Reading the Gospels Together The Cleansing of the Temple – Part 2 For his part, Matthew has followed Mark fairly closely. We noted that he tells of Jesus cleansing the Temple on the same day as he entered the city as King Jesus. That is not a huge difference. But Matthew embellishes Mark’s story by telling his readers that Jesus not only cleanses the Temple but he also heals the blind and lame who came to him there. And Jesus not only quotes from Isaiah and Jeremiah but he also quotes from Psalm 8 in response to the amazement of the religious leaders at what Jesus has done. Once the symbolic act of cleansing is complete and Jesus has healed the blind and lame he retreats to Bethany much as he did in Mark’s story. Matthew has not forgotten about the fig tree; however, so now he tells of Jesus going to the tree to find figs and upon finding none curses the fig tree which withers at once and dies. By changing Mark’s story from a two-stage event and collapsing it into one Matthew has spoiled Mark’s effect. For Mark the withering fig tree is a metaphor of the condemned Temple and by surround the cleansing of the Temple with this strange story Mark has made his point. The way Matthew has changed the story leads to a major question about the meaning of the cursing of the fig tree in Matthew’s gospel and in the end it likely has little meaning. It is just a strange story that Matthew felt obligated to repeat because he found it in Mark. On the whole Matthew and Mark are quite close however in the telling of this story. As we read Luke’s story it becomes apparent that he was not very impressed with Mark’s story of the cleansing of the Temple. He barely tells the story. Luke does not mention the fig tree. One gets the impression that he may well have rather not told this story but it is so important to Mark and likely was so ingrained in the minds of Christians that he must tell it. Luke uses the least possible number of words and moves quickly to report that Jesus spent a number of days teaching in the Temple. We will see that Mark has condensed the teaching to a day or at most two. Why did Luke change Mark’s story in the way he did? We need to remember that the Temple is the central location for Luke. Likely, in the end, he did not share Mark’s negative view of the Temple. So, why did he include the story at all? As mentioned above it was likely because the story was so well known and had become a standard part of the tradition. All of this adds credence to the likelihood that Jesus actually did engage in this symbolic act of cleansing the Temple. Luke could not set it aside because it really happened and Luke knew that even though he might have wished otherwise. The point here is that Luke has downplayed the story in significant ways. It does not have the import for him that it has for both Mark and Matthew. For Mark and Matthew this event is the crucial event that galvanized the death of Jesus. There would be no turning back for the religious leaders in Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels once this event has taken place. Not so for Luke. There may still have been room for repentance and the actual welcome of the visitation of God – but, as we know, this did not happen. Yet, the Temple remains an important feature and location in Luke’s gospel and in the book of Acts. The followers of Jesus find a home in the Temple in the book of Acts.