Click to donate today!
PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD
12:1-12. Jesus, having denied the authority of the rulers, proceeds to show them in a parable the unfaithfulness to their trust which has lost for them their authority. The story is that of a vineyard let out on shares to cultivators, who maltreat the servants sent by the owner to collect his share, and finally kill his son, and whom the owner destroys, and turns over the vineyard to others. He also cites the proverb of the stone rejected by the builders which becomes the corner stone. The rulers see that the parable is aimed at them, but fear of the multitude holds them in check for the present.
1. Καὶ ἤρξατο αὐτοῖς ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν—And he began to say to them in parables.
λαλεῖν, instead of λέγειν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BGL Δ 1, 13, 69, 118, 124, 346, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Pesh. Harcl. marg.
αὐτοῖς evidently refers to the representatives of the Sanhedrim, the parable being a continuation of Jesus’ conversation with them.1 Mt. says that the chief priests and the Pharisees knew that the parable was directed at them; but he also represents Jesus as saying that the kingdom is to be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits.2 But this confusion of rulers and people must not obscure the plain fact that in Mt. the parable is against the rulers. Lk. says that the parable was spoken to the people, but that the rulers knew that it was spoken against them, two things that are not at all inconsistent.3 ἐν παραβολαῖς—in parables. This use of the plural indicates that Mk. had other parables in mind, though he gives only one. Mt. gives three, all bearing on the same general subject. Mk. states the general fact of teaching in parables, and selects one from the rest. This is one of the facts which seem to indicate that Mk. had the same collection of the teachings of Jesus as Mt. and Lk. to draw upon, viz. the Logia. Ἀμπελῶνα ἄνθρωπος ἐφύτευσεν—A man planted a vineyard. This figure of the vineyard is taken from Isaiah 5:1, Isaiah 5:2. Even the details are reproduced. In the LXX. we find φραγμὸν περιέθηκα … ᾠκοδόμησα πύργον … προλήνιον ὤρυξα.
φραγμόν—is any kind of fence, or wall, that separates lands from each other. ὑπολήνιον—is the receptacle for the juice of the grapes, placed under the ληνός, or winepress, in which the grapes were trodden.4 πύργον—is the tower from which the watchman overlooked the vineyard. It was also used as a lodge for the keeper of the vineyard. γεωργοῖς—means tillers or cultivators. ἐξέδετο5—ἀπεδήμησε—went abroad. Far country, AV. is an exaggeration.
ἐξέδετο, instead of -δοτο, Tisch. WH. א AB* CKL.
2. τῷ καιρῷ—at the season, at the proper time. As this vineyard was equipped with a winepress, this would not be at the grape harvest, but any time following the winemaking. λάβῃ�Son_4 The Son in the allegory represents Jesus himself. The nation, which had rejected God’s servants, the prophets, will finally put to death the Son himself, the Messianic King.
εἶχεν υἱὸν, instead of υἱὸν ἔχων, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BC2 L Δ 33, Harcl. (Pesh.). Omit αὐτοῦ his after�
ἐλεύσεται καὶ�Matthew 21:41, Jesus drew this answer from the chief priests and scribes themselves.
10. Οὐδὲ2 τὴν γραφὴν παύτην�Isa_53. As a principle, therefore, it would apply especially to the Messiah. The question, whether Jesus used the passage according to a common view of his time as directly Messianic, or only as a statement of this principle, depends on our view of him. It seems to be a rational inference, from what we know of Jesus, that he had derived his idea of the Messianic office partly from the O.T., and that that idea is possible only with a rational treatment of the O.T., while the current view of his time would be derived from a literalistic and irrational treatment of it. And in general, we know that he so far transcended his age as to take a spiritual view of the O.T., and there is no reason to suppose that this would not include the rational treatment of a passage like this. That is, Jesus would see in it not a direct reference to himself, but only the statement of a principle applicable to himself.
12. ἔγνωσαν γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς αὐτοὺς τὴν παραβολὴν εἶπε—for they knew that he spoke the parable against them. This is the reason for their seeking to take him, not for their fear of the people. But as the latter statement is the last made, Meyer makes the subject of ἔγνωσαν to be the ὄχλος just mentioned, in which case this would be a reason for their fear of the people. But there is a total absence of anything to indicate such a change of subject in ἔγνωσαν, and this is a greater difficulty than the one which Meyer seeks to remove. Meyer’s view also deprives the statement of its appositeness.1
The statement that they knew that Jesus spoke this parable against them is conclusive in regard to the meaning of it, and falls in with the parable itself, and with its context, placed as it is in the midst of a controversy between himself and the authorities. It is directed against the Jewish hierarchy, pointing out their sin in rejecting one after another of the prophets, culminating in their murder of the Messiah himself, and predicting their fate in consequence. But Mt., while he makes the same statement, v. 45, about the reference of the parable, makes Jesus say, v. 43, that the kingdom shall be taken from them, and given to a nation producing its fruits. This would seem to make the parable apply to the nation, and not to the hierarchy. Everything else, however, in Mt., as in Mk. and Lk., points to the hierarchy. It seems probable that Mt. therefore, in v. 43, adds to the parable, post eventum, that the nation was to share the fate of its rulers, and be superseded in their theocratic position by another (Gentile) nation. It plainly does not belong here, as the effect would be to bring rulers and people together against Jesus, whereas the statement is repeatedly made that, so far, it is Jesus and the people against the rulers.
THE QUESTION OF PAYING TRIBUTE TO ROME
13-17. Jesus is approached by Pharisees and Herodians with the question whether it is authorized under the theocracy to pay tribute to the Roman emperor, hoping to draw from him an answer, compromising him either with the Roman government or with the people. Jesus answers by pointing to the image and inscription of the emperor on the coin as a proof of their obligation to him, and bids them pay to Cæsar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to him.
13. φαρισαίων κ. τ. Ἡρωδιάνων—These emissaries were chosen, because they occupied different sides of the question proposed to him. The Pharisees owed their popularity partly to their intense nationality and their hatred of foreign rule. The Herodians, on the other hand, were adherents of the Herods, who owed what power they possessed to the Roman government. Neither party, however, took an extreme position. The Pharisees are not to be confounded with the Zealots; they submitted to the inevitable. Nor is it to be supposed that the Herods had any particular love for the government that had helped them to power, to be sure, but had taken advantage of their weakness to make themselves supreme, and the Herods only their tributaries. Still, as to the question of the paying of tribute, with all the corollaries, they would be divided, and Jesus must offend one, or the other, by his answer.�
ὑπόκρισιν—this word has been transliterated into our word hyprocrisy at a great loss of picturesqueness and force. It means acting, from which the transition to the meaning dissimulation is easy. What Jesus knew about these men was, that they were playing a part in their compliments, and their request for advice. They were acting the part of inquirers; really, they were plotters. They were trying to compromise him either with the government or the people. In his trial before Pilate we see what use they intended to make of one of the two answers to which they thought he was reduced. Luke 23:2. τί με πειράζετε;—why do you try me? Our word tempt, in the sense of solicit to evil, is out of place here.1 What they were doing was to put him to the test maliciously. δηνάριον—a shilling.2
The point of Jesus’ reply is, that the very coin in which the tribute is paid bears on its face the proof not only of their subjection to the foreign government, but of their obligation to it. Coinage is a privilege claimed by government, but it is one of the things in which the government most clearly represents the interest of the governed. Tribute becomes in this way, not an extortion, or exaction, but a return for service rendered.
17. Ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τὰ Καίσαρος�
18. Σαδδουκαῖοι—The word denotes the sect as Zadokites. There is little doubt that the word itself comes from this proper name Zadok, and not from צַדִּיק, meaning righteous. Probably, the particular Zadok meant is the priest who distinguished himself by his fidelity in the time of David. 2 Samuel 15:24 sq., 1 K. 1:32 sq. After the return from the exile, among the different families constituting the priesthood, the sons of Zadok seem to have occupied the chief place. They were the aristocracy of the priesthood, and Ezekiel assigns them exclusive rights to its functions. Ezekiel 40:46, Ezekiel 43:19, Ezekiel 44:15, Ezekiel 48:11. The Sadducees, that is to say, were the party of the priests, and especially of the priestly aristocracy. As a school of opinion, they were characterized by the denial of the authority of tradition, maintaining the sole authority of the written Scriptures. As corollaries of this, they denied the resurrection, and the existence of angels or spirits.1 καὶ ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν, λέγοντες—and they questioned him, saying.
ἐπηρώτων, instead of ἐπηρώτησαν, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BCDL Δ 33, Latt. Pesh. Memph.
19. καὶ μὴ�
This quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:5, Deuteronomy 25:6. It is introduced in order to show that the law itself provides for these successive marriages, thus expressly legalizing these successive relations, which the resurrection would make simultaneous. Their question is, therefore, whether the same Scriptures teach this, and the resurrection, which is inconsistent with it. The quotation does not attempt to reproduce the language.
21. μὴ καταλιπὼν σπέρμα2—not having left seed.
μὴ καταλιπὼν, instead of καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτὸς�
The Scribe did not ask for the second commandment, but the statement is incomplete without it. Our Lord wished to show that this first commandment did not stand at the head of a long list of heterogeneous commands, among which it was simply primus inter pares, but that it was one of two homogeneous commands, which exhausted the idea of righteousness. This second commandment does not stand in the O.T. in the commanding position of the first, but is brought in only incidentally in Leviticus 19:18, where, moreover, neighbor is evidently restricted to a brother Jew. Jesus puts it in a commanding position, and widens the meaning of neighbor to fellowman. ὡς σεαυτόν—the degree of the love to God is expressed by “from all thy heart”; the degree of human love is “as thyself.” The love of God includes in itself all other affections, but this love of the neighbor has over against it a love of self, with which Jesus allows it to divide the man. This self-love is already there, monopolizing the man, and the command is to subordinate it to the love of God, and to coördinate it with the love of man.
32. καλῶς, διδάσκαλε· ἐπʼ�
οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλος πλὴν αὐτοῦ—there is no other but he. This addition to Jesus’ words is taken by the Scribe from Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:39. His enumeration of the parts of man entering into the love of God differs again from that of Jesus. The following table shows them all together.
Heb. καρδία, ψυχή, ἰσχύς.
Sept. διανοία, ψυχή, ἰσχύς.
Jesus. καρδία, ψυχή, διανοία, ἰσχύς.
Scribe. καρδία, σύνεσις, ἰσχύς.
But of course, this is a matter of no importance, the two latter representing only the oratio variata of the writer.
33. Omit καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς, and from all the soul, Tisch. (Treg. marg.) WH. RV. א BL Δ 1, 118, 209, 299, one ms. Lat. Vet. Memph. περισσότερον, instead of πλεῖον, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BL Δ 33. Omit τῶν before θυσιῶν, Treg. WH. ABDX ΓΠ.
περισσότερον—a more eminent thing. The positive expresses the idea of eminence, of surpassing other things, and the comparative denotes a higher degree of this quality. ἁλοκαυτωμάτων1—whole burnt offerings.2 These words of the Scribe are an addition to what Jesus says about the superiority of these two commands. Jesus had compared them simply with other laws. The Scribe compares them specially with the laws of sacrifice, after the manner of the prophets.
34. νουνεχῶς—intelligently.1 οὐ μακρὰν εἶ�Psa_110, which was currently ascribed to David and was classed as Messianic. In this Psalm, so interpreted, David is made to address the Messianic king as his Lord. And the argument is made to hinge on this address—How can David call him Lord, when he is David’s son? Right here, then, we have the gravest difficulty to be encountered anywhere in regard to the N.T. acceptance of the traditional view of the O.T. For criticism rejects the Davidic authorship of this Psalm. It does not allege plain anachronisms, as in many Psalms, e.g. the mention of the temple, or of the destruction of Jerusalem, in Psalms ascribed to David. But there are other signs which point plainly to the great improbability of Davidic authorship. In the first place, it belongs to a group of Psalms, Books IV. and V., of the Psalter, which is evidently of late date; and the reasons would have to be special and obvious which would lead us to detach it from the rest. Whereas, it bears all the marks common to the class. Moreover, if it was written by David, then we have to suppose that there was some person occupying his own position of theocratic king, but so much more exalted than he that he calls him Lord. And this could only be the Messiah, the final flower of the Davidic line, whom David sees in vision. But the Psalm in that case would stand entirely by itself as being simply a vision of an indefinite future, having no roots in the circumstances of the times, whereas all O.T. prophecy is of an immediate future growing directly out of the present. This leads immediately to the conclusion that the Psalm is addressed by the Psalmist to some reigning king, who is also somehow a priest, and that the writer cannot himself be a king. And, finally, the Messianic conception in the time of David had reached no further than this, that his royal line was not to fail, even if his sons and successors proved sometimes unworthy. But the idea of a Messianic king, who was to be the ideal and climax of the Davidic line, and whom David himself could call Lord, was the fruit only of a long period of national disaster, creating the feeling that only such a unique person could restore the national hopes. The idea of a personal Messiah belongs to the period succeeding the close of the canon. This is the essential reason for rejecting the Davidic authorship. How, then, if David did not write the Psalm, can we account for our Lord’s ascription of it to him? The explanation that will account for all the other cases of this kind, viz., that the authorship is of no account, leaving him free to accept the current view as a mere matter of nomenclature and identification, without committing him to an endorsement of it, will not do here, since the argument turns on the authorship. But the real explanation of all the cases is, that inspiration, which accounts for whatever extraordinary knowledge belonged to Jesus in his earthly life, does not extend to such matters of critical research as authorship. Inspiration belongs to the sphere of the moral and religious intuitions, and did not keep even Jesus from ignorance of matters outside of its sphere. And here, in its proper sphere, it gave him a view of the deeper meaning of Scripture, that led to his declaration that Son of David would come very far from adequately stating their view of the Messianic king. That would include the universalism of the prophets, and the suffering servant of Jehovah of Isaiah. Moreover, it would include a unique relation to God, and to universal manhood, that would place him in a different class from David, and an exalted position, which would be indicated by the titles chosen by himself, Son of Man and Son of God, rather than Son of David.
36. αὐτὸς Δαυεὶδ εἶπεν ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῷ, Εἶπεν (ὁ) Κύριος1 τῷ κυρίῳ μου—David himself said in the Holy Spirit, the Lord said to my lord.
Omit γὰρ, for, after αὐτὸς, Tisch. Treg. marg. WH. RV. א BLTdΔ 13, 28, 59, 69, two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph. Omit ὁ before Κύριος, Treg. WH. BD. B omits it in Sept.
ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ Ἁγίῳ—in the Holy Spirit. This phrase denotes inspiration. David said this with the authority that belongs to an inspired man.1 (ὁ) Κύριος—in the original, this is Yahweh (Jehovah), of which ὁ Κύριος is the translation in the Sept.2 ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου—a footstool of thy feet.
ὑποκάτω, under, instead of ὑποπόδιον, WH. RV.marg. BDgr Td 28, Egyptt.
37. Αὐτὸς Δαυεὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν Κύριον—David himself calls him Lord. This makes the difficulty of their position—how lordship and sonship go together.
Omit οὖν, therefore, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BDLTd Δ 28, 106, 251, mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt.
ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος—the great multitude present at the feast, the multitude being distinguished from the leaders. This statement is parallel to those which represent Jesus, all through this controversy, as carrying the people with him.
WARNING AGAINST THE SCRIBES
38-40. Somewhere in the course of his teaching on this last day of public instruction, Jesus introduces a warning against the Scribes, the religious teachers and leaders of his time. He charges them with ostentation, an unhealthy craving for position and flattery, and a fearful inconsistency between the profuseness of their worship and the cruel meanness of their lives. Their condemnation, he says, will be greater than if they had been consistently wicked.
38. ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ—in the course of his teaching. Mk. does not place this warning exactly. Nor Lk. Mt. says then. All of them introduce it in this place. But the warning is not against those qualities of the Scribes that would be suggested by their misconception of the Messianic idea.
βλέπετε�Gen_2 It is better, therefore, to begin a new sentence here, making οἱ κατεσθίοντες the subj. of λήμψονται—those who devour, etc., shall receive.3 This devouring of widows’ houses would be under the forms of civil law, but in contravention of the Divine law of love. προφάσει—for a covering. That is, they tried to hide their covetousness behind a show of piety. See 1 Thessalonians 2:5, where the meaning is, that the apostle did not use his preaching of the Gospel as a mere cloak of covetousness. περισσότερον κρίμα—more abundant, or overflowing condemnation. The adjective is strong. The comparison is with what they would receive if they made no pretence of piety. Notice that the show, as it is commonly with men, is of religion, while the offence is against humanity. The warning is addressed to the people, and bids them beware of religious leaders who affect the outward titles and trappings of their office, and offset their lack of humanity by a show of piety.
The exact verbal correspondence of Mk. and Lk. in this warning is proof positive of their interdependence.
JESUS’ COMMENDATION OF THE WIDOW’S OFFERING
41-44. The day closes with a scene in the treasury of the temple. Jesus is watching the multitude casting their offerings into the trumpet-shaped mouths of this receptacle, and among them many rich men casting in much. But there is one poor widow, who casts in two small coins, worth about a third of a cent, and Jesus commends her as having given more than all the rest. They, he says, gave out of their excess; she, out of her lack, gave all her living.
41. Καὶ καθίσας κατέναντι τοῦ γαζοφαλυκίου—And having taken a seat over against the treasury.
Omit ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א BL Δ two mss. Lat. Vet. Memph.
γαζοφυλακίου—treasury.1 The treasury meant is probably that in the outer court of the temple, having thirteen openings shaped like trumpets, for the reception of temple offerings and of gifts for the poor. χαλκὸν—literally, brass, but, like the Latin œs, a general word for all money. ἔβαλλον—were casting, denoting the repeated act.
42. μία χήρα—one widow; contrasted with the many rich. δύο λεπτά, ὅ ἐστι κοδράντης—the λεπτόν was the eighth part of an as, the value of which was one and two-thirds cents, so that two λεπτά were about two-fifths of a cent. κοδράντης is the Latin word quadrans, meaning a quarter of an as. But the real value appears only from the fact that the denarius, or ten asses, was a day’s wages.
43. εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅτι ἡ χήρα αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ πλεῖον πάντων ἔβαλεν τῶν βαλλόντων εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον—said to them, Verily I say to you, that this poor widow cast in more than all who are casting into the treasury.
εἶπεν, instead of λέγει, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABDKLU ΔΠ, two mss. Lat. Vet. Egyptt. Syrr. ἔβαλεν, instead of βέβληκε, Treg. WH. RV. אc (א* ἔβαλλεν) ABDL Δ 33 βαλλόντων, instead of βαλόντων, Tisch. Treg. WH. RV. א ABDLX ΓΔΠ.
… πλεῖον πάντων ἔβαλεν τῶν βαλλόντων—cast in more than all who are casting. This is a case where the use of the comp., instead of the superl., is misleading, as the superl. means most of them all, whereas the comp. strictly means more than all together.
44. ὑστερήσεως—This expression is the exact opposite of περισσεύοντος, one meaning more than enough, and the other less than enough; excess and deficiency. RV. superfluity and want. ὅλον τὸν βίον—all her living, her resources. The idea of περισσευεύοντος is that they did not trench on their resources, but gave a part only of what they had over and above that, while the poor widow gave all her resources. Hence, while the real value of their gifts was many times greater than hers, the ideal value of hers was the greatest of them all. Money values are not the standard of gifts in the kingdom of God, but only these ideal values. It is only as the gift measures the moral value of the giver, that it counts with him who looks at the heart.
It is noticeable that Mk. closes his account of this stormy scene in the Temple with this idyl. The connection is not the verbal and superficial relation to the widows of v. 40, but the contrast between the outward meagreness and inward richness of the widow’s service, and the outward ostentation and inward barrenness of the Pharisees’ religion.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
RV. Revised Version.
B Codex Vaticanus.
G Codex Wolfi A.
L Codex Regius.
1 .Codex Basiliensis
13 Codex Regius.
69 Codex Leicestrensis.
346 Codex Ambrosianus.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Egyptt. Egyptian Versions.
marg. Revided Version marg.
1 See 11:33, 12:12.
2 Matthew 21:43, Matthew 21:45.
3 Luke 20:9, Luke 20:19.
4 AV. wine-fat. Fat is an old English word for vat. RV., pit for the winepress.
5 This vb. is common in Grk., but occurs in N.T. only in this parable in the Synoptics. The irregular form, ἐξέδετο for δοτο, is also repeated.
AV. Authorised Version.
A Codex Alexandrinus.
C Codex Bezae.
K Codex Cyprius.
N Codex Purpureus.
33 Codex Regius.
1 ἔδειραν means they flayed him, literally. This modified meaning, they beat him, does not belong to the best usage, though it is found sometimes from Aristophanes down.
D Codex Ephraemi.
2 ἐκεφαλίωσαν is evidently a corrupt form of ἐκεφαλαίωσαν, and that word is treated as if it came from κεφαλή, instead of κεφάλαιον. Properly, it means to bring under heads, to summarize, but here, apparently, to wound in the head. It occurs only here in the N.T. Thay.-Grm. Lex.
28 Codex Regius.
Latt. Latin Versions.
3 2 Chronicles 36:15, 2 Chronicles 36:16, Nehemiah 9:26, Jeremiah 25:3-7.
4 On the use of the acc., instead of the regular dat., see Win. 32, 1 b, a.
1 On this use of the adv. as a prep., see Win. 54, 6.
M Codex Campianus.
Syrr. Syriac Versions.
2 On the meaning of οὐδέ without a preceding negative, see Win. 55, 6, 2.
3 The passage is Psalms 118:22, Psalms 118:23.
4 A translation of the Heb. הָיָה לְ. Win. 29, 3 a.
5 A translation of the Heb. ראשׁ פִּ נָּה.
1 See Win. 61, 7b.
1 Thay.-Grm. Lex.
2 This use of ὁδός is familiar in the Heb. but uncommon, though not unknown, in the Greek.
3 κῆσον is the Latin word census, meaning a registration of persons and property on which taxation is based. In the N. T., it denotes the tax itself.
4 Καίσαρι—there is a mixture here of the personal and the titular use of this name. As a title of the Roman emperors, it takes the article properly.
5 οὐ is used in the first question, because it is one of objective fact. μὴ in the second, because it is a question of proposed action, subjective. Win. 55, 1 a.
1 See RV. American readings. Classes of Passages.
2 Penny, EV. is specially misleading, since the denarius had not only the nominal value of our shilling, but a far greater relative value, as it was a day’s wages. The denarius was a Roman coin, equivalent to ten asses, a ten as piece.
1 See Schürer, II. 2, 26, II.
209 An unnamed, valuable manuscript.
2 μὴ is used here, instead of οὐ, because the denial is in some way subjective. μὴ gives it something the tone of “so the story goes.”
3 ἔσχατον is here an adv. and denotes the last of a series of events, and its conjunction with πάντων denoting persons is therefore incongruous. Hence the substitution of έσχάτη by some copyist. Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:8.
H Codex Wolfi B.
E Codex Basiliensis.
F Codex Borelli.
S Codex Vaticanus.
U Codex Nanianus.
V Codex Mosquensis.
1 μὴ is the negative used, because the statement is made by Jesus as a conjecture, of which he asks their opinion.
2 See 1 Corinthians 7:38. γαμίζονται is a Biblical word.
3 βίβλος is originally the name of the papyrus plant, from which paper was made, and then a book or scroll. The quotation is from Exodus 3:6.
4 The use of ἐπὶ is analogous to that with the gen. of persons or things to locate an event by its connection with some person or thing; at the passage which tells about the bush. Win. 47, g, d.
1 See Acts 23:8.
2 Compare Paul’s proof of the resurrection by the case of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15:12 sqq.
1 Matthew 22:34-40.
2 Luke 10:25-37.
3 On the gender of πάντων, see Win. 27, 6. On this use of πάντων with superlative, the only case in N.T., See Win. 36, note.
1 Deuteronomy 6:4, Deuteronomy 6:5. This is quoted just as it stands in the Sept.
2 See Deuteronomy 6:4, RV.marg.
1 The classical Greek has the verb ὁλοκαυτόω, to burn whole, but this word is confined to the Bible and to Philo.
2 See Psalms 40:6, Psalms 51:16, Psalms 50:8-15, Isaiah 1:11, Hosea 5:6.
1 This word does not occur elsewhere in the N.T.
1 On κύριος without the art. See Win. 19, 1 a.
T fragment of Lectionary.
1 Mt. says ἐν πνεύματι. This is the only case of the use of this phrase in the Gospels.
2 This passage is quoted from the Sept. without change.
3 See on 8:15.
4 This word is found only here and in the parallel passages from Mt. and Lk. in the N.T., and elsewhere, in ecclesiastical writings.
1 This word is also found only in the parallel accounts of this discourse, and in ecclesiastical writings.
2 See Win., who treats it as an annex with an independent structure. 59, 8 b, 62, 3.
3 So Grotius, and following him, Bengel, Meyer, and others.
1 A Scriptural word, of which the first part is a Persian word for treasure.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Mark 12". International Critical Commentary NT. https://studylight.org/
the Fourth Week after Epiphany