Mark 12

Mark 12:1-12

**3. THE REJECTED SON Matthew 12:1-12

TEXT 12:1-12**

And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard. And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. And he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. Have ye not read even this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner: This was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared the multitude; for they perceived that he spake the parable against them: and they left him, and went away.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:1-12

Show how especially appropriate the parable was by way of time and persons.

Who was the owner of the vineyard? i.e. who was represented by the owner?

Why use parables at this time?

Who was represented by the vine-growers?

Who were the servants?

Why was the owner of the vineyard so exceedingly patient?

Did anyone understand the obvious prophetic words about the son?

Who were the others to whom the vineyard was to be given?

What was the import of the chief corner stone?

If they wanted to seize and kill Him why didn-’t they do it?

COMMENT

TIME.Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, two days after the entry into Jerusalem. PLACE.The words here were uttered in the temple, probably in the court of the Gentiles, where the Lord often taught the people. We shall later give a description of the temple and its courts. INTERVENING HISTORY.On Sunday April 2, the Lord made his official entrance into Jerusalem, looked through the temple and then retired to Bethany for the night. On Monday, April 3, he returned and taught in the temple. This teaching continued over Tuesday, and embraces a number of parables and discourses, either referring to his own rejection, the end of the Jewish state, or the end of the world, either on Monday or Tuesday, probably the latter.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19.

LESSON OUTLINE.1. The Wicked Husbandmen. 2. The Son Rejected and Slain. 3. Judgment Inflicted.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN, Mark 12:1-5.

The Vineyard Planted. Mark 12:1; Matthew 21:33; Luke 20:9.

Fruits Demanded. Mark 12:2; Matthew 21:24; Luke 20:10.

The Lord’s Servants Persecuted. Mark 12:3-5; Matthew 21:35-36; Luke 20:5.

II.

THE SON REJECTED, Mark 12:6-8.

The Son Chosen. Mark 12:6; Matthew 21:37; Luke 20:6.

Evil Counsel. Mark 12:7; Matthew 21:38; Luke 20:7.

The Son Slain. Mark 12:8; Matthew 21:39; Luke 20:8.

III.

JUDGMENT INFLICTED, Mark 12:9-12.

The Wicked Husbandmen Destroyed. Mark 12:9; Matthew 21:16; Luke 20:9.

The Rejected Stone. Mark 12:10; Matthew 21:42; Matthew 21:44;Luke 21:10.

INTRODUCTION

The enemies of Christ had already determined on his death. Their only ground of hesitation was his popularity with the throngs who now crowded Jerusalem. This day was one of constant conflict. The chief ecclesiastical authorities had come to him to demand his authority for driving the money changers out of the temple but had been silenced by a question that he had hurled upon them. After Jesus had put to silence the chief priests and scribes, he spoke to them three parables. The Two Sons, recorded only by Matthew; the Wicked Husbandmen, and The Marriage of the King’s Son, given only by Matthew. It was as if in a glass held up before them they might see themselves. Yet even these parables, wearing as they do so severe and threatening an aspect, are not words of defiance, but of earnest, tenderest lovespoken, if it were yet possible to turn them from their purpose to save them the fearful sin they were about to commit, to win them also for the kingdom of God.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN.

Mark 12:1. He began to speak to them. To the chief priests and scribes whom he had just silenced, as related in the last chapter. The people were present but his words and their rebuke are for their rulers whom he directly addressed in parables of which they could see the application, A certain man. The man who planted the vineyard represents the Heavenly Father who had planted the Jewish nation. A vineyard, Our Lord draws, as was his wont, his illustration from common life and familiar objects, Palestine was emphatically a vine-growing country, and fitted, in consequence of its peculiar configuration and climate, for rearing the very finest grapes. The image of the kingdom of God as a vinestock or as a vineyard is not peculiar to this parable, but runs through the whole Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:32; Psalms 80:8-16; Isaiah 5:1-7; Isaiah 27:1-7; Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 15:1-6; Ezekiel 19:10); and has this especial fitness, that no property was considered to yield so large a return (Son 8:11-12). None was therefore of such price and esteem. It no doubt belongs to the fitness of the image, that a vineyard does, if it is to bring forth richly, require the most diligent and never ceasing care; that there is no season in the year in which much has not to be done in it. Set an hedge about it, Probably a hedge of thorns; possibly a wall. Enclosures of loose stone, everywhere catch the eye on the bare slopes of Hebron, of Bethlehem, and of Olivet. The hedge around them is the law, separating them from the Gentiles. By their circumscription through the law (Ephesians 5:14) the Jews became a people dwelling alone, and not reckoned among the nations; that law being at once a hedge of separation and defensea wall of fire, which, preserving them distinct from the idolatrous nations round them and from their abominations, gave them the pledge and assurance of the continued protection of God. Digged a place (or pit) for the wine-fat (or wine-press). The wine-press (Matthew 21:33) consisted of two parts(1) the press, or trough, above, in which the grapes were placed, and there trodden by the feet of several persons amidst singing and other expressions of joy (Judges 9:27; Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 25:30); (2) a smaller trough (yekeb), into which the expressed juice flowed through a hole or spout (Nehemiah 13:15; Isaiah 63:2; Lamentations 1:15). Here the smaller trough, which was often hollowed (digged) out of the earth or native rock and then lined with masonry, is put for the whole apparatus, and is called a wine-fat.Cambridge Bible. Built a tower. Towers were erected in vineyards, of a very considerable height, and were intended for accommodation of keepers, who defended the vineyards from thieves and from troublesome animals. Let it out to husbandmen. Representing the rulers of the Jews (Matthew 21:45); but the people as a whole, a nation or a church, are included (Matthew 21:43). It is customary in the East, for the owner to let out his estate to husbandmen; i.e., to tenants, who pay him an annual rent, either in money or, as apparently in this case, in kind. Went into a far country. For a long while (for time), adds Luke. At Sinai, the Lord may be said to have openly manifested himself to Israel, but then to have withdrawn himself again for a while, not speaking to the people again face to face (Deuteronomy 34:10-12), but waiting in patience to see what the law would effect, and what manner of works the people, under the teaching of their spiritual guides, would bring forth.

Mark 12:2. At the season. By the Mosaic law the fruit of the trees was not to be eaten for five years after planting. This reasonable provision, though based on religious grounds, gave the tree opportunity of maturing before use. Leviticus 19:23-25. In the vineyard of our probation all the time of our responsible years is harvest time, in which we are expected to bring forth fruit to Him who hath planted and let to us the vineyard. But as applied to Israel it refers to the period of her history when, Canaan being fully possessed, God sent his prophets to remind his people of their duty. Sent. a servantThe different sendings must not be pressed; they probably imply the fullness and sufficiency of warnings given and set forth the long suffering of the householder, and the increasing rebellion of the husbandmen is shown by their increasing ill-treatment of the messengers.Alford. These servants, like Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah, were sent to demand that a nation for whom God had done so much should yield fitting fruit to God.

Mark 12:3. They caught him. The gradual growth of the outrage is clearly traced: (1) The first servant they caught, beat, and sent away empty; (2) at the second they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled; (3) the third they killed. Empty. Empty-handed; i.e., without that which he came for. According to the obvious design of the whole parable, this is a lively figure for the undutiful and violent reception often given to the prophets or other divine messengers, and the refusal to obey their message. (See Matthew 23:29-31; Matthew 23:34; Matthew 23:37; Luke 11:47-50; Luke 13:33-34. Compare 1 Thessalonians 2:15; Revelation 16:6; Revelation 18:24).

Mark 12:4. Another servant. God sent many prophets to the Jews, as he sends many influences to us. Shamefully handled, or dishonored. It is the generic summing up of all that the imagination naturally suggests when we think of what must have been done to the man in the affray in which his head was seriously wounded.Morison.

Mark 12:5. Him they killed, Some of the prophets were not merely maltreated, but actually put to death. Thus, if we may trust Jewish tradition, Jeremiah was stoned by the exiles in Egypt, Isaiah sawn asunder by Manasseh; and, for an ample historical justification of this description, see Jeremiah 37, 38; 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 22:24-27; 2 Kings 6:31; 2 Kings 21:16; 2 Chronicles 24:19-22; 2 Chronicles 36:16; and also Acts 7:52; and the whole passage finds parallel in the words of the apostle (Hebrews 11:36). The patience of the house holder under these extraordinary provocations is wonderful.

II.

THE SON REJECTED.

Mark 12:6. Having yet therefore one son. This was the last and crowning effort of divine mercy; after which, on the one side, all the resources even of heavenly love are exhausted; on the other the measure of sins is perfectly filled up. Undoubtedly they who were our Lord’s actual hearers quite understood what he meant, and the honor which in these words he claimed as his own; though they were unable to turn his words against himself, and to accuse him, on the strength of them, of making himself, as indeed he did then affirm himself, the Son of God.Trench, One son, his well beloved, he sent him. This saying, put at that time by Jesus in the mouth of God, has a peculiar solemnity. There is his answer to the question, By what authority doest thou these things? See Mark 11:28. They will reverence my son. That is, they will respect and treat with due esteem such a messenger (John 3:16-17).Jacobus. The expression of the hope that the husbandmen will reverence the son implies, of course, no ignorance, but the sincere will of God that all should be saved.

Mark 12:7. This is the heir, He for whom the inheritance is meant, and to whom it will in due course rightfully arrivenot, as in earthly relations, by the death, but by the free appointment of the actual possessor. Christ is heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). Come, let us kill him. The very words of Genesis (Genesis 37:20), where Joseph’s brethren express a similar resolution. This resolution had actually been taken (John 11:53). It is the heart which speaks in God’s hearing. The thought of men’s hearts is their true speech, and therefore given as though it were the words of their lips. And the inheritance shall be ours. They were so connected with a system which must pass away with Christ, with wrong ideas and principles and customs which Christ was doing away, that, if Christ prevailed, they must fall. But they imagined that, if they could destroy Christ, they could continue in possession of the inheritance, be rulers over Israel, teachers and leaders of the people, the possessors of the nation. See, also, John 11:48.

Mark 12:8. And killed him. As the Jews did Jesus. They killed that they might possess; and because they killed they lost. Cast him out of the vineyard. This may involve an allusion to Christ suffering without the gate (Hebrews 13:12-13; John 19:17).

III.

JUDGMENT INFLICTED.

Mark 12:9. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? In Matthew 21:41, the people answer this question. It may be that the Pharisees, to whom he addressed himself, and who gave the answer reported, had as yet missed the scope of the parable, answering as they did, and so, before they were aware, pronounced sentence against themselves. He will come. The coming of the Lord in this place is to be interpreted of the destruction of Jerusalem. And destroy the husbandmen. The polity of the Jews was destroyed, their temple razed to the ground, their capital laid waste by the Romans, about forty years after this. Give the vineyard unto others. Expressed by the apostle when he said, Lo, we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). The others were the Christian Church which Christ ordained for his kingdom.

Mark 12:10. Have ye not read this scripture. Referring them to Psalms 118:22-23a psalm which the Jews applied to the Messiah. Peter twice applied it to him (Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:7). In the primary meaning of the psalm the illustration seems to have been drawn from one of the stones, quarried, hewn, and marked, away from the site of the temple, which the builders, ignorant of the head architect’s plans, or finding on it no mark (such as recent explorations in Jerusalem have shown to have been placed on the stones of Solomon’s temple in the place where they were quarried, to indicate their position in the future structure of the fabric), had put on one side as having no place in the building, but which was found afterwards to be that on which the completeness of the structure dependedon which, as the chief corner-stone, the two walls met and were bonded together.Plumptre. The stone. The stone is the whole kingdom and power of the Messiah summed up in himself.Alford. The builders rejected. The builders answer to the husbandman; they were appointed of God to carry up the spiritual building, as these to cultivate the spiritual vineyard. The rejection of the chief corner-stone answers exactly to the denying and murdering the heir.Trench. Become the head of the corner. The most important foundation-stone, joining two walls. A reference to the union of Jews and Gentiles in Christ, as in Ephesians 2:19-22, may be included (see Alford); but the main thought is that the Messiah, even if rejected by the builders, should become the corner-stone of the real temple of God (his new spiritual kingdom),Schaff.

Mark 12:11. This was the Lord’s doing. The making the Rejected Stone the head of the corner. It is still marvelous and incredible to many that one rejected, despised, and put to death as a malefactor, should be exalted as the Lord of life and glory.

Mark 12:12. And they sought to lay hold on him. The three accounts supplement each other here. The purpose to seize him is plainly stated in all. Mark shows that it was a continued effort (literally, they were seeking), while Luke tells that they would have done so on the spot, had they not been afraid of the people. For they knew, etc. Matthew gives the more general reason for this fear: Because they held him as a prophet. Their desire to seize him was increased by this parable; but their fear of the people was also increased, since they (i.e. the rulers) perceived that he spake the parable against them, and in the presence of the people (Luke 20:9), so that they felt themselves convicted before the people. Conscience made them cowards.Schaff.

FACT QUESTIONS 12:1-12

At what particular place or area in the temple was this parable told?

What was the only ground of hesitation in the plan to kill our Lord?

Name the three parables Jesus gave on this Tuesday.

What was the ultimate purpose in these parables?

To whom was this parable addressed?

Who was the certain manwhat was represented by the vineyard?

Give two examples of Israel represented as a vineyard.

What did the wall represent?

What were the two parts to the wine-press?

For what purpose were the towers?

Read Matthew 21:45 and state who in the parable is here indicated.

Wien did the Lord in a sense withdraw Himself for awhile?

What is represented by the season?

Elijah, Isaiah and Jeremiah are represented by whom?

Show how the gradual growth of outrage is indicated.

Who was sent empty away?

Which of the prophets did they actually put to death?

In what one act are all the resources of heaven’s love exhausted and all the measure of man’s sin filled up?

Show how the words of Gen 37:20 relate to the parable. Cf. John 11:53.

How did the rulers and teachers of Israel imagine they would obtain the inheritance?

How did the Pharisees pronounce sentence against themselves?

When did the Lord of the vineyard come and destroy the husbandman? To whom was the vineyard given?

How would the builders know which stone was the cornerstone?

Show the importance of the cornerstone.

To what incident in the parable does the rejection of the cornerstone compare?

What was marvelous and incredible?

What does Mark add about the effort to seize Him that is not included in Matthew or Luke?

Mark 12:1-44

SUMMARY 11:1 to 12:44

In this section the historian has presented only one miracle, that of withering the barren fig-tree. The section is chiefly taken up with conversations and speeches, in which some of the peculiar teachings of Jesus are set forth, and in which his superhuman wisdom is conspicuously exhibited, In the conversations about his own authority, the tribute to Caesar, the resurrection of the dead, the great commandment, and the Lordship of the Christ, he not only silenced his enemies, so that no man dared to ask him any more questions, but he displayed a wisdom which has never ceased to command the admiration of wise and good men. All men, in the presence of his utterances on these subjects, feel themselves in contact with a mind which towers above their own as the heavens are above the earth. They contain a subtile but irresistible proof, that he who spoke to them was filled with a wisdom which came down from heaven; and such must be the ever deepening conviction of all who dwell on them thoughtfully. (J. W. McGarvey)

Mark 12:13-17

**4. THE QUESTION OF PAYING TAXES 12:13-17

TEXT 12:13-17**

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the way of God: Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’S. And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’S. And they marvelled greatly at him.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:13-17

Who sent the Pharisees and Herodians?

Who were the Herodians? Were they friends of the Pharisees? Discuss.

Why desire to catch Jesus in His speech?

What is meant by the use of the word true as in Mark 12:14?

In what sense didn-’t Jesus care for anyone?

Did these enemies of Jesus believe what they said to Him about Him?

Whose law was involved in paying tribute to Caesar? Discuss.

In what sense were these inquirers hypocrites?

Why ask about the inscription on the coin?

Did Jesus recommend paying taxes?

What things belong to Godare they the same things that belong to Caesar? Discuss.

COMMENT

TIME.Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, two days after entry into Jerusalem. PLACE.In the temple, probably in the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26.

OUTLINE.1. The trap setters, Mark 12:13. 2. The trap set, Mark 12:14-15 a, 3. Caught in their own trap, Mark 12:15 b - Mark 12:17.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE TRAPPERS, Mark 12:13.

They were officiali.e. sent by others.

Made up of two opposing forces, who now joined together to oppose Jesus.

II.

THE TRAP, Mark 12:14-15 a.

Flattery used as a camouflage.

The trap is a question; shall we pay taxes to usurpers?

III.

THE TRAPPED, Mark 12:15 b - Mark 12:17.

He knew their purpose.

He sprang the trap on them.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE TRAPPERS.

Mark 12:13. Although thus foiled in their direct attempt to silence him, they lose no time in aiming at the same end by a more insidious method, all the parties hostile to him coalescing for a moment in a joint and several effort to destroy his popularity and influence, by setting him at variance either with the Roman government or Jewish people. The means employed for this end was a series of entangling questions upon difficult and controverted points, both doctrinal and practical, to which it seemed impossible for him to return any answer that would not commit him in the eyes of some important party. This design is apparent from the coalition of two adverse sects or parties in the first attack, the Pharisees, or bigoted opponents of all heathenish and foreign domination, and the Herodians, or followers of Herod, who sustained him as the instrument and vassal of the Romans. This unnatural alliance between parties diametrically opposite in principle was caused by their common hostility to Christ, whose growing influence was far more dangerous to both than either could be to the other. By combining, too, they seemed to render his escape impossible, as any answer which would satisfy the one side must of course afford a ground of opposition to the other. Of this crafty and unprincipled contrivance, on the part of men whose only bond of union was their hatred of our Lord and their desire to destroy him, it might well be said that their design was to catch him, as a bird is caught in fowling, by a word, i.e. by a perplexing question, or, as some explain it, by an unguarded answer.

II.

THE TRAP.

And they coming say to him, their first words being not a peremptory challenge, as in the preceding case (Mark 11:27), but a flattering address intended to allay suspicion and conceal their real purpose, so as to throw him off his guard and make it easier to entrap him. Master, i.e. Teacher, we know, not necessarily a false profession, since the character here ascribed to Christ was not only true but universally acknowledged. True, i.e. honest, candid, truthful, one who spoke the truth without regard to consequences. Carest for no man, in the Greek a double negative, as usual enforcing the negation. It does not concern thee about no man. The impersonal verb is that employed in Mark 4:38, and there explained. What they here ascribe to him is not indifference or unconcern as to the welfare of others, but independence of their influence and authority, as motives for suppressing an unwelcome truth. The flattery here lies, not in the falsehood or extravagance of the description, but in the honesty with which they seem to comprehend themselves among those for whom he did not care in the sense above explained. As if they had said, we come to you not only as a wise and famous teacher, but because we know that you will tell us to our faces what you think, without considering how it will affect us. Regardest not the person, literally dost not look into the face (or at the outward appearance) of men, i.e. art not influenced by any difference of rank, position, wealth, or power, a regard to which in the administration of justice was forbidden in the law of Moses as respect of persons or judicial partiality. (See Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy 1:17; Deuteronomy 16:19, and compare Proverbs 24:23; Proverbs 28:21.) The same thing is here denied of Christ, not as a judge, but as a teacher. In truth or of a truth, i.e. truly, really, sincerely, without any such reserves or personal regards as those just mentioned. Such adulation has blinded the eyes and warped the judgment of its thousands and its tens of thousands among human sages, and especially of those who glory in their insusceptibility of flattery. It is not surprising, therefore, that these crafty casuists and politicians, who regarded Jesus as a mere man, though an eminently wise and good one, should have hoped to find him as susceptible of flattery as others. Having thus prepared the way for their ensuing question, they at length propound it, in a very categorical and simple form. Is it lawful, is it right, not in itself or in the abstract, but for us as members of the chosen people, subjects of a theocracy, to give tribute, literally census, one of the Latin words embedded in the Greek of Mark, strictly meaning an enrollment of the people and assessment of their property with a view to taxation (compare Luke 2:1-5), but also used in the secondary sense of the tax itself, here distinguished as a Roman not a Jewish impost by the Latin word applied to it and by the express mention of the taxing power, Cesar, a surname of the Julian family at Rome, inherited from Julius Caesar by his grand nephew and adopted son, Octavius or Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, was afterwards transmitted through the line of his successors, not only those who were connected with his family, but those exalted by a popular or military nomination, It is here applied abstractly to the office, or rather to the actual incumbent, Tiberius, the stepson and successor of Augustus, who reigned from the 14th to the 37th year of the Christian era. It is not however in his personal capacity, but as the representative of Roman power, that he is here mentioned. Or not? an artful presentation of the question as requiring a direct and categorical solution, without qualifications or distinctions, but as we say in English, Yea or nay?

Mark 12:15 a. May we give, or may we not give? the form of the Greek verb being not future but subjunctive and indefinite. It is therefore really another form of the preceding question, not a second one consequent upon it, as the English version seems to intimate. 1. Is it lawful? 2. Shall we do it? for a thing may be lawful and yet not expedient or binding. (Compare 1 Corinthians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 10:23). But in Greek no such distinction is expressed or suggested, but a simple repetition of the same inquiry in a different and more laconic form, thus rendering it still more categorical and peremptory, as admitting of no answer but a simple affirmation or negation. While the preamble to the question, therefore, was adapted to conciliate and prepossess an ordinary wise man, the question itself was so framed as almost to extort a categorical and therefore compromising answer. But he with whom they had to deal saw not only through their question but themselves, and shaped his course accordingly, so as at one stroke to solve the difficulty and defeat their malice.

III.

THE TRAPPED.

Mark 12:15 b. Knowing (or according to some copies, seeing) their hypocrisy, the part which they were acting, but here from the connection necessarily suggesting the idea of dissimulation, false pretenses, which we commonly attach to the derivative in English. Why tempt ye me? not why entice me into sin, which is the ordinary sense of tempting (see Mark 1:13), but why do you try me, prove me, put me to the test, which is its primary and proper import. (See Mark 8:11; Mark 10:2.) Then, instead of answering in thesi, as they evidently wished and expected, he gives a striking popularity and vividness to what he is about to say, by addressing it not only to the ears but to the eyes of those about him. Bring me a penny, a denarius, another of Mark’s Latin words, denoting a silver coin in common circulation since the Roman conquest, worth from fifteen to seventeen cents of our money, but here mentioned not with any reference whatever to its value, but as the tribute money (coin of the census or taxation) as it is expressed in Matthew (Matthew 22:19.) That I may see (it), is almost sarcastic, for though he did desire and intend to see it, yet the words, if seriously understood, seem to imply that he had never done so, and expected to derive some information from an inspection of the coin itself. But this was no doubt understood by all about him as a sort of grave rebuking irony, intended to disclose his knowledge of their secret motives, and his scorn of their hypocrisy, in raising such an abstract question on a point decided by their every-day transactions in the way of business. As if he had said; -What! Are you required to pay taxes to the Romans? And in what coin? Let me see one-’thus attracting the attention of all present to the question, and preparing them to understand his memorable answer.

Mark 12:16. And they (either those who put the question or some others present) brought (it). We may now conceive of him as holding the denarius in his hand, or displaying it to those around, as if it had been something new, thus still more exciting curiosity and gradually opening the way for the solution of the difficulty which had been suggested. Whose is this image and inscription? referring to the well-known head and title of the emperor by which the money was authenticated as a legal tender. As if he had continued in the same tone as before. -See this money has a man’s head and a man’s name stamped upon it; what does this mean? who is this, here represented both in words and figures?-’ The inevitable answer, Cesar’S, may to some have suggested, at least vaguely and obscurely, the solution just about to be expressed in words, while others, perhaps most, still continued in suspense, until the words were uttered.

Mark 12:17. The first words of this verse are not to be slurred over as mere expletives or words of course, but read with great deliberation and strong emphasis. And Jesus (having thus directed attention to the captious and unreasonable nature of the question, not evading it, but) answering (at last) said unto them, i.e. directly to his tempters, as a solution of their abstract question, but at the same time through them and as it were over their heads to the surrounding masses, as a practical direction or a rule of duty. Render (return, pay back) the (things) of Cesar to Cesar, and the (things) of God to God, a collocation more emphatic (though identical in meaning) than the one in the translation, as it places last in either clause, not the thing to be paid but the person to receive it. Some attach to the Greek verb the diluted sense of simply giving out or paying, but the strong sense of paying back, restoring, correctly though not clearly enough given in our version, is not only permitted by the etymology and favoured by the usage of the word (compare Matthew 5:26; Matthew 5:33; Matthew 6:4; Matthew 6:18; Matthew 6:25; Matthew 20:8, Luke 4:20; Luke 4:9; Luke 4:42; Luke 19:8, Romans 12:17; Romans 13:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:15, 1 Peter 3:9), but required by the whole connection and essential to the full force of our Saviour’s answer. Of the numerous specific senses put upon that answer there are probably but two exegetically possible and yet essentially unlike. The first of these supposes Christ to represent the two things as entirely distinct and independent of each other, belonging to excentric incommensurable spheres, and therefore not to be reduced to any common principle or rule. As if he had said, Pay your taxes and perform your religious duties, but do not mix the two together or attempt to bring them either into conflict or agreement; for they really belong to different worlds or systems, and have nothing common or alike by which they can even be compared. This paradoxical interpretation would deserve no notice had it not been gravely urged by one of the most celebrated modern German writers. The other exegetical hypothesis supposes Christ to say precisely the opposite of this, to wit, that the two duties are in perfect harmony and rest on one and the same principle. Within this general hypothesis, however, there are several gradations or distinct forms of opinion as to the principle here laid down. Without enumerating all these, it will be sufficient to state two, the lowest and the highest, which can be reduced to this class. The former understands our Lord as rather distinguishing the two obligations, but affirming their consistency and equal obligation, when they are not in collision. The latter understands him as identifying both as parts of one and the same system, as if he had said, your civil duties are but parts of your religious duties. By rendering to Cesar what is his you render unto God what is his. But the question still remains, what doctrine did he teach as to the Roman domination and the duty of the Jews while under it? The most approved and prevalent opinion is that in accordance with the maxim of Maimonides and other rabbis, he regards the circulation of the coin of any sovereign as a practical proof that his sovereignty not only exists but is submitted to. So long as the Jews submitted to the Romans and enjoyed their protection they were not only authorized but bound to pay for the advantage. Others make the prominent idea that of penal visitation, or subjection to the Romans as a punishment of sin. The other precept, render unto God, etc., is understood according to these different hypotheses as meaning either, give your souls or yourselves (which bear his image) back to him by faithful service or by true repentance, as you give back to the emperor in tribute the coin which he circulates among you. All these constructions seem to me too artificial, and the only satisfactory one that which understands our Lord as first suggesting by the very aspect of the coin that they were under obligations to the civil power, and then reminding them that till these came in conflict with religious obligations they were no less binding. As if he had said, -Yes, if you are actually under Roman domination, yet allowed to serve God in the way of his appointment, and indeed protected in that service, you are bound to pay back what you thus receive, but no such obligations can destroy those which you owe to God himself, or suspend them when they come in competition. In a word, repay to Cesar what he gives you, and to God the infinitely greater gifts which you receive from him-’. (J. A. Alexander)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:13-17

What was meant by the expression It does not concern thee about no man?

In what sense did our Lord look into the face of man?

What immediate advantage was hoped for in the use of flattery?

Just what was meant by the word tribute? How is the word Caesar used?

Are there two questionsone in Mark 12:14 and another in Mark 12:15? Explain.

What kind of an answer did these men want? Why?

Just what was the point of hypocrisy, i.e. in what were they being hypocritical?

Why ask to see the coin? Why ask about the superscription?

To whom did Jesus address His answer? Why?

Where is the emphasis? On the thing to be paid, or the person to receive it?

State the two possible interpretations of this expression i.e. general ones.

Which of the gradations of the above two views is to be preferred? Why?

What did Jesus teach about the duty of the Jews to Roman domination?; to God?

Mark 12:18-27

**5. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RESURRECTION 12:18-27

TEXT 12:18-27**

And there come unto him Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed, Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven. But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:18-27

Why this concerted effort to ensnare our Lord in His speech?

Give three facts about the Sadducees.

Since they did not believe in a resurrection why ask a question involving it?

Was this a real case or only a hypothetical one? What does a discussion of the sex relationship of marriage reveal about the hearts of the men who ask it?

There are two things absolutely essential in escaping religious errorJesus states them in Mark 12:24what are they?

Why not marry in heaven? Are we to understand we will lose our identity as husband and wife? Discuss.

Are angels distinguishablei.e. are they recognized as separate beings?

Why add the comment on the resurrection?

Show how the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob proves the natural immortality of man. Discuss.

In what did the Sadducees err?

COMMENT

TIME.Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, two days after entry into Jerusalem. PLACE.In the temple, probably in the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38.

OUTLINE.1. The Sadducees ask an ignorant question, Mark 12:18-23. 2. Jesus answers their question and spiritual need, Mark 12:24-27.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION, Mark 12:18-23.

Asked by those who did not believe in a resurrection.

Their question was based on the law of Moses.

Whose wife will the much married woman be in the resurrection?

II.

JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED, Mark 12:24-27.

You do not know because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

There is no marriage relationship in the world to come.

Read again about the burning bushAbraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive for God said He was their God. There can be and will be a resurrection.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION.

Mark 12:18. The Pharisees and Herodians having been silenced, it was the turn of the Sadducees to come forward. Their question is as insincere as the preceding; it was a puzzle upon a doctrine in which they were total unbelievers. It proves, however, that the doctrine of the resurrection was everywhere recognized as a doctrine of Jesus.

Mark 12:19-23. This is the so-called Levirate marriage (from Latin levir, a brother-in-law). (See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) This provision corresponded to the universal desire in Israel for the perpetuation of name and family. So strong was the desire that this provision was made for a putative offspring in default of actual. The custom was older than the law, however (Genesis 38:8), and exists in many Eastern nations. But the obscure expression in Deuteronomy 25:5, If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, leaves us uncertain in exactly what circumstances the law was applicable. There is no case recorded in the Old Testament, though there is an illusion to the custom in Rth 1:11-13. The transaction of Rth 4:1-8 is of another kind. These questioners stated the law fairly, but their illustration was an extreme one, meant for a reductio ad absurdum. The language of Mar 12:19 is awkward, but there is no difficulty about the sense.There were seven brethren. In Matthew, There were with us, as if the case were fresh from the life. Mark 12:22 should be, simply, and the seven left no seed: last of all the woman died also. Childless by all the marriages, the woman was not linked to any one of the husbands more than to the others.In the resurrection, therefore, when they (the woman and the seven brothers) shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? It is assumed that she be someone’s wife, and how will Jesus judge between the rival claims of the seven?

II.

JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED.

Mark 12:24. There is something wonderful in the gentleness of the answer, considering the insincerity of the question. He quietly assumed that there was an error, and proceeded to account for it; he did not even distinctly assert it. Do ye not therefore (from this cause) erris it not for this cause that ye errbecause ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? Is not ignorance the secret of your error? Ignorance (1) as to the Scriptures, He did not mean, of course, that the resurrection was mentioned in the Old Testament plainly, as it was mentioned by him, He meant that if they had understood the Old Testament rightly, they would have found the resurrection implied in its teaching, or at least would have been prepared to receive the doctrine, Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures, but ignorance of their true meaning, kept them from believing in the resurrection. Moreover, a true knowledge of the Scriptures would have prevented their ideas from being so grossly carnal. (2) As to the power of God. All their conceptions of a resurrection were of a low and carnal kind that underestimated the power of God as shown therein. They thought only of re-establishment of the present fleshly life. No conception had they of the power of God to make life altogether new in the resurrection-state, but this is what he will do. Now follows the truth on these two points: (1) The Power of God; (2) The Scriptures.

THE POWER OF GOD.Mark 12:25. He tells them that they have not understood the resurrection: it is something far nobler than they have supposed, and it will work changes such as they never thought of. When they shall rise from the dead, General, and equal to in the resurrection of Matthew.They neither marrycontract marriage as husbandsnor are given in marriage, by the act of their parents, as wives. In the resurrection-state there will be no marriage. The reason, as expressly given in Luke, is that they cannot die any more. Marriage, especially as suggested by the Levirate institution, exists for the sake of offspring. But birth and death are correlatives; they belong in the same world: if one ceases, the other must cease. In that world there is no death; hence no birth, hence no marriage. The power of God will have brought into being that which Paul calls the spiritual body, in which sexual relations will not continue. Notice that this is not a denial of the perpetuity of those mental characteristics which distinguish the sexes in this world. It is not affirmed that they are excluded from the resurrection-state. It is not said that the holy spiritual relations and personal affinities that may have accompanied marriage will not continue, or that husband and wife will be nothing to each other in the future life. The questioners thought of that life as a continuation of this, with its relations unchanged; and he simply told them that marriage, in that world, would be out of place. Upon the relations of soul with soul in that world he did not touch.But are as the angels which are in heaven. Not are angels, but are as angels. The most that we know of angels is drawn from such allusions as this. What is here implied concerning them is that they are immortal, and hence among them the marriage relation does not exist.

Thus far, Jesus expounded the doctrine of the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected it, but they knew it only in a gross form. Very beautiful is his kindness in thus commending a rejected doctrine by presenting it in a nobler form; as much as to say, Would not even you have believed it, if you had known it thus? An example to all preachers and teachers. State your doctrine at its noblest; perhaps those who reject it have never understood it.

THE SCRIPTURES.Mark 12:26-27. Now he turns to prove the doctrine that he has been expoundingi.e. to find it in the Holy Writings. He quoted from the book of the law (the Pentateuch), because from it the question had been drawn; possibly, also, because the Sadducees prized it above the other Scriptures. The relation of this extract to the doctrine in discussion is somewhat peculiar. The expectation of a life beyond the present was expressed with greater or less clearness here and there in the Old Testament. Many of the writers had shown that they cherished such a hope, though not with clearness of the gospel. But it was not the hope or expectation that Jesus now wished to bring out: it was the fact. Hence an expression of human desire or aspiration would not suit his purpose, even though it were made under the guidance of the Divine Spirit. He must find a direct utterance of God. This passage, therefore, may be expected to be of unusual importance respecting a future life. To this peculiarity of the case well corresponds Luke’s word: That the dead are raised, Moses also revealedbrought to lightat the bush.Translate, in Mark 12:26, have ye not read, in the book of Moses, at the bush, how God spake unto himi.e. in the section or paragraph where the bush is the subject of discourse. (Compare 2 Samuel 1:18.)I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The citation here is from Exodus 3:6, the words of Jehovah to Moses.The words might be found in many other places of Scripture: no language was more characteristic of the old covenant or more familiar to Jewish ears. He took no recondite passage, but one of the great words of the old dispensation.In Mark 12:27, therefore is to be omitted. The reading is, *He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye do greatly err.*i.e. ye greatly err in interpreting the text as if he called himself the God of men who do not now exist. If he is any man’s God, you may know that that man exists.

How did he draw such an inference? By a fresh and rich principle of interpretation, arguing from the nature of God, and of God’s relations to man. The Sadducees took the passage to mean, I am the God in whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob put their trust during their brief existence, which is now forever ended. But Jesus reasoned thus: A God who did for the patriarchs what he did would not speak so of himself, He was gloriously their Godso gloriously that he could not call himself their God in such a sense, if their being had been but transient, If men were destined to become extinct, he could not be so gloriously a God to them. That such a God is or can be their God is proof that they are more than mortal, The argument is that the relations in which God enters, or proposes to enter, with men imply their immortality. The richness of man’s relation to God is the fact from which Jesus infers his continued existence. See what a God becomes man’s God, and it will be plain that he is no creature of a day. Notice that he does not present this as a fact that lies upon the face of Scripture, so that no one can miss it. The Sadducees missed it, and others may; but Jesus teaches us that they who explore the Scriptures by the light of God’s nature will find it.As if in order to ensure that this should not be taken as an argument for conditional immortalityi.e. immortality for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as chosen onesLuke adds that all live unto himi.e. in such sense that he is God of the living to them, all are alive. A distinct statement of the continued existence of all human beings. The relation to God from which the argument is derived is naturally possible to all, if not actual; and so the conclusion, of immortality, is true of all.Notice that he draws no distinction here between continued existence and resurrection. The assertion of the former he regards as sufficient to establish the latter. If persons continue to exist, it is proper to speak of their resurrection. Compare John 5:29, where resurrection is predicted for the two classes that include all men.

Luke adds that after this answer some of the scribes responded, Rabbi, thou hast well said, being, perhaps, as Farrar says, pleased by the spiritual refutation of a scepticism which their reasonings had been unable to remove.The fresh method that he thus introduced, of interpreting Scripture in the light of the nature of God and of his relations to men, is a method of boundless suggestiveness. This one specimen of exegesis is enough to prove the freshness and originality of the Christian light upon the word of God. (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:18-27

How can we know the question of the Sadducees was as insincere as that of the Pharisees?

To ask the question in the manner they did was to admit the doctrine of Jesuswhat was it?

What was a Levirate marriage? Why was it practiced?

What was wonderful about the manner in which Jesus answered the question?

Did Jesus mean to say that the resurrection was taught in the Old Testament? Explain.

Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures but something else kept them from believing in the resurrection, what was it?

How was their understanding of the power of God limited?

Why no marriages in the resurrection-state?

Are there to be no sexes in heaven? Discuss.

What beautiful example in teaching is given here for preachers and teachers of today?

Why quote from the Pentateuch?

Jesus wasn-’t concerned with merely the hope or the expectation of life beyond but with the of it.

Just how did Moses reveal that the dead are raised?

Please explain how Jesus drew the inference He did concerning man’s immortality?

Are all men inherently immortal?

Notice that Jesus draws no distinction between continued existence and resurrectionwhat does this prove?

How does John 5:29 relate to this section?

Were some of the questioners helped by His answer?

The method here introduced by Jesus of interpreting scriptures is one of boundless suggestiveness.what is it?

Mark 12:28-34

**6. THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS 12:28-34

TEXT 12:28-34**

And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, What commandment is the first of all? Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Of a truth, Master, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he: and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:28-34

What were the circumstances of the questioning of Mar 12:28?

What was the motive of the scribe in asking this question?

Why preface the greatest commandment with an expression concerning the nature of God? Cf. Deuteronomy 6:4 ff, and Leviticus 19:18.

What is involved in loving God with all your heart? i.e. what is the heart?

What is involved in loving God with all your soul?your mind?your strength?

Specify areas of love involved in loving our neighbor as ourselves?

In the answer of Jesus what was the first thing that appealed to the scribe? Why?

Why mention whole burnt offerings and sacrifices?

What is the meaning of the word discreetly as here used by Jesus?

What kingdom was involved?

676

Had Jesus set up His kingdom? Discuss.

COMMENT

TIME,A.D. 30; Tuesday, April 4, same day as the last event. PLACE.The temple in Jerusalem.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 22:15-33; Luke 20:20-40.

OUTLINE.1. Love the Lord thy God, 2. Love Thy Neighbor, 3. Not Far from the Kingdom.

ANALYSIS

I.

LOVE THE LORD THY GOD, Mark 12:28-30.

The Scribe’s Question. Mark 12:28; Matthew 22:35.

The Lord One Lord. Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 6:4.

The First Commandment, Mark 12:30; Matthew 22:37; Luke 10:27; Deuteronomy 6:4.

II.

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, Mark 12:31.

III.

NOT FAR FROM KINGDOM, Mark 12:32-34.

None Other God, Mark 12:32; Deuteronomy 4:39; Isaiah 45:6; Isaiah 45:14.

More than Burnt Offerings. Mark 12:33; 1 Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6.

Near the Kingdom. Mark 12:34.

Christ’s Enemies Silenced. Mark 12:34; Matthew 22:46.

INTRODUCTION

This was one of the busiest days of the Lord’s ministry, a day of bitter conflict with his enemies right in the citadel of their power. After the parable of the wicked husbandmen, Jesus utters one more parable, that of the king’s son (Matthew 22:1-14). There was but one of two courses before them. They will see their sins arid repent; or, being thus accused, and refusing to repent, they will be still more enraged against him. They refused to repent, and, filled with a desire for vengeance, they take counsel with the Herodians how they may compel him to say something that will refute his claims as the Messiah, or give ground for an accusation against him before the government. The Herodians first asked a question that they hoped would be so answered that they could accuse him of sedition; then the Sadducees attempted to involve him in confusion; then the Pharisees put forward a scribe to ask another, still in the hope that he would betray some weakness that would destroy confidence in his wisdom.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

LOVE THE LORD THY GOD.

Mark 12:28. One of the scribes came. Matthew in the Parallel Account says he was a Pharisee and a lawyer, which was another designation for a scribe. The scribes were learned men who preserved, copied and expounded the Jewish law. They were called by Jewish writers, the schoolmasters of the nation. Many of them were Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrim. Having heard them reasoning together. The question of the Sadducees concerning the resurrection and the Lord’s remarkable reply. See Mark 12:18-26. Asked. Matthew (Matthew 22:35) adds, tempting him. Not, perhaps, maliciously, but in the sense of testing on another question the wisdom of one who answered so admirably. I judge that he was neither a caviller, nor a disciple, but one curious to see what reply Christ would make to one of the puzzling theological problems of the day. Which is the first commandment of all? 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, and was a constant bone of contentionone of those strivings about the law against which Paul warns Titus (Titus 3:9). The Jews divided the commandments of their law into greater and lesser; but they were not agreed in the particulars. Some contended for the law of circumcision; others, for that of sacrifice; others, for that of phylacteries; others, for that concerning ablutions. The Jewish Talmud reckons the positive laws of Moses at 248, and the negative at 365, the sum being 613. To keep so many laws, said the Jews, is an angel’s work, and so they had much question which was the great commandment, so that they might keep that in lieu of keeping the whole.

Mark 12:29. Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord. Our Lord begins with the creed of Israel. This passage (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) was one of the four places of Scripture inscribed on the phylacteries,Cook, It was called the Shema. To say the Shema, was a passport into paradise for any child of Abraham,Ellicott. This every devout Jew recited twice every day; and they do it to this day, thus keeping up the great ancient national protest against the polytheisms and pantheisms of the heathen world, the great utterance of the national faith in one living and personal God. This mighty text contains far more than a mere declaration that God is one, It asserts that the Lord God of Israel is absolutely God, and none other.

Mark 12:30. Thou shalt love. 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 wordLOVE! 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 itbut only one. 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.Brown. Heart, soul, mind, strength. We may understand this four-fold enumeration as a command to devote all the faculties to the love of God.Cook. Heart denotes in general terms the affection and will; affectionate choice, the love of conscious resolve, expressed with will, which must at once become a second nature. Soul is the individual existence, the person himself, the seat of the will, disposition, desires, character. The two words are united to teach that the entire, undivided person must share in that which it has to perform with the heart.Cremer’s Biblico-Theol, Lexicon. With all thy mind. This commands our intellectual nature: Thou shalt put intelligence into thine affectionin opposition to a blind devotion, or mere devoteeism. With all thy strength. Enjoins the full and entire devotion of all these powers. Such is the first of the commandments, in the order of importance. Taking these four things together, the command of the law is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy powerswith a sincere, a fervid, an intelligent, an energetic love. This subordinates the whole life to the love of God and brings the whole being into willing obedience. This is the first commandment. A precept so narrow as to measure the smallest thought of the smallest man; so broad, as to compass the mightiest outgoings of the largest angel; so perfect, as to bind all moral beings to the throne of God, and produce eternal and universal harmony and happiness and progress.

II.

LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.

Mark 12:31. The second is like. To complete the lesson, and to leave no room for perverse distinctions between duties to God and man, our Lord makes the second commandment the necessary result and complement of the first. The first is the sun, so to speak, of the spiritual life; this the lesser light, which reflects the shining of that other. It is like to it inasmuch as both are laws of love; both deduced from the great and highest love; both dependent on I am the Lord thy God. Supreme love to God is to manifest itself in love to men. Alike binding, the two are correspondent, not contradictory. He who loves God must love those who are in the image of God. Thy neighbor. On Who is my neighbor? see Luke 10:25-37, and James 1:27. The words were found, strangely enough, in the book which is for the most part ceremonial (Leviticus 19:18). As thyself. (1) Not as he does love himself, but as he ought to love himself. (2) After the same manner; i.e., freely and readily, sincerely and unfeignedly, tenderly and compassionately, constantly and preservingly. Cases arise where a man ought to love his neighbor more than his lifephysical lifeand has done so, sacrificing it for his fellows, his country, and the church, an imitation of the example of Christ and the martyrs.Schaff. None other commandment greater. The unity of the moral law prevents any discrimination between its precepts; it is one law of love, the hinge of the whole Old Testament revelation. There can be none greater. No one can love God without loving his fellowmen, and no one can truly love man without loving God. The former is the source of the latter. Hence the first table (the first five commandments) enjoins love to God; the second table (the last five commandments), love to our neighbors.Schaff. All duty springs from the single principle of love.

He only wanted (but the want was indeed a serious one) repentance and faith to be within it. The Lord shows us here, that even outside his flock those who can answer discreetly, who have knowledge of the spirit of the great command of law and gospel, are nearer to being of his flock than the formalists; but then, as Bengel adds, If thou are not far off, enter; otherwise, it were better that thou wert far off.Alford. This scribe saw that an outward, formal obedience would not satisfy God, but had yet perhaps failed to see that a heart wholly surrendered to God would require an implicit obedience, not only in the heart, but outwardly to the Divine will. If a man love me, says Christ, he will keep my words. The demonstration of love is a loving and faithful obedience, Whether this scribe finally decided to follow the Lord and entered into the kingdom, upon the borders of which he stood, we are not told, It may be that we are left in suspense concerning his fate in order to teach us how important it is that those near the kingdom should enter in.

III.

NOT FAR FROM THE KINGDOM.

Mark 12:32. The scribe said unto him, Mark alone records the effect of our Lord’s answer upon the scribe. It came home to his heart with convincing power. Doubtless he never before saw so plainly the deep spiritual truths of these commands. Entering into our Lord’s reply, he cannot but express his approval, and even admiration.

Mark 12:33. Burnt offerings and sacrifices. The scribe gathers up in his reply some of the great utterances of the prophets, which prove the superiority of Love to God and man over all mere ceremonial observances. See 1 Samuel 15:22; Psalms 51; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8. The reply shows that he had either read the prophets with much greater discernment than most of his fellow scribes, or that his understanding had been enlightened by the teachings of the Lord. To say that love was greater than burnt offerings and sacrifices was a daring utterance, directly opposed to the rigid ceremonial ideas of the Jewish leaders.

Mark 12:34. Discreetly. With knowledge and understanding. Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. This man had hold of that principle in which law and gospel are one. He stood, as it were, at the door of the kingdom of God.

FACT QUESTIONS 12:28-34

What two courses did Jesus place before the religious leaders of His day? Which one did they take? Why?

Compare Matthew’s account of this incidentwas this man a lawyer or a scribe? What is meant by such a designation?

In what sense was this man tempting our Lord? (Cf. Matthew 22:35).

How was the word first used in the question about the first commandment?

What choices had some made as to which commandment was first?

How many positive, and how many negative laws given by Moses? Why worry over which one was the greatest?

What was the Shema? How and why was it used?

Show how love encompasses all that God wants us to be and to do.

Attempt a definition and illustration of the use of the four words: heart, soul, mind, strength as related to love.

Why does our Lord make the second commandment the necessary result and complement of the first?

Why would it be impossible to keep the first commandment without keeping the second?

How was the question of who is my neighbor answered? Cf. Luke 10:25-37 and James 1:27.

Give three characteristics of the love we ought to have for our neighbor.

How were the tables of the law divided in content?

Read 1 Samuel 15:22; Psalms 51; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8 and show how the scribe arrived at his conclusion as expressed in Mark 12:33.

What did the scribe need to admit him to the kingdom?

What had the scribe yet failed to see?

Why are we left without a knowledge of what the scribe did?

Mark 12:35-37

**7. JESUS-’ QUESTION ABOUT THE SON OF DAVID 12:35-37

TEXT 12:35-37**

And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:35-37

Why did Jesus raise this question? i.e. at this particular time and place.

What would be a synonym for the Christ of Mar 12:35?

679

Why was it important that the Christ should be of the lineage of David?

Is Jesus saying the Psalms were divinely inspired? Of what importance is this?

Who are the two Lords of Mar 12:36?

How does the promise of Mar 12:36 relate to the Jewish nation?

In what sense was the Messiah to be both the son of David and the Lord of David? i.e. how was this possible?

Why were the people so responsive to the teaching of Jesus?was it the subject?was it the place?was it the people?

COMMENT

TIME.A.D. 30. Tuesday, April 4. PLACE.The temple area, probably the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTSMat 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44.

OUTLINE,1. The scribes say the Messiah is David’s Son, Mark 12:35. 2. David said the Messiah was his Lord, Mark 12:36. 3. How do these views find agreement? Mark 12:37.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE SCRIBES SAY THE MESSIAH IS DAVID’S SON, Mark 12:35.

This question was asked in connection with what had just preceded.

This question was asked amid His teaching while in the Temple court.

II.

DAVID SAID THE MESSIAH WAS HIS LORD, Mark 12:36.

He said this under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

God addressed this word to the Messiah.

It included a promise of Lordship over all the world.

III.

HOW DO THESE VIEWS FIND AGREEMENT, Mark 12:37.

If the Messiah is David’s Son, in what sense can He also be his Lord?

The people heard His teaching with genuine relish.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE SCRIBES SAY THE MESSIAH IS DAVID’S SON.

Mark 12:35. Thus far our Lord’s position had been wholly a defensive one; but now he turns the tables and asks a question in his turn, not merely for the purpose of silencing his enemies, but also with a view to the assertion of his own claims as the Messiah, Answering, retorting their interrogations, While he taught, literally, teaching, not in private conversation, but in the course of his public and official instructions. In the temple, i.e. in its area or enclosure. How, in what sense, upon what ground, or by what ground, or by what authority. Say, i.e. officially, or ex cathedra, here equivalent to teach. The scribes, as the expounders of the law and the religious teachers of the people. The Christ, the Messiah, Greek and Hebrew synonyms, both meaning Anointed, and applied to the Prophet, Priest and King of Israel, predicted by the prophets, and expected by the people. Is, in the doctrine of the scriptures, or is to be, in point of fact. Son, descendant, heir, of David, as the first and greatest theocratical sovereign.

II.

DAVID SAID THE MESSIAH WAS HIS LORD.

Mark 12:36. For assigns the reason of the question or the ground of the objection which it states; but the latest critics have expurged the particle. In the Holy Spirit, i.e. in intimate union with and under the controlling influence of that divine person. My Lord, i.e. David’S, as our Saviour explicitly declares in the passages already cited; yet not of David merely as a private person, nor even as an individual king, but as representing his own royal race and the house of Israel over which it reigned. The person thus described as the superior and sovereign of David and his house and of all Israel, could not possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except one who, by virtue of his twofold nature, was at once his sovereign and his son. See Romans 1:3-4. That the Lord here meant was universally identified with the Messiah by the ancient Jews, is clear, not only from their own traditions, but from Christ’s assuming this interpretation as the basis of his argument to prove the Messiah’s superhuman nature, and from the fact that his opponents, far from questioning this fact, were unable to answer him a word, and afraid to interrogate him further (Matthew 22:46.) The original form of expression, in the phrase Sit at my right hand, is the same as in Psalms 109:31. A seat at the right hand of a king is mentioned in the Scriptures as a place of honour, not arbitrarily, but as implying a participation in his power, of which the right hand is a constant symbol. See Psalms 45:10, and compare Matthew 19:28. The sitting posture is appropriate to kings, who are frequently described as sitting on their thrones. (Compare Psalms 29:10). In this case, however, the posture is of less moment than the position. Hence Stephen sees Christ standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56), and Paul simply says he is there (Romans 8:34). The participation in the divine power, thus ascribed to the Messiah, is a special and extraordinary one, having reference to the total subjugation of his enemies. This idea is expressed by the figure of their being made his footstool, perhaps with allusion to the ancient practice spoken of in Joshua 10:24. This figure itself, however, presupposes the act of sitting on a throne. It does not imply inactivity, as some suppose, or mean that Jehovah would conquer his foes for him, without any intervention of his own. The idea running through the whole psalm is, that it is in and through him that Jehovah acts for the destruction of his enemies, and that for this very end he is invested with almighty power, as denoted by his session at the right hand of God. This session is to last until the total subjugation of his enemies, that is to say, this special and extraordinary power of the Messiah is then to terminate, a representation which agrees exactly with that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where the verse before us is distinctly referred to, although not expressly quoted. It is therefore needless, though grammatical, to give the until an inclusive meaning, namely, until then and afterwards, as in Psalms 112:8, etc. This verse, it has been said, is more frequently quoted or referred to, in the New Testament, than any other in the Hebrew Bible. Besides the passages already cited, it lies at the foundation of all those which represent Christ as sitting at the right hand of the Father. See Matthew 26:64, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 1:20-22. Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12-13, 1 Peter 3:22, and compare Revelation 3:21.

III.

HOW DO THESE VIEWS FIND AGREEMENT?

Mark 12:37. Therefore, or so then, David calls him Lord, i.e. his own superior or rather sovereign. Whence, from what source, or by what means? How is he at once his superior and inferior, his son and sovereign? The only key to this enigma is the twofold nature of the Messiah as taught even in the Old Testament, and applied to the solution of this very question in the beginning of the epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:3-4.) But this doctrine had been lost among the Jews, and more especially among the scribes or spiritual leaders, so that to them the question was unanswerable. They still held fast however to the doctrine, that he was to be the Son of David, which indeed became a reason for their giving up the doctrine of his higher nature, as being incompatible with what the scripture taught so clearly as to his descent and lineage. It is an instructive instance of perverted ingenuity, that one of the most eminent of modern German critics and interpreters maintains that Jesus, far from admitting that the scribes were right in making Christ the Son of David, teaches here that he was not! The effect of this unanswerable question upon those to whom it was addressed, or at whom it was aimed, is said by Matthew (Matthew 22:46) to have been that no one could answer him a word, nor did any one dare from that day any more to question him. There is of course no inconsistency between this statement and the one in Mark 12:34, above, as both occurrences took place upon the same day; and as it has been well said, while Mark exhibits him as silencing their questions. Matthew goes further and describes him as silencing their very answers. On the other hand, Mark here describes the impression which his teaching made upon the masses. And the common people (literally, the much or great crowd) heard him gladly, sweetly, pleasantly, with pleasure. (J. A. Alexander)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:35-37

In what way did our Lord turn the tables on His opponents?

What purpose did He have?

Who were the scribes, i.e. in official capacity?

Who was David’s Lord?

What is implied in the request to sit at His right hand?

Sitting does not imply inactivitywhat does it imply?

Show how 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 relates to Mark 12:35-37.

Mention at least three more places where this reference is referred to in the New Testament.

Show how Romans 1:3-4 answers the question of Jesus.

Give two results to this question of Jesus.

Mark 12:38-40

**8. JESUS WARNS AGAINST THE SCRIBES 12:38-40

TEXT 12:38-40**

And in his teaching he said, Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and to have salutations in the market-places, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts: they which devour widows-’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; these shall receive greater condemnation.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:38-40

Were some of the scribes present to hear this warning? Wasn-’t this unfair to the honest scribes? Discuss.

What is inferred in the reference to the long robes?

Why desire the salutations in the market-places?

What advantage was there in the chief seats?

How would scribes be especially prepared or able to devour widows-’ houses?

How was it possible to rob and pray in the same day?

Why would long prayers be needed by these scribes?

Is Jesus teaching measures of punishment in hell?

COMMENT

TIME.A.D. 30Tuesday, April 4. PLACE.The temple area, probably the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 23:1-39; Luke 20:45-47.

OUTLINE.1. Beware of certain scribes, Mark 12:38-39. 2. They devour widow’s houses, Mark 12:40.

ANALYSIS

I.

BEWARE OF CERTAIN SCRIBES, Mark 12:38-39.

Those who love to walk in long robes.

Those who love to be greeted in the market-places.

Those who want the chief seats in the synagogue and at feasts.

II.

THEY DEVOUR WIDOWS-’ HOUSES, Mark 12:40.

To cover up their crime they pray long prayers (in public).

They should receive heavier judgment.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

BEWARE OF CERTAIN SCRIBES.

How much of Matthew’s twenty-third chapter is parallel, as having been now uttered, it is perhaps impossible to say. A large part of that chapter has a close parallel in Luke 11:37-52, and Luke 13:34-35 is identical with the conclusion of the discourse in Matthew. According to Luke 11, the chief part of this discourse was spoken in a Pharisee’s house, somewhere in Perea, It seems most probable that Matthew, not having recorded the Perean ministry, here combined several discourses of denunciation, which were actually delivered at various times. At the same time, the brief report in Mark and Luke may be only a fragment of what was said on this occasion. This appears to have been his last word with his enemies, as the discourse of John 14-16 was his last word with friends.

Beware of the scribes, which lovecorrectly, desireto go in long clothing, and (desire) salutations in the market-places, Luke inserts love before salutations, but Mark carries the verb desire through the sentence.In long clothing. Liddell and Scott render in full dressi.e. in whatever official robes they were entitled to wear; not, as Jesus, in the clothing of common life.Salutations, formal and prolix, forbidden by Jesus to his disciples on their journeys for work (Luke 10:4).Chief seats in the synagogues. The seats nearest to where the sacred rolls of the law were kept.Uppermost roomschief places, or couchesat feasts. The places of honor at the table. Uppermost rooms was once intelligible, but is strangely misleading now. Room meant place, not apartment, when the translators used it thus. (For explanation of the allusion, see Luke 14:7-11.)

II.

THEY DEVOUR WIDOWS-’ HOUSES.

Devour widows-’ houses. As if this were what they fed upon in their first places at the feasts. Covetous designs that we cannot further specify are meant. Insinuating themselves with defenceless women, as if they would truly be their defenders (Theophylact),These shall receive greateror more abundantdamnation, or condemnation. Greater, because they had misused their spiritual privileges, betrayed the trust of the simple, and brought reproach upon the name of God.Our Lord’s denunciations of the representatives of Judaism in his day seem terribly severe and almost cruel; but what is known of the absurd and heartless refinements of the Pharisaism of that age fully supports the strong language that he used. What must have been the indignation of such a soul as his at such perversion of the religion of his Father! (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:38-40

How much of Mat 23:1-39 is parallel to this account? Discuss.

How do Mark and Luke relate to the longer discourse of Matt.?

What did the love of full dress indicate?

Is there something wrong in greeting one another? Cf. Luke 10:4Discuss.

Where were the chief seats?

What is meant by rooms in K.J.V.?

Wasn-’t our Lord terribly severe with the religious leaders of His day?

Discuss the deadly danger of pretence in prayer. i.e. today?

Mark 12:41-44

**9. THE POOR WIDOW AND HER OFFERING 12:41-44

TEXT 12:41-44**

And he sat down over against the treasury, and beheld how the multitude cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they which are casting into the treasury: for they all did cast in of their superfluity; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:41-44

Identify a diagram of the templelocate the treasury.

What was of particular interest to our Lord as He watched the worshippers at the Treasury?

Why was the multitude giving?

For what was the money used?

Is there some connection in thought with this widow and the ones mentioned in Mark 12:40?

How much did the widow give?

If she had two coins why didn-’t she keep one? Wasn-’t she foolhardy in her generosity?

Why call the disciples to Himwhere were they? Cf. Mark 13:1.

According to Jesus what is a truly liberal gift?

COMMENT

TIME.A.D. 30Tuesday, April 4 PLACE.The temple area, probably the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS,Luke 21:1-4.

OUTLINE.1. Jesus by the treasury, Mark 12:41. 2. He sees a poor widow, Mark 12:42. 3. He points out true generosity, Mark 12:43-44.

ANALYSIS

I.

JESUS BY THE TREASURY, Mark 12:41.

He was seated near for careful observation.

He noticed the manner of giving as well as the amount.

The rich were especially conspicuous.

II. HE SEES A POOR WIDOW, Mark 12:42.

Of her own choice she came.

She put in two copper coins amounting to less than a cent.

III.

HE POINTS OUT TRUE GENEROSITY, Mark 12:43-44.

He called His disciples to Him.

Attention was called to the widow as giving more than anyone else.

Her heart was given with her giftshe gave her lifeher living in the gift.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

JESUS BY THE TREASURY.

*And Jesus sat over against the treasury.The treasury test:*The lesson taught by this narrative isman’s treatment of God’s treasury the true touchstone of piety. I. GOD HAS A TREASURY IN HIS CHURCH. God has conferred on man various kinds of material possessions and property for uses and enjoyment. Among these, money has become the portable representative and circulating medium of all. Far above these possessions is the privilege of sacred worship. This would be an urgent necessity and a lofty privilege even if man were holy. How much more now that he is a sinner! As all material arrangements are costful, so also is worship. If man could not meet this cost, God would. As man can, Why should he not? Is he not honoured in being allowed to do it? Does not this test his character?

II.

HE SEES A POOR WIDOW.

II. MEN CONTRIBUTE TO GOD’S TREASURY IN VARIOUS MEASURES AND FROM VARIOUS MOTIVES. The Divine rule has ever been according to one’s power. This principle is definitely stated in an instance for universal guidance (Lev. Mark 12:7; Mark 12:11.): As God hath prospered, According to that a man hath. In the temple scene before us, we behold the devotion of every coin, from the golden mineh, of three guineas value, to the mite of brass, three-quarters of a farthing. Motives also differ, often as much as coins. Some give from necessity. Some give from a sense of honesty; if they did not give, debt and dishonour must ensue. Some give with pride and self-righteousness even before God. Some give from habit acquired from youth. Some give with holy love and joy, as a blessed privilege and rich delight: thus did the widow; so also have many done till now. III. THE SAVIOUR OBSERVES HOW MEN TREAT HIS TREASURY, AND BY THIS TESTS THEIR LOVE TO HIMSELF. As Worship is man’s highest act, its gifts should be rich and substantial. Jesus beheld men at the treasury. He still directs His eye thither; not that He needs man’s gifts; but deeds and gifts test man’s love; also they elevate and refresh man’s heart. Men test others-’ love by deeds and gifts. Jesus challenges us to test the love of God thus.

III.

HE POINTS OUT TRUE GENEROSITY.

IV. JESUS ESTIMATES GIFTS CHIEFLY BY WHAT IS RETAINED. This principle alone accounts for the higher worth of the widow’s gift. 1. This estimate of gifts according to what is retained agrees with reason. Man’s gauge of the moral value of a deed is the power of the doer. The child is not expected to put forth the strength of a man. Less force is looked for from the feeble than the strong man. A small gift from a narrow income is esteemed as much as a large gift from a vast income. 2. This treasury test accords with general life. This principle is acknowledged in all departments of life. Men readily meet the cost of their chosen pursuits and pleasures, in the measure of their means. True patriots willingly pay national charges, according to their ability. Faithful husbands provide for their wives, in the measure of their power. Loving parents nourish their children, as their resources allow, Should not Christians thus provide for the service and glory of Christ? Notice God’s rebuke of Israel’s neglect of this principle (Isaiah 43:22-24; Jeremiah 7:18). 3. This treasury test accords with universal Scripture demands. God tested man’s confidence and honesty by the forbidden fruit. We know the sad issues. Jesus tests our obedience, love, and devotion by a treasury. Besides the large dedication of their property to the national religious service, Israel was commanded to open a treasury to the Lord, to build a tabernacle (Exodus 35, 36); David to build a temple (1 Chronicles 29); Joash to meet the expenses of worship (2 Kings 12:1; 2 Kings 12:9). This woman would give her all to His worship. Who doubts her love? But did she act prudently? She acted according to the rule. She acted for the hour and the occasion. She would not make herself an exception to the rule. She gave her all to God. She left the future to Him. Does any one think she starved by this? Behold what a grandeur the smallest service acquires, when it is done for God! Observe what magnificent interest and enduring renown accrue from the devotion of a creature’s all to God. Jesus did not disparage the other gifts; He simply indicated their true relative value, and attached to the widow’s His highest commendation. Application:1. God has a treasury for human hearts, His own heart. He would have your heart centre in love, safety, and joy in His own heart. He wants you there, as a creature who can love, serve, and delight in Him. He claims and demands you for His. Christ has died to redeem and win you back to Him. Will you give yourself to Him now just as you are, that He may make you all that He can delight in, that you may find in Him all that your soul can desire? 2. Christ gathers the funds of His kingdom in His Church. 3. All worshipers are required to give as a duty. 4. To give cheerfully is to elevate a duty into a privilege. 5. Jesus thus tests His friends and foes, the obedient and the disobedient. 6. Jesus waits at the treasury for your gift, to receive it at your hands, to bless it, and to teach you how to use it. If Christ is Lord of your mind, and heart and life, let Him be also of your silver and gold. (John Ross.)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:41-44

What is the touchstone of true piety?

What is the portable representative and circulating medium of all material possessions?

State two measures and two motives men use in contributing to God’s treasury.

Just how does the Saviour test our love to Him?

How does Jesus chiefly estimate man’s gifts? Show how this principle agrees with reason.

Illustrate the above principle from a life situation.

By three examples show how the treasury test accords with all of the scripture.

What is God’s treasury for human hearts?

Where does God gather His funds for His kingdom?

Are we required to give? Discuss.

If we do not give our gold and silver to Christ can we in honesty say we have given anything else to Him?

Please remember the two things that God said He saw and remembered about that good man Cornelius? Cf. Acts 10:4.