\/p>\n The theological agenda of the gospel authors included Jesus as a fulfillment of scripture\u2014everybody knows that, right?\u2014so they frequently quoted OT texts\u00a0out of context<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n Dr. Madison doesn\u2019t, alas, tell us how<\/em> he thinks Matthew cited Zechariah 9:9 out of context, so there is nothing here to refute. It\u2019s simply one of his gratuitous and groundless swipes at Jesus and the Gospel writer.<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew failed to grasp the technique of the\u00a0parallelism<\/i>\u00a0in Hebrew poetry (line 1: say something; line 2, say the same thing using a different word), and reports that Jesus rode on\u00a0two<\/i><\/b>\u00a0animals, a donkey and a colt. (Matthew 21:7)\u00a0Yes, Matthew could be that goofy . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew does not report that Jesus rode on two animals. He wrote: \u201cthey brought the ass and the colt, and put their garments on them, and he sat thereon\u201d (Mt 21:7, RSV). He can hardly have sat on (let alone ride) two animals at once.\u00a0 Does Dr. Madison think Matthew was trying to present Jesus as a circus stunt rider? How silly are we gonna get? There must be some other sensible meaning. But then, what does \u201cthem\u201d mean in this verse? And why two<\/em> animals? It does seem strange at first glance<\/em>. Apologist Eric Lyons, in a<\/span> comprehensive article on this very issue<\/a> of the colt and the ass, writes:<\/span><\/p>\n Mark recorded that Jesus told the two disciples that they would find \u201ca colt<\/b>\u00a0tied, on which no one has sat\u201d (11:2). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Mark, Luke, and John did not say that\u00a0only<\/b>\u00a0one donkey was obtained for Jesus, or that\u00a0only<\/b>\u00a0one donkey traveled up to Jerusalem with Jesus. The writers simply mentioned one donkey (the colt). They never denied that another donkey (the mother of the colt) was present. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [W]hen Matthew\u2019s gospel is taken into account, the elusive female donkey of Zechariah 9:9 is brought to light. Both the foal and the female donkey were brought to Christ at Mount Olivet, and both made the trip to Jerusalem. Since the colt never had been ridden, or even sat upon (as stated by Mark and Luke), its dependence upon its mother is very understandable (as implied by Matthew). The journey to Jerusalem, with multitudes of people in front of and behind Jesus and the donkeys (Matthew 21:8-9), obviously would have been much easier for the colt if the mother donkey were led nearby down the same road. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Greek scholar A.T. Robertson believed that the second \u201cthem\u201d (Greek \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd) refers to the\u00a0garments\u00a0<\/b>that the disciples laid on the donkeys, and not to the donkeys themselves. In commenting on Matthew 21:7 he stated: \u201cThe garments thrown on the animals were the outer garments (himatia<\/i>), Jesus \u2018took his seat\u2019 (epekathisen<\/i>) upon the garments\u201d (1930, [Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/em>], 1:167).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Two Bible translations, whose purpose is to provide an exceptionally literal rendering of the Greek biblical text: Amplified Bible and Wuest Expanded Translation, concur with this interpretation:<\/span><\/p>\n They brought the donkey and the colt and laid their coats upon them, and He seated Himself on them [the clothing].<\/span><\/p>\n And they placed upon them their outer garments. And He took His seat upon them [the garments].<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n New American Standard Bible also brings out this more specific meaning:<\/span><\/p>\n and brought the donkey and the colt, and laid on them their garments, on which He sat.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cOn the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He said to it, \u2018May no one ever eat fruit from you again.\u2019 And his disciples heard it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n D. E. Nineham, in his 1963 commentary, noted: \u201cThis story is one of the most difficult in the Gospels, for it approximates more closely than any other episode in Mark to the type of \u2018unreasonable\u2019 miracle characteristic of the non-canonical Gospel literature.\u201d (p. 298) C. F. D. Moule, in his 1965 commentary: \u201cIt is very odd that Jesus should condemn a fig-tree for having no fruit when it was not even the season for fruit.\u201d (p. 89)<\/span><\/p>\n Apologist Kyle Butt<\/span> offers a plausible explanation<\/a>:<\/p>\n One prominent question naturally arises from a straightforward reading of the text. Why would Jesus curse a fig tree that did not have figs on it, especially since the text says that \u201cit was not the season for figs\u201d? In response to this puzzling question, skeptical minds have let themselves run wild with accusations regarding the passage. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When Jesus approached the fig tree, the text indicates that the tree had plenty of leaves. R.K. Harrison, writing in the\u00a0International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/em>, explains that various kinds of figs grew in Palestine during the first century. One very important aspect of fig growth has to do with the relationship between the leaf and the fruit. Harrison notes that the tiny figs, known to the Arabs as\u00a0taksh<\/em>, \u201cappear simultaneously in the leaf axils\u201d (1982, 2:302) This\u00a0taksh<\/em>\u00a0is edible and \u201cis often gathered for sale in the markets\u201d (2:302). Furthermore, the text notes: \u201cWhen the young leaves are appearing in spring, every fertile fig will have some\u00a0taksh<\/em>\u00a0on it\u2026. But if a tree with leaves has no fruit, it will be barren for the entire season\u201d (2:301-302).<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, when Jesus approached the leafy fig tree, He had every reason to suspect that something edible would be on it. However, after inspecting the tree, Mark records that \u201cHe found nothing but leaves.\u201d No\u00a0taksh<\/em>\u00a0were budding as they should have been if the tree was going to produce edible figs that year. The tree appeared to be fruitful, but it only had outward signs of bearing fruit (leaves) and in truth offered nothing of value to weary travelers. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [I]n a general sense, Jesus often insisted that trees which do not bear good fruit will be cut down (Matthew 7:19; Luke 13:6-9). The fig tree did not bear fruit, was useless, and deserved to be destroyed: the spiritual application being that any human who does not bear fruit for God will also be destroyed for his or her failure to produce.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus did not throw a temper tantrum and curse the fig tree even though it was incapable of producing fruit. He cursed the tree because it should have been growing fruit since it had the outward signs of productivity. Jesus\u2019 calculated timing underscored the spiritual truth that barren spiritual trees eventually run out of time. As for personal application, we should all diligently strive to ensure that we are not the barren fig tree.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Upon arriving at the Temple (v.15): \u201cAnd he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n What provoked Jesus to do this? Why was he upset about money-changers and dove-sellers?\u00a0Jesus himself had once told a man he\u2019d healed to \u201coffer for your cleansing what Moses commanded,\u201d meaning the sacrifice of a bird (according to Leviticus 14). The Temple existed for this form of devotion.<\/span><\/p>\n Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/em><\/a> provides an answer:<\/span><\/p>\n the tables of the moneychangers<\/span>] The Greek word signifies those who took a small coin (Hebr.\u00a0Kolbon<\/span>, Grk.\u00a0\u03ba\u03cc\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, perhaps a Ph\u0153nician word) as a fee for exchanging the money of the worshippers, who were required to pay in Hebrew coin. This exaction of the fee was itself unlawful (Lightfoot). And probably other dishonest practices were rife.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Encyclopedia Judaica<\/em><\/span> (\u201cMoney Changers\u201d<\/a>) confirms that this interest-taking was contrary to Jewish Law:<\/span><\/p>\n In the period of the Second\u00a0Temple<\/span>\u00a0vast numbers of Jews streamed to Palestine and Jerusalem \u201cout or every nation under heaven\u201d (Acts 2:5), taking with them considerable sums of money in foreign currencies. This is referred to in the famous instance of Jesus\u2019 driving the money changers out of the Temple (Matt. 21:12). Not only did these foreign coins have to be changed but also ordinary deposits were often handed over to the Temple authorities for safe deposit in the Temple treasury (Jos., Wars 6:281\u20132). Thus Jerusalem became a sort of central bourse and exchange mart, and the Temple vaults served as \u201csafe deposits\u201d in which every type of coin was represented (TJ<\/small>, Ma\u2019as. Sh. 1:2, 52d, and parallels). The business of money exchange was carried out by the\u00a0shul<\/span>\u1e25ani<\/i>\u00a0(\u201cexchange banker\u201d), who would change foreign coins into local currency and vice versa (Tosef., Shek. 2:13; Matt. 21:12). People coming\u00a0from distant countries would bring their money in large denominations rather than in cumbersome small coins. The provision of small change was a further function of the\u00a0shul\u1e25ani<\/i>\u00a0(cf. Sif. Deut., 306; Ma\u2019as Sh., 2:9). For both of these kinds of transactions the\u00a0shul\u1e25ani<\/i>\u00a0charged a small fee (agio<\/em>), called in rabbinic literature a\u00a0kolbon<\/i>\u00a0(a word of doubtful etymology but perhaps from the Greek \u03ba\u1f79\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2 \u201csmall coin\u201d;\u00a0TJ<\/small>, Shek. 1:6, 46b). This premium seems to have varied from 4 percent to 8 percent (Shek. 1:6, et al.). The\u00a0shul\u1e25ani<\/i>\u00a0served also as a banker, and would receive money on deposit for investment and pay out an interest at a fixed rate (Matt. 25:27), although this was contrary to Jewish law (see below;<\/span>\u00a0*Moneylending<\/a>\u00a0). . . .<\/p>\n The activity of the Jewish banker,\u00a0shul\u1e25ani<\/i>, was of a closely defined nature, as his transactions had to be in accordance with the biblical prohibition against taking interest (ribit<\/i>).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n John Lightfoot\u2019s commentary<\/a> on Matthew 21:12 adds more relevant information:<\/span><\/p>\n [Overthrew the tables of the moneychangers<\/i>.] Who those\u00a0moneychangers<\/i>\u00a0were, may be learned very well from the Talmud, and Maimonides in the treatise\u00a0Shekalim<\/i>:\u2013 . . .<\/span><\/p>\n At that time when they paid pence for the half shekel,\u00a0a kolbon<\/i>\u00a0[or the fee that was paid to the moneychanger] was half a\u00a0mea<\/i>, that is, the twelfth part of a penny, and never less. But the\u00a0kolbons<\/i>\u00a0were not like the half shekel; but the exchangers laid them by themselves till the holy treasury were paid out of them.\u201d You see what these\u00a0moneychangers<\/i>\u00a0were, and whence they had their name. You see that Christ did not overturn the chests in which the holy money was laid up, but the tables on which they trafficked for this unholy gain.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that Jesus specifically concentrated on two groups: the moneychangers and those who sold doves. This was mentioned in the current account from Mark (above), and in the parallel stories (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16). His anger at the moneychangers has just been explained. They were unlawfully extracting interest, which would hurt the poor the most. Why did He go after the dove sellers? It\u2019s a similar reason. The<\/span> Experimental Theology<\/em> blog<\/a> explains:<\/span><\/p>\n As most know, the preferred sacrifice to be offered at the temple was a lamb. But a provision is made in the Levitical code for the poor:<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Leviticus 5.7\u00a0Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the Lord as a penalty for their sin\u2014one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n By going after the dove sellers we see Jesus directly attacking the group who were having economic dealings with the poor. When the poor would go to the temple they would head for the dove sellers.<\/span><\/p>\n The point being, while we know that Jesus was upset about economic exploitation going on in the temple, his focus on the dove sellers sharpens the message and priorities. . . . Jesus\u2019s anger is stirred at the way the poor are being treated and economically exploited.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence, He described this scenario with these people who exploited the poor, a \u201cden of robbers\u201d or \u201cden of thieves.\u201d Dr. Madison asked why Jesus was upset. I have provided an answer, through these excellent commentaries. Now Dr. Madison knows more than he did (so do I).<\/span><\/p>\n He blends wording from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, which have no relevance whatever to this incident\u2014but Mark knew that he could get away with it.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 In Isaiah 56, the prophet looks forward to the day when all nations will bend the knee to his own god, Yahweh, and\u00a0in that sense only<\/i>\u00a0will the temple be a house of prayer for all nations, i.e., when they have converted. Nor is this verse (7) a denunciation of the gory business of the temple; the text reads: \u201c\u2026their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n All Jesus cited was \u201cMy house shall be called a house of prayer\u201d (Mk 11:17), which is from Isaiah 56:7. The point is that this is its central purpose: a place of worship and praise and prayer and ritual sacrifice: not of collection of unlawful interest and exploiting the poor, contrary to the Jewish Law. That\u2019s all Jesus was saying. <\/span><\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t follow<\/em>\u00a0(as with partial analogies) that every jot and tittle<\/em> of a prophecy must be applicable to the situation about which it is cited. New Testament citation of the Old Testament is a long and complex subject in and of itself (see<\/span> one article that gets into that<\/a>). The same Isaiah 56:7 refers to \u201cmy house of prayer\u201d (God speaking) before it says it will be called<\/em> the same.<\/span><\/p>\n