Mark 12
MCGARMark 12:1-12
(In the Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
M 33-46; M 1-12; L 9-19. [not the rulers] [this party represents God] [this represents the Hebrew nationality] [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] [a place where watchmen could be stationed to protect the vineyard from thieves as the grapes ripened for the vintage] [the rulers are here [590] represented; and the rental was, as usual, a part of the fruits] [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 Sinai, given the law and established the Hebrew nation, after which he had withdrawn.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.] the prophets] [ –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.] [For the treatment of the prophets, see such passages as , , , , , .
For a summary of the treatment of the prophets or messengers of God, [591] see .] [ .] [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 . 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 , 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.] [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 . 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.] [After two intervening days the Jews would fulfill this detail by thrusting Jesus outside the walls of Jerusalem and crucifying him there.] [Jesus said] [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, 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 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.] [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] [593] [The quotation is from , , 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.] [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 ; 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– .] [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]
Mark 12:13-17
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
M 15-22; M 13-17; L 20-26. [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.] [sincere seekers after truth] [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.] [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] [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!] [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.] [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.] [See , .] [They were amazed to find how far his wisdom transcended that of the teachers in whom they had such supreme confidence.] [FFG 597-600]
Mark 12:18-27
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
M 23-33; M 18-27; L 27-39. [As to the Sadducees, see , . The object of this law was to preserve families. But the custom was older than the law– ] [600] [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.] [The relevancy of these statements will be discussed in the treatment of ), 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 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 and ] [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]
Mark 12:28-34
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
M 34-40; M 28-34; L 40. [he was evidently deputed by those who counseled to ask this question] [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.] [ . 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 . 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.] [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.] [The generic nature of the law of love is also noted by Paul ; 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– .] [Here, as in the preceding subdivision, the answer of Jesus was so clearly right that it enforced admiration.] [Prejudice is the great obstacle to entering the kingdom.
In proportion as we overcome it we draw near to God.] [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]
Mark 12:35-37
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
M 41-46; M 35-37; L 41-44. [They had questioned him seeking to expose his lack of wisdom, but the question of Jesus was devoid of retaliation. It was asked to teach a most important lesson] [The answer was true, but it was not the truth as the Scriptures themselves showed. And this additional truth was what the opposers of Jesus needed to learn.] [The quotation is from . The context here shows that the rabbis of that day accepted this Psalm as written by David and as Messianic in meaning. Since then the Jews have denied that the Psalm is Messianic, and that it was written by David; some saying that Abraham, and others that Hezekiah, wrote it. This Psalm speaks of the Messiah as the Lord of David, and other Scriptures call him David’s son.
So also the Scriptures describe Christ as conquering yet suffering, as divine yet human, as dying yet living, as judged yet judging, etc. The Jewish rulers seem able to grasp only one side of the character of Christ as revealed either in his life or in the Scriptures, and hence they [605] stumbled.] [By all their questioning, the Jews had not been able to weaken public confidence in Christ.] [FFG 605-606]
Mark 12:38-40
(In the court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.) M 1-39; M 38-40; L 45-47. [he spoke in the most public manner] [As teachers of the law of Moses the scribes and Pharisees were the only religious guides whom the people had, so they were obliged to follow them as expounders of that law, but they were no means to look to them as living exemplification of that law.] [The law itself was a heavy yoke , but these teachers added to the burden of it a vast volume of traditions, but they themselves did not keep these traditions, excusing themselves by inventing subtle distinctions like those in reference to the Corban and to oaths . See , , , . These were enclosed in a leather case and were fastened to the forehead and left arm. The authority for wearing them was purely traditional, and the practice seems to have arisen from a literal interpretation of , , , . The Pharisees made the leather case large, that their righteousness might be more conspicuous] [These were the fringes mentioned in , . But the Pharisees offended again, even in their obedience, by wearing broader fringes than other people, that they might appear more religious] [This robe was a professional dress, as marked as that worn by priests and kings.
It showed that its wearer was professionally religious] [see , .] [Christ] [See .] [See , , . Thus Jesus reproves those who make religion a matter of praise-seeking ostentation, whether they do so by seeking position, or by peculiarity of dress, or by assuming or accepting titles of honor or distinction.
This sin of ostentation was the first enumerated sin of the Pharisees.] [Our Lord’s language is figurative and presents the kingdom of God as a house around the door of which the Pharisees have gathered, not entering in themselves, and blocking the way against those who would enter. This they did by their opposition to Jesus. For a similar charge see .] [Proselytes here meant are not those converted from heathenism to worship God, but Jews converted to Phariseeism. These become worse than their instructors, because each generation drifted farther from the law and became more zealously and completely devoted to the traditions.] [Jesus above denounced them for their hypocrisy, but this woe is pronounced upon them for their [608] ignorance and folly] [The word “debtor” is here meant to describe one who owes it to himself and to God to keep his oath. The Pharisees graduated oaths according to their own foolish conceptions of the sanctity of the object invoked, so that if the object by which a man swore was not sacred enough, he was not forsworn if he did not keep his oath. Esteeming the gold of the temple more sacred than the temple itself, they held that an oath by the former was binding while an oath by the latter was not.
The gold meant is probably the golden ornaments on the temple.] [Our Lord designed to teach that all oaths were binding. See .] [See .
The anise was used for medical purposes and also for culinary seasoning, so that Pliny says “the kitchen can not be without it.” Cummin also was a condiment and a medicine, the bruised seed mixed with wine being used as a styptic, especially after circumcision. It was also used as an ingredient for salves and plasters such as were applied to the ulcers of cattle produced from the bites, grubs, etc., of insects.] [609] [A proverbial expression, indicating care for little faults and a corresponding unconcern for big ones.] [Jesus here compares the Pharisees to a woman who washes the outside of her dishes and leaves the inside unclean. But in describing that inner uncleanness he passes from the figure to the reality, and specifies that it consists of extortion and self-indulgence. They made their outside clean by traditionary ablutions. See .] [Here again the literal peeps through the figurative: a pure inner life makes clean outward conduct.] [Luke records Jesus as having taught this lesson by an exactly opposite figure. See .
There men were contaminated by the touch of a grave because there was nothing outside to notify them of its presence. Here men are contaminated by the same thing because the outside is rendered so white and beautiful that men are deceived into thinking that the inside is harmless.] [See .] [See .] [610] [See .] [See .] [FFG 606-611]
Mark 12:41-44
(In the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.) M 41-44; L 1-4. [It is said that in the court of the women there were cloisters or porticos, and under the shelter of these were placed thirteen chests with trumpet-shaped mouths into which offerings might be dropped. The money cast in was for the benefit of the Temple. An inscription on each chest showed to which one of the thirteen special items of cost or expenditure the contents would be devoted; as, for the purchase of wood, or gold, or frankincense, etc.] [We should remember this calm inspection of our Lord when we are about [611] to make an offering to his work. He is by no means indifferent as to our actions] [The or mite was worth one-fifth of a cent. It was a Greek coin, and the or farthing was a Roman coin. It is suggested that she might have retained one of the coins, since she had two.] [he had found an object-lesson which he wished them to see] [We are disposed to measure the value of actions quantitatively rather than qualitatively.
Moreover, we are better judges of actions than of motives, and can see the outward conduct much clearer than the inward character. God, therefore, in his word, constantly teaches us that he looks rather upon the inward than the outward. In this case, the value of the woman’s gift was measured, not by quantity, but its quality; in quantity it was two mites, in quality it was the gift of all she had. From considering the corrupt character of the Pharisees, Jesus must have turned with pleasure to look upon the beautiful heart of this devout widow.] [612] [FFG 611-612]