Text -- Mark 12:1-32 (NET)

The Parable of the Tenants

12:1 Then he began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a watchtower. Then he leased it to tenant farmers and went on a journey. 12:2 At harvest time he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his portion of the crop. 12:3 But those tenants seized his slave, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 12:4 So he sent another slave to them again. This one they struck on the head and treated outrageously. 12:5 He sent another, and that one they killed. This happened to many others, some of whom were beaten, others killed. 12:6 He had one left, his one dear son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 12:7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and the inheritance will be ours!’ 12:8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw his body out of the vineyard. 12:9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 12:10 Have you not read this scripture: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. 12:11 This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” 12:12 Now they wanted to arrest him (but they feared the crowd), because they realized that he told this parable against them. So they left him and went away.

Paying Taxes to Caesar

12:13 Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to trap him with his own words. 12:14 When they came they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are truthful and do not court anyone’s favor, because you show no partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” 12:15 But he saw through their hypocrisy and said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 12:16 So they brought one, and he said to them, “Whose image is this, and whose inscription?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.

Marriage and the Resurrection

12:18 Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) also came to him and asked him, 12:19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us: ‘If a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, that man must marry the widow and father children for his brother.’ 12:20 There were seven brothers. The first one married, and when he died he had no children. 12:21 The second married her and died without any children, and likewise the third. 12:22 None of the seven had children. Finally, the woman died too. 12:23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you deceived for this reason, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God? 12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 12:26 Now as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 12:27 He is not the God of the dead but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”

The Greatest Commandment

12:28 Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 12:31 The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 12:32 The expert in the law said to him, “That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that he is one, and there is no one else besides him.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 12:1

He began to speak unto them in parables ( ērxato autois en parabolais lalein ).

Mark’ s common idiom again. He does not mean that this was the beginning of Christ’ s use of parables See note on Mar 4:2), but simply that his teaching on this occasion took the parabolic turn. "The circumstances called forth the parabolic mood, that of one whose heart is chilled, and whose spirit is saddened by a sense of loneliness, and who, retiring within himself, by a process of reflection, frames for his thoughts forms which half conceal, half reveal them"(Bruce). Mark does not give the Parable of the Two Sons (Mat 21:28-32) nor that of the Marriage Feast of the King’ s Son (Mat 22:1-14). He gives here the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. Also in Mat 21:33-46 and Luk 20:9-19. See discussion in Matthew. Mat 21:33 calls the man "a householder"(oikodespotēs ).

Robertson: Mar 12:1

A pit for the winepress ( hupolēnion ).

Only here in the N.T. Common in the lxx and in late Greek. Matthew had lēnon , winepress. This is the vessel or trough under the winepress on the hillside to catch the juice when the grapes were trodden. The Romans called it lacus (lake) and Wycliff dalf (lake), like delved. See note on Matthew for details just alike.

Robertson: Mar 12:1

Husbandmen ( geōrgois ).

Workers in the ground, tillers of the soil (ergon , gē ).

Robertson: Mar 12:2

At the season ( tōi kairōi ).

For fruits as in the end of the sentence.

Robertson: Mar 12:2

A servant ( doulon ).

Bondslave. Matthew has plural.

Robertson: Mar 12:2

That he might receive ( hina labēi ).

Purpose clause with second aorist subjunctive. Matthew has infinitive labein , purpose also.

Robertson: Mar 12:2

Wounded in the head ( ekephaliōsan ).

An old verb (kephalaiō ), to bring under heads (kephalē ), to summarize. Then to hit on the head. Only here in the N.T.

Robertson: Mar 12:5

Beating some and killing some ( hous men derontes , hous de apoktennuntes ).

This distributive use of the demonstrative appears also in Mat 21:35 in the singular (hon men , hon de , hon de ). Originally derō in Homer meant to skin, flay, then to smite, to beat. Apoktennuntes is a mi form of the verb (apoktennumi ) and means to kill off.

Robertson: Mar 12:6

A beloved son ( huion agapēton ).

Luk 20:13 has ton huion ton agapēton . Jesus evidently has in mind the language of the Father to him at his baptism (Mar 1:11; Mat 3:17; Luk 3:22).

Robertson: Mar 12:6

Last ( eschaton ).

Only in Mark. See Mat 21:35 for discussion of "reverence."

Robertson: Mar 12:7

Among themselves ( pros heautous ).

This phrase alone in Mark. Luk 20:14 has "with one another"(pros allēlous ), reciprocal instead of reflexive, pronoun.

Robertson: Mar 12:8

Killed him and cast him forth ( apekteinan auton , kai exebalon auton ).

Matthew and Luke reverse the order, cast forth and killed.

Robertson: Mar 12:10

This scripture ( tēn graphēn tautēn ).

This passage of scripture (Luk 4:21; Joh 19:37; Act 1:16). It is a quotation from Psa 118:22. See Mat 21:42 for discussion.

Robertson: Mar 12:11

This ( hautē ).

Feminine in lxx may refer to kephalē (head) or may be due to the Hebrew original zōth (this thing) which would be neuter touto in a Greek original, a translation Hebraism.

Robertson: Mar 12:12

Against them ( pros autous ).

So Luke. It was a straight shot, this parable of the Rejected Stone (Mar 12:10.) and the longer one of the Wicked Husbandmen. There was no mistaking the application, for he had specifically explained the application (Mat 21:43-45). The Sanhedrin were so angry that they actually started or sought to seize him, but fear of the populace now more enthusiastic for Jesus than ever held them back. They went off in disgust, but they had to listen to the Parable of the King’ s Son before going (Mat 22:1-14).

Robertson: Mar 12:13

That they might catch him in talk ( hina auton agreusōsin logōi ).

Ingressive aorist subjunctive. The verb is late from agra (a hunt or catching). It appears in the lxx and papyri. Here alone in the N.T. Luk 20:20 has the same idea, "that they may take hold of his speech"(epilabōntai autou logon ) while Mat 22:15 uses pagideusōsin (to snare or trap). See discussion in Matthew. We have seen the scribes and Pharisees trying to do this very thing before (Luk 11:33.). Mark and Matthew note here the combination of Pharisees and Herodians as Mark did in Mar 3:6. Matthew speaks of "disciples"or pupils of the Pharisees while Luke calls them "spies"(enkathetous ).

Robertson: Mar 12:14

Shall we give or shall we not give? ( dōmen ē mē dōmeṉ ).

Mark alone repeats the question in this sharp form. The deliberative subjunctive, aorist tense active voice. For the discussion of the palaver and flattery of this group of theological students see Mat 22:16-22.

Robertson: Mar 12:15

Knowing their hypocrisy ( eidōs autōn tēn hupocrisin ).

Mat 22:18 has "perceived their wickedness"(gnous tēn ponērian autōn ) while Luk 20:23 says, "perceived their craftiness"(katanoēsas autōn tēn panourgian ). Each of these words throws a flash-light on the spirit and attitude of these young men. They were sly, shrewd, slick, but they did not deceive Jesus with their pious palaver. See notes on Matthew for further details.

Robertson: Mar 12:17

Marvelled greatly at him ( exethaumazon ep' autōi ).

Imperfect tense with perfective use of the preposition ex . Both Matthew and Luke use the ingressive aorist. Luke adds that they "held their peace"(esigēsan ) while Matthew notes that they "went their way"(apēlthan ), went off or away.

Robertson: Mar 12:18

There come unto him Sadducees ( erchontai Saddoukaioi pros auton ).

Dramatic present. The Pharisees and Herodians had had their turn after the formal committee of the Sanhedrin had been so completely routed. It was inevitable that they should feel called upon to show their intellectual superiority to these raw Pharisaic and Herodian theologians. See Mat 22:23-33 for discussion of details. It was a good time to air their disbelief in the resurrection at the expense of the Pharisees and to score against Jesus where the Sanhedrin and then the Pharisees and Herodians had failed so ignominiously.

Robertson: Mar 12:19

Moses wrote ( Mōusēs egrapsen ).

So Luk 20:28 (Gen 38:8; Deu 25:5.). Matthew has "said"(eipen ).

Robertson: Mar 12:20

Took a wife ( elaben gunaika ).

So Luk 20:29. Matthew has "married"(gēmas ).

Robertson: Mar 12:22

Last of all ( eschaton pantōn ).

Adverbial use of eschaton .

Robertson: Mar 12:23

To wife ( gunaika ).

Predicate accusative in apposition with "her"(autēn ). So Luke, but Matthew merely has "had her"(eschon autēn ), constative aorist indicative active.

Robertson: Mar 12:24

Is it not for this cause that ye err? ( Ou dia touto planāsthe̱ ).

Mark puts it as a question with ou expecting the affirmative answer. Matthew puts it as a positive assertion: "Ye are."Planaomai is to wander astray (cf. our word planet , wandering stars, asteres planētai , Jud 1:13) like the Latin errare (our error , err).

Robertson: Mar 12:24

That ye know not the scriptures ( mē eidotes tas graphas ).

The Sadducees posed as men of superior intelligence and knowledge in opposition to the traditionalists among the Pharisees with their oral law. And yet on this very point they were ignorant of the Scriptures. How much error today is due to this same ignorance among the educated!

Robertson: Mar 12:24

Nor the power of God ( mēde tēn dunamin tou theou ).

The two kinds of ignorance generally go together (cf. 1Co 15:34).

Robertson: Mar 12:25

When they shall rise from the dead ( hotan ek nekrōn anastōsin ).

Second aorist active subjunctive with hotan (hote plus an ). Mat 22:30 has it "in the resurrection,"Luk 20:35 "to attain to the resurrection."The Pharisees regarded the future resurrection body as performing marriage functions, as Mohammedans do today. The Pharisees were in error on this point. The Sadducees made this one of their objections to belief in the resurrection body, revealing thus their own ignorance of the true resurrection body and the future life where marriage functions do not exist.

Robertson: Mar 12:25

As angels in heaven ( hōs aggeloi en tōi ouranōi ).

So Mat 22:30. Luk 20:36 has "equal unto the angels"(isaggeloi ). "Their equality with angels consists in their deliverance from mortality and its consequences"(Swete). The angels are directly created, not procreated.

Robertson: Mar 12:26

In the place concerning the Bush ( epi tou batou ).

This technical use of epi is good Greek, in the matter of, in the passage about, the Bush. Batos is masculine here, feminine in Luk 20:37. The reference is to Exo 3:3-6 (in the book of Moses, en tēi biblōi ).

Robertson: Mar 12:27

Ye do greatly err ( polu planāsthe ).

Only in Mark. Solemn, severe, impressive, but kindly close (Bruce).

Robertson: Mar 12:28

Heard them questioning together ( akousas autōn sunzētountōn ).

The victory of Christ over the Sadducees pleased the Pharisees who now had come back with mixed emotions over the new turn of things (Mat 22:34). Luk 20:39 represents one of the scribes as commending Jesus for his skilful reply to the Sadducees. Mark here puts this scribe in a favourable light, "knowing that he had answered them well"(eidōs hoti kalōs apekrithē autois ). "Them"here means the Sadducees. But Mat 22:35 says that this lawyer (nomikos ) was "tempting"(peirazōn ) by his question. "A few, among whom was the scribe, were constrained to admire, even if they were willing to criticize, the Rabbi who though not himself a Pharisee, surpassed the Pharisees as a champion of the truth."That is a just picture of this lawyer.

Robertson: Mar 12:28

The first of all ( prōtē pantōn ).

First in rank and importance. Mat 22:36 has "great"(megalē ). See discussion there. Probably Jesus spoke in Aramaic. "First"and "great"in Greek do not differ essentially here. Mark quotes Deuteronomy 6:4f. as it stands in the lxx and also Lev 19:18. Mat 22:40 adds the summary: "On these two commandments hangeth (krematai ) the whole law and the prophets."

Robertson: Mar 12:32

And the scribe said ( eipen autōi ho grammateus ).

Mark alone gives the reply of the scribe to Jesus which is a mere repetition of what Jesus had said about the first and the second commandments with the additional allusion to 1Sa 15:22 about love as superior to whole burnt offerings.

Robertson: Mar 12:32

Well ( kalōs ).

Not to be taken with "saidst"(eipes ) as the Revised Version has it following Wycliff. Probably kalōs (well) is exclamatory. "Fine, Teacher. Of a truth (ep' alētheias ) didst thou say."

Vincent: Mar 12:1

Wine-fat ( ὑπολήνιον )

Rev., winespress. Only here in New Testament. The wine-press was constructed in the side of a sloping rock, in which a trough was excavated, which was the wine-press proper. Underneath this was dug another trough, with openings communicating with the trough above, into which the juice ran from the press. This was called by the Romans lacus, or the lake. The word here used for the whole structure strictly means this trough underneath (ὑπό ) the press (ληνός ). This is the explanation of Wyc.'s translation, dalf (delved), a lake.

Vincent: Mar 12:1

Went into a far country ( ἀπεδήμησεν )

But this is too strong. The word means simply went abroad. So Wyc., went forth in pilgrimage ; and Tynd., into a strange country. Rev., another country. See on Mat 25:14.

Vincent: Mar 12:2

Of the fruits

Or, literally, from (ἀπὸ ) the fruits, showing that the rent was to be paid in kind.

Vincent: Mar 12:6

Therefore

The best texts omit.

Vincent: Mar 12:6

Last

Mark only.

Vincent: Mar 12:7

Those husbandmen

Lit., they the husbandmen. Wyc., tenants.

Vincent: Mar 12:10

Scripture ( γραφὴν )

A passage of scripture: hence frequently this scripture; another scripture; the same scripture. Luk 4:21; Joh 19:37; Act 1:16.

Vincent: Mar 12:11

The Lord's doing ( παρὰ κυρίου )

Lit., from the Lord.

Vincent: Mar 12:13

Catch ( ἀγρεύσωσιν )

From ἄγρα , hunting, the chase. Hence the picture in the word is that of hunting, while that in Matthew's word, παγιδεύσωσιν , is that of catching in a trap. See on Mat 22:15.

Vincent: Mar 12:14

Tribute

See on Mat 22:19.

Vincent: Mar 12:14

Person ( πρόσωπον )

Lit., face.

Vincent: Mar 12:14

Shall we give, etc

A touch peculiar to Mark.

Vincent: Mar 12:15

Penny

See on Mat 20:2.

Vincent: Mar 12:16

Image and superscription

See on Mat 22:20.

Vincent: Mar 12:17

They marvelled ( ἐξεθαύμαζον )

The preposition ἐξ , out of, indicates great astonishment. They marvelled out of measure. Hence Rev., marvelled greatly. The A. V. follows another reading, with the simple verb ἐθαύμαζον . The imperfect denotes continuance: they stood wondering.

Vincent: Mar 12:18

Who ( οἵτινες )

This pronoun marks the Sadducees as a class: of that party characterized by their denial of the resurrection.

Vincent: Mar 12:18

Asked ( ἐπηρώτων )

Stronger. They questioned.

Vincent: Mar 12:24

Therefore ( διὰ τοῦτο )

A rendering which obscures the meaning. The words point forward to the next two clauses. The reason of your error is your ignorance of the scriptures and of the power of God. Hence Rev., correctly, Is it not for this cause that ye err?

Vincent: Mar 12:24

Err ( πλανᾶσθε )

Lit., wander out of the way. Compare Latin errare. Of the wandering sheep, Mat 18:12; 1Pe 2:25. Of the martyrs wandering in the deserts, Heb 11:38. Often rendered in the New Testament deceive. See Mar 13:5, Mar 13:6. Compare ἀστέρες πλανῆται , wandering stars (Jud 1:13), from which our word planet.

Vincent: Mar 12:26

How in the bush God spake

An utterly wrong rendering. In the bush (ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου ) , refers to a particular section in the Pentateuch, Exo 3:2-6. The Jews were accustomed to designate portions of scripture by the most noteworthy thing contained in them. Therefore Rev., rightly, in the place concerning the bush. Wyc., in the book of Moses on the bush. The article refers to it as something familiar. Compare Rom 11:2, ἐν Ἠλίᾳ ; i.e., in the section of scripture which tells of Elijah. There, however, the Rev. retains the A. V. of Elijah , and puts in in the margin.

Vincent: Mar 12:27

Ye do greatly err

An emphatic close, peculiar to Mark.

Vincent: Mar 12:28

Well ( καλῶς )

Lit., beautifully, finely, admirably.

Vincent: Mar 12:28

What ( ποία )

Rather, of what nature.

Vincent: Mar 12:30

With all thy heart ( ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου )

Lit., out of thy whole heart. The heart, not only as the seat of the affections, but as the centre of our complex being - physical, moral, spiritual, and intellectual.

Vincent: Mar 12:30

Soul ( ψυχῆς )

The word is often used in the New Testament in its original meaning of life. See Mat 2:20; Mat 20:28; Act 20:10; Rom 11:3; Joh 10:11. Hence, as an emphatic designation of the man himself. See Mat 12:18; Heb 10:38; Luk 21:19. So that the word denotes " life in the distinctness of individual existence" (Cremer). See further on ψυχικός , spiritual, 1Co 15:44.

Vincent: Mar 12:30

Mind ( διανοίας )

The faculty of thought: understanding, especially the moral understanding.

Vincent: Mar 12:31

Neighbor

See on Mat 5:43.

Vincent: Mar 12:32

Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; for there is one God

All the best texts omit God.

Vincent: Mar 12:32

Well ( καλῶς )

Exclamatory, as one says good! on hearing something which he approves.

Vincent: Mar 12:32

The truth ( ἐπ ' ἀληθείας )

Incorrect. The phrase is adverbial; of a truth, in truth, truthfully, and qualifies the succeeding verb, thou hast said.

Vincent: Mar 12:32

For ( ὅτι )

The A. V. begins a new and explanatory sentence with this word; but it is better with Rev. to translate that, and make the whole sentence continuous: Thou hast truthfully said that he is one.

Wesley: Mar 12:1

Mat 21:43; Luk 20:9.

Wesley: Mar 12:10

Psa 118:22.

Wesley: Mar 12:12

How wonderful is the providence of God, using all things for the good of his children! Generally the multitude is restrained from tearing them in pieces only by the fear of their rulers. And here the rulers themselves are restrained, through fear of the multitude!

Wesley: Mar 12:13

Mat 22:15; Luk 20:20.

Wesley: Mar 12:17

At the wisdom of his answer.

Wesley: Mar 12:18

Mat 21:23; Luk 20:27.

Wesley: Mar 12:19

Deu 25:5.

Wesley: Mar 12:25

When they rise from the dead, neither men marry nor women are given in marriage.

Wesley: Mar 12:26

Exo 3:6.

Wesley: Mar 12:27

That is, (if the argument be proposed at length,) since the character of his being the God of any persons, plainly intimates a relation to them, not as dead, but as living; and since he cannot be said to be at present their God at all, if they are utterly dead; nor to be the God of human persons, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, consisting of souls and bodies, if their bodies were to abide in everlasting death; there must needs be a future state of blessedness, and a resurrection of the body to share with the soul in it.

Wesley: Mar 12:28

The principal, and most necessary to be observed. Mat 22:34; Luk 10:25.

Wesley: Mar 12:29

This is the foundation of the first commandment, yea, of all the commandments. The Lord our God, the Lord, the God of all men, is one God, essentially, though three persons. From this unity of God it follows, that we owe all our love to him alone. Deu 6:4.

Wesley: Mar 12:30

That is, the whole strength and capacity of thy understanding, will, and affections.

Wesley: Mar 12:31

Of a like comprehensive nature: comprising our whole duty to man. There is no other moral, much less ceremonial commandment, greater than these. Lev 19:18.

JFB: Mar 12:13

"their disciples," says Matthew (Mat 22:16); probably young and zealous scholars in that hardening school.

JFB: Mar 12:13

(See on Mat 12:14). In Luk 20:20 these willing tools are called "spies, which should feign themselves just [righteous] men, that they might take hold of His words, that so they might deliver Him unto the power and authority of the governor." Their plan, then, was to entrap Him into some expression which might be construed into disaffection to the Roman government; the Pharisees themselves being notoriously discontented with the Roman yoke.

Tribute to Cæsar (Mar 12:14-17).

JFB: Mar 12:14

Teacher.

JFB: Mar 12:14

By such flattery--though they said only the truth--they hoped to throw Him off His guard.

JFB: Mar 12:14

It was the civil poll tax paid by all enrolled in the "census." See on Mat 17:25.

JFB: Mar 12:15

"their wickedness" (Mat 22:18); "their craftiness" (Luk 20:23). The malignity of their hearts took the form of craft, pretending what they did not feel--an anxious desire to be guided aright in a matter which to a scrupulous few might seem a question of some difficulty. Seeing perfectly through this,

JFB: Mar 12:15

"hypocrites!"

JFB: Mar 12:15

"the tribute money" (Mat 22:19).

JFB: Mar 12:16

Stamped upon the coin.

JFB: Mar 12:16

The words encircling it on the obverse side.

And they said unto him, Cæsar's.

JFB: Mar 12:17

Putting it in this general form, it was impossible for sedition itself to dispute it, and yet it dissolved the snare.

JFB: Mar 12:17

How much is there in this profound but to them startling addition to the maxim, and how incomparable is the whole for fulness, brevity, clearness, weight!

JFB: Mar 12:17

"at His answer, and held their peace" (Luk 20:26), "and left Him, and went their way" (Mat 22:22).

The Resurrection (Mar 12:18-27).

JFB: Mar 12:18

"neither angel nor spirit" (Act 23:7). They were the materialists of the day. See on Act 23:6.

JFB: Mar 12:18

As follows:

JFB: Mar 12:19-22

(Deu 25:5).

If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him . . . And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

JFB: Mar 12:23

In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise, &c.

JFB: Mar 12:24

Regarding the future state.

JFB: Mar 12:24

Before which a thousand such difficulties vanish.

JFB: Mar 12:25

"neither can they die any more" (Luk 20:36). Marriage is ordained to perpetuate the human family; but as there will be no breaches by death in the future state, this ordinance will cease.

JFB: Mar 12:25

In Luke (Luk 20:36) it is "equal unto the angels." But as the subject is death and resurrection, we are not warranted to extend the equality here taught beyond the one point--the immortality of their nature. A beautiful clause is added in Luke (Luk 20:36) --"and are the children of God"--not in respect of character, which is not here spoken of, but of nature--"being the children of the resurrection," as rising to an undecaying existence (Rom 8:21, Rom 8:23), and so being the children of their Father's immortality (1Ti 6:16).

JFB: Mar 12:26

"even Moses" (Luk 20:37), whom they had just quoted for the purpose of entangling Him.

JFB: Mar 12:26

Either "at the bush," as the same expression is rendered in Luk 20:37, that is, when he was there; or "in the [section of his history regarding the] bush." The structure of our verse suggests the latter sense, which is not unusual.

JFB: Mar 12:26

(Exo 3:6).

JFB: Mar 12:27

Not "the God of dead but [the God] of living persons." The word in brackets is almost certainly an addition to the genuine text, and critical editors exclude it. "For all live unto Him" (Luk 20:38) --"in His view," or "in His estimation." This last statement--found only in Luke--though adding nothing to the argument, is an important additional illustration. It is true, indeed, that to God no human being is dead or ever will be, but all mankind sustain an abiding conscious relation to Him; but the "all" here means "those who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world." These sustain a gracious covenant relation to God which cannot be dissolved. (Compare Rom 6:10-11). In this sense our Lord affirms that for Moses to call the Lord the "GOD" of His patriarchal servants, if at that moment they had no existence, would be unworthy of Him. He "would be ashamed to be called their God, if He had not prepared for them a city" (Heb 11:16). It was concluded by some of the early Fathers, from our Lord's resting His proof of the Resurrection on such a passage as this, instead of quoting some much clearer testimonies of the Old Testament, that the Sadducees, to whom this was addressed, acknowledged the authority of no part of the Old Testament but the Pentateuch; and this opinion has held its ground even till now. But as there is no ground for it in the New Testament, so JOSEPHUS is silent upon it; merely saying that they rejected the Pharisaic traditions. It was because the Pentateuch was regarded by all classes as the fundamental source of the Hebrew religion, and all the succeeding books of the Old Testament but as developments of it, that our Lord would show that even there the doctrine of the Resurrection was taught. And all the rather does He select this passage, as being not a bare annunciation of the doctrine in question, but as expressive of that glorious truth out of which the Resurrection springs. "And when the multitude heard this" (says Mat 22:23), "they were astonished at His doctrine." "Then," adds Luk 20:39-40, "certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said"--enjoying His victory over the Sadducees. "And after that they durst not ask Him any [question at all]"--neither party could; both being for the time utterly foiled.

The Great Commandment (Mar 12:28-34).

"But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together" (Mat 22:34).

JFB: Mar 12:28

"a lawyer," says Matthew (Mat 22:35); that is, teacher of the law.

JFB: Mar 12:28

Manifestly in no bad spirit. When Matthew (Mat 22:35) therefore says he came "tempting," or "trying him," as one of the Pharisaic party who seemed to enjoy the defeat He had given to the Sadducees, we may suppose that though somewhat priding himself upon his insight into the law, and not indisposed to measure his knowledge with One in whom he had not yet learned to believe, he was nevertheless an honest-hearted, fair disputant.

JFB: Mar 12:28

First in importance; the primary, leading commandment, the most fundamental one. This was a question which, with some others, divided the Jewish teachers into rival schools. Our Lord's answer is in a strain of respect very different from what He showed to cavillers--ever observing His own direction, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine; lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you" (Mat 7:6).

JFB: Mar 12:29

The readings here vary considerably. TISCHENDORF and TREGELLES read simply, "the first is"; and they are followed by MEYER and ALFORD. But though the authority for the precise form of the received text is slender, a form almost identical with it seems to have most weight of authority. Our Lord here gives His explicit sanction to the distinction between commandments of a more fundamental and primary character, and commandments of a more dependent and subordinate nature; a distinction of which it is confidently asserted by a certain class of critics that the Jews knew nothing, that our Lord and His apostles nowhere lay down, and which has been invented by Christian divines. (Compare Mat 23:23).

JFB: Mar 12:29

This every devout Jew recited twice every day, and the Jews do it to this day; thus keeping up the great ancient national protest against the polytheisms and pantheisms of the heathen world: it is the great utterance of the national faith in One Living and Personal God--"ONE JEHOVAH!"

JFB: Mar 12:30

We have here the language of law, expressive of God's claims. What then are we here bound down to do? One word is made to express it. And what a word! Had the essence of the divine law consisted in deeds, it could not possibly have been expressed in a single word; for no one deed is comprehensive of all others embraced in the law. But as it consists in an affection of the soul, one word suffices to express it--but only one. Fear, though due to God and enjoined by Him, is limited in its sphere and distant in character. Trust, hope, and the like, though essential features of a right state of heart towards God, are called into action only by personal necessity, and so are--in a good sense, it is true, but still are properly--selfish affections; that is to say, they have respect to our own well-being. But LOVE is an all-inclusive affection, embracing not only every other affection proper to its object, but all that is proper to be done to its object; for as love spontaneously seeks to please its object, so, in the case of men to God, it is the native well spring of a voluntary obedience. It is, besides, the most personal of all affections. One may fear an event, one may hope for an event, one may rejoice in an event; but one can love only a Person. It is the tenderest, the most unselfish, the most divine of all affections. Such, then, is the affection in which the essence of the divine law is declared to consist.

JFB: Mar 12:30

We now come to the glorious Object of that demanded affection.

JFB: Mar 12:30

That is, Jehovah, the Self-Existent One, who has revealed Himself as the "I AM," and there is none else; who, though by His name JEHOVAH apparently at an unapproachable distance from His finite creatures, yet bears to thee a real and definite relationship, out of which arises His claim and thy duty--of LOVE. But with what are we to love Him? Four things are here specified. First, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

JFB: Mar 12:30

This sometimes means "the whole inner man" (as Pro 4:23); but that cannot be meant here; for then the other three particulars would be superfluous. Very often it means "our emotional nature"--the seat of feeling as distinguished from our intellectual nature or the seat of thought, commonly called the "mind" (as in Phi 4:7). But neither can this be the sense of it here; for here the heart is distinguished both from the "mind" and the "soul." The "heart," then, must here mean the sincerity of both the thoughts and the feelings; in other words, uprightness or true-heartedness, as opposed to a hypocritical or divided affection. But next, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" with thy soul. This is designed to command our emotional nature: Thou shalt put feeling or warmth into thine affection. Further, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

JFB: Mar 12:30

This commands our intellectual nature: Thou shalt put intelligence into thine affection--in opposition to a blind devotion, or mere devoteeism. Lastly, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"

JFB: Mar 12:30

This commands our energies: Thou shalt put intensity into thine affection--"Do it with thy might" (Ecc 9:10). Taking these four things together, the command of the Law is, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy powers--with a sincere, a fervid, an intelligent, an energetic love." But this is not all that the Law demands. God will have all these qualities in their most perfect exercise. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," says the Law, "with all thy heart," or, with perfect sincerity; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul," or, with the utmost fervor; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind," or, in the fullest exercise of an enlightened reason; and "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy strength," or, with the whole energy of our being! So much for the First Commandment.

JFB: Mar 12:31

"unto it" (Mat 22:39); as demanding the same affection, and only the extension of it, in its proper measure, to the creatures of Him whom we thus love--our brethren in the participation of the same nature, and neighbors, as connected with us by ties that render each dependent upon and necessary to the other.

JFB: Mar 12:31

Now, as we are not to love ourselves supremely, this is virtually a command, in the first place, not to love our neighbor with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. And thus it is a condemnation of the idolatry of the creature. Our supreme and uttermost affection is to be reserved for God. But as sincerely as ourselves we are to love all mankind, and with the same readiness to do and suffer for them as we should reasonably desire them to show to us. The golden rule (Mat 7:12) is here our best interpreter of the nature and extent of these claims.

JFB: Mar 12:31

Or, as in Mat 22:40, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (see on Mat 5:17). It is as if He had said, "This is all Scripture in a nutshell; the whole law of human duty in a portable, pocket form." Indeed, it is so simple that a child may understand it, so brief that all may remember it, so comprehensive as to embrace all possible cases. And from its very nature it is unchangeable. It is inconceivable that God should require from his rational creatures anything less, or in substance anything else, under any dispensation, in any world, at any period throughout eternal duration. He cannot but claim this--all this--alike in heaven, in earth, and in hell! And this incomparable summary of the divine law belonged to the Jewish religion! As it shines in its own self-evidencing splendor, so it reveals its own true source. The religion from which the world has received it could be none other than a God-given religion!

JFB: Mar 12:32

Teacher.

JFB: Mar 12:32

The genuine text here seems clearly to have been, "There is one," without the word "God"; and so nearly all critical editors and expositors read.

Clarke: Mar 12:1

A certain man planted a vineyard - See this parable explained, Mat 21:33-41 (note).

Clarke: Mar 12:4

At him they cast stones and wounded him in the head - Or rather, as most learned men agree, they made short work of it, εκεφαλαιωσαν . We have followed the Vulgate, illum in capite vulneraverunt , in translating the original, wounded him in the head, in which signification, I believe, the word is found in no Greek writer. Ανακεφαλαιοομαι signifies to sum up, to comprise, and is used in this sense by St. Paul, Rom 13:9. From the parable we learn that these people were determined to hear no reason, to do no justice, and to keep the possession and the produce by violence; therefore they fulfilled their purpose in the fullest and speediest manner, which seems to be what the evangelist intended to express by the word in question. Mr. Wakefield translates, They speedily sent him away; others think the meaning is, They shaved their heads and made them look ridiculously; this is much to the same purpose, but I prefer, They made short work of it. Dr. Lightfoot, De Dieu, and others, agree in the sense given above; and this will appear the more probable, if the word λιθοβολησαντες, they cast stones, be omitted, as it is by BDL, the Coptic, Vulgate, and all the Itala.

Clarke: Mar 12:7

This is the heir - So they appear to have acknowledged in their consciences that this was the Messiah, the heir of all things

Clarke: Mar 12:7

The inheritance shall be ours - By slaying him we shall maintain our authority, and keep possession of our revenues.

Clarke: Mar 12:9

And will give the vineyard unto others - The vineyard must not perish with the husbandmen; it is still capable of producing much fruit, if it be properly cultivated. I will give it into the care of new vine-dressers, the evangelists and apostles. - And under their ministry, multitudes were brought to God before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Clarke: Mar 12:13

And they send unto him - See this, and to Mar 12:17, largely explained on Mat 22:15-22 (note).

Clarke: Mar 12:15

Shall we give, or shall we not give? - This is wanting in the Codex Bezae, and in several versions.

Clarke: Mar 12:18

See this question, concerning the resurrection, explained in detail on Mat 22:23-32 (note).

Clarke: Mar 12:23

When they shall rise - This clause is wanting in BCDL, four others, Syriac, later Arabic, later Persic, Coptic, Saxon, and two of the Itala. Griesbach leaves it doubtful.

Clarke: Mar 12:27

But the God of the living - Θεος, God, is left out by ABCDKL, and in more than forty others, Syriac, one Arabic, one Persic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Saxon, Vulgate, Itala, and Origen. Griesbach has omitted it.

Clarke: Mar 12:30

Thou shalt love the Lord - On the nature and properties of the love of God and man, and the way in which this commandment is fulfilled, see the notes on Mat 22:37, etc.

Clarke: Mar 12:32

And the scribe said - The answer of the scribe, contained in Mar 12:32-34, is not found either in Matthew or Luke. This is another proof against Mark’ s supposed abridgment.

Calvin: Mar 12:32

Mar 12:32.Master, thou hast spoken well, and with truth. Mark alone mentions that the scribe was softened down; and it is worthy of notice that, though he had attacked Christ maliciously, and with the intention of taking him by surprise, not only does he silently yield to the latter, but openly and candidly assents to what Christ had said. Thus we see that he did not belong to the class of those enemies whose obstinacy is incurable; for, though they have been a hundred times convinced, yet they do not cease to oppose the truth in some manner. From this reply it may also be concluded, that Christ did not precisely include under these two words the rule of life, but embraced the opportunity which presented itself for reproving the false and hypocritical holiness of the scribes, who, giving their whole attention to outward ceremonies, almost entirely disregarded the spiritual worship of God, and cared little about brotherly kindness. Now though the scribe was infected by such corruptions, yet, as sometimes happens, he had obtained from the Law the seed of right knowledge, which lay choked in his heart, and on that account he easily allows himself to be withdrawn from the wicked custom.

Defender: Mar 12:1

Parables such as this, are also given in Matthew, Luke or both (see notes on Mat 21:33, Mat 21:42). This frequent semi-duplication could raise questions, but there always is at least a possible explanation consistent with Biblical inerrancy. The parables and other discourses of Jesus were actually spoken in Aramaic, so the gospel writer(s) would have to translate them into Greek, and this could certainly account for minor differences in the wording of their accounts. Furthermore, Mark and Luke, at least in most cases, were not present at the time so would have to get their accounts from Peter or some other eye-witness. The doctrine of inspiration does not in any way negate the use of the writer's own research, vocabulary and style in reporting the event as long as there are no errors or irrelevancies in the final result. Usually other reasons can also be discerned for the differences, in line with the particular emphases of the writer. For example, Matthew's account of this parable puts more emphasis on the willful culpability of the Jewish leaders (compare Mar 12:9 with Mat 21:41), in effect showing that they condemn themselves by their own words. Matthew's gospel was written especially for the Jews, seeking to bring them to accept their true Messiah despite the bitter opposition of their religious leaders."

Defender: Mar 12:30

Mark here adds the phrase "and with all thy strength" to the first commandment as given in Mat 22:37. Matthew, writing mainly for Jewish readers, knew they were more occupied with the heart, soul and mind, whereas Mark, writing more for a Roman audience, and Luke (Luk 10:27) thinking of Greeks and Gentiles in general, both retained Christ's emphasis on strength as well. Both versions are factually accurate, so no problem of inerrancy is involved. The main point in both is certainly that love for God with our whole being is the most important of all rules for living."

TSK: Mar 12:1

he began : Mar 4:2, Mar 4:11-13, Mar 4:33, Mar 4:34; Eze 20:49; Mat 13:10-15, Mat 13:34, Mat 13:35, Mat 21:28-33, Mat 22:1-14; Luk 8:10, Luk 22:9

A certain : Mat 21:33-40; Luk 20:9-15

planted : Psa 80:8-16; Isa 5:1-4; Jer 2:21; Luk 13:6-9; Joh 15:1-8; Rom 11:17-24

and set : Neh 9:13, Neh 9:14; Psa 78:68, Psa 78:69, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20; Eze 20:11, Eze 20:12, Eze 20:18-20; Act 7:38, Act 7:46, Act 7:47; Rom 3:1, Rom 3:2, Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5

and let : Son 8:11, Son 8:12; Isa 7:23

and went : Mar 13:34; Mat 25:14; Luk 15:13, Luk 19:12

TSK: Mar 12:2

at : Psa 1:3; Mat 21:34; Luk 20:10

a servant : Jdg 6:8-10; 2Ki 17:13; 2Ch 36:15; Ezr 9:11; Jer 25:4, Jer 25:5, Jer 35:15, Jer 44:4; Mic 7:1; Zec 1:3-6, Zec 7:7; Luk 12:48; Joh 15:1-8; Heb 1:1

TSK: Mar 12:3

they : 1Ki 18:4, 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 19:10,1Ki 19:14, 1Ki 22:27; 2Ch 16:10, 2Ch 24:19-21, 2Ch 36:16; Neh 9:26; Jer 2:30, Jer 20:2, Jer 26:20-24, Jer 29:26, Jer 37:15, Jer 37:16, Jer 38:4-6; Mat 23:34-37; Luk 11:47-51, Luk 13:33, Luk 13:34; Act 7:52; 1Th 2:15; Heb 11:36, Heb 11:37

and sent : Jer 44:4, Jer 44:5, Jer 44:16; Dan 9:10,Dan 9:11; Zec 7:9-13; Luk 20:10-12

TSK: Mar 12:5

and him : Mar 9:13; Neh 9:30; Jer 7:25-28; Mat 5:12, Mat 21:35, Mat 21:36, Mat 22:6, Mat 23:37; Luk 6:22, Luk 6:23, Luk 6:36

TSK: Mar 12:6

one : Psa 2:7; Mat 1:23, Mat 11:27, Mat 26:63; Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18, Joh 1:34, Joh 1:49, Joh 3:16-18; 1Jo 4:9, 1Jo 5:11, 1Jo 5:12

his : Mar 1:11, Mar 9:7; Gen 22:2, Gen 22:12, Gen 37:3, Gen 37:11-13, Gen 44:20; Isa 42:1; Mat 3:17, Mat 17:5; Luk 3:22, Luk 9:35; Joh 3:35; Heb 1:1, Heb 1:2

They : Psa 2:12; Joh 5:23; Heb 1:6; Rev 5:9-13

TSK: Mar 12:7

This : Mar 12:12; Gen 3:15, Gen 37:20; Psa 2:2, Psa 2:3, Psa 22:12-15; Isa 49:7, Isa 53:7, Isa 53:8; Mat 2:3-13, Mat 2:16; Joh 11:47-50; Act 2:23, Act 5:28, Act 7:52, Act 13:27, Act 13:28

TSK: Mar 12:8

cast : Mat 21:33, Mat 21:39; Luk 20:15; Heb 13:11-13

TSK: Mar 12:9

shall : Mat 21:40,Mat 21:41

he will : Lev 26:15-18, Lev 26:23, Lev 26:24, Lev 26:27, Lev 26:28; Deu 4:26, Deu 4:27, 28:15-68, Deu 28:61; Jos 23:15; Pro 1:24-31; Isa 5:5-7; Dan 9:26, Dan 9:27; Zec 13:7-9; Mat 3:9-12, Mat 12:45; Mat 22:7, Mat 23:34-38; Luk 19:27, Luk 19:41-44, Luk 20:15, Luk 20:16

and will : Isa 29:17, Isa 32:15, Isa 32:16, Isa 65:15; Jer 17:3; Mal 1:11; Mat 8:11-13, Mat 21:43; Act 13:46-48, Act 28:23-28; Rom 9:30-33, Rom 10:20,Rom 10:21, Rom 11:1-12

TSK: Mar 12:10

have : Mar 12:26, Mar 2:25, Mar 13:14; Mat 12:3, Mat 19:4, Mat 21:16, Mat 22:31; Luk 6:3

The stone : Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23; Isa 28:16; Mat 21:42; Luk 20:17, Luk 20:18; Act 4:11, Act 4:12; Rom 9:33; Eph 2:20-22; 1Pe 2:7, 1Pe 2:8

TSK: Mar 12:11

Num 23:23; Hab 1:5; Act 2:12, Act 2:32-36, Act 3:12-16, Act 13:40,Act 13:41; Eph 3:8-11; Col 1:27; 1Ti 3:16

TSK: Mar 12:12

feared : Mar 11:18, Mar 11:32; Mat 21:26, Mat 21:45, Mat 21:46; Luk 20:6, Luk 20:19; Joh 7:25, Joh 7:30,Joh 7:44

knew : 2Sa 12:7-15; 1Ki 20:38-41, 1Ki 21:17-27

TSK: Mar 12:13

they send : Psa 38:12, Psa 56:5, Psa 56:6, Psa 140:5; Isa 29:21; Jer 18:18; Mat 22:15, Mat 22:16; Luk 11:54; Luk 20:20-26

Herodians : Mar 3:6, Mar 8:15; Mat 16:6

TSK: Mar 12:14

Master : Mar 14:45; Psa 12:2-4, Psa 55:21, Psa 120:2; Pro 26:23-26; Jer 42:2, Jer 42:3, Jer 42:20

we know : Joh 7:18; 2Co 2:2, 2Co 2:17, 2Co 4:1, 2Co 5:11; 1Th 2:4

carest : Deu 33:9, Deu 33:10; 2Ch 18:13; Isa 50:7-9; Jer 15:19-21; Eze 2:6, Eze 2:7; Mic 3:8; 2Co 5:16; Gal 1:10, Gal 2:6, Gal 2:11-14

for thou : Exo 23:2-6; Deu 16:19; 2Ch 19:7

is it : Ezr 4:12, Ezr 4:13; Neh 9:37; Mat 17:25-27, Mat 22:17; Luk 20:22, Luk 23:2; Rom 13:6

TSK: Mar 12:15

knowing : Mat 22:18; Luk 20:23; Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 21:17; Heb 4:13; Rev 2:23

Why : Mar 10:2; Eze 17:2; Act 5:9; 1Co 10:9

a penny : ""Valuing of our money, sevenpence halfpenny, as Mat 18:28, marg.""

TSK: Mar 12:16

image : Mat 22:19-22; Luk 20:24-26; 2Ti 2:19; Rev 3:12

TSK: Mar 12:17

Render : Pro 24:21; Mat 17:25-27; Rom 13:7; 1Pe 2:17

and to : Mar 12:30; Pro 23:26; Ecc 5:4, Ecc 5:5; Mal 1:6; Act 4:19, Act 4:20; Rom 6:13, Rom 12:1; 1Co 6:19, 1Co 6:20; 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15

And they : Job 5:12, Job 5:13; Mat 22:22, Mat 22:33, Mat 22:46; 1Co 14:24, 1Co 14:25

TSK: Mar 12:18

come : Mat 22:23-33; Luk 20:27-40

say : Act 4:1, Act 4:2, Act 23:6-9; 1Co 15:13-18; 2Ti 2:18

TSK: Mar 12:19

If : Gen 38:8; Deu 25:5-10; Rth 4:5

that : Rth 1:11-13

TSK: Mar 12:20

Mat 22:25-28; Luk 20:29-33

TSK: Mar 12:24

Do : As the five books of Moses were the only scriptures which the Sadducees admitted as Divine, our Lord confutes them by an appeal to these books, and proves that they were ignorant of those very writings which they professed to hold sacred. He not only rectified their opinions, but so explained the doctrine as to overthrow the erroneous decision of the Pharisees, that if two brothers married one woman, she should be restored at the resurrection to the first. Isa 8:20; Jer 8:7-9; Hos 6:6, Hos 8:12; Mat 22:29; Joh 5:39, Joh 20:9; Act 17:11; Rom 15:4; 2Ti 3:15-17

because : Job 19:25-27; Isa 25:8, Isa 26:19; Eze 37:1-14; Dan 12:2; Hos 6:2, Hos 13:14

neither : Mar 10:27; Gen 18:14; Jer 32:17; Luk 1:37; Eph 1:19; Phi 3:21

TSK: Mar 12:25

but : Mat 22:30; Luk 20:35, Luk 20:36; 1Co 15:42-54; Heb 12:22, Heb 12:23; 1Jo 3:2

TSK: Mar 12:26

have : Mar 12:10; Mat 22:31, Mat 22:32

in the book : Exo 3:2-6, Exo 3:16; Luk 20:37; Act 7:30-32

I am : Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8, Gen 26:24, Gen 28:13, Gen 31:42, Gen 32:9, Gen 33:20 *marg. Isa 41:8-10

TSK: Mar 12:27

is not : Rom 4:17, Rom 14:9; Heb 11:13-16

ye : Mar 12:24; Pro 19:27; Heb 3:10

TSK: Mar 12:28

one : Mat 22:34-40

Which : Mat 5:19, Mat 19:18, Mat 23:23; Luk 11:42

TSK: Mar 12:29

Hear : Mar 12:32, Mar 12:33; Deu 6:4, Deu 10:12, Deu 30:6; Pro 23:26; Mat 10:37; Luk 10:27; 1Ti 1:5

TSK: Mar 12:31

Thou : Lev 19:13; Mat 7:12, Mat 19:18, Mat 19:19, Mat 22:39; Luk 10:27, Luk 10:36, Luk 10:37; Rom 13:8, Rom 13:9; 1Co 13:4-8; Gal 5:14; Jam 2:8-13; 1Jo 3:17-19, 1Jo 4:7, 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:21

TSK: Mar 12:32

for : Deu 4:39, Deu 5:7, Deu 6:4; Isa 44:8, Isa 45:5, Isa 45:6, Isa 45:14, Isa 45:18, Isa 45:21, Isa 45:22, Isa 46:9; Jer 10:10-12

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 12:1-12

See this parable explained in the notes at Mat 21:33-46.

See this parable explained in the notes at Mat 21:33-46.

Barnes: Mar 12:13-17

See the notes at Mat 22:15-22.

Barnes: Mar 12:18-27

See this passage fully explained in the notes at Mat 22:23-33.

Mar 12:25

Are as the angels - That is, as the angels in respect to connections and relations. What those connections and relations may be we know not, but this passage teaches that the special relation of "marriage"will not exist. It does not affirm, however, that there will be no recollection of former marriages, or no recognition of each other as having existed in this tender relation.

Mar 12:26

How in the bush - At the burning bush. See Exo 3:16. The meaning is, "in that part of the book of Exodus which contains the account of the burning bush. When there were no chapters and verses, it was the easiest way of quoting a book of the Old Testament "by the subject,"and in this way it was often done by the Jews.

Barnes: Mar 12:28-34

See the notes at Mat 22:34-40.

Mar 12:28

Perceiving that he answered them well - That is, with wisdom, and with a proper understanding of the law. In this case the opinion of the Saviour corresponded with that of the Pharisees; and the question which this scribe put to him now seems to have been one of the very few candid inquiries of him by the Jews for the purpose of obtaining information. Jesus answered it in the spirit of kindness, and commended the conduct of the man.

Mar 12:29

Hear, O Israel! - This was said to call the attention of the Jews to the great importance of the truth about to be proclaimed. See Deu 6:4-5.

The Lord our God ... - Literally, "Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh."The other nations worshipped many gods, but the God of the Jews was one, and one only. יהוה Yahweh was undivided; and this great truth it was the design of the separation of the Jewish people from other nations to keep in mind. This was the "peculiar"truth which was communicated to the Jews, and this they were required to keep and remember forever.

Mar 12:30

And thou shalt love ... - If Yahweh was the "only"God, then they ought not to love any other being supremely - then they might not bow down before any idol. They were required to love God above all other beings or things, and with all the faculties of their minds. See the notes at Mat 22:37.

Mar 12:32-34

This answer of the scribe is not found in Matthew.

Is more than all - Is of more importance and value.

Discreetly - Wisely, according to truth.

Not far from the kingdom of God - Thou who dost prefer the "internal"to the "external"worship of God - who hast so just a view of the requirements of the law - canst easily become a follower of me, and art almost fit to be numbered among my disciples. This shows that a proper understanding of the Old Testament, of its laws and requirements, would prepare the mind for Christianity, and suit a person at once to embrace it when presented. One system is grafted on the other, agreeably to Gal 3:24.

And no man after that durst ask him any question - That is, no one of the scribes, the Pharisees, or the Sadducees durst ask him a question for the purpose of "tempting"him or entangling him. He had completely silenced them. It does not appear, however, but that his "disciples"dared to ask him questions for the purpose of information.

Poole: Mar 12:1

Mar 12:1-12 In the parable of the vineyard let out to wicked

husbandmen Christ foretells the reprobation of the

Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles.

Mar 12:13-17 His reply to the insidious question concerning paying

tribute to Caesar.

Mar 12:18-27 He confutes the Sadducees who questioned him

concerning the resurrection.

Mar 12:28-34 He shows which are the two great commandments of

the law.

Mar 12:35-37 He proposes a difficulty to the scribes concerning the

character of Christ.

Mar 12:38-40 He cautions the people against their ambition and hypocrisy,

Mar 12:41-44 and values the poor widow’ s two mites above all the

gifts of the rich.

Ver. 1-12. This parable is related by Matthew, and by Luke also: See Poole on "Mat 21:33" , and following verses to Mat 21:46 . Mat 21:12 tells us, that the rulers of the Jewish church knew that he had spoken this parable against them, and they needs must know it, considering what Matthew adds to this parable, (which Mark and Luke have not), that he also told them, Mat 21:43 , Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. By the man planting a vineyard, is to be understood God, who, Psa 80:8-11 , brought a vine out of Egypt, and cast out the heathen, and planted it in the land of Canaan, and prepared room for it, and caused it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. It was a noble vine, a right seed, Jer 2:21 . God planted it in a fruitful hill; he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, Isa 5:1,2 . The church of the Jews then was this vineyard, which God hedged by his providence, and gave them all means necessary for the production of fruit. The servants sent to receive the fruit, so abused by the husbandmen, (as Mar 12:2-5 ,) were the prophets. 2Ch 36:16 is a compendious exposition of these verses.

They mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words and misused his prophets. The son mentioned as sent at last was Christ, and the latter part of the parable is prophetical, foretelling what they should do unto him, and also of the ruin of the Jewish nation and church, and the passing of the gospel to the Gentiles, who should more freely believe in Christ, and embrace and receive the gospel: so as they should not obtain their end; but Christ, though rejected by them, should yet be the Head of a far larger and more glorious church, according to a prophecy owned by themselves as a piece of holy writ, Psa 118:22 . See Poole on "Mat 21:33" , &c.

Poole: Mar 12:13-18

Ver. 13-18. See Poole on "Mat 22:15" , and following verses to Mat 22:22 . The Sadducees most probably derived their name from one Sadoc, scholar to Antigonus Sochaeus. It is said that the occasion of their heresy was their master’ s teaching them, that they must not serve God as servants for rewards. Upon which they builded their notion, that there is no resurrection, no rewards nor punishments in another life. They denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body, and angels, and spirits, Act 23:8 ; attributed all to free will, denying fate and destiny; they rejected traditions, and owned no Scriptures but the five books of Moses. They seemed to be a kind of rational divines, that would own and believe nothing but what they could fathom by their reason, or was obvious to their sense; and their doctrine was excellently suited to men’ s lusts, who desire not to be troubled with any thoughts of a world to come. Nothing more shows the degeneracy and debauchery of human nature than this, that to gratify their sensual appetites more freely in the things of this life, they will be content to think of annihilation, (which nature not debauched abhors), and of quitting all hopes of eternal life and happiness, that they may have a principle to warrant their living like beasts. They come to our Saviour, thinking to flout him and his hearers out of the doctrine of the resurrection, as having insuperable difficulties to clog it. But he that takes the wise in their own craftiness, shows these wise men, that all their wisdom was but folly, and their argument wholly proceeded ex ignoratione elenchi, from their not understanding the thing they would philosophize about.

Poole: Mar 12:15

See Poole on "Mar 12:13 "

Poole: Mar 12:16

See Poole on "Mar 12:13 "

Poole: Mar 12:17

See Poole on "Mar 12:13 "

Poole: Mar 12:18

Ver. 18 . See Poole on "Mar 12:13 "

Poole: Mar 12:19-27

Ver. 19-27. The true question about the resurrection was: Whether the bodies of the dead shall rise or not? Not whether they shall arise with the same qualities, affections, powers, &c. They are sown natural, but they shall rise spiritual, bodies, without affections and qualities disposing them to actions only necessary for the supporting the natural life, such as hunger and thirst, &c.; or for the upholding the world, that while one generation passeth it might be supplied by another, such as an appetite to marriage, &c.: what needs this when all generations shall be determined in the everlasting world? So as in truth these learned men showed themselves dunces, wholly ignorant of what they came to argue upon. They should first have proved that there would be any need of wives, or any such thing as marriage, after the world should have an end. In the mean time our Saviour proveth the resurrection out of the writings of Moses, owned by themselves for holy writ. Without a resurrection Abraham would not be Abraham, nor Isaac Isaac, nor Jacob Jacob. See the notes on this part of the history: See Poole on "Mat 22:24" , and following verses to Mat 22:32 .

Poole: Mar 12:28-34

Ver. 28-34. See the notes on " Mat 22:35" , and following verses to Mat 22:40 , where whatsoever Mark here hath is opened.

Lightfoot: Mar 12:1

And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it; and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.   

[A certain man planted a vineyard.] The priests and Pharisees knew, saith Matthew, that "these things were spoken of them," Mat 21:45. Nor is it any wonder; for the Jews boasted that they were the Lord's vineyard: and they readily observed a wrong done to that vineyard by any: but how far were they from taking notice, how unfruitful they were, and unthankful to the Lord of the vineyard!  

"The matter may be compared to a king that had a vineyard; and there were three who were enemies to it. What were they? One cut down the branches. The second cut off the bunches. And the third rooted up the vines. That king is the King of kings, the Blessed Lord. The vineyard of the Lord is the house of Israel. The three enemies are Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Haman," etc.  

[A vineyard.] "If a man plants one row of five vines, the school of Shammai saith, That it is a vineyard. But the school of Hillel saith, It is not a vineyard, until there be two rows of vines there."  

[Set a hedge about it.] "What is a hedge? Let it be ten handbreadths high": less than so is not a hedge.  

[Digged a place for the winefat.] Let the fat be ten handbreadths deep, and four broad.   

[Built a tower.] Let the watchhouse, which is in the vineyard, be ten high, and four broad. Cubits are to be understood. For Rambam saith, watchhouse is a high place where the vine-dresser stands to overlook the vineyard.  

[Let it out to husbandmen.] " He that lets out his vineyard to a keeper, either as a husbandman, or as one to keep it gratis; and he enters into covenant with him, to dig it, prune it, dress it, at his own cost; but he neglects it, and doth not so; he is guilty, as if he should with his own hand lay the vineyard waste."

Lightfoot: Mar 12:2

And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.   

[And at the season he sent to the husbandmen.] That is, in the fourth year after the first planting it: when it now was a vineyard of four years old; at least before that year there was no profit of the fruits. " They paint [or note] a vineyard of four years old by some turf [or clod] of earth; coloured; and that uncircumcised with clay; and sepulchres with chalk."  

The Gloss is this: "On a vineyard of four years old they paint some marks out of the turf of the earth, that men may know that it is a vineyard of four years old, and eat not of it, because it is holy, as the Lord saith, Lev 19:24; and the owners ought to eat the fruit of it at Jerusalem, as the second tithe. And an uncircumcised vineyard," [that is, which was not yet four years old; see Lev 19:23] "they mark with clay, that is, digested in fire. For the prohibition of ( a vineyard) uncircumcised, is greater than the prohibition concerning that of four years old: for that of four years old is fit for eating; but that uncircumcised is not admitted to any use. Therefore, they marked not that by the turf, lest the mark might perhaps be defaced, and perish; and men not seeing it might eat of it," etc.

Lightfoot: Mar 12:4

And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.   

[At him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head.] I...They cast stones at the servant, and deriding him, made up the sum with him: saying, perhaps this, or some such thing to him, "Do you come for fruit and rent? Behold this fruit" (casting a stone at him) "behold another fruit," (casting another stone) and so many times together: and so they sent him away derided, and loaded with disgrace.  

II. But be it that the word is to be translated as it is commonly rendered, "they wounded him in the head": then this way of stoning is thus distinguished from that whereby they were slain who were stoned by the Sanhedrim. That was called stone-casting; for it was the cast of a stone, indeed, but of one only, and that a very great one; and that upon the heart of the condemned person, when now he lay along upon his back. But this stoning was of many stones, thrown out of the hand through the air, striking him here and there and everywhere. The head of him that was stoned by the Sanhedrim was unhurt, and without any wound; but here, They cast stones at him, and wounded him in the head.

Lightfoot: Mar 12:10

And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:   

[The stone which the builders rejected.] The Targum upon Psalms_118, thus the builders rejected the child. And Mar 12:27; " Bind the child to the sacrifice of the solemnity with chains, until ye shall have sacrificed him, and poured out his blood upon the horns of the altar: said Samuel the prophet."

Lightfoot: Mar 12:16

And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.   

[Whose is this image? Caesar's.] I. This was a Caesar's penny, denarius Caesareanus. For zuz; among the Jews, was also a penny; as we shewed elsewhere; but we scarce believe it was of the same form and inscription: " A certain heathen sent to R. Judah the prince a Caesarean penny; and that on a certain festival day of the heathens. Resh Lachish sat before him. R. Judah said, What shall I do? If I receive it, I shall consent ( to their festival ): if I receive it not, enmity will rise against me. Resh Lachish answered, Take the penny, and while he looks upon you cast it into the well," etc.  

II. It was a silver penny, not a gold one. Pence, absolutely put, are to be understood silver pence. Where the Gloss is, "Pence, absolutely put, are silver, until it is explained that they are gold."  

But now a gold penny was worth five-and-twenty silver pence. "When turtle-doves and young pigeons were sold at Jerusalem sometime for a gold penny, Rabban Simeon Ben Gamaliel said, By this Temple, I will not rest this night, unless they are sold for a silver penny." Where the Gloss, "A gold penny is worth five-and-twenty silver pence."  

III. It was a Roman penny; not a Jerusalem; for this distinction they sometimes use. The Gloss being witness, are Jerusalem zuzees. But more frequently money of Tzur, and money of Jerusalem. Money of Tzur one may well render Tyrian money. But hear the Aruch, where he had been treating of money of Tzur; at length he brings in this passage: "R. Eliezer saith, Wheresoever in the Scripture Tzur is written full, the Scripture speaks of the city Tyre; but where it is written defectively [without Vau] it speaks of Rome." Be it Tyrian or Roman money, this held among the masters: "Wheresoever any thing is said of the silver money of Jerusalem; it is the eighth part of the Tyrian money."  

Hence I should resolve that riddle at which the Glosser himself sticks, if I may have leave to conjecture in a Jewish affair, after a doubting Jew. In the tract now cited there is a discourse concerning Jerusalem Cozbian moneys. A riddle truly. Ben Cozbi, indeed, coined moneys when he made an insurrection against the Romans. But whence is this called Jerusalem money; when, in the days of Ben Cozbi, Jerusalem lay buried in its own rubbish? If I may be the resolver, it was so called, because it was of the same weight and value with the Jerusalem money; and not with that of Tyre.  

"The Jerusalem money (say they) is the eighth part of the Tyrian." Here again some words of the masters entangle me in a riddle. The Aruch saith, "A penny and zuz are the same." And elsewhere, "They call pence, in the Gemaristic language, Zuzim"; which we observed at Mar 6:37. ' Zuz ' was Jerusalem money: how, then, was it the same with a penny, which was Tyrian money, when it was the eighth part only? And these words spoken by Rambam do add a scruple over and above; a penny contains six zuzim. If he had said eight zuzim; it had been without scruple. But what shall we say now?  

The former knot you may thus untie: that zuz; among the Jews, is called also a penny; a Jewish penny, indeed, but different from the Roman: as the Scots have their shilling; but much different from our English. But the second knot let him try to untie that is at leisure.  

IV. This money was signed with the image of Caesar; but of the Jerusalem money, thus the Jews write, whom you may believe when you please: "What is the Jerusalem money? David and Solomon were stamped on one side; and on the reverse, Jerusalem the holy city." But the Glosser inquires whether it were lawful to stamp the image of David and Solomon upon money, which he scarcely thinks. He concludes therefore that their names were only inscribed, not their effigies.  

"Upon Abraham's money were stamped, on one side, an old man and an old woman; on the other, a young man and a young maid. On Joshua's money, on one side, an ox; on the other, a monoceros. On David's money, on one side, a staff and a scrip; on the other, a tower. On Mardochai's money, on one side, sackcloth and ashes; on the other, a crown." Let the truth of this be upon the credit of the authors.

Lightfoot: Mar 12:28

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?   

[Which is the first commandment of all?] it is not seldom that this distinction occurs in the Rabbins, between the law; and the precept; by the latter they understand some special or greater rite (themselves being judges); such as circumcision, the repeating of the phylacteries, keeping the sabbath, etc. This question, propounded by the scribe, seems to respect the same: namely, whether those great precepts (as they were esteemed) and other ceremonial precepts of that nature, such as sacrifices, purifications, keeping festivals, were the greatest precepts of the law, or no: and if it were so, which among them was the first?  

By his answer he seems to incline to the negative, and to prefer the moral law. Whence Christ saith, "That he was not far from the kingdom of heaven": and while he suits an answer to him from that very passage, which was the first in the reciting of the phylacteries, Hear, O Israel; -- he directs the eyes and the minds of those that repeated them to the sense and the marrow of the thing repeated, -- and that they rest not in the bare work of repeating them.

Haydock: Mar 12:1

Under these figurative modes of speech, or parables, Jesus Christ began to trace out for their reflection a true portraiture of their ingratitude, and of the divine vengeance. By this man we are to understand God the Father, whose vineyard was the house of Israel, which he guarded by angels; the place dug for the wine-vat is the law; the tower, the temple; and Moses, the prophets and the priests, whom the Jews afflicted and persecuted are the husbandmen or servants. (St. Jerome) ---

This same parable was employed by Isaias, (v. 1.) where speaking of Christ, he says: My beloved had a vineyard, and he fenced it in. (Tirinus) ---

He went into a far country, not by change of place, for he is every where, but by leaving the workmen the power of free-will, either to work or not to work; in the same manner as a man in a far country cannot oversee his husbandmen at home, but leaves them to themselves. (Ven. Bede) -- This parable is thus morally explained: Jesus planted a Church with his own blood, surrounded it with evangelical doctrine, as with a hedge; dug a place for the wine-vat, by the abundance of spiritual graces which he has prepared for his Church; built a tower, by appointing his angels to guard each individual Christian, who are the husbandmen to whom he has let it out. (Nicholas of Lyra)

Haydock: Mar 12:2

The first servant whom the Almighty sent was Moses; but they sent him away empty; for, says the Psalmist, they provoked him to anger in the camp. (Psalm cv.) The second servant sent was David, whom they used reproachfully, saying: What have we to do with David? (3 Kings xii. 16.) The third was the school of the prophets; and which of the prophets did they not kill? (Matthew xxiii.) (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 12:7

From this it appears, that the chief priests and lawyers were not ignorant that Christ was the Messias promised in the law and the prophets, but their knowledge was afterwards blinded by their envy: for otherwise, had they known him to be true God, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory, says St. Paul. For a further explanation, see St. Matthew xxi. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 12:8

They cast the heir, Jesus Christ, out of the vineyard, by leading him out of Jerusalem to be crucified. (Theophylactus) ---

They had before cast him out by calling him a Samaritan and demoniac; (St. John, Chap. viii.) and again by refusing to receive him, and turning him over to the Gentiles. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 12:9

The vineyard is given to others; as it is said, they shall come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God. (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Mar 12:10

By this question, Christ shows that they were about to fulfil this prophecy, by casting him off, planning his death, and delivering him up to the Gentiles, by which he became the corner-stone, joining the two people of the Jews and Gentiles together, and forming out of them the one city and one temple of the faithful. (Ven. Bede) ---

The Church is the corner, joining together Jews and Gentiles; the head of it is Christ. By the Lord hath this been done in our days, and it is wonderful in our eyes, seeing the prodigies which God has performed through him whom men reject as an impostor. (Theophylactus and Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Mar 12:12

The chief priests thus shew, that what our Saviour had just said was true, by thus seeking to lay their hands on him. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 12:14

The disciples of the Pharisees said this in order to induce our Saviour to answer them, "that they were not to pay tribute to Cæsar, being the people of God; an answer they confidently anticipated, and which the Herodians hearing, might immediately apprehend him, and thus remove the odium from themselves to Herod. (Ven. Bede)

Haydock: Mar 12:15

Knowing their hypocrisy. [1] The Latin word commonly signifies, cunning, but the Greek is here meant their dissimulation, or hypocrisy. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Versutiam. Greek: ten upokrisin.

Haydock: Mar 12:17

Although Christ clearly establishes here the strict obligation of paying to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar, to the confusion of his very enemies, we shall still find them bringing forward against him the charge of disloyalty, as if he forbade tribute to be paid to Cæsar. (Luke xxiii. 2.) After the example of her divine Model, the Catholic Church has uniformly taught with St. Paul, the necessity of obeying the powers in being; and this not for fear of their wrath, but for conscience sake. Render to Cæsar the money on which his image is stamped, but render yourselves cheerfully to God; for the light of thy countenance, O Lord, is stamped upon us, (Psalm iv.) and not the image of Cæsar. (St. Jerome) ---

With reason were they astonished at the wisdom of this answer, which eluded all their artifices, and taught them at the same time what they owed to their prince, and what they owed to God: and whoever hopes for the favour of heaven, must conscientiously observe this double duty to God and to the magistrate.

Haydock: Mar 12:26

The doctrine of the resurrection from the dead is clearly given in the book of Moses, where mention is made of the burning bush, from the midst of which God appeared to Moses: have you not read, I say, what God there said to him? As God is the God of the living, you must be in an egregious error in imagining, that such as die in the eyes of the world not to return thither any more, die in the same manner in the eyes of God, to live no more. (Bible de Vence)

Haydock: Mar 12:29

Literally the Lord our God is the only Lord: and this is the sense of the text in Deuteronomy vi. 4. The word in the original text, rendered by the term Lord, is the grand name JEHOVA, which signifies properly God, considered as the supreme Being, or the author of all existence.

Gill: Mar 12:1

And he began to speak unto them by parables,.... As of the two sons the father bid go to work in the vineyard; and of the planting of a vineyard, and letting it out to husbandmen, as here; though the latter is only related by this evangelist, yet both are by Matthew. This was not the first time of his speaking by parables to the people, though it might be the first time he spake in this way to the chief priests and elders, and who are particularly designed in them.

A certain man planted a vineyard. The Persic version adds, "with many trees": that is, with vines, though sometimes other trees, as fig trees, were planted in vineyards; see Luk 13:6. This man is, by the Evangelist Matthew, called an "householder": by whom is meant God the Father, as distinguished from his Son, he is afterward said to send: and by the "vineyard", planted by him, is meant the vineyard of the Lord of hosts, the men of Israel, Isa 5:1;

and set an hedge about it, or "wall", as the Persic version renders it; meaning either the law, not the Jews oral law, or the traditions of the elders, which were not of God's setting, but the ceremonial and moral law; or the wall of protection by divine power, which was set around the Jewish nation especially when they went up to their solemn feasts.

And digged a place for the winefat. The Syriac and Arabic versions add, "in it"; and the Persic version, "in the vineyard"; for this was made in the vineyard, where they, trod and squeezed the grapes when gathered; and may design the altar in the house of the Lord, where the libations, or drink offerings, were poured out;

and built a tower. The Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions add, "in it"; for this also was built in the vineyard, and may intend either the city of Jerusalem; or the temple in it, the watch house where the priests watched, and did their service, day and night.

And let it out to husbandmen; or "workmen", as the Arabic version renders it, who wrought in it, and took care of the vines. The Ethiopic version renders it, "and set over it a worker and keeper of the vineyard"; by whom are meant the priests and Levites, to whom were committed the care of the people, with respect to religious things:

and went into a far country; left the people of the Jews to these husbandmen, or rulers, whether civil or ecclesiastical, but chiefly the latter, to be instructed and directed by them, according to the laws and rules given them by the Lord; See Gill on Mat 21:33.

Gill: Mar 12:2

And at the season he sent unto the husbandman a servant,.... The Evangelist Matthew says, "when the time of the fruit drew near", Mat 21:34; and so the Persic version here reads. The Syriac and Ethiopic versions read, "in its own time", or "season", which was the fourth year from the planting of it; and then it was holy to the Lord; and might not be eaten until the fifth year, Lev 19:23. According to the Jewish canons ^l, a vineyard of the fourth year was marked with clods of earth, to show it was not to be eaten of; and the fruit of it was brought up to Jerusalem, from every place that was but a day's journey from thence, there to be eaten, or redeemed. Nor by the "servant" are intended the prophets of the Old Testament, who were sent to the Jews to call upon them to bring forth fruits of righteousness; for not a single person, but a set of men, are here designed; and the Evangelist Matthew expresses it in the plural number, "servants":

that he might receive from the husbandmen the fruit of the vineyard: by the hands of his servants; for in Matthew it is, "that they might receive", &c. such as righteousness and judgment, truth and holiness, so as to give an account of them, which might have been expected from a people under such advantages, Isa 5:7; See Gill on Mat 21:34.

Gill: Mar 12:3

And they caught him,.... This clause is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions, though it seems proper to be retained; and denotes the rudeness and violence with which the prophets of the Lord were used by the Jewish nation:

and beat him: either with their fists, or with rods, and scourges, till the skin was flayed off:

and sent him away empty; without any fruit to carry with him, or give an account of, to the owner of the vineyard.

Gill: Mar 12:4

And again he sent unto them another servant,.... Another set of good men, to instruct, advise, and counsel them, and exhort them to their duty; such as were Isaiah, Zechariah, and others:

and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head; for of these were stoned, as well as sawn asunder, and slain with the sword; though it seems, that this servant, or this set of men, were not stoned to death, because he was afterwards said to be sent away: nor could the stoning be what was done by the order of the sanhedrim, which was done by letting an heavy stone fail upon the heart ^k; but this was done by all the people, by the outrageous zealots, in the manner Stephen was stoned. Dr. Lightfoot thinks, the usual sense of the Greek word may be retained; which signifies "to reduce", or "gather into a certain sum": and so as this servant was sent to reckon with these husbandmen, and take an account from them of the fruit of the vineyard, one cast a stone at him, saying, there is fruit for you; and a second cast another stone, saying the same thing; and so they went on one after another, till at last they said, in a deriding way, now the sum is made up with you:

and sent him away shamefully handled; with great ignominy and reproach.

Gill: Mar 12:5

And again he sent another,.... That is, another servant, or set of men, it may be in the times of the Maccabees, who were used in a very inhuman manner; see Heb 11:37;

and him they killed; either with the sword, or by inflicting some capital punishment, as stoning, strangling, &c.

and many others; that is, either the owner of the vineyard sent many other servants, or the husbandmen ill used many others that were sent to them:

beating some; with their hands, or with scourges;

and killing some; in one or other of the above ways.

Gill: Mar 12:6

Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved,.... The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the one, and only Son of God his Father, his only begotten Son, for he has no other Son in the same way of filiation; and who is his dear Son, the Son of his love, who was loved by him before the foundation of the world; and whom he declared to be his beloved Son, both at his baptism, and at his transfiguration upon the mount, by a voice from heaven: this Son he having with him, in his bosom, as one brought up with him, and rejoicing before him,

he sent him also last unto them; after all the prophets had been with them, when the last days were come, the end of the Jewish state, civil and ecclesiastical; see Heb 1:1;

saying, they will reverence my son. The Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions read, "perhaps they will reverence my son", as in Luk 20:13; See Gill on Mat 21:37.

Gill: Mar 12:7

But those husbandmen said among themselves,.... This, in the Persic version, is introduced thus, "when the vine dressers saw the son of the lord of the vineyard": agreeably to Mat 21:38. The Ethiopic version renders it, "and the servants said"; not the servants that had been sent, but the workmen in the vineyard:

this is the heir; that is, "of the vineyard", as the Persic version expresses it they knew him by the prophecies of the Old Testament which had described him, and by the miracles which were wrought by him; and they could not deny but that the vineyard of the house of Judah belonged to him, and he was right heir to the throne of Israel; though they refused to embrace him, confess him, and declare for him: but, on the other hand, said,

come let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours; that is, "the vineyard", and the Persic version again read. The priests, Scribes, and elders of the people consulted together to take away his life, with this view: that they might continue in the quiet possession of their nation, temple, and worship, in the office they bore, and in the privileges they partook of; and that the Romans might not come, and take away their place and nation, Joh 11:47; See Gill on Mat 21:38.

Gill: Mar 12:8

And they took him, and killed him, and cast him, out of the vineyard. They sent their officers and servants, and apprehended him in the garden; they delivered him to the Gentiles, who were without the vineyard, and by whom, at their instigation, he was put to death, even to the death of the cross. The Ethiopic version reads it in the same order as in Matthew; "they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed hin"; See Gill on Mat 21:39.

Gill: Mar 12:9

What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do?.... The Arabic and Ethiopic versions add, to them; that is, to the husbandmen, as is expressed in Mat 21:40; see Gill on Mat 21:40,

he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. As the former clause contains a question put by Christ upon his having finished the parable, this is an answer to it, given by the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, in whose presence, and for whose sake it was delivered; See Gill on Mat 21:41.

Gill: Mar 12:10

And have ye not read this Scripture?.... In Psa 118:22 these are the words of Christ directed to the above persons, who were, many of them, teachers of the people, and therefore ought to have read the scriptures, and have taken notice of, and considered more especially such as respected the Messiah, as this passage did, and was very appropriate to the case in the parable Christ had respect unto:

the stone which the builders rejected, is become the head of the corner: by "the stone" is meant the same with the son and heir in the parable, even himself, the true Messiah; and by "the builders", the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, the same with the husbandmen, whose rejection of the stone, or of the Messiah, is signified by their seizing him, casting him out of the vineyard, and killing him; and yet notwithstanding all this, according to this Scripture, he was to be, and now is become, the head of the corner, exalted above angels and men, at the right hand of God; See Gill on Mat 21:42.

Gill: Mar 12:11

This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes. That is, the exaltation of the Messiah, after he had been so ill treated, and at last put to death by the Jews. These words are a continuation of the passage cited out of Psa 118:22.

Gill: Mar 12:12

They sought to lay held on him,.... That is, the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, after they had heard the parables he spake to them, were greatly irritated, and provoked, and had a good will to have seized him, and carried him away, and have had him before their court, and condemn him:

but feared the people; lest they should rise up in his defence, and fall on them; for many of them liked; and were attached to his ministry; and others had received favours of one kind or another from him through his miracles:

for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and that they were the husbandmen designed, who had not brought the fruit of the vineyard to their lord, but had ill treated his servants, and would his son.

And they left him; in the temple, not daring to do any thing to him:

and went their way; to their council chamber, perhaps to consult what measures to take, and how to destroy him.

Gill: Mar 12:13

And they send unto him,.... That is, the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, who had been with Jesus in the temple, and were silenced by his reasonings, and provoked by his parables; and therefore left him, and went together to consult what methods they should take to get him into their hands, and be revenged on him; the result of which was, they send to him

certain of the Pharisees. The Syriac and Persic versions read "Scribes", who were the more skillful and learned part of that body of men, and scrupled paying tribute to Caesar, he being an Heathen prince, and they the Lord's free people:

and of the Herodians; who were, as the Syriac and Persic versions read, "of the household of Herod"; his servants and courtiers, and consequently in the interest of Caesar, under whom Herod held his government, and must be for paying tribute to him: these two parties of such different sentiments, they sent to him,

to catch him in his words; or "in word", or discourse; either with their word, the question they should put to him, or with his word, the answer he should return: and so the Ethiopic version supplies it, reading it, "with his own word"; they thought they should unavoidably catch him, one way or other; just as a prey is hunted, and taken in a net or snare, as the word used signifies: for if he declared against giving tribute to Caesar, the Herodians would have whereof to accuse him, and the Pharisees would be witnesses against him; and if he should be for it, the latter would expose him among the people, as an enemy to their civil liberties, and one that was for subjecting them to the Roman yoke, and consequently could not be the Messiah and deliverer they expected; See Gill on Mat 22:16.

Gill: Mar 12:14

And when they were come,.... Unto Jesus in the temple:

they said unto him, master; they saluted him in like manner, as they did their doctors and Rabbins, calling him "Rabbi", though they were not his disciples; but one part of them were the disciples of the Pharisees, and the other had Herod for their master;

we know that thou art true; an honest, sincere, and upright man,

and carest for no man, for thou regardest not the person of men; no, not Caesar himself;

but teachest the way of God in truth; instructest men in the word, will, and worship of God, with all integrity and faithfulness; answer therefore this question,

is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not? The Syriac and Persic versions read, "head money"; and so it is read in Beza's most ancient copy; a tax that was levied on the heads of families; or on every particular head in a family; See Gill on Mat 22:16, Mat 22:17.

Gill: Mar 12:15

Shall we give, or not give?.... They not only ask whether it was lawful, but whether also it was advisable to do it, that they might not only accuse him of his principles, but charge him with persuading, or dissuading in this case. These words are left out in the Vulgate Latin, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions:

but he knowing their hypocrisy; expressed in their flattering titles and characters of him, and which lay hid in their secret designs against him; which being thoroughly known to him,

said unto them, why tempt ye me: bring me a penny, that I may see it; what it is, that is required for tribute; See Gill on Mat 22:18, Mat 22:19.

Gill: Mar 12:16

And they brought it,.... The penny, which was a Roman one, and worth seven pence halfpenny of our money:

and he saith unto them, whose is this image, and superscription; for it had the head of an emperor upon it, very likely the image of the then reigning emperor Tiberius, and a superscription on it, expressing his name, and perhaps a motto along with it:

and they said unto him, Caesar's; one of the Roman emperors, Augustus, or Tiberius; most probably the latter; See Gill on Mat 22:20, Mat 22:21.

Gill: Mar 12:17

And Jesus answering said unto them,.... Very wisely and pertinently,

render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's: or "to the king, which are the king's", as the Arabic and Ethiopic versions render it:

and to God the things that are God's; See Gill on Mat 22:21;

and they marvelled at him; at his wisdom and prudence in returning such an answer, which cut off all occasion against him.

Gill: Mar 12:18

Then came unto him the Sadducees,.... The same day, immediately after he had silenced the Pharisees and Herodians: these were a set of men distinct from the former, in some of their sentiments, especially in their religions ones, and particularly in the following:

which say there is no resurrection: of the dead, in a literal sense, either general or particular; See Gill on Mat 22:23;

and they asked him, saying; as in the next verse.

Gill: Mar 12:19

Master, Moses wrote unto us,.... Has left in writing for us the following precept to observe; for they acknowledged the writings of Moses, and indeed all the Scriptures of the Old Testament; adhering to the literal sense of them, and rejecting the traditional interpretation of them by the Rabbins:

if a man's brother die, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother; which is the sense of the law in Deu 25:5; See Gill on Mat 22:24.

Gill: Mar 12:20

Now there were seven brethren,.... In a certain family, at a certain place; perhaps at Jerusalem, who were brethren by the father's side; for such only were reckoned so, and such only did this law oblige:

and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed: no child: hence it is clear that the ancient Jews used the word seed, of a single person, as these Sadducees did; though modern ones deny such an use of it in our present controversies with them about the sense of Gen 3:15; See Gill on Mat 22:25.

Gill: Mar 12:21

The second took her,.... To wife, married her, as the next eldest brother, by the above law was obliged to: and so the Jewish ^l canon upon it runs thus;

"the command is, בגדול, "for the eldest" to marry his brother's wife: if he will not, they go to all the brethren; if they will not, they return to the eldest, and say, the command is upon thee, either pluck off the shoe, or marry.''

Maimonides ^m relates it in this manner;

"if a man dies, and leaves many brethren, the command is upon the eldest to marry, or pull off the shoe; as it is said, Deu 25:6, "and it shall be the firstborn which she beareth". From tradition, it is learned that it does not speak but of the firstborn among the brethren; and it is all one as if it was said, the eldest of the brethren shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead; and this is what is said, "which she beareth": the sense is, which the mother has borne, and not which the brother's wife beareth; if the eldest will not marry her, they go round to all the brethren; and if they will not, they return to the eldest, and say, upon thee is the command, either pluck off the shoe, or marry; and they do not compel him to marry, but they compel him to pluck off the shoe;''

i.e. in case he will not marry.

And died, neither left he any, seed, and the third likewise; married her, and died without issue, as the second did. The Persic version adds, "and the fourth, and fifth"; for so they all did to the seventh.

Gill: Mar 12:22

And the seventh had her, and left no seed,.... All, the seven brethren married her, one after another, and neither of them had any children by her:

and last of all the woman died also; after all the seven brethren, to whom she had been married.

Gill: Mar 12:23

In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise,.... This last clause, "when they shall rise", is omitted in two copies of Beza's, and in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, because, perhaps, it might be thought superfluous; but this is agreeably to the way of speaking and writing with the Jews: so in the Targum on Zec 3:7, באחיות מיתיא אחינך, "in the quickening of the dead I will quicken thee"; or, in the resurrection of the dead I will raise thee. The question put on supposition of a resurrection, and that these seven brethren, and the wife they all had should rise, then is,

whose wife shall she be of them? of the seven brethren;

for the seven had her to wife. She was, according to law, the lawful wife of all seven; what particular and special claim could one have to her above the rest? See Gill on Mat 22:28.

Gill: Mar 12:24

And Jesus answering said unto them,.... Which they thought he was not able to do, but would have been silenced at once by them, as many of their antagonists had been:

do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God? what is expressed in Matthew affirmatively, is here put by way of interrogation, which, with the Jews, was a more vehement way of affirming; See Gill on Mat 22:29.

Gill: Mar 12:25

For when they shall rise from the dead,.... These seven brethren, and the woman; and so any, and every other:

they neither marry, nor are given marriage: there will be no such natural relation subsisting, nor any need of any:

but are as the angels which are in heaven; See Gill on Mat 22:30.

Gill: Mar 12:26

And as touching the dead, that they rise,.... For the proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,

have ye not read in the book of Moses; that is, in the law of Moses; for though it was divided into five parts, it was but one book; just as the Psalms are called the Book of Psalms, Act 1:20, and the Prophets, the Book of the Prophets, Act 7:42. The book of Exodus is particularly intended; for the passage referred to is in Exo 3:6,

how in the bush God spake unto him, or "out of the bush", as the Syriac and Persic versions read;

saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? See Gill on Mat 22:31, Mat 22:32.

Gill: Mar 12:27

He is not the God of the dead,.... This is our Lord's reasoning upon the passage; showing from hence, that since God is the God of these persons, they must be now alive in their souls, for God is not the God of the dead; and that their bodies must rise again, or he will not be the God of their whole persons;

but the God, of the living: the word "God", in this clause, is omitted in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, but retained in the Persic and Ethiopic versions; See Gill on Mat 22:32;

ye therefore do greatly err; signifying, that it was not a slight mistake, an error of small importance, but a very great one; inasmuch as it was contrary to the Scriptures, and derogated from the power of God, and destroyed that covenant interest, which God has in his people, and particularly in the principal men of their nation, who were the fathers and founders of them.

Gill: Mar 12:28

And one of the Scribes came,.... Matthew calls him a lawyer, Mat 22:35, an interpreter of the law, as a Scribe was:

and having heard them reasoning together; being present at the dispute between Christ and the Sadducees, which he diligently attended to:

and perceiving that he had answered them well: in a most beautiful manner. The Jews have adopted the very Greek word here used, and make use of it in the same sense as אמר ליה קאלום ⁿ, "he answered him well": or, as the gloss upon it, "praise worthily"; in a manner deserving praise; and is the same with שפיר קאמרת ^o, "thou hast said well", or beautifully; and so the answer here was with great solidity, and judgment, and strength of argument, to their utter confusion and silence; whereby he understood he had considerable knowledge in the law, and yet was willing to try if he could not puzzle him with a question relating to it:

asked him, which is the first commandment of all? of all the commandments in the law, moral and ceremonial.

Gill: Mar 12:29

Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is,.... Christ replied at once, without taking any time to consider of it, that the chief and principal of all the commands of the law, and what is of the greatest importance is,

hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. The Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions read, "one God"; but the Syriac, and Ethiopic render it, "one Lord"; and that rightly, agreeably to the Greek text, and to Deu 6:4, from whence this is taken. This passage of Scripture, to the end of the ninth verse, is the first of the sections which were put into their phylacteries; See Gill on Mat 23:5; and was repeated twice every day, morning and evening; which is by the Jews called from the first word קריאת שמע, "the reading of the Shema": concerning the exact time of the reciting of this, morning and evening, and of the posture in which they do it, reclining in the evening, and standing in the morning, and of the prayers before and after it, various rules are given in their Misna ^p, or oral law; it is a precept of great esteem and veneration with them, and attended to with much solemnity. The account Maimonides ^q gives of it is this:

"twice every day they read Keriath Shema; (i.e. "hear, O Israel", &c.) in the evening and in morning, as it is said, Deu 6:7. "When thou liest down, and when thou risest up"; in the hour it is the custom of men to lie down, and this is night; and in the hour it is the custom of men to stand, and this is day: and what does he read? three sections; and they are these, "hear", &c. Deu 6:4, and it shall come to pass, "if ye shall hearken", &c. Deu 11:13, "and Moses said", &c. Exo 13:3, and they read the section, "hear, O Israel", first, because there is in it the unity of God, and the love of him and his doctrine; for it is, העקר הגדול, "the great root", or "foundation", on which all hangs or depends.''

And it is observable, that the last letter of the word "hear", and the last of the word "one", are both written in very large characters in the Hebrew Bible, to denote the greatness of the command, and to cause attention to it. The Jews seek for mysteries in these letters, and think the unusual size of them, points at some very great things: they observe, that the first of these letters is numerically "seventy", and directs to the seventy names of the law, and the seventy ways in which it may be interpreted, and the seventy nations of the world, from whom the Israelites are distinguished, by their belief of the one God ^r; and that the latter stands for the number "four", and shows that the Lord is the one God, in heaven and in earth, in all the world, and in the four parts of it; and that both these letters put together, make a word, which signifies "a witness"; showing that this passage is a glorious testimony of the unity of God, and that the Israelites are witnesses of it, by believing and professing it; and that should they depart from the faith of it, God would be a witness against them: and now, though there is no solid foundation for such interpretations, yet this shows what an opinion they had of the greatness of this command; to which, may be added, they ask ^s,

"why does, "hear, O Israel", &c. go before that passage in Deu 11:13. "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments", &c. but because a man must take upon him, first the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and after that he must take upon him the yoke of the commandments.''

The sense is, that he must first make a confession of his faith in God, which is contained in Deu 6:4 and then he must obey his commands; so that they plainly considered this, as the first and greatest of all. These words are frequent in the mouths of the modern Jews, in proof of the unity of God, and against a plurality in the Deity; but the ancient ones, not only consider them as a good and sufficient proof, that there is but one God, but as expressive of a Trinity in the Godhead: with a view to this text they observe ^t, that

"Jehovah, "our God, Jehovah"; these are, תלת דרגין, "three degrees" (or persons) with respect to this sublime mystery, "in the beginning, God", or "Elohim, created", &c.''

And again ^u,

"there is an unity which is called Jehovah the first, our God, Jehovah; behold! they are all one, and therefore called one: lo! these three names are as one; and although we call them one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy Ghost it is made known, and they are by the sight of the eye to be known, that "these three are one", (see 1Jo 5:7,) and this is the mystery of the voice that is heard; the voice is one; and there are three things, fire, and wind, and water, and they are all one, in the mystery of the voice, and they are not but one: so here, Jehovah, our God, Jehovah, these, תלתא גוונין, "three modes, forms", or "things", are one.''

Once more they ^w say,

"there are two, and one is joined to them, and they are three; and when they are three, they are one: these are the two names of hear, O Israel, which are Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu, or our God, is joined unto them; and it is the seal of the ring of truth.''

To which I shall subjoin one passage more, where R. Eliezer is asking his father R. Simeon ben Jochai, why Jehovah is sometimes called Elohim, he replies ^x, among other things;

"come see, there are גדרגין, "three degrees", (or persons,) and every degree is by itself; although they are all one, and bound together in one, and one is not separated from another.''

To believe this, is the first and chief commandment in the law, and is the principal article of the Christian faith; namely, to believe that there is one God, and that there are three persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, in the Godhead.

Gill: Mar 12:30

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God,.... Which is to be understood of the one God, Father, Son, and Spirit; for all the three divine persons are to be equally loved, being possessed of the same perfections and excellencies, and having done the same works, and having bestowed like benefits and favours upon men: and though there is now no principle of love to God in men; but, on the contrary, men are enemies to God in their minds, which appears by their wicked works; yet this commandment is still in force, and the obligation to it is the same; the fall of man, the corruption of nature, and the impotency, and even aversion in man to observe this command, do not make it null and void: and in regeneration, when God puts his laws into the heart, and writes them in the mind; love is produced in such persons, to God the Father, who has begotten them again, according to his abundant mercy; and to Christ, who has saved them from their sins; and to the blessed Spirit, who has quickened and comforted them: and this love is in some measure exercised as it should be, and as here directed to,

with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; that is, with all the powers and faculties of the soul; or with the affections, as under the influence and guidance of the more noble faculties of the soul, the mind, the understanding, judgment, and will: it is added here, which is not in Matthew,

and with all thy strength; which answers to the phrase in Deu 6:5, "with all thy might"; that is, with the greatest vehemency of affection, in the strongest expressions of it, and with all the strength of grace a man has. This passage follows the former in Deu 6:5 and is what is only cited in Mat 22:37; see Gill on Mat 22:37.

Gill: Mar 12:31

And the second is like,.... "Unto it", as in Mat 22:39 and so it is read here in two ancient copies of Beza's, and in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions;

namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. This commandment stands in Lev 19:18 and respects not an Israelite only, or one of the same religion with a man's self, or his intimate friend and acquaintance, or one that lives in the same neighbourhood; but any man whatever, to whom affection should be shown, and good should be done to him, and for him, as a man would have done to and for himself; as much as lies in his power, both in things temporal and spiritual; see the note on Mat 22:39.

There is none other commandment greater than these; in the whole law, moral or ceremonial; not the sabbath, nor circumcision, nor the phylacteries, nor the fringes on the borders of the garments, nor any other.

Gill: Mar 12:32

And the Scribe said unto him,.... This reply of the Scribe, is not related by Matthew:

well, Master, thou hast said the truth: what thou hast said is truth, and thou hast expressed it in a most beautiful manner: the Scribe was charmed with his answer, and could not forbear speaking in commendation of it, and even before the multitude, and those of his own sect: this was a rare and uncommon instance; it was not usual with the Scribes and Pharisees, whatever convictions they were laid under, either by the miracles or discourses of Christ, to own any thing, or make any concessions in his favour, or speak in his praise: but this man not only commends him, but gives reasons for it, and confirms the doctrine he taught in his own words;

for there is one God, and there is none other but he. The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the word "God"; but it is in the Greek copies, and rightly retained in other versions: for the sense is, that there is one God, and but one; and which is perfectly agreeable to the Christian doctrine, of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead; for though the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there are not three Gods, but one God. Nor are we to imagine, that this man said or thought any thing to the contrary, or had it in his mind to oppose the doctrine of the Trinity; which, though more clearly revealed in the New Testament, was not unknown to the ancient Jews, and might be learned from the writings of the Old Testament: but this he said, in opposition to the many idols, and fictitious deities of the Gentiles; and if he spake in the Hebrew language, as it is probable he did, there must be a beautiful "paranomasia" in his words; "for there is", אחד, "Achad, one God; and there is none", אחר, "Achar, other but he": and it is observed by a Jewish writer ^y, that the reason why the last letter of, אחד, "one", is greater than the rest, as before observed, in Mar 12:29 is, that there might be no mistake of ד, for ר, which are much alike; and if mistook, the word would signify "another", and not "one": but this is done, lest a man should mistake, and worship "another", and not the "one" God.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 12:1

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² sn The vineyard is a figure for Israel in the OT (Isa 5:1-7). The nation and its leaders are the tenants, so the vineyard here may well refer to the promise that resides within the nation. The imagery is like that in Rom 11:11-24.

³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

⁴ sn The leasing of land to tenant farmers was common in this period.

NET Notes: Mar 12:2

¹ tn See the note on the word “slave” in 10:44.

sn This slave (along with the others) represent the prophets God sent to the nation, who were mistreated and rejected.

² tn Grk “from the tenants,” but this is redundant in English, so the pronoun (“them”) was used in the translation.

³ tn Grk “from the fruits of the vineyard.”

NET Notes: Mar 12:3

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

² tn Grk “But they”; the referent (the tenants, v. 1) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Grk “seizing him, they beat and sent away empty-handed.” The referent of the direct object of “seizing” (the slave sent by the owner) has been specified in the translation for clarity. The objects of the verbs “beat” and “sent away” have been supplied in the translation to conform to English style. Greek often omits direct objects when they are clear from the context.

⁴ sn The image of the tenants beating up the owner’s slave pictures the nation’s rejection of the prophets and their message.

⁵ sn The slaves being sent empty-handed suggests that the vineyard was not producing any fruit – and thus neither was the nation of Israel.

NET Notes: Mar 12:4

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of the tenants’ mistreatment of the first slave.

NET Notes: Mar 12:6

¹ tn Grk “one beloved son.” See comment at Mark 1:11.

sn The owner’s decision to send his one dear son represents God sending Jesus.

NET Notes: Mar 12:8

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

² tn Grk “seizing him.” The participle λαβόντες (labontes) has been translated as attendant circumstance.

³ tn Grk “him.”

⁴ sn Throwing the heir’s body out of the vineyard pictures Jesus’ death outside of Jerusalem.

NET Notes: Mar 12:9

¹ sn The statement that the owner will come and destroy those tenants is a promise of judgment; see Luke 13:34-35; 19:41-44.

² sn The warning that the owner would give the vineyard to others suggests that the care of the promise and the nation’s hope would be passed to others. This eventually looks to Gentile inclusion; see Eph 2:11-22.

NET Notes: Mar 12:10

¹ tn Or “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kefalh gwnia") refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.

sn The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The use of Ps 118:22-23 and the “stone imagery” as a reference to Christ and his suffering and exaltation is common in the NT (see also Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:6-8; cf. also Eph 2:20). The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 in Mark 12:10-11 is that in the OT, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the NT it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel.

NET Notes: Mar 12:11

¹ sn A quotation from Ps 118:22-23.

NET Notes: Mar 12:12

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to introduce a somewhat parenthetical remark by the author.

² tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the implied result of previous action(s) in the narrative.

³ sn The point of the parable in Mark 12:1-12 is that the leaders of the nation have been rejected by God and the vineyard (v. 9, referring to the nation and its privileged status) will be taken from them and given to others (an allusion to the Gentiles).

NET Notes: Mar 12:13

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

² sn See the note on Pharisees in 2:16.

³ sn Pharisees and Herodians made a very interesting alliance. W. W. Wessel (“Mark,” EBC 8:733) comments: “The Herodians were as obnoxious to the Pharisees on political grounds as the Sadducees were on theological grounds. Yet the two groups united in their opposition to Jesus. Collaboration in wickedness, as well as goodness, has great power. Their purpose was to trip Jesus up in his words so that he would lose the support of the people, leaving the way open for them to destroy him.” See also the note on “Herodians” in Mark 3:6.

⁴ tn Grk “trap him in word.”

NET Notes: Mar 12:14

¹ tn Grk “and it is not a concern to you about anyone because you do not see the face of men.”

² sn Teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Very few comments are as deceitful as this one; they did not really believe this at all. The question of the Pharisees and Herodians was specifically designed to trap Jesus.

³ tn Or “lawful,” that is, in accordance with God’s divine law. On the syntax of ἔξεστιν (exestin) with an infinitive and accusative, see BDF §409.3.

⁴ tn According to L&N 57.180 the term κῆνσος (khnso") was borrowed from Latin and referred to a poll tax, a tax paid by each adult male to the Roman government.

sn This question concerning taxes was specifically designed to trap Jesus. If he answered yes, then his opponents could publicly discredit him as a sympathizer with Rome. If he answered no, then they could go to the Roman governor and accuse Jesus of rebellion.

⁵ tn Or “the emperor” (“Caesar” is a title for the Roman emperor).

NET Notes: Mar 12:15

¹ tn Grk “Aware of their hypocrisy he said.”

² tn Here the specific name of the coin was retained in the translation, because not all coins in circulation in Palestine at the time carried the image of Caesar. In other places δηνάριον (dhnarion) has been translated simply as “silver coin” with an explanatory note.

sn A denarius was a silver coin stamped with the image of the emperor and worth approximately one day’s wage for a laborer.

NET Notes: Mar 12:16

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate their response to Jesus’ request for a coin.

² tn Or “whose likeness.”

sn In this passage Jesus points to the image (Grk εἰκών, eikwn) of Caesar on the coin. This same Greek word is used in Gen 1:26 (LXX) to state that humanity is made in the “image” of God. Jesus is making a subtle yet powerful contrast: Caesar’s image is on the denarius, so he can lay claim to money through taxation, but God’s image is on humanity, so he can lay claim to each individual life.

³ tn Grk “they said to him.”

NET Notes: Mar 12:17

¹ sn Jesus’ answer to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s was a both/and, not the questioners’ either/or. So he slipped out of their trap.

NET Notes: Mar 12:18

¹ sn The Sadducees controlled the official political structures of Judaism at this time, being the majority members of the Sanhedrin. They were known as extremely strict on law and order issues (Josephus, J. W. 2.8.2 [2.119], 2.8.14 [2.164-166]; Ant. 13.5.9 [13.171-173], 13.10.6 [13.293-298], 18.1.2 [18.11], 18.1.4 [18.16-17], 20.9.1 [20.199]; Life 2 [10-11]). They also did not believe in resurrection or in angels, an important detail in v. 25. See also Matt 3:7, 16:1-12, 22:23-34; Luke 20:27-38; Acts 4:1, 5:17, 23:6-8.

² sn This remark is best regarded as a parenthetical note by the author.

³ tn Grk “and asked him, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

NET Notes: Mar 12:19

¹ tn Grk “his brother”; but this would be redundant in English with the same phrase “his brother” at the end of the verse, so most modern translations render this phrase “the man” (so NIV, NRSV).

² tn The use of ἵνα (Jina) with imperatival force is unusual (BDF §470.1).

³ tn Grk “raise up seed” (an idiom for fathering children).

⁴ sn A quotation from Deut 25:5. This practice is called levirate marriage (see also Ruth 4:1-12; Mishnah, m. Yevamot; Josephus, Ant. 4.8.23 [4.254-256]). The levirate law is described in Deut 25:5-10. The brother of a man who died without a son had an obligation to marry his brother’s widow. This served several purposes: It provided for the widow in a society where a widow with no children to care for her would be reduced to begging, and it preserved the name of the deceased, who would be regarded as the legal father of the first son produced from that marriage.

NET Notes: Mar 12:20

¹ tn Grk “took a wife” (an idiom for marrying a woman).

NET Notes: Mar 12:23

¹ tc The words “when they rise again” are missing from several important witnesses (א B C D L W Δ Ψ 33 579 892 2427 pc c r¹ k sy^p co). They are included in A Θ Ë^1,(13) Ï lat sy^s,h. The strong external pedigree of the shorter reading gives one pause. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian and other mss most likely dropped the words from the text either to conform the wording to the parallel in Matt 22:28 or because “when they rise again” was redundant. But the inclusion of these words is thoroughly compatible with Mark’s usually pleonastic style (see TCGNT 93), and therefore most probably authentic to Mark’s Gospel.

² tn Grk “For the seven had her as wife.”

NET Notes: Mar 12:24

¹ tn Or “mistaken” (cf. BDAG 822 s.v. πλανάω 2.c.γ).

NET Notes: Mar 12:25

¹ sn Angels do not die, nor do they eat according to Jewish tradition (1 En. 15:6; 51:4; Wis 5:5; 2 Bar. 51:10; 1QH 3.21-23).

NET Notes: Mar 12:26

¹ tn Grk “Now as for the dead that they are raised.”

² sn See Exod 3:6. Jesus used a common form of rabbinic citation here to refer to the passage in question.

³ tn Grk “and the,” but καί (kai) has not been translated since English normally uses a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements in a series of three or more.

⁴ sn A quotation from Exod 3:6.

NET Notes: Mar 12:27

¹ sn He is not God of the dead but of the living. Jesus’ point was that if God could identify himself as God of the three old patriarchs, then they must still be alive when God spoke to Moses; and so they must be raised.

NET Notes: Mar 12:28

¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

² tn Or “One of the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 1:22.

³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Mar 12:30

¹ tn Grk “You will love.” The future indicative is used here with imperatival force (see ExSyn 452 and 569).

² sn A quotation from Deut 6:4-5 and Josh 22:5 (LXX). The fourfold reference to different parts of the person says, in effect, that one should love God with all one’s being.

NET Notes: Mar 12:31

¹ sn A quotation from Lev 19:18.

NET Notes: Mar 12:32

¹ sn A quotation from Deut 4:35.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:1

And ^{( 1 )} he began to speak unto them by ^{( a )} parables. A [certain] man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about [it], and digged [a place for] the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

^{( 1 )} The calling of God is unbounded, without exception, in regard to place, person, or time.

^{( a )} This word "parable", which the evangelists use, not only signifies a comparing of things together, but also speeches and allegories with hidden meaning.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:2

^{( b )} And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

^{( b )} When the fruits of the ground used to be gathered.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:12

And they ^{( c )} sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people: for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way.

^{( c )} They were greedy and very desirous.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:13

^{( 2 )} And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in [his] words.

^{( 2 )} The gospel links the authority of the magistrate with the service of God.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:14

And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou ^{( d )} regardest not the person of men, but teachest the ^{( e )} way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

^{( d )} You do not judge by the outward appearance, so that the truth is therefore not darkened by any means at all.

^{( e )} The way by which we come to see God.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:18

^{( 3 )} Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

^{( 3 )} The resurrection of the body is confirmed, opposed to the foolish ignorance and malice of the Sadducees.

Geneva Bible: Mar 12:28

^{( 4 )} And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

^{( 4 )} Sacrifices and outward worship never pleased God unless we first did the things which we owe to God and our neighbours.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 12:1-44

1 In a parable of the vineyard let out to wicked husbandmen Christ foretells the reprobation of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles.

13 He avoids the snare of the Pharisees and Herodians about paying tribute to Caesar;

18 convicts the Sadducees of error, who denied the resurrection;

28 resolves the scribe, who questioned of the first commandment;

35 refutes the opinion that the scribes held of Christ;

38 bidding the people to beware of their ambition and hypocrisy;

41 and commends the poor widow for her two mites, above all.

Maclaren: Mar 12:1-12

Dishonest Tenants

And He began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. 2. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. 3. And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty, 4. And again he sent unto them another servant: and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. 5. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. 6. Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. 7. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. 8. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. 9. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 10. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: 11. This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 12. And they sought to lay hold on Him, but feared the people: for they knew that He had spoken the parable against them: and they left Him, and went their way.'--Mark 12:1-12.

THE ecclesiastical rulers had just been questioning Jesus as to the authority by which He acted. His answer, a counter-question as to John's authority, was not an evasion. If they decided whence John came, they would not be at any loss as to whence Jesus came. If they steeled themselves against acknowledging the Forerunner, they would not be receptive of Christ's message. That keen-edged retort plainly indicates Christ's conviction of the rulers' insincerity, and in this parable He charges home on these solemn hypocrites their share in the hereditary rejection of messengers whose authority was unquestionable. Much they cared for even divine authority, as they and their predecessors had shown through centuries! The veil of parable is transparent here. Jesus increased in severity and bold attack as the end drew near.

I. The Preparation And Allotment Of The Vineyard.

The parable begins with a tender description of the preparation and allotment of the vineyard.

The picture is based upon Isaiah's lovely apologue (Isaiah 5:1), which was, no doubt, familiar to the learned officials. But there is a slight difference in the application of the metaphor which in Isaiah means the nation, and in the parable is rather the theocracy as an institution, or, as we may put it roughly, the aggregate of divine revelations and appointments which constituted the religious prerogatives of Israel.

Our Lord follows the original passage in the description of the preparation of the vineyard, but it would probably be going too far to press special meanings on the wall, the wine-press, and the watchman's tower. The fence was to keep off marauders, whether passersby or' the boar out of the wood' (Psalm 80:12-13); the wine-press, for which Mark uses the word which means rather the vat into which the juice from the press proper flowed, was to extract and collect the precious liquid; the tower was for the watchman.

A vineyard with all these fittings was ready for profitable occupation. Thus abundantly had God furnished Israel with all that was needed for fruitful, happy service. What was true of the ancient Church is still more true of us who have received every requisite for holy living. Isaiah's solemn appeal has a still sharper edge for Christians: Judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?'

The letting of the vineyard to husbandmen' means the committal to Israel and its rulers of these divine institutions, and the holding them responsible for their fruitfulness. It may be a question whether the tenants are to be understood as only the official persons, or whether, while these are primarily addressed, they represent the whole people. The usual interpretation limits the meaning to the rulers, but, if so, it is difficult to carry out the application, as the vineyard would then have to be regarded as being the nation, which confuses all. The language of Matthew(which threatens the taking of the vineyard and giving it to another nation) obliges us to regard the nation as included in the husbandmen, though primarily the expression is addressed to the rulers.

But more important is it to note the strong expressions for man's quasi-independence and responsibility. The Jew was invested with full possession of the vineyard. We all, in like manner, have intrusted to us, to do as we will with, the various gifts and powers of Christ's gospel. God, as it were, draws somewhat apart from man, that he may have free play for his choice, and bear the burden of responsibility. The divine action was conspicuous at the time of founding the polity of Judaism, and then came long years in which there were no miracles, but all things continued as they were. God was as near as before, but He seemed far off. Thus Jesus has, in like manner, gone into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return'; and we, the tenants of a richer vineyard than Israel's, have to administer what He has intrusted to us, and to bring near by faith Him who is to sense far off.

II. The Next Scenes Paint The Conduct Of The Dishonest Vine-Dressers.

We mark the stern, dark picture drawn of the continued and brutal violence, as well as the flagrant unfaithfulness, of the tenants. Matthew's version gives emphasis to the increasing harshness of treatment of the owner's messengers, as does Mark's. First comes beating, then wounding, then murder. The interpretation is self-evident. The servants' are the prophets, mostly men inferior in rank to the hierarchy, shepherds, fig-gatherers, and the like. They came to rouse Israel to a sense of the purpose for which they had received their distinguishing prerogatives, and their reward had been contempt and maltreatment. They had trial of mockings and scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword.'

The indictment is the same as that by which Stephen wrought the Sanhedrim into a paroxysm of fury. To make such a charge as Jesus did, in the very Temple courts, and with the already hostile priests glaring at Him while He spoke, was a deliberate assault on them and their predecessors, whose true successors they showed themselves to be. They had just been solemnly questioning Him as to His authority. He answers by thus passing in review the uniform treatment meted by them and their like to those who came with God's manifest authority.

If a mere man had spoken this parable, we might admire the magnificent audacity of such an accusation. But the Speaker is more than man, and we have to recognise the judicial calmness and severity of His tone. Israel's history, as it shaped itself before His pure eyes and perfect judgment,' was one long series of divine favours and of human ingratitude, of ample preparations for righteous living and of no result, of messengers sent and their contumelious rejection. We wonder at the sad monotony of such requital. Are we doing otherwise?

III. Then Comes The Last Effort Of The Owner.

The last arrow in the quiver of Almighty Love. Two things are to be pondered in this part of the parable.

First, that wonderful glimpse into the depths of God's heart, in the hope expressed by the Owner of the vineyard, brings out very clearly Christ's claim, made there before all these hostile, keen critics, to stand in an altogether singular relation to God. He asserts His Sonship as separating Him from the class of prophets who are servants only, and as constituting a relationship with the Father prior to His coming to earth. His Sonship is no mere synonym for His Messiahship, but was a fact long before Bethlehem; and its assertion lifts for us a corner of the veil of cloud and darkness round the throne of God. Not less striking is the expression of a frustrated hope in they will reverence My Son.' Men can thwart God's purpose. His divine charity hopeth all things.' The mystery thus sharply put here is but that which is presented everywhere in the co-existence of God's purposes and man's freedom.

Second, The other noteworthy point is the corresponding casting of the vine-dressers' thoughts into words. Both representations are due to the graphic character of parable; both crystallise into speech motives which were not actually spoken. It is unnecessary to suppose that even the rulers of Israel had gone the awful length of clear recognition of Christ's Messiahship, and of looking each other in the face and whispering such a fiendish resolve. Jesus is here dragging to light unconscious motives. The masses did wish to have their national privileges and to avoid their national duties. The rulers did wish to have their sway over minds and consciences undisturbed. They did resent Jesus' interference, chiefly because they instinctively felt that it threatened their position. They wanted to get Him out of the way, that they might lord it at will. They could have known that He was the Son, and they suppressed dawning suspicions that He was. Alas! they have descendants still in many of us who put away His claims, even while we secretly recognise them, in order that we may do as we like without His meddling with us!

The rulers' calculation was a blunder. As Augustine says, They slew Him that they might possess, and, because they slew, they lost.' So is it always. Whoever tries to secure any desired end by putting away his responsibility to render to God the fruit of his thankful service, loses the good which he would fain clutch at for his own. All sin is a mistake.

The parable passes from thinly veiled history to equally transparent prediction. How sadly and how unshrinkingly does the meek yet mighty Victim disclose to the conspirators His perfect knowledge of the murder which they were even now hatching in their minds! He foresees all, and will not lift a finger to prevent it. Mark puts the killing' before the casting out of the vineyard,' while Matthew and Luke invert the order of the two things. The slaughtered corpse was, as a further indignity, thrown over the wall, by which is symbolically expressed His exclusion from Israel, and the vine-dressers' delusion that they now had secured undisturbed possession.

IV. The Last Point Is The Authoritative Sentence On The Evildoers.

Mark's condensed account makes Christ Himself answer His own question. Probably we are to suppose that, with hypocritical readiness, some of the rulers replied, as the other Evangelists represent, and that Jesus then solemnly took up their words. If anything could have enraged the rulers more than the parable itself, the distinct declaration of the transference of Israel's prerogatives to more worthy tenants would do so. The words are heavy with doom. They carry a lesson for us, Stewardship implies responsibility, and faithlessness, sooner or later, involves deprivation. The only way to keep God's gifts is to use them for His glory. The grace of God,' says Luther somewhere, is like a flying summer shower.' Where are Ephesus and the other apocalyptic churches? Let us take heed lest, if God spared not the natural branches, He also spare not us.'

Jesus leaves the hearers with the old psalm ringing in their ears, which proclaimed that the stone which the builders rejected becomes the head stone of the corner.' Other words of the same psalm had been chanted by the crowd in the procession on entering the city. Their fervour was cooling, but the prophecy would still be fulfilled. The builders are the same as the vine-dressers; their rejection of the stone is parallel with slaying the Son.

But though Jesus foretells His death, He also foretells His triumph after death. How could He have spoken, almost in one breath, the prophecy of His being slain and' cast out of the vineyard,' and that of His being exalted to be the very apex and shining summit of the true Temple, unless He had been conscious that His death was indeed not the end, but the centre, of His work, and His elevation to universal and unchanging dominion?

Maclaren: Mar 12:6

God's Last Arrow

Having yet therefore one son, his well beloved, he sent him also last unto them.'--Mark 12:6.

REFERENCE to Isaiah 5. There are differences in detail here which need not trouble us.

Isaiah's parable is a review of the theocratic history of Israel, and clearly the messengers are the prophets; here Christ speaks of Himself and His own mission to Israel, and goes on to tell of His death as already accomplished.

I. The Son Who Follows And Surpasses The Servants.

Our Lord here places Himself in the line of the prophets as coming for a similar purpose. The mission to Israel was the same. The mission of His life was the same.

The last words of the lawgiver certainly point to a person (Deut. 18:18): A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you like unto me. Him shall ye hear.' How ridiculous the cool superciliousness with which modern historical criticism pooh-poohs' that interpretation! But the contrast is quite as prominent as the resemblance. This saying is one which occurs in all the Synoptics, and is as full a declaration of Sonship as any in John's Gospel. It reposes on the scene at the baptism (Matt. 3.): This is My beloved Son!' Such a saying was well enough understood by the Jews to mean more than the Messiah.' It clearly involves kindred to the divine in a far other and higher sense than any prophet ever had it. It involves pre-existence. It asserts that He was the special object of the divine love, the heir.'

You cannot relieve the New Testament Christ of the responsibility of having made such assertions. There they are! He did deliberately declare that He was, in a unique sense, the Son' on whom the love and complacency of the Father rested continually.

II. The Aggravation Of Men's Sins As Tending To The Enhancement Of ,The Divine Efforts.

The terrible Nemesis of evil is that it ever tends to reproduce itself in aggravated forms. Think of the influence of habit; the searing of conscience, so that we become able to do things that we would have shrunk from at an earlier stage. Remember how impunity leads to greater sin. So here the first servant is merely sent away empty, the second is wounded and disgraced, the third is killed. All evil is an inclined plane, a steady, downward progress. How beautifully the opposite principle of the divine love and patience is represented as striving with the increasing hate and resistance! According to Matthew, the householder sent other servants' more than the first,' and the climax was that he sent his son. Mightier forces are brought to bear. This attraction increases as the square of the distance. The blacker the cloud, the brighter the sun; the thicker the ice, the hotter the flame; the harder the soil, the stronger the ploughshare. Note, too, the undertone of sacrifice and of yearning for the soil which may be discerned in the householder's' words. The son is his dearest treasure,' his mightiest gift, than which is nothing higher.

The mission of Christ is the ultimate appeal of God to men.

In the primary sense of the parable Jesus does close the history of the divine strivings with Israel. After Christ, the last of the prophets, the divine voice ceases; after the blaze of that light all is dark. There is nothing more remarkable in the whole history of the world than that cessation in an instant, as it were, of the long, august series of divine efforts for Israel. Henceforward there is an awful silence. Forsaken Israel wanders lone.'

And the principle involved for us is the same.

Christ crucified' is more than Christ miracle-working. That more' we have, as the Jews had. But if that avails not, then nothing else will.

He is last' because highest, strongest, and all-sufficient.

He is last' inasmuch as all since are but echoes of His voice and proclaimers of His grace.

He is last' as the eternal and the permanent, the same for ever' (Heb. 13:8). There are to be no new powers for the world; no new forces to draw men to God. God's quiver is empty, His last bolt shot, His most tender appeal made.

III. The Unwearied Divine Charity.

They will reverence My Son.' May we not say this is a divine hope? It is not worth while to make a difficulty of the bold representation. It is but parallel to all the dealings of God with men; and it sets forth the possibility that He might have won Israel back to God and to obedience. It suggests the good faith and the earnestness with which God sent Him, and He came, to bring Israel back to God. But we are not to suppose that this divine hope excluded the divine purpose of His death or was inconsistent with that, for He goes on to speak of His death as if it were past (Mark 12:8). This shows how distinctly He foreknew it.

Its highest aspect is not here, for it was not needed for the parable. With wicked hands ye have crucified,' etc., is true, as well as I lay it down of Myself.'

Let us lay to heart the solemn love which warns by prophesying, tells what men are going to do in order that they may not do it (and what He will do in order that He may not have to do it). And let us yield ourselves to the power of Christ's death as God's magnet for drawing us all back to Him; and as certain to bring about at last the satisfaction of the Father's long-frustrated hope: They will reverence my Son,' and the fulfilment of the Son's long-unaccomplished prediction: I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me.'

MHCC: Mar 12:1-12

Christ showed in parables, that he would lay aside the Jewish church. It is sad to think what base usage God's faithful ministers have met with in all ages, from those who have enjoyed the privileges of the church, but have not brought forth fruit answerable. God at length sent his Son, his Well-beloved; and it might be expected that he whom their Master loved, they also should respect and love; but instead of honouring him because he was the Son and Heir, they therefore hated him. But the exaltation of Christ was the Lord's doing; and it is his doing to exalt him in our hearts, and to set up his throne there; and if this be done, it cannot but be marvellous in our eyes. The Scriptures, and faithful preachers, and the coming of Christ in the flesh, call on us to render due praise to God in our lives. Let sinners beware of a proud, carnal spirit; if they revile or despise the preachers of Christ, they would have done so their Master, had they lived when he was upon earth.

MHCC: Mar 12:13-17

The enemies of Christ would be thought desirous to know their duty, when really they hoped that which soever side he took of the question, they might find occasion to accuse him. Nothing is more likely to insnare the followers of Christ, than bringing them to meddle with disputes about worldly politics. Jesus avoided the snare, by referring to the submission they had already made as a nation; and all that heard him, marvelled at the great wisdom of his answer. Many will praise the words of a sermon, who will not be commanded by the doctrines of it.

MHCC: Mar 12:18-27

A right knowledge of the Scripture, as the fountain whence all revealed religion now flows, and the foundation on which it is built, is the best preservative against error. Christ put aside the objection of the Sadducees, who were the scoffing infidels of that day, by setting the doctrine of the future state in a true light. The relation between husband and wife, though appointed in the earthly paradise, will not be known in the heavenly one. It is no wonder if we confuse ourselves with foolish errors, when we form our ideas of the world of spirits by the affairs of this world of sense. It is absurd to think that the living God should be the portion and happiness of a man if he is for ever dead; and therefore it is certain that Abraham's soul exists and acts, though now for a time separate from the body. Those that deny the resurrection greatly err, and ought to be told so. Let us seek to pass through this dying world, with a joyful hope of eternal happiness, and of a glorious resurrection.

MHCC: Mar 12:28-34

Those who sincerely desire to be taught their duty, Christ will guide in judgment, and teach his way. He tells the scribe that the great commandment, which indeed includes all, is, that of loving God with all our hearts. Wherever this is the ruling principle in the soul, there is a disposition to every other duty. Loving God with all our heart, will engage us to every thing by which he will be pleased. The sacrifices only represented the atonements for men's transgressions of the moral law; they were of no power except as they expressed repentance and faith in the promised Saviour, and as they led to moral obedience. And because we have not thus loved God and man, but the very reverse, therefore we are condemned sinners; we need repentance, and we need mercy. Christ approved what the scribe said, and encouraged him. He stood fair for further advance; for this knowledge of the law leads to conviction of sin, to repentance, to discovery of our need of mercy, and understanding the way of justification by Christ.

Matthew Henry: Mar 12:1-12

Christ had formerly in parables showed how he designed to set up the gospel church; now he begins in parables to show how he would lay aside the Jewish church, which it might have been grafted into the stock of, but was built upon the ruins of. This parable we had just as we have it here, Mat 21:33. We may observe here,

I. They that enjoy the privileges of the visible church, have a vineyard let out to them, which is capable of great improvement, and from the occupiers of which rent is justly expected. When God showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and judgments unto Israel (Psa 147:19), when he set up his temple among them, his priesthood, and his ordinances, then he let out to them the vineyard he had planted; which he hedged, and in which he built a tower, Mar 12:1. Members of the church are God's tenants, and they have both a good Landlord and a good bargain, and may live well upon it, if it be not their own fault.

II. Those whom God lets out his vineyard to, he sends his servants to, to put them in mind of his just expectations from them, Mar 12:2. He was not hasty in his demands, nor high, for he did not send for the rent till they could make it, at the season; nor did he put them to the trouble of making money of it, but was willing to take it in specie.

III. It is sad to think what base usage God's faithful ministers have met with, in all ages, from those that have enjoyed the privileges of the church, and have not brought forth fruit answerable. The Old Testament prophets were persecuted even by those that went under the name of the Old Testament church. They beat them, and sent them empty away (Mar 12:3); that was bad: they wounded them, and sent them away shamefully entreated (Mar 12:4); that was worse: nay, at length, they came to such a pitch of wickedness, that they killed them, Mar 12:5.

IV. It was no wonder if those who abused the prophets, abused Christ himself. God did at length send them his Son, his well-beloved; it was therefore so much the greater kindness in him to send him; as in Jacob to send Joseph to visit his brethren, Gen 37:14. And it might be expected that he whom their Master loved, they also should respect and love (Mar 12:6); " They will reverence my son, and, in reverence to him, will pay their rent."But, instead of reverencing him because he was the son and heir, they therefore hated him, Mar 12:7. Because Christ, in calling to repentance and reformation, made his demands with more authority than the prophets had done, they were the more enraged against him, and determined to put him to death, that they might engross all church power to themselves, and that all the respect and obedience of the people might be paid to them only; " The inheritance shall be ours, we will be lords paramount, and bear all the sway."There is an inheritance, which, if they had duly reverenced the Son, might have been theirs, a heavenly inheritance; but they slighted that, and would have their inheritance in the wealth, and pomp, and powers, of this world. So they took him, and killed him; they had not done it yet, but they would do it in a little time; and they cast him out of the vineyard, they refused to admit his gospel when he was gone; it would by no means agree with their scheme, and so they threw it out with disdain and detestation.

V. For such sinful and shameful doings nothing can be expected but a fearful doom (Mar 12:9); What shall therefore the Lord of the vineyard do? It is easy to say what, for nothing could be done more provoking.

1. He will come, and destroy the husbandmen, whom he would have saved. When they only denied the fruit, he did not distrain upon them for rent, nor disseize them and dispossess them for non-payment; but when they killed his servants, and his Son, he determined to destroy them; and this was fulfilled when Jerusalem was laid waste, and the Jewish nation extirpated and made a desolation.

2. He will give the vineyards to others. If he have not the rent from them, he will have it from another people, for God will be no loser by any. This was fulfilled in the taking in of the Gentiles, and the abundance of fruit which the gospel brought forth in all the world, Col 1:6. If some from whom we expected well, prove bad, it doth not follow but that others will be better. Christ encouraged himself with this in his undertaking; Though Israel be not gathered, not gathered to him, but gathered against him, yet shall I be glorious (Isa 49:5, Isa 49:6), as a Light to lighten the Gentiles.

3. Their opposition to Christ's exaltation shall be no obstruction to it (Mar 12:10, Mar 12:11); The stone which the builders rejected, notwithstanding that, is become the Head of the corner, is highly advanced as the Head-stone, and of necessary use and influence as the Corner-stone. God will set Christ as his King, upon his holy hill of Zion, in spite of their project, who would break his bands asunder. And all the world shall see and own this to be the Lord's doing, in justice to the Jews, and in compassion to the Gentiles. The exaltation of Christ was the Lord's doing, and it is his doing to exalt him in our hearts, and to set up his throne there; and if it be done, it cannot but be marvellous in our eyes.

Now what effect had this parable upon the chief priests and scribes, whose conviction was designed by it? They knew he spoke this parable against them, Mar 12:12. They could not but see their own faces in the glass of it; and one would think it showed them their sin so very heinous, and their ruin so certain and great, that it should have frightened them into a compliance with Christ and his gospel, should have prevailed to bring them to repentance, at least to make them desist from their malicious purpose against him: but, instead of that, (1.) They sought to lay hold on him, and make him their prisoner immediately, and so to fulfil what he had just now said they would do to him, Mar 12:8. (2.) Nothing restrained them from it but the awe they stood in of the people; they did not reverence Christ, nor had an fear of God before their eyes, but were afraid, if they should publicly lay hold on Christ, the mob would rise, and lay hold on them, and rescue them. (3.) They left him, and went their way; if they could not do hurt to him, they resolved he should not do good to them, and therefore they got out of the hearing of his powerful preaching, lest they should be converted and healed. Note, If men's prejudices be not conquered by the evidence of truth, they are but confirmed; and if the corruptions of the heart be not subdued by faithful reproofs, they are but enraged and exasperated. If the gospel be not a savour of life unto life, it will be a savour of death unto death.

Matthew Henry: Mar 12:13-17

When the enemies of Christ, who thirsted for his blood, could not find occasion against him from what he said against them, they tried to ensnare him by putting questions to him. Here we have him tempted, or at tempted rather, with a question about the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar. We had this narrative, Mat 22:15.

I. The persons they employed were the Pharisees and the Herodians, men that in this matter were contrary to one another, and yet concurred against Christ, Mar 12:13. The Pharisees were great sticklers for the liberty of the Jews, and, if he should say, It is lawful to give tribute to Caesar, they would incense the common people against him, and the Herodians would, underhand, assist them in it. The Herodians were great sticklers for the Roman power, and, if he should discountenance the paying of tribute to Caesar, they would incense the governor against hum, yea, and the Pharisees, against their own principles, would join with them in it. It is no new thing for those that are at variance in other things, to join in a confederacy against Christ.

II. The pretence they made was, that they desired him to resolve them a case of conscience, which was of great importance in the present juncture; and they take on them to have a high opinion of his ability to resolve it, Mar 12:14. They complimented him at a high rate, called him Master, owned him for a Teacher of the way of God, a Teacher of it in truth, one who taught what was good, and upon principles of truth, who would not be brought by smiles or frowns to depart a step from the rules of equity and goodness; " Thou carest for no man, nor regardest the person of men, thou art not afraid of offending either the jealous prince on one hand, or the jealous people on the other; thou art right, and always in the right, and dost in a right manner declare good and evil, truth and falsehood."If they spoke as they thought concerning Christ, when they said, We know that thou art right, their persecuting him, and putting him to death, as a deceiver, was sin against knowledge; they knew him, and yet crucified him. However, a man's testimony shall be taken most strongly against himself, and out of their own mouths are they judged; they knew that he taught the way of God in truth, and yet rejected the counsel of God against themselves. The professions and pretences of hypocrites will be produced in evidence against them, and they will be self-condemned. But if they did not know or believe it, they lied unto God with their mouth, and flattered him with their tongue.

III. The question they put was, Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? They would be thought desirous to know their duty. As a nation that did righteousness, they ask of God the ordinances of justice, when really they desired nothing but to know what he would say, in hopes that, which side soever he took of the question, they might take occasion from it to accuse him. Nothing is more likely to ensnare ministers, than bringing them to meddle with controversies about civil rights, and to settle land-marks between the prince and the subject, which it is fit should be done, while it is not at all fit that they should have the doing of it. They seemed to refer the determining of this matter to Christ; and he indeed was fit to determine it, for by him kings reign, and princes decree justice; they put the question fairly, Shall we give, or shall we not give? They seemed resolved to stand to his award; "If thou sayest that we must pay tribute, we will do it, thou we be made beggars by it. If thou sayest that we must not, we will not, though we be made traitors for it."Many seemed desirous to do it; as those proud men, Jer 42:20.

IV. Christ determined the question, and evaded the snare, by referring them to their national concessions already made, by which they were precluded from disputing this matter, Mar 12:15-17. He knew their hypocrisy, the malice that was in their hearts against him, while with their mouth they showed all this love. Hypocrisy, though ever so artfully managed, cannot be concealed from the Lord Jesus. He sees the potsherd that is covered with the silver dross. He knew they intended to ensnare him, and therefore contrived the matter so as to ensnare them, and to oblige them by their own words to do what they were unwilling to do, which was, to pay their taxes honestly and quietly, and yet at the same time to screen himself against their exceptions. He made them acknowledge that the current money of their nation was Roman money, had the emperor's image on one side, and his superscription on the reverse; and if so, 1. Caesar might command their money for the public benefit, because he had the custody and conduct of the state, wherein he ought to have his charges borne; Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The circulation of the money is from him as the fountain, and therefore it must return to him. As far as it is his, so far it must be rendered to him; and how far it is his, and may be commanded by him, is to be judged by the constitution of the government, according as it is, and hath settled the prerogative of the prince and the property of the subject. 2. Caesar might not command their consciences, nor did he pretend to it; he offered not to make any alteration in their religion. "Pay your tribute, therefore, without murmuring or disputing, but be sure to render to God the things that are God's. "Perhaps he referred to the parable he had just now put forth, in which he had condemned them for not rendering the fruits to the Lord of the vineyard, Mar 12:2. Many that seem careful to give to men their due, are in no care to give God the glory due to his name; whereas our hearts and best affections are as much due to him as ever rent was to a landlord, or tribute to a prince. All that heard Christ, marvelled at the discretion of his answer, and how ingenuously he avoided the snare; but I doubt none were brought by it, as they ought to be, to render to God themselves and their devotions. Many will commend the wit of a sermon, that will not be commanded by the divine laws of a sermon.

Matthew Henry: Mar 12:18-27

The Sadducees, who were the deists of that age, here attack our Lord Jesus, it should seem, not as the scribes, and Pharisees, and chief-priests, with any malicious design upon his person; they were not bigots and persecutors, but sceptics and infidels, and their design was upon his doctrine, to hinder the spreading of that: they denied that there was any resurrection, and world of spirits, any state of rewards and punishments on the other side of death: now those great and fundamental truths which they denied, Christ had made it his business to establish and prove, and had carried the notion of them much further that ever it was before carried; and therefore they set themselves to perplex his doctrine.

I. See here the method they take to entangle it; they quote the ancient law, by which, if a man died without issue, his brother was obliged to marry his widow, Mar 12:19. They suppose a case to happen that, according to that law, seven brothers were, successively, the husbands of one woman, Mar 12:20. Probably, these Sadducees, according to their wonted profaneness, intended hereby to ridicule that law, and so to bring the whole frame of the Mosaic institution into contempt, as absurd and inconvenient in the practice of it. Those who deny divine truths, commonly set themselves to disparage divine laws and ordinances. But this was only by the by; their design was to expose the doctrine of the resurrection; for they suppose that if there be a future state, it must be such a one as this, and then the doctrine, they think, is clogged either with this invincible absurdity, that a woman in that state must have seven husbands, or else with this insolvable difficulty, whose wife must she be. See with what subtlety these heretics undermine the truth; they do not deny it, nor say, There can be no resurrection; nay, they do not seem to doubt of it, nor say, If there be a resurrection, whose wife shall she be? as the devil to Christ, If thou be the Son of God. But, as though these beasts of the field were more subtle than the serpent himself, they pretend to own the truth, as if they were not Sadducees, no not they; who said that they denied the resurrection? They take it for granted that there is a resurrection, and would be thought to desire instruction concerning it, when really they are designing to give a fatal stab, and think that they shall do it. Note, It is the common artifice of heretics and Sadducees to perplex and entangle the truth, which they have not the impudence to deny.

II. See here the method Christ takes to clear and establish this truth, which they attempted to darken, and give a shock to. This was a matter of moment, and therefore Christ does not pass it over lightly, but enlarges upon it, that, if they should not be reclaimed, yet others might be confirmed.

1. He charges the Sadducees with error, and charges that upon their ignorance. They who banter the doctrine of the resurrection as some do in our age, would be thought the only knowing men, because the only free thinkers, when really they are the fools in Israel, and the most enslaved and, prejudiced thinkers in the world. Do ye not therefore err? Ye cannot but be sensible of it yourselves, and that the cause of your error is, (1.) Because ye do not know the scriptures. Not but that the Sadducees had read the scriptures, and perhaps were ready in them; yet they might be truly said not to know the scriptures, because they did not know the sense and meaning of them, but put false constructions upon them; or they did not receive the scriptures as the word of God, but set up their own corrupt reasonings in opposition to the scripture, and would believe nothing but what they could see. Note, A right knowledge of the scripture, as the fountain whence all revealed religion now flows, and the foundation on which it is built, is the best preservative against error. Keep the truth, the scripture-truth, and it shall keep thee. (2.) Because ye know not the power of God. They could not but know that God is almighty, but they would not apply that doctrine to this matter, but gave up the truth to the objections of the impossibility of it, which would all have been answered, if they had but stuck to the doctrine of God's omnipotence, to which nothing is impossible. This therefore which God hath spoken once, we are concerned to hear twice, to hear and believe, to hear and apply - that power belongs to God, Psa 62:11; Rom 4:19-21. The same power that made soul and body and preserved them while they were together, can preserve the body safe, and the soul active, when they are parted, and can unite them together again; for behold, the Lord's arm is not shortened. The power of God, seen in the return of the spring (Psa 104:30), in the reviving of the corn (Joh 12:24), in the restoring of an abject people to their prosperity (Eze 37:12-14), in the raising of so many to life, miraculously, both in the Old Testament and in the New, and especially in the resurrection of Christ (Eph 1:19, Eph 1:20), are all earnests of our resurrection by the same power (Phi 3:21); according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.

2. He sets aside all the force of their objection, by setting the doctrine of the future state in a true light (Mar 12:25); When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. It is a folly to ask, Whose wife shall she be of the seven? For the relation between husband and wife, though instituted in the earthly paradise, will not be known in the heavenly one. Turks and infidels expect sensual pleasures in their fools' paradise, but Christians know better things - that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1Co 15:50); and expect better things - even a full satisfaction in God's love and likeness (Psa 17:15); they are as the angels of God in heaven, and we know that they have neither wives nor children. It is no wonder if we confound ourselves with endless absurdities, when we measure our ideas of the world of spirits by the affairs of this world of sense.

III. He builds the doctrine of the future state, and of the blessedness of the righteous in that state, upon the covenant of God with Abraham, which God was pleased to own, being after Abraham's death, Mar 12:26, Mar 12:27. He appeals to the scriptures; Have ye not read in the book of Moses? We have some advantage in dealing with those that have read the scriptures, though many that have read them, wrest them, as these Sadducees did, to their own destruction. Now that which he refers them to is, what God says to Moses at the bush, I am the God of Abraham; not only, I was so, but I am so; I am the portion and happiness of Abraham, a God all-sufficient to him. Note, It is absurd to think that God's relation to Abraham should be continued, and thus solemnly recognised, if Abraham was annihilated, or that the living God should be the portion and happiness of a man that is dead, and must be for ever so; and therefore you must conclude, 1. That Abraham's soul exists and acts as a state of separation from the body. 2. That therefore, some time or other, the body must rise again; for there is such an innate inclination in a human soul towards its body, as would make a total and everlasting separation inconsistent with the ease and repose, much more with the bliss and joy of those souls that have the Lord for their God. Upon the whole matter, he concludes, Ye therefore do greatly err. Those that deny the resurrection, greatly err, and ought to be told so.

Matthew Henry: Mar 12:28-34

The scribes and Pharisees were (however bad otherwise) enemies to the Sadducees; now one would have expected that, when they heard Christ argue so well against the Sadducees, they would have countenanced him, as they did Paul when he appeared against the Sadducees (Act 23:9); but it had not the effect: because he did not fall in with them in the ceremonials of religion, he agreeing with them in the essentials, gained him no manner of respect with them. Only we have here an account of one of them, a scribe, who had so much civility in him as to take notice of Christ's answer to the Sadducees, and to own that he had answered well, and much to the purpose (Mar 12:28); and we have reason to hope that he did not join with the other scribes in persecuting Christ; for here we have his application to Christ for instruction, and it was such as became him; not tempting Christ, but desiring to improve his acquaintance with him.

I. He enquired, Which is the first commandment of all? Mar 12:28. He doth not mean the first in order, but the first in weight and dignity; "Which is that command which we ought to have in a special manner an eye to, and our obedience to which will lay a foundation for our obedience to all the rest?"Not that any commandment of God is little (they are all the commands of a great God), but some are greater than others, moral precepts than rituals, and of some we may say, They are the greatest of all.

II. Christ gave him a direct answer to this enquiry, Mar 12:29-31. Those that sincerely desire to be instructed concerning their duty, Christ will guide in judgment, and teach his way. He tells him,

1. That the great commandment of all, which is indeed inclusive of all, is, that of loving God with all our hearts. (1.) Where there is a commanding principle in the soul, there is a disposition to every other duty. Love is the leading affection of the soul; the love of God is the leading grace in the renewed soul. (2.) Where this is not, nothing else that is good is done, or done aright, or accepted, or done long. Loving God with all our heart, will effectually take us off fRom. and arm us against, all those things that are rivals with him for the throne in our souls, and will engage us to every thing by which he may be honoured, and with which he will be pleased; and no commandment will be grievous where this principle commands, and has the ascendant. Now here in, Mark, our Saviour prefixes to this command the great doctrinal truth upon which it is built (Mar 12:29); Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord; if we firmly believe this, it will follow, that we shall love him with all our heart. He is Jehovah, who has all amiable perfections in himself; he is our God, to whom we stand related and obliged; and therefore we ought to love him, to set our affections on him, let out own desire toward him, and take a delight in him; and he is one Lord, therefore he must be loved with our whole heart; he has the sole right to us, and therefore ought to have the sole possession of us. If he be one, our hearts must be one with him, and since there is no God besides, no rival must be admitted with him upon the throne.

2. That the second great commandment is, to love our neighbour as ourselves (Mar 12:31), as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves, and in the same instances, and we must show it by doing as we would be done by. As we must therefore love God better than ourselves, because he is Jehovah, a being infinitely better than we are, and must love him with all our heart, because he is one Lord, and there is no other like him; so we must love our neighbour as ourselves, because he is of the same nature with ourselves; our hearts are fashioned alike, and my neighbour and myself are of one body, of one society, that of the world of mankind; and if a fellow-Christian, and of the same sacred society, the obligation is the stronger. Hath not one God created us? Mal 2:10. Has not one Christ redeemed us? Well might Christ say, There is no other commandment greater than these; for in these all the law is fulfilled, and if we make conscience of obedience to these, all other instances of obedience will follow of course.

III. The scribe consented to what Christ said, and descanted upon it, Mar 12:32, Mar 12:33. 1. He commends Christ's decision of this question; Well, Master, thou hast said the truth. Christ's assertions needed not the scribe's attestations; but this scribe, being a man in authority, thought it would put some reputation upon what Christ said, to have it commended by him; and it shall be brought in evidence against those who persecuted Christ, as a deceiver, that one of themselves, even a scribe of their own, confessed that he said the truth, and said it well. And thus must we subscribe to Christ's sayings, must set to our seal that they are true. 2. He comments upon it. Christ had quoted that great doctrine, that the Lord our God is one Lord; and this he not only assented to, but added, " There is none other but he; and therefore we must have no other God besides."This excludes all rivals with him, and secures the throne in the heart entire for him. Christ had laid down that great law, of loving God with all our hearts; and this also he explains - that it is loving him with the understanding, as those that know what abundant reason we have to love him. Our love to God, as it must be an entire, so it must be an intelligent, love; we must love him with all the understanding, ex holēs tēs suneseōs - out of the whole understanding; our rational powers and faculties must all be set on work to lead out the affections of our souls toward God. Christ has said, "To love God and our neighbour is the greatest commandment of all;""Yea,"saith the scribe, "it is better, it is more than all whole-burnt-offerings and sacrifices, more acceptable to God, and will turn to a better account to ourselves."There were those who held, that the law of sacrifices was the greatest commandment of all; but this scribe readily agreed with our Saviour in this - that the law of love to God and our neighbour is greater than that of sacrifice, even than that of whole-burnt-offerings, which were intended purely for the honour of God.

IV. Christ approved of what he said, and encouraged him to proceed in his enquiries of him, Mar 12:34. 1. He owned that he understood well, as far as he went; so far, so good. Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, and was the more pleased with it, because he had of late met with so many even of the scribes, men of letters, that answered indiscreetly, as those that had no understanding, nor desired to have any. He answered nounechōs - as one that had a mind; as a rational intelligent man, as one that had his wits about him; as one whose reason was not blinded, whose judgment was not biassed, and whose forethought was not fettered, by the prejudices which other scribes were so much under the power of. He answered as one that allowed himself liberty and leisure to consider, as one that had considered. 2. He owned that he stood fair for a further advance; " Thou art not far from the kingdom of God, the kingdom of grace and glory; thou art in a likely way to be a Christian, a disciple of Christ. For the doctrine of Christ insists most upon these things, and is designed, and has a tendency direct, to bring thee to this."Note, There is hope of those who make a good use of the light they have, and go as far as that will carry them, that by the grace of God they will be led further, by the clearer discoveries God has to make to them. What became of this scribe we are not told, but would willingly hope that he took the hint Christ hereby gave him, and that, having been told by him, so much to his satisfaction, what was the great commandment of the law, he proceeded to enquire of him, or his apostles, what was the great commandment of the gospel too. Yet, if he did not, but took, up here, and went no further, we are not to think it strange; for there are many who are not far from the kingdom of God, and yet never come thither. Now, one would think, this should have invited many to consult him: but it had a contrary effect; No man, after that, durst ask him any question; every thing he said, was spoken with such authority and majesty, that every one stood in awe of him; those that desired to learn, were ashamed to ask, and those that designed to cavil, were afraid to ask.

Barclay: Mar 12:1-12

We said that a parable must never be treated as an allegory, and that a meaning must not be sought for every detail. Originally Jesus' parables were not meant to be read but to be spoken and their meaning was that which flashed out when first they were heard. But to some extent this parable is an exception. It is a kind of hybrid, a cross between an allegory and a parable. Not all the details have an inner meaning, but more than usual have. And this is because Jesus was talking in pictures which were part and parcel of Jewish thought and imagery.

The owner of the vineyard is God; the vineyard itself is the people of Israel. This was a picture with which the Jews were perfectly familiar. In the Old Testament it is vividly used in Isa 5:1-7, a passage from which some of the details and the language of this passage are taken. This vineyard was given every equipment. There was a wall to mark out its boundaries, to keep out robbers and to defend it from the assaults of the wild boars. There was a wine vat. In a vineyard there was a wine press in which the grapes were trodden down with the feet. Beneath the wine press was a wine vat into which the pressed-out juice flowed. There was a tower. In this the wine was stored, the cultivators had their lodging, and from this watch was kept for robbers at harvest time. The cultivators stand for the rulers of Israel throughout the history of the nation. The servants whom the owner sent stand for the prophets. Servant or slave of God is a regular title. So Moses was called (Jos 14:7). So David was called (2Sa 3:18). And the title occurs regularly in the books of the prophets (Amo 3:7, Jer 7:25, Zec 1:6). The son is Jesus himself. Even on the spur of the moment the hearers could have made these identifications because the thoughts and the pictures were all so familiar to them.

The story itself is of what might well happen in Palestine in the time of Jesus. The country had much labour unrest and many absentee landlords. The owner of such a vineyard might be a Jew who had sought a more comfortable land than Palestine, or he might be a Roman who regarded the vineyard as an investment for his money. If the owner followed the law, the first time for collecting the rental would be five years after the planting of the vineyard (Lev 19:23-25). In such a case the rental was paid in kind. It might be a fixed and agreed percentage of the crop, or it might be a stated amount, irrespective of what the crop came to. The story is by no means improbable and tells of the kind of thing which did actually happen.

The parable is so full of truths that we can note them only in the briefest way.

It tells us certain things about God.

(i) It tells us of the generosity of God. The vineyard was equipped with everything that was necessary to make the work of the cultivators easy and profitable. God is generous in the life and in the world that he gives to men.

(ii) It tells us of the trust of God. The owner went away and left the cultivators to run the vineyard themselves. God trusts us enough to give us freedom to run life as we choose. As someone has said, "The lovely thing about God is that he allows us to do so much for ourselves."

(iii) It tells us of the patience of God. Not once or twice but many times the master gave the cultivators the chance to pay the debt they owed. He treated them with a patience they little deserved.

(iv) It tells us of the ultimate triumph of the justice of God. Men might take advantage of the patience of God, but in the end comes judgment and justice. God may bear long with disobedience and rebellion but in the end he acts.

This parable tells us something about Jesus.

(i) It tells us that Jesus regarded himself not as a servant but as a son. He deliberately removes himself from the succession of the prophets. They were servants. He was son. In him God's last and final word was being spoken. This parable was a deliberate challenge to the Jewish authorities because it contains the unmistakable claim of Jesus to be Messiah.

(ii) It tells us that Jesus knew that he was to die. The Cross did not come to him as a surprise. He knew that the way he had chosen could have no other ending. It is the greatness of his courage that he knew that and still went on.

(iii) It tells us that Jesus was sure of his ultimate triumph. He also knew that he would be maltreated and killed, but he also knew that would not be the end, that after the rejection would come the glory.

This parable tells us something about man.

(i) There could be only one reason why the cultivators thought they could kill the son and then enter into possession of the vineyard. They must have thought that the owner was too far away to act, or that he was dead and out of the reckoning. Men still think they can act against God and get away with it. But God is very much alive. Men seek to trade on their own freedom and his patience, but the day of reckoning comes.

(ii) If a man refuses his privileges and his responsibilities, they pass on to someone else. The parable has in it the whole germ of what was to come--the rejection of the Jews and the passing of their privileges and responsibilities to the Gentiles.

The parable closes with an Old Testament quotation which became very dear to the Church. The quotation about the stone that was rejected is from Psa 118:22-23. The rejected stone had become the stone that bound the corners of the building together, the keystone of the arch, the most important stone of all. This passage fascinated the early Christian writers. It is quoted or referred to in Act 4:11, 1Pe 2:4, 1Pe 2:7, Rom 9:32-33, Eph 2:20. Originally, in the Psalm, the reference was to the people of Israel. The great nations which had thought of themselves as architects of the structure of the world had regarded the people of Israel as unimportant and unhonoured. But, as the Psalmist saw it, the nation which had been regarded as of no importance would, some day, in God's economy, become the greatest nation in the world. The Christian writers saw in the Psalmist's dream something which was perfectly fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Barclay: Mar 12:13-17

There is history behind this shrewd question, and bitter history too. Herod the Great had ruled all Palestine as a Roman tributary king. He had been loyal to the Romans and they had respected him and given him a great deal of freedom. When he died in 4 B.C. he divided his kingdom into three. To Herod Antipas he gave Galilee and Peraea. To Herod Philip he gave the wild district up in the north-east round Trachonitis and Ituraea and Abilene. To Archelaus he gave the south country including Judaea and Samaria.

Antipas and Philip soon settled in and on the whole ruled wisely and well. But Archelaus was a complete failure. The result was that in A.D. 6 the Romans had to step in and introduce direct rule. Things were so unsatisfactory that southern Palestine could no longer be left as a semi-independent tributary kingdom. It had to become a province governed by a procurator.

Roman provinces fell into two classes. Those which were peaceful and required no troops were governed by the senate and ruled by proconsuls. Those which were trouble-centres and required troops were the direct sphere of the Emperor and were governed by procurators. Southern Palestine fell naturally into the second category and tribute was in fact paid direct to the Emperor.

The first act of the governor, Cyrenius, was to take a census of the country, in order that he might make proper provision for fair taxation and general administration. The calmer section of the people accepted this as an inevitable necessity. But one Judas the Gaulonite raised violent opposition. He thundered that "taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery." He called on the people to rise, and said that God would favour them only if they resorted to all the violence they could muster. He took the high ground that for the Jews God was the only ruler. The Romans dealt with Judas with their customary efficiency, but his battle-cry never died out. "No tribute to the Romans," became a rallying cry of the more fanatical Jewish patriots.

The actual taxes imposed were three.

(i) A ground tax, which consisted of one-tenth of all the grain and one-fifth of the wine and fruit produced. This was paid partly in kind and partly in money.

(ii) An income tax which amounted to one per cent of a man's income.

(iii) A poll tax, which was levied on all men from fourteen to sixty-five and on all women from twelve to sixty-five. This poll tax was one denarius, roughly 31 pence per head. It was the tax which everyone had to pay simply for the privilege of existing.

The approach of the Pharisees and Herodians was very subtle. They began with flattery. That flattery was designed to do two things. It was designed to disarm the suspicions that Jesus might have had; and to make it impossible for him to avoid giving an answer without losing his reputation completely.

In view of all the circumstances the question which the Pharisees and Herodians put to Jesus was a masterpiece of cunning. They must have thought that they had him impaled on the horns of a completely inescapable dilemma. If he said that it was lawful to pay tribute, his influence with the populace would be gone forever, and he would be regarded as a traitor and a coward. If he said that it was not lawful to pay tribute, they could report him to the Romans and have him arrested as a revolutionary. They must have been sure that they had Jesus in a trap from which there was no escape.

Jesus said, "Show me a denarius." We may note in the passing that he himself did not possess even one coin of his own. He asked whose image was on it. The image would be that of Tiberius, the reigning emperor. All the emperors were. called Caesar. Round the coin there would be the title which declared that this was the coin "of Tiberius Caesar, the divine Augustus, son of Augustus," and on the reverse would be the title "pontifex maximus," "the high priest of the Roman nation."

We must understand the ancient view of coinage if this incident is to be intelligible. In regard to coinage the ancient peoples held three consistent principles.

(i) Coinage is the sign of power. When anyone conquered a nation or was a successful rebel, the first thing he did was to issue his own coinage. That and that alone was the final guarantee of kingship and power.

(ii) Where the coin was valid the king's power held good. A king's sway was measurable by the area in which his coins were valid currency.

(iii) Because a coin had the king's head and inscription on it, it was held, at least in some sense, to be his personal property. Jesus' answer therefore was, "By using the coinage of Tiberius you in any event recognize his political power in Palestine. Apart altogether from that, the coinage is his own because it has his name on it. By giving it to him you give him what is in any event his own. Give it to him but remember that there is a sphere in life which belongs to God and not to Caesar."

Never did any man lay down a more influential principle. It conserved at one and the same time the civil and the religious power. Rawlinson reminds us that Lord Acton, the great historian, said of this, "Those words...gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed and bounds it had never acknowledged, and they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of freedom." At one and the same time these words asserted the rights of the state and the liberty of conscience.

On the whole the New Testament lays down three great principles with regard to the individual Christian and the state.

(i) The state is ordained by God. Without the laws of the state life would be chaos. Men cannot live together unless they agree to obey the laws of living together. Without the state there is many a valuable service no man could enjoy. No individual man could have his own water supply, his own sewage system, his own transport system, his own social security organization. The state is the origin of many of the things which make life livable.

(ii) No man can accept all the benefits which the state gives him and then opt out of all the responsibilities. It is beyond question that the Roman government brought to the ancient world a sense of security it never had before. For the most part, except in certain notorious areas, the seas were cleared of pirates and the roads of brigands, civil wars were changed for peace and capricious tyranny for Roman impartial justice. As E. J. Goodspeed wrote, "It was the glory of the Roman Empire that it brought peace to a troubled world. Under its sway the regions of Asia Minor and the East enjoyed tranquillity and security to an extent and for a length of time unknown before and probably since. This was the pax Romana. The provincial, under Roman sway, found himself in a position to conduct his business, provide for his family, send his letters, and make his journeys in security, thanks to the strong hand of Rome." It is still true that no man can honourably receive all the benefits which living in a state confers upon him and then opt out of all the responsibilities of citizenship.

(iii) But there is a limit. E. A. Abbott has a suggestive thought. The coin had Caesar's image upon it, and therefore belonged to Caesar. Man has God's image upon him--God created man in his own image (Gen 1:26-27)--and therefore belongs to God. The inevitable conclusion is that, if the state remains within its proper boundaries and makes its proper demands, the individual must give it his loyalty and his service; but in the last analysis both state and man belong to God, and therefore, should their claims conflict, loyalty to God comes first. But it remains true, that, in all ordinary circumstances, a man's Christianity should make him a better citizen than any other man.

Barclay: Mar 12:18-27

This is the only time in Mark's gospel that the Sadducees appear, and their appearance is entirely characteristic of them. The Sadducees were not a large Jewish party. They were aristocratic and wealthy. They included most of the priests; the office of high priest was regularly held by a Sadducee. Being the wealthy and aristocratic party, they were not unnaturally collaborationist, for they wished to retain their comforts and their privileges. It was from them came those who were prepared to collaborate with the Romans in the government of the country.

They differed very widely from the Pharisees in certain matters. First, they accepted only the written scriptures and attached more importance to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, than to all the rest. They did not accept the mass of oral law and tradition, the rules and regulations which were so dear to the Pharisees. It was on the written Mosaic Law that they took their stand. Second, they did not believe in immortality, nor in spirits and angels. They said that in the early books of the Bible there was no evidence for immortality, and they did not accept it.

So the Sadducees came to Jesus with a test question designed to make the belief in individual resurrection look ridiculous. The Jewish Law had an institution called levirate marriage. Its regulations are laid down in Deu 25:5-10. If a group of brothers lived together--that is a point that is omitted in the Sadducees' quotation of the law--and if one of them died and left no issue, it was the duty of the next to take his brother's widow as wife and to raise up issue to his brother. Theoretically this would go on so long as there were brothers left and so long as no child was born. When a child was born, the child was held to be the offspring of the original husband.

It is clear that the whole point of this law was to ensure two things--first, that the family name continued, and second, that the property remained within the family. As a matter of fact, strange as the matter seems to us, there were certain not dissimilar regulations in Greek law. If a Greek father had a considerable estate and had only a daughter, she, being a woman, could not inherit direct. Either her husband or her son would be the direct heir. But if the daughter was unmarried the father could leave his property and his daughter to anyone he chose. Such a person, in order to inherit the property, had to marry the heiress, even if he had to divorce an already existing wife to do so. And, if in such circumstances, a father died without making a will, the nearest relation could claim the heiress daughter as his wife. It is the same principle again. The whole thing is designed to maintain the family and to retain the property within the family.

The question that the Sadducees asked, therefore, may have presented an exaggerated case, with the story of the seven brothers, but it was a question founded on a well-known Jewish law.

The question of the Sadducees was simply this--if, in accordance with the regulations governing levirate marriage, one woman has been married in turn to seven brothers, if there is a resurrection of the dead, whose wife is she when that resurrection comes? They thought that by asking that question they rendered the idea of resurrection completely ridiculous.

Jesus' answer really falls into two parts.

First, he deals with what we might call the manner of the resurrection. He lays it down that when a person rises again, the old laws of physical life no longer obtain. The risen are like the angels and physical things like marrying and being married no longer enter into the case. Jesus was saying nothing new. In Enoch the promise is, "Ye shall have great joy as the angels of heaven." In the Apocalypse of Baruch it is said that the righteous shall be made "like unto the angels." And the rabbinic writings themselves said that in the life to come "there is no eating and drinking, no begetting of children, no bargaining, jealousy, hatred and strife, but that the righteous sit with crowns on their heads, and are satisfied with the glory of God." It is Jesus' point that the life to come cannot be thought of in terms of this life at all.

Second, he deals with the fact of the resurrection. Here he meets the Sadducees on their own ground. They insisted that in the Pentateuch, by which they set so much store, there was no evidence for immortality. From the Pentateuch Jesus draws his proof. In Exo 3:6, God call himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. If God is the God of these patriarchs even yet, it means that they must still be alive, for the living God must be the God of living people, and not of of those who are dead. And if the patriarchs are alive then the resurrection is proved. On their own grounds, and with an argument to which they could find no answer, Jesus defeated the Sadducees.

This passage may seem to deal with a matter which is recondite and remote. It is an argument on terms which are out of the orbit of our experience. In spite of that two eternally valid truths emerge.

(i) The Sadducees made the mistake of creating heaven in the image of earth. Men have always done so. The Red Indians, who were by nature hunters, conceived of a heaven which was a happy hunting ground. The Vikings, who were by nature warriors, thought of a Valhalla where they would fight all day, where at night the dead would be raised and the wounded made whole again, and they would spend the evening in banquets, drinking wine from cups made from the skulls of their conquered foes. The Mohammedans were a desert people living in circumstances where luxury was unknown. They conceived of heaven as a place where men would live a life replete with every sensual and bodily pleasure. The Jews hated the sea and thought of heaven as a place where there would be no more sea. All men shrank from sorrow and from pain, and heaven would be a place where the tears were wiped from every eye and there would be no more pain.

Always men have tended to create in thought a heaven to suit themselves. Sometimes that idea can be poignantly beautiful. During the 1914-18 war The Westminster Gazette printed a lovely little poem about those who had died for their country:

"They left the fury of the fight,

And they were tired.

The gates of heaven were open quite,

Unguarded and unwired.

There was no sound of any gun,

The land was still and green,

Wide hills lay silent in the sun,

Blue valleys slept between.

They saw far off a little wood

Stand up against the sky.

Knee deep in grass a great tree stood,

Some lazy cows went by.

There were some rooks sailed overhead,

And once a church ben pealed.

'God, but it's England!' someone said,

'And there's a cricket field'."

There is wistful beauty there and real truth. But we do well to remember that Paul was right (1Co 2:9) when he took the words of the prophet (Isa 64:4) and made them his own, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him." The life of the heavenly places will be greater than any conception this life can supply.

(ii) In the end Jesus based his conviction of the resurrection on the fact that the relationship between God and a good man is one that nothing can break. God was the friend of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when they lived. That friendship could not cease with death. "God," as Loisy said, "cannot cease to be the God of those who served him and loved him." As the Psalmist said, "I am continually with thee. Thou dost hold my right hand. Thou dost guide me with thy counsel and afterward thou wilt receive me to glory." (Psa 73:23-24.) He cannot conceive of his relationship with God ever being broken.

In a word, there is only one immortal thing--and that is love.

Barclay: Mar 12:28-34

No love was lost between the expert in the law and the Sadducees. The profession of the scribes was to interpret the law in all its many rules and regulations. Their trade was to know and to apply the oral law, while, as we have seen, the Sadducee did not accept the oral law at all. The expert in the law would no doubt be well satisfied with the discomfiture of the Sadducees.

This scribe came to Jesus with a question which was often a matter of debate in the rabbinic schools. In Judaism there was a kind of double tendency. There was the tendency to expand the law limitlessly into hundreds and thousands of rules and regulations. But there was also the tendency to try to gather up the law into one sentence, one general statement which would be a compendium of its whole message. Hillel was once asked by a proselyte to instruct him in the whole law while he stood on one leg. Hillel's answer was, "What thou hatest for thyself, do not to thy neighbour. This is the whole law, the rest is commentary. Go and learn." Akiba had already said, " 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'--this is the greatest, general principle in the law." Simon the Righteous had said, "On three things stands the world--on the law, on the worship, and on works of love."

Sammlai had taught that Moses received 613 precepts on Mount Sinai, 365 according to the days of the sun year, and 248 according to the generations of men. David reduced the 613 to 11 in Ps 15 .

Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent? who shall dwell on thy holy

hill?

1. He who walks blamelessly.

2. And does what is right.

3. And speaks truth from his heart.

4. Who does not slander with his tongue.

5. And does no evil to his friend.

6. Nor takes up a reproach against his neighbour.

7. In whose eyes a reprobate is despised.

8. But who honours those who fear the Lord.

9. Who swears to his own heart and does not change.

10. Who does not put out his money at interest.

11. And does not take a bribe against the innocent.

Isaiah reduced them to 6. (Isa 33:15.)

1. He who walks righteously.

2. And speaks uprightly.

3. Who despises the gain of oppressions.

4. Who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe.

5. Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed.

6. And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil.

He shall dwell on high.

Micah reduced the 6 to 3. (Mic 6:8.)

He hath showed thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the

Lord require of thee?

1. To do justice.

2. To love kindness.

3. To walk humbly with your God.

Once again Isaiah brought the 3 down to 2. (Isa 56:1.)

1. Keep justice.

2. Do righteousness.

Finally Habakkuk reduced them all to one. (Hab 2:4.)

The righteous shall live by his faith.

It can be seen that rabbinic ingenuity did try to contract as well as to expand the law. There were really two schools of thought. There were those who believed that there were lighter and weightier matters of the law, that there were great principles which were all-important to grasp. As Augustine later said, "Love God--and do what you like." But there were others who were much against this, who held that every smallest principle was equally binding and that to try to distinguish between their relative importance was highly dangerous. The expert who asked Jesus this question was asking about something which was a living issue in Jewish thought and discussion.

For answer Jesus took two great commandments and put them together.

(i) "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." That single sentence is the real creed of Judaism (Deu 6:4). It had three uses. It is called the Shema. Shema is the imperative of the Hebrew verb to hear (compare 08085), and it is so called from the first word in the sentence.

(a) It was the sentence with which the service of the synagogue always began and still begins. The full Shema is Deu 6:4-9, Deu 11:13-21, Num 15:37-41. It is the declaration that God is the only God, the foundation of Jewish monotheism.

(b) The three passages of the Shema were contained in the phylacteries (Mat 23:5), little leather boxes which the devout Jew wore on his forehead and on his wrist when he was at prayer. As he prayed he reminded himself of his creed. His warrant for wearing phylacteries he found in Deu 6:8.

© The Shema was contained in a little cylindrical box called the Mezuzah (compare 04201) which was and still is affixed to the door of every Jewish house and the door of every room within it, to remind the Jew of God in his going out and his coming in.

When Jesus quoted this sentence as the first commandment, every devout Jew would agree with him.

(ii) "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." That is a quotation from Lev 19:18. Jesus did one thing with it. In its original context it has to do with a man's fellow Jew. It would not have included the Gentile, whom it was quite permissible to hate. But Jesus quoted it without qualification and without limiting boundaries. He took an old law and fined it with a new meaning.

The new thing that Jesus did was to put these two commandments together. No rabbi had ever done that before. There is only one suggestion of connection previously. Round about 100 B.C. there was composed a series of tractates called The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in which an unknown writer put into the mouths of the patriarchs some very fine teaching. In The Testament of Issachar (5:2) we read:

"Love the Lord and love your neighbour,

Have compassion on the poor and weak."

In the same testament (7:6) we read:

"I loved the Lord,

Likewise also every man with my whole heart."

In The Testament of Dan (Dan 5:3) we read:

"Love the Lord through all your life,

And one another with a true heart"

But no one until Jesus put the two commandments together and made them one. Religion to him was loving God and loving men. He would have said that the only way in which a man can prove that he loves God is by showing that he loves men.

The scribe willingly accepted this, and went on to say that such a love was better than all sacrifices. In that he was in line with the highest thought of his people. Long, long ago Samuel had said, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1Sa 15:22.) Hosea had heard God say, "I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice." (Hos 6:6.)

But it is always easy to let ritual take the place of love. It is always easy to let worship become a matter of the Church building instead of a matter of the whole life. The priest and the levite could pass by the wounded traveller because they were eager to get on with the ritual of the temple. This scribe had risen beyond his contemporaries and that is why he found himself in sympathy with Jesus.

There must have been a look of love in Jesus' eyes, and a look of appeal as he said to him, "You have gone so far. Will you not come further and accept my way of things? Then you will be a true citizen of the Kingdom."

Constable: Mar 11:1--13:37

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11--13

The rest of Jesus' ministry, as Mark recorded it, took place in and around Jerusalem. Chapters 11-13 present Jesus' ministry before His passion. It consisted of Jesus' formal presentation to the nation (11:1-26), His teaching in the temple area (11:27-12:44), and His eschatological discourse to the disciples (ch. 13).

Constable: Mar 11:27--13:1

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

This entire section contains Jesus' teaching in the temple courtyard on Wednesday. The religious leaders first questioned Jesus' authority (11:12-12:12) and then His teaching (12:13-37). Finally Jesus condemned their hypocrisy and commended a widow's action that demonstrated reality (12:38-44). Jesus functioned as a faithful servant of the Lord in the role of a prophet here.

Constable: Mar 11:27--12:13

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

This controversy consisted of a discussion with the religious leaders over John the Baptist's authority (11:27-33) followed by a parable that illustrated the religious leaders' irresponsibility (12:1-12).

Constable: Mar 12:1-12

The parable of the wicked tenant farmers 12:1-12 (cf. Matt. 21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19)

"The other major example of the concentric [chiastic] pattern in Mark's story [beside 2:1-3:6] is the series of Jesus' conflicts with the authorities in Jerusalem [ch. 12], comprised of seven episodes: Episodes A and A1 involve Jesus' statement of judgment against the authorities (the riddle of the wicked tenants and the warning against the scribes). Episodes B and B1 include a quotation from the psalms followed by a reaction to that citation (the quotations about the cornerstone and David's son); and episodes C and C1 are both legal discussions about love for God and neighbor (Caesar and God, and love for God and neighbor). Episode D is the central episode; its topic is the resurrection, and its theme illuminates all the episodes: the failure of the authorities to understand either the writings or the power of God."²⁸³

Matthew's account of this parable is fuller than Mark's because Matthew evidently wanted to show the Jews how wicked and irresponsible their leaders were. Mark probably included the story because it contrasts the behavior of Israel's official servants, the religious leaders, with God's Servant, Jesus.

12:1 Jesus addressed this parable to all the people present (Luke 20:9) but the religious leaders particularly. The man in the parable represents God, the vineyard is Israel (Ps. 80:8-19; Jer. 2:21), and the tenants are Israel's leaders. The parable develops the scene presented in Isaiah 5:1-2 that is part of a prophecy of God's judgment on Israel (cf. Ps. 80:8-16). God spared no expense or effort to make Israel a choice nation. He had left Israel on its own, so to speak, after He had established the nation.

12:2-5 The harvest time stands for the time when God expected to obtain some reward for His investment in Israel. The servants represent the prophets whom Israel's leaders typically rejected, persecuted, and even in some cases murdered. The main point of the parable is the wicked treatment Israel's leaders had given the servants whom God had sent to them.

12:6-8 The sending of the owner's son constituted the supreme test for the tenant farmers. Evidently the tenant farmers in the parable believed that the owner of the vineyard had died and that he had only one son who was his heir. They reasoned that if they killed the son there would be no one else to inherit the vineyard and they could retain control of it. The tenants evidently threw the son out of the vineyard and then killed him (Matt. 21:39; Luke 20:15). Mark's order of events (v. 8) shows that his murder was also an act of rejection.²⁸⁴

The religious leaders certainly behaved as though God was dead. He really had only one uniquely beloved Son (cf. 1:11; 9:7).

12:9 The tenant farmers' rejection of the owner's son was really a rejection of the owner. His logical reaction would be to remove them and give the care of his vineyard to other tenants. Likewise God would remove Israel's leaders and replace them with other leaders, leaders of the church.

"This prediction was fulfilled in the church where the spiritual leadership became entrusted mainly to those of Gentile origin. But the determining factor is their faithfulness, not their national origin."²⁸⁵

12:10-11 Jesus carried His revelation concerning the fate of the Son further by referring to this psalm. This is the same psalm the crowds chanted at the Triumphal Entry (11:9; cf. Ps. 118:22-23). The stone in view is probably the capstone for the building that God is building. In its original use, the stone represented Israel. Here Jesus made Himself the stone (cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7). The Father's reversal of the Son's fate elicited wonder from the beholders because it was an unexpected turn of events that demonstrated divine sovereignty.

It appears that Israel's leaders rejected the Stone that was to be the capstone to complete Israel, God's temple, through which He would work to bring blessing to all mankind (Gen. 12:3). The Stone rejected has become, not the capstone, but the most important Stone in the foundation of a new temple that God is now building, namely the church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4-10). After God removes the church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:13-18), the Stone will return to the earth (Rev. 19:11-16), and Israel will accept Him (Zech. 12:10). Then He will complete Israel (Isa. 59:20), and Israel will, during the millennium, function as the temple that God intended her to be (Dan. 7:22). He will then bring blessing to the whole earth through Israel.

12:12 The meaning of Jesus' parable was clear to the religious leaders. Jesus had exposed their murderous plot to kill Him. The favor of the multitude shielded Jesus from their wrath temporarily.

Jesus' claims to being God's beloved Son were becoming increasingly clear to everyone. As they became clearer, opposition from Israel's leaders intensified.

Constable: Mar 12:13-37

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

Controversy over Jesus' authority led to controversy over His teaching. The Jewish religious leaders attacked Him three times trying to destroy His credibility and popularity. They plied Him with questions about the poll tax (vv. 13-17), the resurrection (vv. 18-27), and the greatest commandment (vv. 28-34). Then Jesus took the initiative and questioned them about Messiah's sonship (vv. 35-37). This ended their attacks. The whole encounter happened on Wednesday following the events just recorded.

Constable: Mar 12:13-17

Jesus' teaching about the poll tax 12:13-17 (cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26)

12:13 Sanhedrin members took the initiative in sending the Pharisees and Herodians. They united against Jesus, whom they perceived as a common threat, even though they disagreed politically. They asked Jesus about a political issue that divided them.

12:14-15a The critics' preamble was hypocritical flattery, but what they said about Jesus was true. They intended to impale Jesus on the horns of a dilemma.²⁸⁶ Since Judea had become a Roman province in 6 A.D. the Romans had required the Jews to pay a yearly head (poll) tax into the emperor's treasury. The Zealots refused to pay it claiming that payment acknowledged Rome's right to rule over them. The Pharisees paid it but objected strongly to it. The Herodians paid it willingly since they supported Roman rule.

Jesus' critics asked Him what was the right or lawful thing to do. In their eyes Messiah would never sanction foreign rule, but if Jesus publicly opposed Rome He would be in a dangerous position. They thought that either answer would hurt Jesus.

12:15b-16 Jesus exposed their question for what it was, malicious entrapment rather than honest inquiry. The small silver denarius was the only coin the Romans accepted in payment for taxes.²⁸⁷ The images on the coin showed that Rome had political authority over those who used it.

12:17 Jesus avoided the "either or" problem with a "both and" response. God has authority over those who bear His image. Therefore the Jews should give Him His due, namely complete personal submission. Caesar also had some authority over those who used his image. Therefore the Jews should pay their tax.

"Though the obligation to pay to Caesar some of his own coinage in return for the amenities his rule provided is affirmed, the idolatrous claims expressed on the coins are rejected. God's rights are to be honored. Here Jesus is not saying that there are two quite separate independent spheres, that of Caesar and that of God (for Caesar and all that is his belongs to God); but he is indicating that there are obligations to Caesar which do not infringe the rights of God but are indeed ordained by God."²⁸⁸

This answer amazed (Gr. exethaumazon) Jesus' critics. He had avoided the trap they had laid for Him and had given a profound though simple answer to their question.

This teaching would have been specially helpful to Mark's original Roman readers. It helped them and all subsequent disciples understand that Christianity does not advocate disloyalty to the state (cf. Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). Duty to God does not eliminate duty to government. Nevertheless duty to government does not eliminate one's higher duty to God either.

Constable: Mar 12:18-27

Jesus' teaching about the resurrection 12:18-27 (cf. Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40)

12:18 The Sadducees were mainly urban, wealthy, and educated Jews. Their numbers were comparatively few, but they occupied important positions including many in the priesthood. Their influence was greater than their size as a party within Judaism. This is the only place Mark mentioned them. They claimed to believe only what the Old Testament taught, and they did not follow the traditions of the elders that the Pharisees observed. They did not believe in the resurrection because they said they could find no clear revelation about it in the Old Testament.

12:19-23 The Sadducees posed their hypothetical case to make any view of the resurrection but their own look absurd.²⁸⁹

12:24-25 The Sadducees did not understand the Scriptural revelation about resurrection. Furthermore they did not realize that God's power was sufficient to raise people and to raise them to a different type of life. Marriage as we know it will not exist when we have immortal bodies. Deathless existence will not require propagation of the human race. The Sadducees denied the existence of the angelic race (Acts 23:8), which belief Jesus also corrected. They considered their views enlightened, but Jesus said they needed enlightening.

12:26-27 In concluding that the Old Testament did not teach the resurrection, the Sadducees had overlooked an important passage in the Torah (Pentateuch). They regarded the Torah as particularly authoritative. Exodus 3:6 taught continued human existence after death. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in Moses' day. The Sadducees not only rejected the resurrection but also life after death.²⁹⁰ The Jews had a more holistic view of man than most modern westerners do (cf. Gen. 2:7). The Sadducees concluded that if the material part of man died, the whole person ceased to exist. Jesus, who held the same unified view of man, argued that if the immaterial part of man lived the whole person would live.

The major error of the Sadducees was their mistaken understanding of scriptural revelation. Jesus' final rebuke (v. 27), unique in the second Gospel, stressed that flaw.

Constable: Mar 12:28-34

Jesus' teaching about the greatest commandment 12:28-34 (cf. Matt. 22:34-40)

The third attack by Jesus' enemies involved a question about the greatest commandment (cf. Luke 10:25-28).

12:28 The rabbis counted 613 commands in the Mosaic Law, 365 positive and 248 negative. They recognized that all were not equally important or equally foundational. They debated which were the "heavy" commands and which were the "light" ones. They also tried to formulate principles that comprehended the rest of the Law.²⁹¹ These were the concerns of the law teacher who asked Jesus what type (Gr. poia) of command He regarded as first in importance.

"The scribe desired Jesus to indicate a principle of classification."²⁹²

Matthew viewed his question as coming from the scribe who spoke as a spokesman for the Pharisees whereas Mark presented it as his personal concern. This difference reflects Mark's interest in individuals.

12:29-30 Mark's account included Deuteronomy 6:4, which Matthew omitted. This verse, the first in the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5; cf. Deut. 11:13-21; Num. 13:37-41) that the Jews repeated twice daily, provides a basis for Deuteronomy 6:5.²⁹³ Matthew's Jewish readers would have understood this, but Mark's Gentile readers probably would not have. Verse 4 is an affirmation of belief in the unity of God (i.e., in monotheism). Many of Mark's original readers had formerly been polytheists.

"God is to be loved completely and totally (v. 30) because he, and he alone, is God and because he has made a covenant of love with his people. In the covenant God gives himself totally in love to his people; therefore he expects his people to give themselves totally (soul,' mind,' and strength') in love to him."²⁹⁴

"Heart" represents the control center of human personality, "soul" the self-conscious thought life, "mind" the thought capacity, and "strength" all of one's bodily powers.²⁹⁵ These are to be the sources out of which love for God should flow. We should love God with all our will (decisions), emotions (desires), minds (thoughts), and bodies (actions).

"A comparison of the order--heart, soul, mind (Matthew); heart, soul, mind, strength (Mark); heart, soul, strength, mind (Luke); heart, soul, strength (the Masoretic Text); and mind, soul, strength (the Septuagint)--among the various lists suggests that Mark and Luke added mind' to the Hebrew/Septuagintal formula whereas Matthew substituted mind' for strength.'"²⁹⁶

12:31 The scribe had requested one commandment, but Jesus gave him two. Love for man in Leviticus 19:18 grows out of love for God in Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and is inseparable from it philosophically. The Jews regarded only fellow Jews and full proselytes as their neighbors, but Jesus taught that a neighbor is anyone with whom we have any dealings whatsoever (cf. Luke 10:25-27). "Neighbor" (Gr. plesion, lit. one nearby) is a generic term for fellowman.

We are to love all others as we love ourselves. The Law assumed that every person has a fundamental love for himself or herself. We demonstrate this love by caring for ourselves in many different ways. Loving our neighbors as ourselves does not mean spending the same time or money to meet the needs of others that we do to meet our own needs since this would be impossible. It means treating others as we treat ourselves.

These are the greatest commandments because they summarize the two tables of the Law, our duties toward God and our responsibilities toward other people. These are basic human responsibilities. The termination of the Mosaic Code does not invalidate them. They have been primary since creation and will continue as such forever because of man's relationship to God and because of the unity of the human race.

12:32-33 Mark alone recorded the scribe's response and Jesus' comment (v. 34). These words underscore the importance of Jesus' teaching. The scribe believed Jesus' answer was correct. He, too, viewed love as more important than the observance of religious ritual (cf. 1 Sam. 15:22; Hos. 6:6). This was not typical of the Pharisees who regarded ritual observance as more important than attitude, and ceremony as more important than morality.

". . . the friendly scribe' himself puts his finger on the fundamental difference separating Jesus and the religious authorities in terms of what it is to do the will of God: Whereas the essential matter for Jesus is loving God and neighbor, for the authorities it is strict adherence to law and tradition as they define this.

". . . Mark is in effect using the friendly scribe to identify the two contrasting positions of Jesus and the authorities on doing the will of God."²⁹⁷

12:34 Jesus meant that the scribe was not far from entering the kingdom. His openness to Scriptural revelation and his positive orientation to Jesus, if continued, would bring him to faith in Jesus and ultimately entrance into His kingdom.

Jesus' skillful answers discouraged His critics from trying to trap Him. They stopped asking Him questions.

It was clear that Jesus' derived His authority from God's Word (cf. 11:28). All the answers He gave went back to the Old Testament. Since this is the authority all the Jewish leaders claimed to follow, though they did not, they failed to discredit Jesus.

College: Mar 12:1-44

MARK 12

2. The Parable of the Tenants (12:1-12)

¹ He then began to speak to them in parables: " A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. ² At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. ³ But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. ⁴ Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. ⁵ He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.

⁶" He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, 'They will respect my son.'

⁷" But the tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' ⁸ So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.

⁹" What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. ¹⁰ Haven't you read this scripture:

" 'The stone the builders rejected

has become the capstone; ^a

¹¹ the Lord has done this,

and it is marvelous in our eyes' ^b ?"

¹² Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

^a 10 Or cornerstone ^b 11 Psalm 118:22,23

Jesus " counterattacked" with a parable. Unlike other parables this one was directed to the religious authorities (see " them" and " they" in vv. 1 and 12). They understood the main point (v. 12). The parable is built from elements in Isa 5:1-7:

I will sing for the one I love a song about his vineyard: My loved one had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. He dug it up and cleared it of stones and planted it with the choicest vines. He built a watchtower in it and cut out a winepress as well. Then he looked for a crop of good grapes, but it yielded only bad fruit. Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge between me and my vineyard. What more could have been done for my vineyard than I have done for it? When I looked for good grapes, why did it yield only bad? Now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will take away its hedge, and it will be destroyed; I will break down its wall, and it will be trampled. I will make it a wasteland, neither pruned nor cultivated, and briers and thorns will grow there. I will command the clouds not to rain on it. The vineyard of the Lord Almighty is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the garden of his delight. And he looked for justice, but saw bloodshed; for righteousness, but heard cries of distress.

In Isaiah's parable the owner is the Lord and the vineyard is the house of Israel, the people of Judah. The good grapes the Lord wanted were justice and righteousness. The bad fruit he got was bloodshed and cries of distress. The destruction of the vineyard referred to the coming destruction of Judah. Isaiah called upon the men of Judah to make a judgment about the fate of the vineyard (vv. 3-6) and then told them they had judged themselves (v. 7). Jesus clearly used elements of this ancient parable in constructing his own, although he altered it significantly so that it became a different story.

1. The wall, winepress, and watchtower reflect Isaiah's story. In Isaiah they represent God's loving care for his people. In Jesus' parable they perhaps just add local color to the story. Jesus' story leaves Isaiah's when the owner leaves for another country and rents the vineyard to tenants. This arrangement was common in first century Palestine. As the next verse indicates, wealthy land owners often leased their land to tenants in a share-cropping arrangement by which the owner would receive a share of the crop as payment for using the land. The owner represents God and, unlike the Isaiah parable, the vineyard itself takes a back seat to the tenants, who represent the religious authorities. It is perhaps not important to decide in Jesus' parable precisely what the vineyard (God's people the Jews?) and the fruit (righteousness?) represent.

2-5. It is, however, important to observe that the servants sent by the owner represent the prophets (perhaps including John the Baptist). Jesus' parable makes the same point made by Stephen in Acts 7:51-52: " you stiff-necked people . . . You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One."

6-8. Stephen continued in Acts 7:52-53: " And now you have betrayed and murdered him [the Righteous One]." This is the son of Jesus' parable. The son is identified as a " beloved son" as in 1:11 and 9:7. Identifying himself as the son of a vineyard owner in a parable is not as overt as saying " I am the Son of God," but it does clearly represent Jesus as uniquely related to God. He is not a servant as were the prophets, but a beloved son. The motivation Jesus portrays for the religious authorities is a selfish desire to keep control of the vineyard for themselves.

9. By using a question Jesus calls on the religious leaders to judge themselves. Then he answers his own question. Of course the owner (God) will destroy the tenants (the religious authorities) and give the vineyard (his people?) to others (the coming leaders of the church?).

10-11. Jesus appealed to Scripture to underscore his main point. In Ps 118:22-23, using the imagery of a building in the place of a vineyard, God had already prophesied that the builders (= the tenants, the religious authorities) would reject the stone intended for the capstone (= the son, Jesus), but that this stone would nonetheless become the capstone (= the overthrow of the tenants).

12. The religious authorities understood at least the basic point of the parable. They were afraid to arrest him in the midst of the crowd in the temple courts. They would find a less public opportunity (14:1-2, 10-11, 43-49).

3. The Question about Paying Taxes (12:13-17)

¹³ Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. ¹⁴ They came to him and said, " Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? ¹⁵ Should we pay or shouldn't we?"

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. " Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. " Bring me a denarius and let me look at it." ¹⁶ They brought the coin, and he asked them, " Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

" Caesar's," they replied.

¹⁷ Then Jesus said to them, " Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

And they were amazed at him.

In 11:27-33 Jesus had embarrassed the religious authorities before the people with his question about the authority of John's baptism. They refused to answer because they would have alienated many in the crowd who viewed John as a prophet. Now they attempt to put Jesus on a similar spot. If he argues against paying the Roman taxes he would create a conflict with the Roman authorities. If he argues for paying the taxes he would alienate the many in the crowd who opposed them. The question was calculated to trap him.

13. The Pharisees and Herodians who came to Jesus were sent by the same religious authorities who had asked about Jesus' authority and who were the focus of his counterattack in the parable of the Tenants. On the Pharisees and Herodians and their collusion against Jesus see the comments on 3:6.

14-15a. It is ironic that the opponents of Jesus clearly portrayed their own lack of integrity as they addressed Jesus as " teacher" and praised his integrity which, of course, they did not believe in for a moment. In 11:32-33 Jesus' opponents declined to answer his question because of the pressure of public opinion, but now they praise Jesus for his teaching the way of God with no regard for public opinion. Once again they ask two questions that interrelate. The taxes they have in mind are those levied by Rome. They have no quarrel with the temple tax or other taxes that might be originated by Jewish authorities. In the eyes of many Jews the taxes levied by Rome were not only oppressively high, but were per se unacceptable as part and parcel of the unwanted dominion of Rome.

15b-17. Jesus' integrity contrasts with the hypocrisy of his opponents. As in other cases (2:8; 3:2-5) he knew their intent. In this case he openly declared it in his question, " Why are you trying to trap me?"

His response was so ingenious that even his opponents (the " them" and " they" of v. 17) were amazed at him. The coin he called for was a silver denarius with the head of the emperor Tiberius on its face and an inscription reading " Tiberius Caesar Augustus, Son of the Divine Augustus." Jesus reasoned that it was issued by and belonged to the emperor. The emperor could ask for it. On the other hand, one must give God what belongs to God. This qualification is vital and would certainly raise question even about the last words of the inscription on the denarius.

4. The Question about the Resurrection (12:18-27)

¹⁸ Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. ¹⁹" Teacher," they said, " Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. ²⁰ Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. ²¹ The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. ²² In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. ²³ At the resurrection ^a whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"

²⁴ Jesus replied, " Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? ²⁵ When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. ²⁶ Now about the dead rising - have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ^b ? ²⁷ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"

^a 23 Some manuscripts resurrection, when men rise from the dead. ^b 26 Exodus 3:6

In Mark's presentation Jesus is first approached by the religious authorities as a whole and questioned about his authority. After his rebuttal and the parable of the Tenants they no longer pursued him as a group, but the public questioning continued by sub-groups: first, the Pharisees and Herodians, and then, the Sadducees. (The final question was asked by a lone scribe.) The two sub-groups asked questions that would be typical of their concerns.

This is the only explicit reference to the Sadducees in Mark, although their presence must be assumed whenever the chief priests, scribes, and elders are referred to as a group. The Sadducees were an aristocratic party which included the high priest and presumably most of the chief priests. They accepted only the written law and denied the resurrection.

18-23. Greco-Roman society in general accepted the notion of the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the body was another matter. The concept of a general resurrection was, however, widespread among the Jews and was supported by Jesus. The Sadducees denied it and perhaps developed certain stock questions to demonstrate its absurdity. The question about the remarrying widow is based upon the levirate instructions of Deut 25:5-10. According to this law, if a man died without children, his brother should marry the widow and raise children in the first man's name. In the Sadducees' hypothetical case, the levirate rules caused a woman to sequentially marry seven brothers. The purpose of the story is to set up a scenario that creates an insoluble problem for those who believe in the resurrection. The question " whose wife will she be" is supposed to be unanswerable.

24-25. But the question is answerable. If the Sadducees had known the Scriptures and the power of God, they would have known that there will be no marriage in heaven. Those who are raised will be like the angels. The angels are not portrayed as married in Scripture or in other ancient Jewish literature. It is difficult to know whether Jesus' reasoning about the resurrected ones being unmarried like the angels was common or uncommon among his contemporaries. In several relevant Jewish texts those who are raised are said to resume relationships they had on earth, although without explicit reference to marriage. 2 Baruch 51:10, a Jewish document written about A.D. 100, describes the resurrected righteous as being like angels, although again without explicit reference to marriage. In any case, Jesus' contemporaries would have recognized that the angels were not married and could have followed his reasoning that being like them involved being unmarried. This would be true even of the Sadducees who did not believe in angels (Acts 23:8).

26-27. The scriptural argument Jesus gives in these verses reflects both of the items he said the Sadducees did not understand: the Scriptures and the power of God (v. 24). Jesus chose a text from the Pentateuch, Exod 3:6, perhaps because the Sadducees accepted only the books of Moses. It is difficult to follow Jesus' reasoning in v. 27. Most interpreters of Exod 3:6 would think God was simply identifying himself as the God worshipped by the patriarchs during their lifetime and passed down by them to their descendants. I am inclined to follow the understanding of Dreyfuss, articulated well by Hurtado: " Jesus argues that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have passed into oblivion (as the Sadducees believed happened to all the dead), then God's description of himself as the God of these patriarchs of old conveys nothing about his power to save his people, and indeed this title is a mockery of any hope that God deserves the trust of his followers. . . . God's covenant is meaningless if it is canceled by death."

It should be noted that in this context Jesus is discussing the future general resurrection of the dead. He is not discussing the pre-resurrection status of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

5. The Question about the First Commandment (12:28-34)

²⁸ One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, " Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

²⁹" The most important one," answered Jesus, " is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. ^{a 30} Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' ^{b 31} The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' ^c There is no commandment greater than these."

³²" Well said, teacher," the man replied. " You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. ³³ To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

³⁴ When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, " You are not far from the kingdom of God." And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

^a 29 Or the Lord our Lord is one Lord ^b 30 Deut. 6:4,5 ^c 31 Lev. 19:18

Mark does not clarify whether the final lone questioner of Jesus was sincere or was making another attempt to ensnare him. Matt 22:34-35 clearly includes this question among those designed to test Jesus. The nature of the question makes this segment of Mark one of the most important. Here the reader finds the essence of God's will.

28. I prefer the more literal NRSV translation " Which commandment is the first of all?" because it preserves more naturally the link between v. 29 " The first is" and v. 31 " The second is." But the question does mean, " Which commandment is the most important?" According to the Babylonian Talmud, Jesus' predecessors had been asked a similar question:

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, " Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, he said to him, " What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and learn it."

29-31. Jesus answered with a first and second commandment. In both cases he cites Scripture: Deut 6:4-5 and Lev 19:18. The first citation is of the famous Shema, cited twice daily by many pious Jews from before the time of Jesus to the present. The first commandment, " Love the Lord your God" is qualified by " with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The point is to love God with all our being. The second commandment is a citation of Lev 19:18. It is parallel in structure to the first commandment: " Love your neighbor" is qualified by " as yourself."

Jesus' view of what is central in God's will was not new. Since there were hundreds of commandments it was natural from the beginning to prioritize. The ten commandments were themselves a summary and they could be further distilled into two sections. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus who lived in Alexandria, observed that the ten commandments contained five dealing with responsibilities toward God (or " piety" ) and five dealing with responsibilities toward other people (or " justice" ). Seen in their contexts, the Shema and Lev 19:18 appear to have served a summarizing function. In Luke 10:25-27 a (religious) lawyer asked Jesus how to inherit eternal life, and when Jesus turned the question back to him, the lawyer answered with the same answer Jesus gives in Mark: the Shema and Lev 19:18. The essence of God's will has always been plain - although many have missed it.

32-33. The scribe recognized the validity of Jesus' response. His reply indicated an appreciation for Jesus' analysis. In his reply he correctly emphasized the monotheism of the Shema (" God is one and there is no other beside him" ) which undergirds the absolute nature of the devotion he demands (" all" of one's being, which is not divided in the service of multiple gods). He also observed correctly, in line with the prophets, that love of God and neighbor are more important than " all burnt offerings and sacrifices" (cf. Hos 6:6; Mic 6:6-8). The focus of God's will is not ritual, but the heart.

34. As the scribe had observed that Jesus answered well, Jesus saw that the scribe's understanding of the matter was wise. " You are not far from the kingdom of God" suggests not only that this particular man was progressing in his understanding toward Jesus, but that the kingdom of God focuses on love of God and others.

Jesus' answers drove his critics out of the arena of public debate.

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son (12:35-37)

³⁵ While Jesus was teaching in the temple courts, he asked, " How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ ^a is the son of David? ³⁶ David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:

" 'The Lord said to my Lord:

" Sit at my right hand

until I put your enemies under your feet." ' ^b

³⁷ David himself calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"

The large crowd listened to him with delight.

^a 35 Or Messiah ^b 36 Psalm 110:1

Jesus now counters with a question of his own. Like the triumphal entry and the parable of the Tenants, the question about David portrays Jesus being publicly provocative concerning his messiahship, although without making clear proclamations.

35. The setting for all of the controversies in 11:27-12:44 is the temple court area. Jesus broached the subject of the messiah and at the same time criticized the religious authorities by asking about the common teaching that " the Christ is the son of David." The common idea that the messiah would be from the lineage of David is rooted solidly in 2 Sam 7:11-16. Many Jews of Jesus' time expected a ruler to arise from the lineage of David.

The question initially seems odd because it is clear that early Christians, including Mark (10:47-48; 11:10), taught that Jesus was indeed the promised messiah from the lineage of David. However, the fuller form of the question in vv. 36-37 shows that Jesus did not intend to raise doubt about the messiah being the son of David, but to raise a question about the sense in which that would be true.

36-37. Jesus cited Ps 110:1 and referred it to David and ultimately to the Holy Spirit. The point of v. 37 depends on seeing Ps 110:1 as a messianic text. Interpreted as a messianic Psalm it refers to the great future son of David. Jesus' interpretation also hinges upon seeing this Psalm as penned by David, so that he can argue that David himself calls his future son " Lord" (kuvrio", kyrios ). In the Psalm " the Lord" is Yahweh and " my lord" is the messiah. His greatness is indicated not only by David calling him " lord," but also by his positioning at the right hand of God's throne and his triumph over his enemies. Presumably the crowd was delighted because they understood Jesus to be saying that the messiah would be greater than David himself. They probably misunderstood the exaltation and triumph spoken of in Ps 110:1 as a reference to the messiah's coronation as king and triumph over the Roman oppressors. Such thoughts would fill them with delight.

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and

Commends a Poor Widow (12:38-44)

³⁸ As he taught, Jesus said, " Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, ³⁹ and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. ⁴⁰ They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."

⁴¹ Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. ⁴² But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, ^a worth only a fraction of a penny. ^b

⁴³ Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, " I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. ⁴⁴ They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything - all she had to live on."

^a 42 Greek two lepta ^b 42 Greek kodrantes

These two stories should be read in conjunction with each other. There is a contrast here between the religious authorities who greedily took all they could get even from widows, and the poor widow who freely gave what little she had to God. These two segments bring to an end Jesus' public teaching in the temple courts. Chapter 13 contains private teaching to the disciples. On Wednesday Mark does not indicate that Jesus entered Jerusalem (14:1-11). On Thursday he entered only in the evening for the Passover meal.

38-40. Jesus' criticisms of the scribes boil down to two basic issues. Five of the items listed indicate that they love the praise of people and use their piety for this purpose: they " like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets . . . and for a show make lengthy prayers." The second basic issue is that they are greedy for money and " devour widows houses." This last phrase probably means they took advantage of widows for financial support.

The observation that " such men will be punished most severely" is one of a few New Testament references to the idea of degrees of punishment (cf. James 3:1).

41-44. Many rich people put in large amounts into the temple treasury, but their gifts were small compared to the poor widow's gift. The two copper coins were leptons, the smallest coins in circulation, now commonly called " widow's mites." Mark apparently did not believe his audience would recognize the currency and so gave the value at one quadrans. The monetary value of two leptons or one quadrans was extraordinarily small. In Jesus' day a quadrans was worth 1/144 of a denarius. The NIV seeks to get the point across by saying that the two copper coins were worth only a fraction of a penny.

Jesus' surprising statement in v. 43 is explained by v. 44. The poor woman put in more than all the others in terms of the amount of sacrifice she made. God measures the gift by the sacrifice involved (cf. 2 Sam 24:24). The point is parallel to the superiority of the two great love commands over all sacrifices and burnt offerings (v. 33). Jesus' teaching about the widow's offering also implies further criticism of the scribes. They sought to squeeze the last penny from widows out of greed, but the poor widow gave the last penny to the Lord out of love and self-sacrifice.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 12:1-12

CVIII.
IN REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS AS TO HIS AUTHORITY,
JESUS GIVES THE THIRD GREAT GROUP OF PARABLES.
(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision C.
PARABLE OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.
^aMATT. XXI. 33-46; ^bMARK XII. 1-12; ^cLUKE XX. 9-19.

   ^b1 And he began to speak unto them cthe people [not the rulers] bin parables. {cthis parable:}  ^a33 Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder [this party represents God], who planted a vineyard [this represents the Hebrew nationality], and set a hedge about it, and digged a bpit for the awinepress in it [The winepress consisted of two tub-shaped cavities dug in the rock at different levels, the upper being connected with the lower by an orifice cut through from its bottom. Grapes were placed in the upper cavity, or trough, and were trodden by foot. The juice thus squeezed from them ran through the orifice to the trough below, from which it was taken and stored in leather bottles until it fermented and formed wine], and built a tower [a place where watchmen could be stationed to protect the vineyard from thieves as the grapes ripened for the vintage], and let it out to husbandmen [the rulers are here [590] represented; and the rental was, as usual, a part of the fruits], and went into another country. cfor a long time. [Jesus frequently refers to this withdrawal of the visible presence of God from the world, always bringing out the point that the withdrawal tests faithfulness. God had come down upon Mt. Sinai, given the law and established the Hebrew nation, after which he had withdrawn. That had indeed been a long time ago; and for four hundred years before the appearance of John the Baptist, God had not even sent a messenger to demand fruit. Some think the hedge refers to the manner in which Palestine was protected by sea and desert and mountain, but the hedge and the winepress and the tower are mere parabolic drapery, for every man who planted a vineyard did all three.]  ^a34 And when {cat} the season aof the fruits drew near, che sent unto the husbandmen a servant, {ahis servants} i. e., the prophets] cthat they should give him {bthat he might receive ato receive from the husbandmen} of the {ahis} bfruits of the vineyard. [Luk 3:8 -- He expected the children of Israel to bring forth joy, love, peace, and all the other goodly fruit of a godly life. And he looked to those in authority to bring forth such results, and the prophets were sent to the rulers to encourage them to do this.]  3 And {cbut} the husbandmen btook him, and beat him, and sent him away empty,  4 And again he sent unto them cyet another servant: him also they beat, bwounded in his head, and handled shamefully. cand sent him away empty.  ^b5 And he sent cyet banother; ca third: and him also they wounded, band him they killed: cand cast him forth. band many others; beating some, and killing some.  ^a35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.  36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. [For the treatment of the prophets, see such passages as 1Ki 18:13, 1Ki 22:24-27, 2Ki 6:31, 2Ch 24:19-22, 2Ch 36:15, 2Ch 36:16. For a summary of the treatment of the prophets or messengers of God, [591] see Heb 11:35-38.]  37 But  ^b6 He had yet one, a beloved son: aafterward bhe sent him last unto them,  ^c13 And the lord of the vineyard said, {bsaying,} ^cWhat shall I do? [Isa 5:4.] I will send my beloved son; it may be they will reverence him. ^bThey will reverence my son. [The lord of the vineyard was thoroughly perplexed. The conduct of his husbandmen was outrageous beyond all expectation. He had no better servants to send them unless his only son should take upon him the form of a servant and visit them (Phi 2:5-8). Being tender and forgiving, and unwilling to resort to extreme measures, the lord of the vineyard resolved to thus send his son, feeling sure that the son would represent the person, authority and rights of the father so much better than any other messenger (Heb 1:1-5, Heb 2:1-3), that it would be well-nigh impossible for the husbandmen to fail of reverence towards him. In striking contrast, however, with this expectation of the Father, the rulers, or the husbandmen, had just now harshly demanded of the Son that he tell by what authority he did anything in the vineyard.]  ^a38 But the {bthose} ahusbandmen, when they saw {chim} athe son, cthey reasoned one with another, asaid among themselves, {csaying,} ^aThis is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his inheritance. cthat the inheritance may be ours. band the inheritance shall be ours. [In thus bringing the story down to the immediate present, and stating a counsel which his enemies had just spoken privately in each other's ears, Jesus must have startled them greatly. He showed them, too, that those things which made them deem it necessary to kill him were the very things which proved his heirship. They regarded the Jewish nation as their property, and they were plotting to kill Jesus that they might withhold it from him (Joh 12:19, Joh 11:47-50). That men might hope by such high-handed lawlessness to obtain a title to a vineyard seems incredible to us who have always been familiar with the even-balanced justice of constitutional government; but in the East the looseness of governments, the selfish apathy and lack [592] of public spirit among the people, and the corrupt bribe-receiving habits of the judges makes our Lord's picture even to this day, though rather exceptional, still true to life. At this point Jesus turns from history to prophecy.]  8 And they took him,  ^c15 And they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. [After two intervening days the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying him there.]  ^a40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?  41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.  ^c16 [Jesus said] He will come and destroy these {bthe} husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. ^cAnd when they heard it, they said, God forbid. [Part of the multitude, hearing only the story, pronounced unhesitatingly the judgment which ought to be inflicted upon such evil-doers, and Jesus confirmed their judgment. But others, perceiving the meaning underlying the parable, shrank from accepting what would otherwise have been to them a very proper ending, and said, Mee genoito, which means literally, Be it not so, and which might properly be paraphrased by our emphatic "Never!" but which the revisers in translating have, with small warrant, seen fit to paraphrase by using the semi-profane expression, "God forbid." There are fourteen such mistranslations in the epistles of Paul according to the King James version and only one of them (Gal 6:14) is corrected in the Revised version. In defense of these translations it is asserted that the phrase is an idiomatic invocation of the Deity, but the case can not be made out, since the Deity is not addressed.]  17 But he looked upon them [Thus emphasizing the fact that they had repudiated a most just decree. His look, doubtless, resembled that of a parent surprised at the outspoken rebellion of his children], and  ^a42 Jesus saith {csaid,} aunto them, ^cWhat then is this that is written,  ^b10 Have ye not read even this scripture: ^aDid ye never [593] read in the scriptures, ^cThe stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner? ^aThis was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? [The quotation is from Psa 118:22, Psa 118:23, which is here by Jesus applied as a prophecy to the Pharisees, who, in their treatment of him, were like unskilled builders who reject the very corner-stone of the building which they seek to erect. The Pharisees were eager enough in their desire to set up a Messianic kingdom, but were so blindly foolish that they did not see that this kingdom could not be set up unless it rested upon Christ Jesus, its corner-stone. They blundered in constructing their theory of the coming kingdom, and could find no room for one such as Jesus in it.]  43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.  44 And he {^c18 Every one} athat falleth on this {cthat} astone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust. [The stone, of course, represents Jesus, and the two fallings set forth his passive and active state. In the day when he passively submitted to be judged, those who condemned him were broken (Mat 27:3-5, Luk 23:48, Act 2:37); but in the great day when he himself becomes the acting party and calls his enemies to judgment, they shall prefer, and pray, that a mountain fall upon them -- Rev 6:15-17.]  45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees,  ^c19 And the scribes aheard his parables, they csought to lay hands on him in that very hour, bfor they perceived that he aspake of them. bspake the {cthis} parable against them.  ^a46 And when they sought to lay hands on him, cthey feared the people: {bmultitude; amultitudes,} because they took him for a prophet. band they left him, and went away. [Despite the warning which Jesus gave them that they were killing the Son and would reap the consequences, and despite the fact that he showed that the Psalm which the people had used so recently with regard to him foretold a great rejection which would prove to be a [594] mistake, yet the rulers persisted in their evil intention to take his life, and were only restrained by fear of the people, many of whom were Galilæans, men of rugged courage, ready to draw swords on Jesus' behalf. Since they could neither arrest nor answer him, they withdrew as a committee, but returned again in the person of their spies.]

[FFG 590-595]

McGarvey: Mar 12:13-17

CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision A.
PHARISEES AND HERODIANS ASK ABOUT TRIBUTE.
^aMATT. XXII. 15-22; ^bMARK XII. 13-17; ^cLUKE XX. 20-26.

   ^a15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might ensnare him in his talk.  ^c20 And they watched him, and sent forth {bsend unto him} atheir disciples, bcertain of the Pharisees and of {awith} bthe Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. [Perceiving that Jesus, when on his guard, was too wise for them, the Pharisees thought it best to speak their cunning through the mouths of their young disciples, whose youth and apparent desire to know the truth would, according to their calculation, take Jesus off his guard. Having no ancient statement giving us the tenets or principles of the Herodians, we are left to judge them solely by their name, which shows that they were partisans of Herod Antipas. Whether they were out-and-out supporters of the Roman government, or whether they clung to Herod as one whose intervening sovereignty saved them from the worse fate of being directly under a Roman procurator (as Judæa and Samaria then were), would not, as some suppose, affect their views as to the payment of tribute. If they accepted Herod merely for policy's sake, policy would also compel them to favor the tribute, for Antipas, being appointed [597] by Rome, would have to favor the tribute, and could count none as his adherents who opposed it.] cspies, who feigned themselves to righteous [sincere seekers after truth], that they might take hold of his speech, so as to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor. [Pontius Pilate was the governor. We are not surprised at the destruction of Jerusalem when we see the religious teachers of the nation employing their young disciples in such a work as this. To play detective and entrap a rogue in his speech and thus become a man-hunter is debasing enough; but to seek thus to entrap a righteous man is simply diabolical.]  ^b14 And when they were come, they say unto him, {csaying,} Teacher, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, bwe know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, cand acceptest not the person of any, but of a truth teachest the way of God: ain truth [The meaning of their preface is this: "We see that neither fear nor respect for the Pharisees or the rulers prevents you from speaking the plain, disagreeable truth; and we are persuaded that your courage and love of truth will lead you to speak the same way in political matters, and that you will not be deterred therefrom by any fear or reverence for Cæsar." Fearless loyalty to truth is indeed one of the noblest attributes of man. But instead of honoring this most admirable quality in Jesus, these hardened reprobates were endeavoring to employ it as an instrument for his destruction],  17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?  ^c22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?  ^b15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? [The Jews were required to pay annually a large sum of money to the Roman government as an acknowledgment of their subjection. About twenty years before this Judas of Galilee had stirred up the people to resist this tribute, and the mass of the Jews was bitterly opposed to it. To decide in favor of this tribute was therefore to alienate the affection and confidence of the throng in the temple who stood listening to him -- an end most desirable to the Pharisees. If, [598] on the other hand, Jesus said that the tribute should not be paid, the Herodians were present to hear it, and would be witnesses sanctioned by Herod, and therefore such as Pilate would be compelled to respect. What but divine wisdom could escape from so cunningly devised a dilemma!]  ^a18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, ccraftiness, bknowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, {aand said} Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites? [Thus, before answering, Jesus exposes the meanness and hypocrisy in their question, thereby emphasizing the important fact that he did not dodge, but answered it.]  19 Show me the tribute money.  ^c24 Show me a denarius. bbring me a denarius, that I may see it. [Religious dues and tributes had been paid in shekels or old Jewish coin, but the tribute to Rome was paid in Roman coin of which the denarius was a sample.] ^aAnd they brought unto him a denarius. [See Rom 13:1, Rom 13:7.]  ^c26 And they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people:  ^a22 And when they heard it, they marvelled, bgreatly at him. cat his answer, and held their peace. aand left him, and went away. [They were amazed to find how far his wisdom transcended that of the teachers in whom they had such supreme confidence.]

[FFG 597-600]

McGarvey: Mar 12:18-27

CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision B.
SADDUCEES ASK ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.
^aMATT. XXII. 23-33; ^bMARK XII. 18-27; ^cLUKE XX. 27-39.

   ^a23 On that day there came {bcome} unto him ccertain of the the Sadducees, they that {bwho} say there is no resurrection [As to the Sadducees, see Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. The object of this law was to preserve families. But the custom was older than the law -- Gen 38:6-11], cthat ^bIf a man's brother die, chaving a wife, and he be childless, {band leave a wife behind him, and leave no child,} that his brother should take his {cthe} wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. ^aMoses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.  25 Now there were ctherefore awith us seven brethren: and the first ctook a wife, amarried and deceased, band dying left no seed; {cand died childless;} aand, having no seed left his wife unto his brother:  ^b21 And  ^a26 In like manner the second also, btook her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: ctook her; aunto the seventh. cand likewise the seven also left no children, {bleft no seed.} cand died.  32 Afterward [600] ^bLast of all  ^a27 And after them all, bthe woman also died.  ^a28 In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? {bof them?} for the seven aall had her. bto wife. [This was evidently a favorite Sadducean argument against the resurrection. On the assumption that the marital state is continued after the resurrection, it makes the doctrine of a resurrection appear ridiculous, because, seemingly, it involves difficulties which even brothers could hardly settle amicably, and which even God would have in a sense to settle arbitrarily.]  ^c34 And {^a29 But} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do not err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. ^bIs it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? [The relevancy of these statements will be discussed in the treatment of Act 23:8), but the basal principle of their infidelity was the denial of spirits. It was, as it were, the tree trunk from which their other errors sprang as branches. If there were such things as spirits, it was not worth while to deny that there was an order of them known as angels. If man had a spirit which could survive his body, it was reasonable to believe that God, having so fashioned him that a body is essential to his activity and happiness, would in some manner restore a body to him. Jesus therefore does not pursue the argument until he has proved a resurrection; but rests when he has proved that man has a spirit. Jesus proves that man has a spirit by a reference from the Pentateuch, that part of Scripture which the Sadducees accepted as derived from God through Moses. The reference shows that God was spoken of and spoke of himself as the God of those who were, humanly speaking, long since dead. But the Sadducees held that a dead man had ceased to exist, that he had vanished to nothingness. According to their view, therefore, God had styled himself the God of nothing, which is absurd. The Sadducees could not thus have erred had they known or understood the significance of this Scripture, and they could not have doubted the resurrection had they known the absolute power with which God deals with material such as that of which the body is formed. See verses 24 and 39 supra.]  ^a33 And when the multitude heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.  ^c39 And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. [Some of the scribes of less bitter spirit could not refrain from expressing their admiration at the ease with which Jesus answered an argument which their own wisdom could not refute.] [602]

[FFG 600-602]

McGarvey: Mar 12:28-34

CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision C.
A LAWYER ASKS ABOUT THE GREAT COMMANDMENT.
^aMATT. XXII. 34-40; ^bMARK XII. 28-34; ^cLUKE XX. 40.

   ^a34 But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together.  35 And one of them, a lawyer, bone of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, aasked him a question, trying him [he was evidently deputed by those who counseled to ask this question]:  36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? ^bWhat commandment is the first of all? [According to the statement of Jewish writers, there had been an old and interminable dispute among the rabbis as to which was the greatest commandment. Some held that it was the law which commanded sacrifices; others, that which commanded the wearing of phylacteries; others contended for those about purification; others, for those about the great feasts. But as they reckoned the commandments of Moses as numbering over six hundred, there was plenty of room for argument. On this memorable day the answers of Jesus had hitherto been of such a nature as to put his questioners to silence. Therefore, in asking this question, they hoped to get an answer about which they could at least find room to wrangle, and thus discredit the wisdom of Jesus.]  29 Jesus answered,  ^a37 And said unto him, ^bThe first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one:  30 And ^aThou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. band with all thy strength.  ^a38 This is the great and first commandment. [Deu 6:4-9. This command is first because it is the foundation of the entire law of God. It is greatest, because, in a sense, it includes all the other laws. Polytheism, atheism, idolatry, and all sins against God are forbidden by it. All sins against man are likewise, in [603] a sense, prohibited by it; for sin against man is sin against God's image, and against the objects of God's love. Those who truly love God can not consistently sin against man (1Jo 4:20). The curious may make metaphysical distinctions in the analysis of this required fourfold love, but the sum of it is that we are to love God with our whole being.]  39 And a {^b31 The} second alike unto it bis this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. [Love is the cure for sin, for we can not sin against those whom we truly love. Where we love, we desire to bless. But sin always carries with it a willingness to injure or to curse.] There is none other commandment greater than these.  ^a40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. [The generic nature of the law of love is also noted by Paul (Rom 13:8-10); but love without law is not sufficient. Love begets a desire to bless, but the law guides to the accomplishment of that desire. Perfect righteousness is the result of wisdom as well as affection. Love without law is power without direction, and law without love is machinery without a motor -- 1Co 13:1-3.]  ^b32 And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he:  33 and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. [Here, as in the preceding subdivision, the answer of Jesus was so clearly right that it enforced admiration.]  34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. [Prejudice is the great obstacle to entering the kingdom. In proportion as we overcome it we draw near to God.] And no man after that durst {^c40 For they durst not any more} ask him any question. [They found it expedient to keep silence when their questions only exposed their own shallowness, and made more conspicuous the supreme wisdom of Jesus.] [604]

[FFG 603-604]

Lapide: Mar 12:1-44

CHAPTER 12

1 The parable of the vineyard. 13 Touching the paying of tribute. 18 The Sadducees confuted. 35 A difficulty proposed to the scribes.

Ver. 1 . Planted a vineyard. Gr. ε̉φύτευσεν, Vulg. pastinavit. The verb pastinare is especially used of vines. It means to dig the soil of the vineyard, and prepare it for planting vines, So the word repastinare means to dig up vines when they are sterile.

And dug a lake (Vulg.), a receptacle into which the must pressed from the grapes might flow. The Gr. is ύπολήνιον, i.e., beneath the winepress. For ληνός means winepress. Hence the Arabic translates, and dug a winepress in it. S. Matthew (xxi. 33) uses the same expression. For torcular, or winepress, means not only the actual press itself, but the vat or receptacle beneath the press in which the grape juice was received. This last was said to be dug, or, as in Isa 5:1, to be cut out.

Ver. 33. And to love one's neighbour as oneselg is a greater thing than all holocausts and sacrifices. Holocausts were sacrifices in which the whole victim was burnt and sacrificed to God by fire. This is what God says, "I will mercy [prefer] and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than holocausts" (Hos 6:6). This young man tacitly assents to the saying of Christ, and condemns the scribes, who preferred sacrifices, which yielded profit to themselves, to mercy and the love of our neighbour. And this was why they bade children say to their parents, when they were in need, corban, i.e., oblation (see on Mat 15:6).

Ver. 34. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. Thou art not far from the way of salvation, for the love of God and our neighbour is the pathway to heaven. Again it means, thou art not far from My Church, by which, militant here on earth, we go to the Church triumphant in heaven. "Still, as yet thou lackest faith to believe in Me as the Messiah, the Saviour of the world, and to obey My commands, so that thou mayest indeed become a Christian. And if thou wilt be perfect, leave all things and follow Me, as the Apostles have done." When, then, He says, thou art not far, "He shows," says Victor of Antioch, "that he was still at some distance, and that he ought to reach forward to that which was before, and seek diligently for the things that were yet wanting unto him."

Ver. 38. Who love to walk in long robes,—stolis (Vulg.). The stole was an elegant garment, flowing down to the heels. Wherefore the Scribes wore it for the sake of ostentation.

Ver. 40. Who devour, Gr. οί κατεσθίοντες, i.e., who altogether consume and lick up the houses of widows, both by reason of the sumptuous feasts which they ask of them, as well as by the gifts and money which they avariciously extort from them under the pretext of offering prayers for them. "When, therefore," says Bede, "the hand is stretched out to the poor, it is wont to help prayer; but those men passed whole nights in prayer that they might take from the poor."

These shall receive greater judgment. A severer sentence of God, and a heavier condemnation shall press upon the Scribes in the day of judgment, because by a pretence of probity they are aiming at wrong-doing; and being clothed in the garments of God, they are fighting on the devil's side. "Simulated holiness," says S. Chrysostom, "is a double iniquity."

Ver. 41. How the people cast money : æs, brass (Vulg.), i.e., all sorts of money, whether brass, silver, or gold. For the first money was made of brass, hence all money was afterwards called brass, even when made of silver or gold.

Into the treasury ; gazophylacium (Vulg.). For gaza is a Persian word, meaning riches ; and φυλάττειν is to keep. This was a chest into which gifts were cast by the people, and kept for the service of the Temple, and for supporting the priests and the poor. Hence, also, the porch in which the chest was kept was called by the same name. Thus it is said in John viii. 20, "These words spake Jesus in the treasury ( gazophylacio ), teaching in the Temple." So Bede.

Ver. 42. A certain poor widow cast in two mites, which make a farthing. Not as if one mite made a farthing, as Euthymius understands, relying on Mat 5:26. But two mites were equivalent to one farthing, as is here clearly expressed. For a farthing was the fourth part of a little ass ; and ten small asses made a denarius. A mite was half a farthing.

Ver. 43. This poor widow hath cast in more than all. For although per se, and other things being equal, the greatest and best alms and oblations is that which is most, yet, per accidens, when other things are not equal, the greater alms is that which is offered with the greater devotion of charity and religion. For God does not so much regard the gift as the disposition of the giver. Again, the greater gift is not that which is of the greater value considered in itself, as that which is the greater and more difficult in respect of the giver. This widow, therefore, in giving a farthing, gave more than all, because she gave all that she had, although it was necessary for her life. And she would have given more if she had had more. For she trusted in God, that He in return would be more liberal to her, and provide for her necessity, according to the saying, "Give God an egg, and receive a sheep." Others truly gave of their abounding superfluities, as Christ here says. As Titus of Bostra says on Luke xxi. 3, "With such magnanimity and devotion did she offer two mites, that is, all that she had, as if she counted her own life as nothing." S. Paul gives the a priori reason (2Co 8:12), "If there be a ready mind, it is accepted according to what a man hath, not according to that which he hath not." As Victor of Antioch says on this passage, "For God does not so much consider the greatness of the gifts, as weigh the greatness and alacrity of the mind." And Bede, "He weighs not the substance, but the conscience of the offerers."

For, as S. Thomas says, inasmuch as the widow gave according to her ability, therefore it was the greater affection of charity which was valued in her. S. Ambrose thought the same ( lib. 2, Offic. c. 30), "The two mites of that widow surpassed the offerings of the rich, because she gave all she had; but they offered only a small portion of their abundance." Whence he infers, "The disposition therefore makes the offering poor or valuable, and sets their true price upon things." (Top)

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Mar 12:29

No one has ever kept the Commandments : " The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is no one that does good, no, not one" ( Psa 14:2-3 ). See Rom 2:15-16 footnote.

Evidence: Mar 12:30

See note on Mar 12:29 .

Evidence: Mar 12:31

See note on Mar 12:29 .

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 12 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 12:1, In a parable of the vineyard let out to wicked husbandmen Christ foretells the reprobation of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles; Mar 12:13, He avoids the snare of the Pharisees and Herodians about paying tribute to Caesar; Mar 12:18, convicts the Sadducees of error, who denied the resurrection; Mar 12:28, resolves the scribe, who questioned of the first commandment; Mar 12:35, refutes the opinion that the scribes held of Christ; Mar 12:38, bidding the people to beware of their ambition and hypocrisy; Mar 12:41, and commends the poor widow for her two mites, above all.

Poole: Mark 12 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 12

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 12 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 12:1-12) The parable of the vineyard and husbandmen.

(Mar 12:13-17) Question about tribute.

(Mar 12:18-27) Concerning the resurrection.

(Mar 12:28-34) The great command of the law.

(Mar 12:35-40) Christ the Son and yet the Lord of David.

(Mar 12:41-44) The poor widow commended.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 12 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, we have, I. The parable of the vineyard let out to unthankful husbandmen, representing the sin and ruin of the Jewish church (Mar 12:1-12). II. Christ's silencing those who thought to ensnare him with a question about paying tribute Caesar (Mar 12:13-17). III. His silencing the Sadducees, who attempted to perplex the doctrine of the resurrection (Mar 12:18-27). IV. His conference with a scribe about the first and great command of the law (Mar 12:28-34). V. His puzzling the scribes with a question about Christ's being the Son of David (Mar 12:35-37). VI. The caution he gave the people, to take heed of the scribes (Mar 12:38-40). VII. His commendation of the poor widow that cast her two mites into the treasury (Mar 12:41-44).

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 12 (Chapter Introduction)

Rejection And Retribution (Mar_12:1-12)

Caesar And God (Mar_12:13-17)

The Wrong Idea Of The Life To Come (Mar_12:18-27)

Love For God And Love For Men (Mar_12:28-34)

The Son Of David (Mar_12:35-37)

The Wrong Kind Of Religion (Mar_12:37-40)

The Greatest Gift (Mar_12:41-44)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV