Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Mark 12:9

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Mark 12:9. And will give the vineyard unto others. — The vineyard must not perish with the husbandmen; it is still capable of producing much fruit, if it be properly cultivated. I will give it into the care of new vine-dressers, the evangelists and apostles. - And under their ministry, multitudes were brought to God before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

123. The wicked vineyard keepers (Matthew 21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-18)

This parable pictures Israel as a vineyard, God as the owner of the vineyard, and the Jewish religious leaders as the tenants who looked after it. Just as the tenants beat and killed the servants whom the owner sent to them, so Israel’s leaders persecuted and killed God’s messengers, from Old Testament prophets to John the Baptist. Now they were about to reject God’s Son himself (Matthew 21:33-39). By rejecting him the Jews were bringing punishment on themselves. God would take away the privileges from Israel and give them to the Gentiles (Matthew 21:40-41).

Another picture illustrated this truth. Jesus was likened to the cornerstone of a building, which in ancient buildings was the stone upon which the structure depended. In rejecting Jesus, the Jews were like builders who threw away the cornerstone. God now took this rejected stone and used it in the construction of a new building, the Christian church. This new community would be mainly Gentile, and all of it built around and built into Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:42-43). People’s attitude to Jesus determined their destiny, and those who rejected him guaranteed their own destruction. The leaders of the Jews knew he was talking about them and wanted to arrest him, but they were not sure how the crowd would react (Matthew 21:44-46).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

In Mark's abbreviation of this, the important fact of the Lord's extracting the prophecy of the removal and destruction of the husbandmen and the letting of the vineyard out to others from the lips of the priests themselves is not mentioned. The fact that "others" would "render him the fruits in their seasons" was also omitted by Mark. (See Matthew 21:40-41).

This verse is a clear prophecy that God would destroy Israel and extend salvation to the Gentiles, a prophecy fulfilled by the fact of God's sending the message of redemption to all the world (also including Israel), and by the further fact that the mainstream of true faith in God would, for nearly two millenniums, take on a Gentile identification.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

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

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

Smith's Bible Commentary

Mark's gospel, chapter 12.

Now we remember that Jesus is in the temple. This is the day after He had cleansed it again. It is on Tuesday. It is His final week. Sunday He had made His triumphant entry into Jerusalem on the donkey. Monday He came in and cleansed the temple. Now Tuesday He returns to the temple with His disciples, where immediately He is challenged by the religious leaders concerning the authority by which He has done these things.

And he began to speak unto them by parables. [And He said,] A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a place for the winevat, and built a tower, and [he] let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country ( Mark 12:1 ).

Now, if you can hold your place there in Mark and turn to Isaiah, chapter 5, I think that you'll see how they were able to see exactly what Jesus was getting at. Verse Mark 12:1 of Isaiah 5 , "Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard and a very fruitful hill: and he fenced it, gathered out the stones, he planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, than I have not done to it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, did it bring forth wild grapes? Now go to; I will tell you what I'm going to do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge, it will be eaten up; I will break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: and I also will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold there was oppression; he sought righteousness, but there was a cry of those who were oppressed" ( Isaiah 5:1-7 ).

So when Jesus said to these leaders, "There was a certain man who planted a vineyard and set a hedge about it and digged a place for the winevat and built a tower," their minds connected with Isaiah. "And he let it out to husbandmen, went to a far country."

And at the season [at a time when he should be reaping the benefits of that vineyard] he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. And they caught him [the servant], and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled [mistreated]. And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also 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 out of the vineyard. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? ( Mark 12:2-9 )

The parable is very obvious. It is against the religious leaders, the husbandmen whom the Lord had set over the vineyard, the nation of Israel. And the Lord sent to them the prophets, His servants. But the prophets were mistreated; they were beaten, they were stoned, many of the them were killed. Finally, the Lord said, "I will send My only Son," or, "My well-beloved Son." And so, Jesus separates Himself in a total different capacity from the servants, the prophets that had been sent. Finally, the Son has come. And the religious leaders have determined to get rid of Him in order that they might somehow take possession of the vineyard. The question, "What will the lord of the vineyard do?" Of course, God is the Lord of the vineyard.

he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others ( Mark 12:9 ).

So, here we see as last week when Jesus cursed the fig tree and it withered and died, because it failed to bring forth fruit. The nation of Israel had failed to fulfill the purposes for which God had established them as a special people unto the Lord. They failed to bring forth that fruit that God was desiring the nation to produce. So, what will the Lord do? He will take away the privileges, the opportunities, and he will give them to others. And so, we see the door opened to the Gentiles, and Jesus here is prophesying and predicting that God is going to do His work, not among the Jews in this age, but more among the Gentiles. And thus, we see the work of God's Spirit in a powerful way among those Gentile believers in Jesus Christ. And then the Lord quoted to them the Psalm 118 , which is a psalm that was predicting the triumphant entry of the Messiah.

And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? ( Mark 12:10-11 )

This particular Psalm, 118, "the stone set of not by the builders, or rejected by the builders, becoming the head cornerstone," is an often quoted Psalm in the New Testament. Peter quoted it when he was talking to the religious leaders in the fourth chapter of Acts. Paul quotes it in his epistles to the Romans and in also his epistle to the Ephesians. Jesus here makes reference to it. Obviously, it is a reference to Jesus, the stone. Now, you remember that there was that prophesy in Daniel of the stone that would come, not cut with hands, striking the image and its feet and growing up into a mountain covering the earth. The stone being Jesus Christ, rejected by the builders, the religious leaders, and yet in reality, it's the chief cornerstone.

There's an interesting story of the building of Solomon's temple. The stone was all quarried away from the temple and was brought to the temple site and then set one upon another. So perfectly were these stones hewn and so well designed that they did not need mortar for them, but they just would interlock and would lie flat. And in fact, these stones you can't even put a knife blade between them; they are hewn so perfectly. And so, each stone was quarried and then smoothed in the area of the quarry, which is actually on the north side of the city of Jerusalem. And then it was brought to the temple site, and each stone was marked for its place and set into the building. And as the story goes, a stone was sent from the quarry and the fellows who were doing the building didn't understand where it went. It seemed like it didn't fit in the natural progression of the building, and so they didn't know what to do with it and they just tossed it aside. And of course, in the years as they were building the temple, finally they came to the completion of the building. But the chief cornerstone was missing. And according to the story, they sent to the quarry for the chief cornerstone. "We want to complete the building, have its dedication. We need the chief cornerstone." And the foreman checked his records, and said, "It's already been sent." And they said, "We don't have it." And he said, "Well, we've already sent it to you." And someone remembered that stone that was tossed over and now the bushes had grown up and over it, and they dug the thing out. And sure enough, the stone that was rejected by the builders was in reality the chief cornerstone of the building. And thus, this psalm. But yet, tremendous prophetic significance. "The stone that was set of not by the builders has become the chief cornerstone. This was the work of the Lord, it's marvelous in our eyes." And so Jesus quotes this very familiar psalm, Psalms 118:0 to them, a psalm by which He is asserting that He is indeed that stone, the Messiah.

And they sought to lay hold on him ( Mark 12:12 ),

He had directed the parable against them and they recognized that. And they wanted to lay hold on Him,

but they feared the people; for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them: and they left him, and went their way. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man [you don't care for man]; for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth ( Mark 12:12-14 ):

Quite an acknowledgment. True, it was flattery to try to throw Him off guard. And then they offered their question which was designed to entrap Him.

Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? ( Mark 12:14 )

Judah was a Roman province. As a Roman province, the governor was directly appointed by Rome, and the Roman government excised taxes from them that were paid directly to the Roman government. And there were three basic taxes. First of all, you were taxed on the land that you had. And you had to give one tenth of your crop to the government, that is your grains and all from the fields. You had to give one-fifth of the fruit, that which grew from the trees that were there on the land. Secondly, there was a straight across the board five percent income tax. And then thirdly, you had to pay each year a denarius to the government just for the right of existing. This was a tax upon everyone, a denarius because you lived. And so, the Jews hated this taxation. They did not really recognize the Roman authority over them. And this question then was a very clever question designed to entrap Jesus, for no matter how He answers, He's a loser. If He answers, "It is lawful to pay the taxes to Caesar," then all of these Jews that hate these taxes so much will turn away and not listen to Him again. If He says, "It is not lawful to pay the taxes to Caesar," then they'll run right down and report on Him and have Him arrested as a leader of sedition. So, they felt that the question was one from which He could not escape, a very cleverly designed question. It probably took them quite a long time to figure that one out.

Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy [cunningness], said unto them, Why tempt ye me [why are you trying to tempt me]? bring me a penny [denarius], that I may see it ( Mark 12:15 ).

Now, this was the denarius that they had to pay for existing. And of course, it had the current Roman emperor who at this time was Titus, and his little image was upon it. It's interesting to me that Jesus didn't carry a coin. He asked for one, and He held it up and He said,

Whose is this image and superscription? ( Mark 12:16 )

And it would have the picture, and under it the superscription, "Pontifus Maximus." "Who is this?"

And they said unto him, Caesar's. [So He flipped the coin back] And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. [ If it's Caesar's give it to Caesar, but give to God the things that belong to God] ( Mark 12:16-17 ).

Now in reality, these coins were all considered to be Caesar's, the government's. The people were able to use them, but in reality, they considered that it was all the government's. Even as your money all says "Federal Reserve Note," it's really the government's loaning you this medium of exchange, or letting you use this medium of exchange. So, Jesus thoroughly escaped the trap that they were setting for Him.

And they marveled at Him. Then come unto him [some of] the Sadducees ( Mark 12:18 ),

Now, the Sadducees were the priests, for the most part. The high priest at this time was always a Sadducee. They were the materialists. They were not really spiritual men at all, but the materialists. But they had gained control of the whole religious system. And they did not believe in spirits, they did not believe in angels, they did not believe in the resurrection from the dead. So they said,

And they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, if a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed for his brother ( Mark 12:18-19 ).

Now this was a part of the Mosaic law. It is given to us there in Deuteronomy, and it's a very interesting law. And the purpose, of course, was that the family name not die in Israel. And basically the law is like this: if you married a woman, and before you could have children, you died, it was your brother's responsibility to marry her. And the first son that was born would be named after you, so that your name would not die in Israel.

Now, say your younger brother doesn't want to marry her. He says, "Hey, hey, no, she gave my brother such a bad time. No way. You're not going to stick me with that one." Then they would come to the gate of the city where judgment was always made. You read that in the gates of the city that's where they always made the judgments. The elders of the city would be there in the gates to pass judgment. So, they would come to the gate of the city before the judges, the elders there, and the fellow would say, "My brother died, didn't have any kids and I don't want to marry her." And he'd take off his sandal and hand it to her. It's sort of like saying, "Hey, woman, you're an old dirty shoe as far as I'm concerned. No way." And she would spit in his face. And he would be released from the obligation of marrying her. But he was called "the man from whom the shoe was loosed" in Israel. He got that title after that, and it was sort of a dirty title. In other words, he wouldn't fulfill the family obligation and that was a very important thing to them.

Now, in the book of Genesis, and this goes back before the law actually, in the book of Genesis we find the case of Judah, the son of Jacob, and his son married this gal Tamar. And he died not having any children, so Tamar's brother took her to wife. And he died not having any children, and so the other brother was supposed to marry her. But Judah said, "Well, no, no. I'm a little worried about that tea that gal fixes." And two sons died and he said, "This is my last son, I don't want to lose him. He's too young; wait awhile before he marries you." And this is the story of Tamar; it's an interesting story in Genesis. She put on the clothes of a prostitute and sat in the way when Judah was coming by, the old man. He says, "How much do you charge?" And so she gave the price, and he said, "I don't have it with me, but here. Take my ring." And this is where we get the idea of giving a ring; it's a pledge to guarantee that I'm going to keep the covenant..."I promise you I'll pay you this little..." And of course, she coveted for a little goat. He says, "I'll send it back to you." And she says, "Well, what pledge do you give?" "Well, take the ring." And so he gave her the ring. Then the idea is, "I'm going to keep the promise; I'll send the goat." And when the goat comes, she gives the ring back.

Well, he went in unto her. You see, she felt that she was getting cheated because he didn't give the third son. And so, she was all veiled and everything else, and had the veil of a prostitute on and all. So, he went in and then went on down, and he said to his herdsmen, "Take a goat back to the prostitute that's back there in that corner, and get my ring back." And so, the guy came back with the goat and he looked around. He said to fellows around there, "Hey, where's the prostitute that hangs out on this corner?" "There's no prostitute around here." So, he came back, and the Jew said, "I couldn't find her; they said there's no prostitute around there." So later on word came to Judah that Tamar is pregnant. He said, "Have her stoned to death!" So Tamar came in and she said, "By the man who owns this ring I'm pregnant." Judah, of course, had it. What could he do?

So, the interesting thing to me as that as the lineage of Christ is traced back, it traces back through Tamar. That's interesting, isn't it? That God would bring His Son through this lineage. He was able to identify with sinners.

Another case of it in the Old Testament is in the book of Ruth. Elimelech, with his wife Naomi, sold their parcel and moved with their two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, over to Moab. And in Moab, Mahlon and Chilion married some young girls in Moab, and Elimelech died and the two sons died. And there were no children. So, the name was about ready to die. Naomi, of course, came back with Ruth. And later on, Boaz, who was a brother to Elimelech, married Ruth. He became what they called the "gaal," the family redeemer. He's the one that redeemed the family name by having a child through Ruth, whose name was Obed, whose son's name was Jesse, whose son's name was David. And in tracing the lineage of the line of Christ, it goes back through Ruth and Boaz.

So this idea of a kinsman redeemer is tied into the lineage of Jesus, which I think is significant, because that's what He became to be. He became a man that He might be kin to us, but His purpose was to redeem us. Man couldn't redeem himself. And so, He became a man that He might become our kinsman redeemer, and in two places in his lineage that particular Jewish law was kept, fulfilled.

So, here the Sadducees, they go an extra step. They create a hypothetical case,

Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed [he died without any children]. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed [without any children]: and the third likewise. And the seven had her [all seven married her], and left no seed [and died without any children]: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife [all seven were married to her] ( Mark 12:20-23 ).

Now you see, they were creating a hypothetical case by which they were trying to show that the idea of the resurrection from the dead could only create a lot of problems. And here is a big problem, because you see seven guys now fighting over the one woman, for she had been married to all seven, but none of them had any children. And they pictured this big confusion at the resurrection.

Of course, there are others who have foreseen great problems with the resurrection. Say you have a kidney transplant. Who gets the kidney in the resurrection? Our bodies are made up of chemicals, and when a person died out on the prairie and they dug a hole and buried him, the body decomposed into the various chemicals. And the little prairie grass sent its roots down and fed off of the chemicals from the decomposed body, and those chemicals were drawn up through the root and into the prairie grass. And the cows came and ate that prairie grass with the chemicals from somebody's body. And someone milked the cow and got the chemicals out of the milk and drank the milk and assimilated it and became a part of his body. Now in the resurrection, what body will get these chemicals? These same difficulties that people have hypothecated all stem from the same ignorance. That Jesus said,

And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God [You fellows err, because you don't know the scriptures, and you don't know the power of God]? ( Mark 12:24 )

Your mistake lies in the fact that you don't know the scriptures; you're ignorant of the scriptures, and that's where your problem is.

For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: [and Jesus is affirming the resurrection of the dead here] have ye not read in the book of Moses ( Mark 12:25-26 ),

Now the Sadducees, being the materialists, rejected all of the Old Testament except for the five books of Moses. And they said, "There is no place where immortality or resurrection is taught in the Pentateuch. That all came along later with the prophets and all. But there's nothing in the Pentateuch." So Jesus takes them to the Pentateuch.

have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him [Moses], saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [And Jesus said,] He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living ( Mark 12:26-27 ):

And with their own book of Moses, He really cut them down.

Now, there was a certain scribe that was there and he was watching this whole transaction, interchange of thoughts and ideas, and he was captivated by Jesus and His answers that He gave.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well [was really coming up with some excellent answers], asked him [an honest question] ( Mark 12:28 ),

These first two were dishonest questions. A dishonest question is a question that is not looking for an answer; it's looking for an argument. An honest question seeks an answer. I want to know, I ask a question; that's honesty. I have a point I want to prove, I want to get into an argument with you and show you you're wrong, I ask a question; I'm really not wanting your answer. I don't care what you answer. Your answer is wrong, and I'm going to prove it to you. And there are a lot of times that we are questioned by people, and the questions are not sincere; they're not honest questions. And one of the first things...and I can tell quite often by the question itself whether it's an honest or dishonest question. When a person says, "Why don't you baptize people the moment they accept Jesus?" I know that's not an honest question. They really don't want to know why we don't take you right down to the beach tonight and baptize you if you've accepted the Lord here this evening. They don't want to really know that. What they want to do is get into a big controversy with you, because they do believe in baptismal regeneration. And should you die before next Saturday, and had your chance to get baptized, according to their theology, you'd be lost. So, emergency baptisms. You know, get them into the tank as quick as possible and dunk 'em. And so they asked that question, and you know it's not an honest question. I really don't like to get into a controversy over scripture. The minute I can discern that a question is not an honest question, I'll quit talking. I mean, I'm not interested in getting in a dispute or an argument. The Bible says, "They that are ignorant, let them be ignorant still." That could apply to me as well as the next fellow.

This fellow has an honest question burning in his heart. It is a question that should concern every man who has become convinced of the existence of God. You say you believe in God. Hey, you can't rest there, you can't stop there. You see, if you believe that God does exist, then suddenly, as you start to develop from that basic concept "God exists," you start going out from there and you've got to handle a lot of things.

I grew up in a very godly Christian home. I believed in Jesus Christ from day one. From the time I was thirteen days old, I was carried to church, slept in the pews, and grew up in the whole environment and atmosphere. Yet, as every teenager I think must do, I came to that place in my own growth and development and maturing where I had to create my own relationship with God and develop my own foundation and my own theology, and my own building, you might say, of faith. And as I was going through that period, being challenged intellectually by my studies, by my philosophy classes and biology classes and all, there was a short period of time when I was questioning everything. And I began to question the existence of God. And I wondered if I really believed that God did exist. "Maybe there is something to atheism, maybe it is all just something that has just been conjured up by man." And I went through a couple of weeks of real misery as I was sort of in this place of floating and almost sinking, as these thoughts were coming, "Maybe God doesn't exist, and maybe it is just all man's concepts and ideas, as he needs to believe in something." And as I was going through this in my mind, I started to sink. And then I thought, "Well, it is easier to believe that God exists than to not believe that He exists." As I looked at the world around me, the universe around me, it is much easier to believe in the existence of God than not to believe in the existence of God. If you don't believe in the existence of God, then there are so many things that you've got to explain. The imponderables: how can you see? How can you hear? How can you walk? How can you feel? How can you remember? How can you have all of these capacities just by random, blind chance? And not to believe in God left too many unanswered questions. So I said, "Well, alright. I believe in God. "You say, "Well, that's not much." Well, if you're sinking, it's an awful lot to let your foot hit on something solid. And I thought, "Well, yes, I believe in God. But wait a minute!" I couldn't stop there. Just in the belief in God, I couldn't stop there.

If God then does exist, and I've come to that belief by the observation of creation around me, myself, as I observe creation I see the design and I see the purposes. I see the delicate balances in nature. I see the oxygen/nitrogen cycles. I see the water/dry land proportions, two-thirds to one-third. All of these are by design. They must be because they are all necessary for man's existence. If God has a design and a purpose for all things, then He must have had a design and a purpose for me. And if God has a purpose for me, then what is God's purpose for me? And that's at the point that this man was that came to Jesus. "What is God's purpose for me?"

This is basically what is his question:

Which is the first commandment of all? ( Mark 12:28 )

Really, what is the most important thing?" "First," being in order; not, "What is the very first commandment God gave?" The first commandment was, "Don't eat the tree in the middle of the garden." But, first in the order, that is the most important commandment of God. What is it?

And Jesus answered him, The first of all commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord ( Mark 12:29 ):

He goes back to Deuteronomy in what is known as the shima, the hear. It is that portion that the Jews roll up in these little boxes that they tie on their wrists. The boxes that they put on their foreheads; they all have this shima in it. "Hear, O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." It used to be in their feast days, when they would gather in the temple mount, that they would start chanting this. And it would build and build and build, as they would chant together, "Hear, O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." It is interesting to me that even in this declaration, the shima, the great commandment, the first, the primary commandment, that the word one ..."the Lord our God is one Lord"...the word one is the Hebrew word echad, which is a compound unity. There is another Hebrew word for one, yechyd, which is an absolute unity.

Now, I have four fingers, but I have one hand. Now, on the one hand, there are the four fingers and the thumb. So you have one hand, but in it is a compound unity. There are better examples of compound unity. You have one egg, but it's composed of a shell, a white and the yoke. Yet, it's one egg; compound unity. "The two shall be one," speaking of marriage. Echad, one, there's two but they become one, the compound unity. So the Lord our God is echad, a compound unity, "is one Lord."

It is also interesting to me, and it's a baffler to the Jehovah Witnesses, that here and elsewhere in the New Testament the name Yahweh is translated into the Greek, Kurias, the title that was commonly given to Jesus Christ. Now if there was so much on the Jehovah Witnesses, and there's so much to that name, Jehovah, evidently Jesus and the New Testament writers didn't know that. Because instead of translating the name Jehovah, or Yahweh into Greek, they used the Greek word Kurias, which is the Greek word for Lord, which is the title that was given to Jesus Christ. And we read that God has given Him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Kurias, which is the translation from the Old Testament of Yahweh, or Yahovah. So, interesting problem that they have to wrestle with.

Jesus is saying, "The primary thing, the most important, the basic thing is that you must know the true and the living God. That's first: knowing the true and the living God. But with so many religions, how can you know who is the true God? This was my next step as I was building my own faith and relationship with God. And so, I studied for a time Mohammedism. I studied Buddhism, and I began to make a serious study of the Bible. If God does exist, and God did create me for a purpose, then it would be necessary for God to reveal Himself to man early in the history of man. And God would of necessity have to perpetuate that revelation to the present day. So I immediately rejected all of the religious systems of the past that have fallen by the wayside. I didn't bother to look into Greek mythology or Roman mythology, or these other religions that already are parts of the history of man but are not current today. Because that would be an emission that God wasn't capable of keeping the revelation to the present time, and that God wasn't interested in man today; He was only interested in the early man, and He doesn't care what happens to us today. I also rejected all of these new religions that are coming out in recent years. These men who finally have received the "true revelation" of God. It's been hid from all men up until now, until we are blessed by this prophet, who has now the true understanding of God, and he brings us this new light and this new way. I rejected all that because that immediately then dismisses all of those people that have been born and died up to the present time, as if God doesn't care about them or wasn't interested in them, but suddenly God is now interested in man. I couldn't buy that. It had to be a revelation of God that began early in the history of man and was maintained to the present day. And that's why I chose the three that I did.

But as I studied, the more I studied, the more I became convinced the Bible was indeed the revelation of God. And today I have no questions, no qualms, no doubts. That it is indeed the revelation of God to man, and it stands separate, apart, distinct, and in many cases, in opposition to the religious systems of man. For the religious systems are man's attempt to reach out to God, where Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. In the religious system, man being good enough to be accepted by God, in Christianity, there's no way man can be good enough to be accepted by God. He has to just trust in the grace of God. There's no good work that you can do. It is not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by His grace alone. So rather than a system of works that can bring you to God, it bypasses all that and says, "There's nothing you can do to be worthy of God, you can only receive His grace, His love, His mercy that He extends to you through His Son Jesus Christ." God is reaching you; you can't reach Him.

And of course, as I read the Bible, I became fascinated with that prophetic aspect of the Bible, which the Bible itself declares is the built-in proof of its origin, that the Bible originates with God. "That you might know that I am God and there is none other like Me. I'm going to tell you things before they happen, so that when they happen you will know that I am indeed the Lord." Jesus said, "I've told you these things before they come to pass, so that when they come to pass you might believe." And so that prophetic element that we can even up until the present time read and know that God has spoken of the very days in which we now exist and has prophesied in advance things that we see in the world around us. The fact of the nation of Israel, whether or not the Arabs want to recognize it, they are there. God's word said they would be there. The Ten Nation European Federation, the movement that you read about all the time towards electronic funds transfers. And you're seeing the systems inaugurated in the stores when you go to these stores that are now using these scanning cash registers. God said, "I've told you in advance so that you might believe." And so, that built-in proof system. The most important thing for any man is to discover the true and living God. "Hear, O' Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." It's important that you know who God is.

Secondly, you must come into a loving relationship with Him,

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart [the deepest area of your life], and with all thy soul [that conscious area of your life], and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength ( Mark 12:30 ):

Love God supremely; God must become the center of your existence, the center of your life. And all men's lives revolve around some access. There is that center to every man's life, and it is important that you look into yourself and find out what is the center of your life. Upon what does your life revolve? What is the axis upon which your life is revolving? And with most people it is self. For most people are living self-centered lives. But the Bible assures you that the self-centered life is destined for emptiness and frustration. And the book of Ecclesiastes gives you a classic example of Solomon who lived the self-centered life, did everything for himself and ended up with that plaintiff cry, "Vanity, vanity," or "Emptiness, emptiness, everything is empty and frustrating!" He did it all; he had it all. But because it was centered around himself, it was unfulfilling and he ended as a bitter cynic, as does that person who lives for himself. When you get to the end of the road, you say, "It wasn't worth it. Life is a mistake, a tragic mistake. It's a farce. There's no meaning; there's not purpose. I began as an accident, I go out as an accident. And there's no reason." Oh, how empty! How futile! That's because you've got yourself at the center of your life; you need to get God at the center of your being. And that's what Jesus is saying is the most important. That's primary; get God at the center of your life and come into a loving relationship with Him. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God."

Now, the second commandment in order, in priority, similar to the first, it's,

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ( Mark 12:31 ).

You cannot do this unless God is at the center of your life. You see, he's striking at that self-centered life, because now instead of loving yourself supremely, you've got to love your neighbor as you love yourself. You can't do that unless you love God supremely. And it's only as you love God supremely, that you can fulfill the second, loving your neighbor as yourself. But in this is all the law in the prophets. This sums up the whole Old Testament. It's what it's all about. A loving relationship with God, that you might have a meaningful relationship with your fellow man; God at the vertical axis of your life, in order that the horizontal plane might be imbalanced.

Now, people get all messed up in this horizontal plane. Their interpersonal relationships are just messed up completely. And so, you go to a shrink and you try to understand yourself, and "Why do I react? Why do I respond? Why do I yell? Why do I scream? Why do I drive people away? Why do I act in such an anti-social way?" And he tries to delve into your psyche and all, and to tell you, "Now, if you'll just do this and that, and take a little Valium and all, it won't make any difference." So, he's trying to help you to balance out these interpersonal relationships out on the horizontal plane. And so, no sooner do you get one in the focus and you sort of balance it, then the whole thing begins to go overboard. And the other side is way up, and you get up on the other side and jump up there, so that you can balance this thing out...and so, you see people spending their lives trying to keep things in balance. And it's always just sort of topsy-turvy. You've got to come to the center axis, man. It's out of kilter. Your relationship with God, it's just way off. And if your axis titled, then the horizontal plane spinning around that axis is going to be just in a crazy whirl. Just up and down, up and down, up and down, until you say, "Oh, God, stop this thing. I want off!" First thing: get right with God, know God, love God. The second then will fall into order, loving thy neighbor as thyself.

Now, this fellow was intrigued with the answer. He thought, "Alright, I'll buy that." And he repeated it just to confirm it in his mind. And he said,

Well, Master, [that's good] thou hast said [you've told] the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more [important] than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices [that you could ever give]. And when Jesus saw [that it was sinking in] that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God ( Mark 12:32-34 ).

You're not far from the kingdom of God because the moment God comes at the center of your life, you are in the kingdom of God. That's what the kingdom of God is about, is having the King on the throne. The moment you bow and submit your life to God as King, as the Lord of your life, then you're in the kingdom of God, you see. But no man can serve two masters; no man can have two kings. And if you are sitting on the throne of your life, if you're living a self-centered life, then you're not in the kingdom of God, and you can't be in the kingdom of God as long as you're living a self-centered life. It's not until you're living a God-centered life that you've really entered into the kingdom. And this fellow was beginning to see the picture. And Jesus said, "You're not far from the kingdom." Get God into the center of your life, and you've come into the kingdom of God.

And no man after that durst [didn't dare] ask Him any question. And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, [said to the scribes], How say the scribes [how is it that you scribes say] that Christ [the Messiah] is the son of David? ( Mark 12:34-35 )

Now this, of course, was something that is taught that the Messiah will be the Son of David, because there were many predictions in the Old Testament. "He will sit upon the throne of David. He'll be the root out of the stem of Jesse," and so forth. And God promised to David, "I will build you a house;" and by this David understood that the Messiah was to come through his seed. And so, "How is it that you say that the Messiah is the Son of David?

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost [through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit] ( Mark 12:36 ),

And Jesus here recognizing the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the writing of David. David, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in Psalms 110:0 said,

The Lord [or Jehovah, Yahweh] said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? ( Mark 12:36-37 )

In that patriarch society, the father always ruled. As long as the old man was alive, he ruled. His word was law. Even when his sons were eighty, ninety years old, if he was still alive his word was the law. And in that culture there is no way that a father would call his son Lord. That would be a total antithesis to the culture and society itself. And so, how is it that if the Messiah is the Son of David, how is it that David called Him Lord? Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How can He be a Son?

And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing [robes], and love salutations in the market places ( Mark 12:37-38 ),

"Oh, Rabbi, Rabbi, doctor, doctor."

And [they loved] the chief seats in the synagogue, and the uppermost rooms in the feasts: Which devour [and yet these scoundrels devour] widows' houses ( Mark 12:39-40 ),

They take advantage of the little old women on Social Security, with their letters that they write of the desperate need that God has for their Social Security check this month, or God is going to be broke. And God's business is going to fail, unless they sacrifice. I've got a stack of letters in there that you can't believe, you can't believe the junk that these men write. I know that there's got to be a hot spot seven times hotter.

and for a pretense [they] make long prayers ( Mark 12:40 ):

And, all right. Jesus said it, "They are going to receive the hotter spot." Free translation...

these shall receive greater damnation ( Mark 12:40 ).

Go to it, Lord! It's hard for me to express how I feel about those who would take advantage of people for religious purposes or under a religious guise. I really had no intention, when I was a young man, of being a minister. I had very set ideas. I was always sort of a goal-oriented person. And I knew from the time I was in junior high school that I was going to be a neurosurgeon, and I had studied all about the brain. From the time I was a kid, I'd check out all of the books from the library and read about the brain, fascinated with the human brain. And I just knew I was going to be a neurosurgeon, taking all the courses to prepare me for that profession. And I had a big thing against most of the ministers that I knew. I didn't feel that they were true, honest, normal people. I saw a lot of hypocrisy and it troubled me, and that's one of the reasons why I never wanted to go into the ministry. But when the Lord began to speak to my heart concerning the ministry, I said, "Oh, no way! I don't want to be one of those guys. I'm too normal, Lord. You know, I don't like to wear ties. I don't like to dress up in suits all the time. I love sports and..." The Lord said, "Who asked you to wear suits all the time? Who asked you to wear a tie all the time? Who said you can't enjoy sports? Who said you can't be normal?" You'll find me a very normal person. I don't try and create some illusion that I'm super spiritual or better or...God help us.

But then this thing of this gimmickry on money, this is the thing that really bothered me thoroughly. And I said, "Lord, I could never ask people for money." And the Lord assured me that He would be my supply, that He'd take care of my needs. And so, this is a thing of the ministry that galls me, these many, many gimmicks that are used for raising funds or for extracting or extorting money out of people. Let's go on....

And Jesus sat over against [went over and watched them give by] the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much [their large gifts] ( Mark 12:41 ).

Now Jesus had earlier sort of come against this, and He said, "When you give, don't be like the Pharisees who like to sound the trumpet before them and make a big display over what they're giving to God." He said, "Don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing; just give to the Father and see what He'll reward you." Don't look for the reward of man, the "aahs and the oohs."

So, He watched these rich people casting in these large amounts with great ostentation.

And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing ( Mark 12:42 ).

I have some mites at home. And I wanted to bring them tonight, and it was my intention to bring them to show you a mite. You can buy a hundred of them for a penny over in Israel. They're worth about one one-hundredth of a cent. This little gal threw in two of them.

And he [Jesus] called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you [I'm going to tell you the truth about this little woman], That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast [their money there] into the treasury: for all they did cast in of [gave from] their abundance; but she of her want [out of her need] did cast in all that she had, even all her living ( Mark 12:43-44 ).

God doesn't measure your gifts by the amount. Never. But by what it costs you. By that measure God always measures what we give to Him. What did it cost me to give? David said, "I will not give to the Lord that which cost me nothing." Paul the apostle, talking to the church of Corinth, suggested that we examine ourselves. He said, "For if we will judge ourselves, then we will not be judged of God." As you look at yourself tonight, as you examine your heart, can you honestly say that your heart, your life, is centered in God? That He is the center of your existence? That your life is revolving around Him? If not, then you're far from the kingdom and you are heading down a road that can only bring despair, emptiness and frustration. I would encourage you: discover the true and the living God. Make Him the center of your affections, love Him with all of your heart, with all of your soul, with all of your mind, with all your strength, and you'll find out how God intended man to live, rich, fulfilled, as you walk with Him. And thus, may you walk this week with God at the center of your life. May you be filled with His Spirit. And may God, by His Spirit, guide you, strengthen you, help you. In Jesus' name. "

Contending for the Faith

What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Jesus concludes the parable at this point, but He has yet to explain its meaning. Upon concluding the story, He asks the audience, "What do you suppose the owner of the vineyard is going to do?" Then the answer comes, "He will come and destroy the men who are working in his vineyard and will hand it over to others." Matthew 21:41 seems to attribute this answer to the people in the audience, but Luke 20:16 shows the answer to be given by Jesus. It could be that the leaders answer the question first and thereby condemn themselves, and then Jesus repeats their answer as a solemn verdict from the Judge.

The meaning is that God will destroy the leaders of the Jewish people who disobey Him and lead people into sin and will deliver His vineyard to other husbandmen who will faithfully serve Him.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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

"The other major example of the concentric [chiastic] pattern in Mark’s story [beside Mark 2:1 to Mark 3:6] is the series of Jesus’ conflicts with the authorities in Jerusalem [ch. 12], comprised of seven episodes: Episodes A and A¹ involve Jesus’ statement of judgment against the authorities (the riddle of the wicked tenants and the warning against the scribes). Episodes B and B¹ include a quotation from the psalms followed by a reaction to that citation (the quotations about the cornerstone and David’s son); and episodes C and C¹ are both legal discussions about love for God and neighbor (Caesar and God, and love for God and neighbor). Episode D is the central episode; its topic is the resurrection, and its theme illuminates all the episodes: the failure of the authorities to understand either the writings or the power of God." [Note: Rhoads and Michie, p. 53.]

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

"Recent study of the Zenon papyri and of the rabbinic parables has shown that situations very closely analogous to that of the parable actually existed in Palestine both around 280 years prior to Jesus’ ministry and for some time afterward." [Note: Lane, p. 416.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

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

"This prediction was fulfilled in the church where the spiritual leadership became entrusted mainly to those of Gentile origin. But the determining factor is their faithfulness, not their national origin." [Note: Hiebert, p. 290.]

Barclay's Daily Study Bible

Chapter 12

REJECTION AND RETRIBUTION ( Mark 12:1-12 )

12:1-12 Jesus began to speak to them in parables. A man planted a vineyard. He put a hedge round about it, and dug a wine vat, and built a tower. He let it out to cultivators and went abroad. At the right time he sent a servant to the cultivators that he might receive from the cultivators his share of the fruits of the vineyard. They took him and beat him and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent another servant to them. They wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. He sent yet another. They killed him. So they treated many others, beating some and killing others. He had still one person left to send, his beloved son. Last of all he sent him to them. "They will respect my son," he said. But these cultivators said to each other, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." So they took him and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard. What, then. will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and he will destroy the cultivators and he will give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this passage of scripture, "The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the headstone of the comer. This came from God, and it is in our eyes an amazing thing?" They tried to find a way to get hold of Jesus, for they feared the crowd, for they were well aware that he spoke this parable against them. So they let him alone and went away.

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

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

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

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

It tells us certain things about God.

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

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

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

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

This parable tells us something about Jesus.

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

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

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

This parable tells us something about man.

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

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

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

CAESAR AND GOD ( Mark 12:13-17 )

12:13-17 They sent to Jesus some of the Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap him in his speech. They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know that you are genuine, and that you do not allow yourself to be influenced by anyone, for you are no respecter of persons, and you teach the way of God in truth. Is it right to pay tax to Caesar? Or not? Are we to pay? Or, are we not to pay?" Jesus knew well that they were acting a part. "Why are you trying to test me?" he said, "Bring me a denarius and let me see it." So they brought him one. He said to them, "Whose portrait is this, and whose inscription is on it?" "Caesar's," they said to him. Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and to God the things that belong to God." And they were completely astonished at him.

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

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

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

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

The actual taxes imposed were three.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WRONG IDEA OF THE LIFE TO COME ( Mark 12:18-27 )

12:18-27 There came to Jesus Sadducees, who are a party who say that the resurrection of the dead does not exist. They put the following problem to him. "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote the law for us, that, if a man's brother dies and leaves behind him a wife, and does not leave a family, the law is that the brother should take his wife, and should raise up a family to his brother. There were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died, and left no family. The second took her, and he died, and left behind no family. The third did the same. The seven left no family. Last of all, the woman died. At the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife." Jesus said to them, "Are you not in error and for this reason--because you do not know the scriptures, nor do you know the power of God? When people rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are they given in marriage, but they are like the angels in heaven. With regard to the dead, and the fact that they do rise, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' God is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are far wrong."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus' answer really falls into two parts.

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

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

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

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

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

"They left the fury of the fight,

And they were tired.

The gates of heaven were open quite,

Unguarded and unwired.

There was no sound of any gun,

The land was still and green,

Wide hills lay silent in the sun,

Blue valleys slept between.

They saw far off a little wood

Stand up against the sky.

Knee deep in grass a great tree stood,

Some lazy cows went by.

There were some rooks sailed overhead,

And once a church ben pealed.

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

'And there's a cricket field'."

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

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

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

LOVE FOR GOD AND LOVE FOR MEN ( Mark 12:28-34 )

12:28-34 One of the experts in the law, who had listened to the discussion, and who realized that Jesus had answered them well, approached him and asked him, "What is the first commandment of all?" Jesus answered, "'The Lord thy God is one Lord, and you must love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and your whole soul, and your whole mind, and your whole strength.' This is the second, 'You must love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment which is greater than these." The expert in the law said to him, "Teacher, you have in truth spoken well, because God is one, and there is no other except him, and to love him with your whole heart, and your whole understanding, and your whole strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself is better than all burnt-offerings of whole victims and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." And no one any longer dared to ask him any questions.

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

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

Sammlai had taught that Moses received 613 precepts on Mount Sinai, 365 according to the days of the sun year, and 248 according to the generations of men. David reduced the 613 to 11 in Psalms 15:1-5.

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

hill?

1. He who walks blamelessly.

2. And does what is right.

3. And speaks truth from his heart.

4. Who does not slander with his tongue.

5. And does no evil to his friend.

6. Nor takes up a reproach against his neighbour.

7. In whose eyes a reprobate is despised.

8. But who honours those who fear the Lord.

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

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

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

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

1. He who walks righteously.

2. And speaks uprightly.

3. Who despises the gain of oppressions.

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

5. Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed.

6. And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil.

He shall dwell on high.

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

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

Lord require of thee?

1. To do justice.

2. To love kindness.

3. To walk humbly with your God.

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

1. Keep justice.

2. Do righteousness.

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

The righteous shall live by his faith.

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

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

(i) "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." That single sentence is the real creed of Judaism ( Deuteronomy 6:4). It had three uses. It is called the Shema. Shema is the imperative of the Hebrew verb to hear (compare H8085) , and it is so called from the first word in the sentence.

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

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

(c) The Shema was contained in a little cylindrical box called the Mezuzah (compare H4201) which was and still is affixed to the door of every Jewish house and the door of every room within it, to remind the Jew of God in his going out and his coming in.

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

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

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

"Love the Lord and love your neighbour,

Have compassion on the poor and weak."

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

"I loved the Lord,

Likewise also every man with my whole heart."

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

"Love the Lord through all your life,

And one another with a true heart"

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

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

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

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

THE SON OF DAVID ( Mark 12:35-37 a)

12:35-37a While Jesus was teaching in the sacred precincts, he said, "How can the experts in the law say that God's Anointed One is the Son of David? David himself, moved by the Holy Spirit, said, 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' David himself calls him Lord. And how then can he be his son?"

For us this is a difficult passage to understand, because it uses thoughts and methods of argument which are strange to us. But it would not be at all difficult for the crowd who heard it in the Temple precincts in Jerusalem, for they were well accustomed to just such ways of arguing and of using scripture.

We may begin by noting one thing which helps to make the passage clearer. The Revised Standard Version translates Mark 12:35, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David." In the early parts of the New Testament Christ is never a proper name, as nowadays it has come to be. It has in fact in this passage the definite article before it and so is translated the Christ. Christos ( G5547) and Messiah ( H4899, compare G3323) are the Greek and the Hebrew for the same word, and both mean the Anointed One. The reason for the use of the title is that in ancient times a man was made king by being anointed with oil--still a part of our own coronation ceremony. Christos ( G5547) and Messiah ( H4899) then both mean God's Anointed King, the great one who is to come from God to save his people. So when Jesus asks, "How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?" he is not directly referring to himself. He is really saying, "How can the scribes say that God's Anointed King who is to come is the Son of David?"

The argument which Jesus puts forward in support is this. He quotes Psalms 110:1 --"The Lord says to my Lord sit at my right hand." The Jews at this time assumed that all the Psalms came from the hand of David. They also held that this Psalm referred to the coming Messiah. In this verse David refers to this coming one as his Lord. How, asks Jesus, if he be his son can David address him by the title of Lord?

What is Jesus seeking to teach here? Of all titles for the Messiah the commonest was Son of David. At all times the Jews looked forward to a God-sent deliverer who would be of David's line. ( Isaiah 9:2-7, Isaiah 11:1-9, Jeremiah 23:5 ff, Jeremiah 33:14-18, Ezekiel 34:23 ff, Ezekiel 37:24, Psalms 89:20 ff.) It was by that title that Jesus himself was often addressed, especially by the crowds ( Mark 10:47 ff, Matthew 9:27, Matthew 12:23, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 21:9; Matthew 21:15). All through the New Testament the conviction that Jesus was in fact the son of David in his physical descent occurs ( Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8, Matthew 1:1-17, Luke 3:23-38). The genealogies of Jesus given in the passages from Matthew and Luke which we have cited are to show that Jesus was in fact of the lineage of David. What Jesus is doing is this--he is not denying that the Messiah is the Son of David, nor is he saying that he himself is not the Son of David. What he is saying is that he is the Son of David--and far more, not only David's son but David's Lord.

The trouble was that the title Son of David had got itself inextricably entangled with the idea of a conquering Messiah. It had got involved in political and nationalistic hopes and dreams, aims and ambitions. Jesus was saying that the title Son of David, as it was popularly used, is a quite inadequate description of himself. He was Lord. This word Lord (the Greek kurios, G2962) is the regular translation of Yahweh ( H3068; H3069) (Jehovah) in the Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures. Always its use would turn men's thoughts to God. What Jesus was saying was that he came not to found any earthly kingdom but to bring men God.

Jesus is doing here what he so constantly tried to do. He is trying to take from men's minds their idea of a conquering warrior Messiah who would found an earthly empire, and seeking to put into them the idea of a Messiah who would be the servant of God and bring to men the love of God.

THE WRONG KIND OF RELIGION ( Mark 12:37 b-40)

12:37b-40 The mass of the people listened to him with pleasure. And in his teaching he said, "Beware of the experts in the law, who like to walk about in flowing robes, and who like greetings in the market-places, and the front seats in the synagogue, and the places of highest honour at meals, men who devour widows' houses, and who, in pretence, pray at great length. These will receive a more abundant condemnation."

The first sentence of this passage most probably goes with this section and not, as in the Revised Standard Version, with the passage which goes before. The verse divisions of the New Testament were first inserted by Stephanus in the sixteenth century. It was said that he put them in while riding from his house to his printing factory. They are by no means always the most suitable divisions, and this seems to be one requiring change. It is far more likely that the mass of the people listened with pleasure to a denunciation of the scribes than they did to a theological argument. There are certain minds to which invective is always attractive.

In this passage Jesus makes a series of charges against the scribes. They liked to walk about in flowing robes. A long robe which swept the ground was the sign of a notable. It was the kind of robe in which no one could either hurry or work, and was the sign of the leisured man of honour. It may be that the phrase has another meaning. In obedience to Numbers 15:38 the Jews wore tassels at the edge of their outer robe. These tassels were to remind them that they were the people of God. Quite possibly these legal experts wore outsize tassels for special prominence (compare Matthew 23:5). At all events they liked to dress in such a way that it drew attention to themselves and to the honour they enjoyed.

They liked greetings in the market-place. The scribes loved to be greeted with honour and with respect. The very title Rabbi means "My great one." To be so addressed was agreeable to their vanity.

They liked the front seats in the synagogue. In the synagogue, in front of the ark where the sacred volumes were kept and facing the congregation, there was a bench where the specially distinguished sat. It had the advantage that no one who sat there could possibly be missed, being in full view of the admiring congregation.

They liked the highest places at feasts. At feasts precedence was strictly fixed. The first place was that on the right of the host, the second that on the left of the host, and so on, alternating right and left, round the table. It was easy to tell the honour in which a man was held by the place at which he sat.

They devoured widows' houses. This is a savage charge. Josephus, who was himself a Pharisee, says of certain times of intrigue in Jewish history, that "the Pharisees valued themselves highly upon their exact skill in the law of their fathers, and made men believe that they (the Pharisees) were highly favoured by God," and that "they inveigled" certain women into their schemes and plottings. The idea behind this seems to be this. An expert in the law could take no pay for his teaching. He was supposed to have a trade by which he earned his daily bread. But these legal experts had managed to convey to people that there was no higher duty and privilege than to support a rabbi in comfort, that, in fact such support would undoubtedly entitle him or her who gave it to a high place in the heavenly academy. It is a sad fact that women have always been imposed upon by religious charlatans, and it would seem that these scribes and Pharisees imposed on simple people who could ill afford to support them.

The long prayers of the scribes and Pharisees were notorious. It has been said that the prayers were not so much offered to God as offered to men. They were offered in such a place and in such a way that no one could fail to see how pious they were who offered them.

This passage, as stern as Jesus ever spoke, warns against three things.

(i) It warns against the desire for prominence. It is still true that many a man accepts office in the church because he thinks he has earned it, rather than because he desires to render selfless service to the house and the people of God. Men may still regard office in the church as a privilege rather than a responsibility.

(ii) It warns against the desire for deference. Almost everyone likes to be treated with respect. And yet a basic fact of Christianity is that it ought to make a man wish to obliterate self rather than to exalt it. There is a story of a monk in the old days, a very holy man, who was sent to take up office as abbot in a monastery. He looked so humble a person that, when he arrived, he was sent to work in the kitchen as a scullion, because no one recognized him. Without a word of protest and with no attempt to take his position, he went and washed the dishes and did the most menial tasks. It was only when the bishop arrived a considerable time later that the mistake was discovered and the humble monk took up his true position. The man who enters upon office for the respect which will be given to him has begun in the wrong way, and cannot, unless he changes, ever be in any sense the servant of Christ and of his fellow-men.

(iii) It warns against the attempt to make a traffic of religion. It is still possible to use religious connections for self-gain and self-advancement. But this is a warning to all who are in the church for what they can get out of it and not for what they can put into it.

THE GREATEST GIFT ( Mark 12:41-44 )

12:41-44 When Jesus had sat down opposite the treasury, he was watching how the crowd threw their money into the treasury, and many rich people threw in large sums. A poor widow woman came and threw in two mites which make up half a farthing. He called his disciples and said to them, "This is the truth I tell you--this poor widow woman has thrown in more than an the people who threw money into the treasury, for all of them threw their contributions in out of their abundance, but she out of her lack has thrown in everything that she had, all she had to live on."

Between the Court of the Gentiles and the Court of the Women there was the Gate Beautiful. It may well be that Jesus had gone to sit quietly there after the argument and the tension of the Court of the Gentiles and the discussions in the cloisters. In the Court of the Women there were thirteen collecting boxes called "The Trumpets," because they were so shaped. Each of them was for a special purpose, for instance to buy corn or wine or off for the sacrifices. They were for contributions for the daily sacrifices and expenses of the Temple. Many people threw in quite considerable contributions. Then came a widow. She flung in two mites. The coin so called was a lepton ( G3016) , which literally means a thin one. It was the smallest of all coins and was worth one fortieth of one pence. And yet Jesus said that her tiny contribution was greater than all the others, for the others had thrown in what they could spare easily enough and still have plenty left, while the widow had flung in everything she had.

Here is a lesson in giving:

(i) Real giving must be sacrificial. The amount of the gift never matters so much as its cost to the giver, not the size of the gift, but the sacrifice. Real generosity gives until it hurts. For many of us it is a real question if ever our giving to God's work is any sacrifice at all. Few people will do without their pleasures to give a little more to the work of God. It may well be a sign of the decadence of the church and the failure of our Christianity that gifts have to be coaxed out of church people, and that often they will not give at all unless they get something back in the way of entertainment or of goods. There can, be few of us who read this story without shame.

(ii) Real giving has a certain recklessness in it. The woman might have kept one coin. It would not have been much but it would have been something, yet she gave everything she had. There is a great symbolic truth here. It is our tragedy that there is so often some part of our lives, some part of our activities, some part of ourselves which we do not give to Christ. Somehow there is nearly always something we hold back. We rarely make the final sacrifice and the final surrender.

(iii) It is a strange and lovely thing that the person whom the New Testament and Jesus hand down to history as a pattern of generosity was a person who gave a gift of half a farthing. We may feel that we have not much in the way of material gifts or personal gifts to give to Christ, but, if we put all that we have and are at his disposal, he can do things with it and with us that are beyond our imaginings.

-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Mark 12:9

give to others ... After AD 70 we see an extensive appeal to Gentiles, Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 10 Cornelius was the first. ... Matthew 8:11

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

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

Matthew 21:40- ::

he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. As the former clause contains a question put by Christ upon his having finished the parable, this is an answer to it, given by the chief priests, Scribes, and elders, in whose presence, and for whose sake it was delivered; Matthew 21:40- :.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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