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).
11:27-28 The chief priests, teachers or scribes, and elders constituted the three components of the Sanhedrin. This was a very official inquiry prompted by Jesus' presence and made necessary by His cleansing of the temple. Israel's official leaders wanted to know about Jesus' credentials and who gave Him the right to say and do what He did. They questioned the nature and source of His authority. Their questions were legitimate since they were responsible for supervising Israel's religious life. Yet their question was a challenge to Jesus' honor.279
"The essence of the depiction of the opponents [of Jesus in Mark] lies in that they are self-serving; that is, they are preoccupied with preserving their power, their importance, their wealth, and their lives."280
11:29-30 Essentially Jesus asked these leaders if they believed God was behind John's ministry. John had taught that God was behind Jesus' ministry. If the critics said they believed God was behind John's ministry, they would have had to agree that God was behind Jesus' ministry. Jesus challenged them to respond. "Answer me"(v. 30) is unique in Mark and suggests Jesus superiority to these men.
"As on the earlier question of Sabbath observance (2:23-3:6), the counterquestion [sic] implies that Jesus stands not under the Sanhedrin but over it. His counterquestion demonstrates the authority about which he is questioned."281
11:31-33 The critics' concern for their own position rather than for the truth is obvious in their refusal to answer Jesus. Clearly they rejected both John and Jesus as God's authorized prophets. Jesus had already answered their question in a veiled way by claiming that His authority was the same as John's. He refused to give them a more obvious answer knowing that they were trying to discredit Him. Their failure to reply to Him released Him from His promise to reply to them (v. 29). Rejection of revelation shut the door on further revelation.
"In his assault on the demonic, forgiveness of sins, supremacy over Torah and temple, speech about God as Father, and grounding pronouncements about matters in which God is sovereign in his own authority, Jesus exercises an authority that is God's prerogative. . . . Coming from anyone else it would have signaled utter madness--as it did in the eyes of his enemies. What the devout Jew saw in Torah, or perhaps in the temple, the gospels see in Jesus, for Jesus replaces Torah and temple as the locus Dei[place of God]. When questioned about the source of his authority, Jesus points to his baptism by John, wherein the voice declaring Jesus Son of God and the Spirit empowering him as servant of God confer on him the exousia[authority] of God.
"Thus in the gospel of Mark, as in John, Jesus appears as God incarnate in his bearing, speech and activity. This astonishes, baffles, and even offends his contemporaries, from his closest circles outward. The religious leaders in particular regard his laying claim to a realm that belonged properly to God as the gravest possible trespass. Jesus gives the distinct impression, however, that he is not a trespasser but is entering into his rightful property."282
"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.
