Mark Chapter Twelve Parable of the Vineyard (vv. 1-12)

VERSE 1 And He began to speak to them in parables (Kai. h;rxato auvtoi/j evn

parabolai/j lalei/n [conj + aor.mid.ind.3s. archo begin + pro.dat.m.p. autos + prep en +

noun loc.f.p. parabole + pres.act.infin. laleo]: "A man PLANTED A VINEYARD AND

PUT A WALL AROUND IT [Ampelw/na a;nqrwpoj evfu,teusen kai. perie,qhken fragmo.n [noun

acc.m.s. ampelon vineyard + noun nom.m.s. anthropos + aor.act.ind.3s. phuteuo plant +

conj + aor.act.ind.3s. peritithemi put around + noun acc.m.s. phragmos wall], AND DUG

A VAT UNDER THE WINE PRESS AND BUILT A TOWER [kai. w;ruxen u`polh,nion kai.

wv|kodo,mhsen pu,rgon kai. evxe,deto auvto.n gewrgoi/j [conj + aor.act.ind.3s. orusso dig + noun

acc.nt.s. hupolenion trough, vat + conj + aor.act.ind.3s. oikodomeo build + noun

acc.m.s. purgos tower], and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey [kai.

evxe,deto auvto.n gewrgoi/j kai. avpedh,mhsen [conj + aor.mid.ind.3s. ekdidomai lease +

pro.acc.m.s. autos “it” + noun dat.m.p. georgos farmer; “vine-growers” + conj +

aor.act.ind.3s. apodemeo go away; leave on a journey]).

VERSE 2 "At the harvest time he sent a slave to the vine-growers, in order to

receive some of the produce of the vineyard from the vine-growers (kai. avpe,steilen

pro.j tou.j gewrgou.j tw/| kairw/| dou/lon i[na para. tw/n gewrgw/n la,bh| avpo. tw/n karpw/n tou/

avmpelw/noj [conj + aor.act.ind.3s. apostello send + prep pros + d.a.w/noun acc.m.p.

georgos + d.a.w/noun dat.m.s. kairos time, season + noun acc.m.s. doulos slave + conj

hina + prep para + d.a.w/noun gen.m.p. georgos + aor.act.subj.3s. lambano receive +

prep apo + d.a.w/noun abl.m.p. karpos fruit; produce + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. ampelon

vineyard]).

VERSE 3 "They took him, and beat him and sent him away empty-handed (kai.

labo,ntej auvto.n e;deiran kai. avpe,steilan keno,n [conj + aor.act.part.nom.m.p. lambano take +

pro.acc.m.s. autos + aor.act.ind.3p. dero beat + conj + aor.act.ind.3p. apostello send +

adj.acc.m.s. kenos empty]).

VERSE 4 "Again he sent them another slave, and they wounded him in the head,

and treated him shamefully (kai. pa,lin avpe,steilen pro.j auvtou.j a;llon dou/lon\ kavkei/non

evkefali,wsan kai. hvti,masan [conj + adv palin again; “another” + aor.act.ind.3s. apostello +

prep pros + pro.acc.m.p. autos + adj.acc.m.s. allos another + noun acc.m.s. doulos +

pro.acc.m.s. kakeions and that one + aor.act.ind.3s. kephalioo beat over the head +

conj + aor.act.ind.3p. atimazo treat shamefully]).

VERSE 5 "And he sent another, and that one they killed; and so with many

others, beating some and killing others (kai. a;llon avpe,steilen\ kavkei/non avpe,kteinan( kai.

pollou.j a;llouj( ou]j me.n de,rontej( ou]j de. avpokte,nnontej [conj + adj.acc.m.s. allos another +

aor.act.ind.3s. apostello + pro.acc.m.s. kakeinos that one + aor.act.ind.3p. apokteino kill

+ conj + adj.acc.m.p. polus many + adj.acc.m.p. allos + pro.acc.m.p. hos “some” + part

men + pres.act.part.nom.m.p. dero beat + pro.acc.m.p. hos “others” + conj de +

pres.act.part.nom.m.p. apokteino kill]).

VERSE 6 "He had one more to send, a beloved son; he sent him last of all to

them, saying, 'They will respect my son (e;ti e[na ei=cen ui`o.n avgaphto,n\ avpe,steilen auvto.n

e;scaton pro.j auvtou.j le,gwn o[ti VEntraph,sontai to.n ui`o,n mou [adv eti still + adj.acc.m.s. heis

one + impf.act.ind.3s. echo have + noun acc.m.s. huios son + adj.acc.m.s. agapetos

beloved + aor.act.ind.3s. apostello + pro.acc.m.s. autos + adj.acc.m.s. eschatos last +

pro. pros + pro.acc.m.s. autos + pres.act.part.nom.m.s. lego + conj hoti +

fut.pass.ind.3p. entrepos respect + d.a.w/noun acc.m.s. huios son + pro.gen.m.s. ego]).'

VERSE 7 "But those vine-growers said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let

us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours (evkei/noi de. oi gewrgoi. pro.j eautou.j ei=pan

o[ti Ou-to,j evstin o klhrono,moj\ deu/te avpoktei,nwmen auvto,n( kai. h`mw/n e;stai h klhronomi,a

[adj.nom.m.p. ekeinos “those” + conj de + d.a.w/noun nom.m.p. georgos + prep pros +

pro.acc.m.p. heautou one another + aor.act.ind.3p. eipon said + conj hoti +

pro.nom.m.s. houtos this one + pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. kleronomos

heir + impf.act.ind.2p. deute come + aor.act.subj.1p. apokteino kill + pro.acc.m.s. autos

+ conj + pro.gen.m.p. ego + fut.dep.ind.3s. eimi + d.a.w/noun nom.f.s. kleronomia

inheritance])!'

VERSE 8 "They took him, and killed him and threw him out of the vineyard (kai.

labo,ntej avpe,kteinan auvto,n kai. evxe,balon auvto.n e;xw tou/ avmpelw/noj [conj +

aor.act.part.nom.m.p. lambano take + aor.act.ind.3p. apokteino kill + pro.acc.m.s. autos

+ conj + aor.act.ind.3p. ekballo cast + pro.acc.m.s. autos + prep exo outside +

d.a.w/noun abl.m.s. ampelon]).

VERSE 9 "What will the owner of the vineyard do (ti, Îou=nÐ poih,sei o ku,rioj tou/

avmpelw/noj [interrog. tis what? + conj oun + fut.act.ind.3s. poieo do + d.a.w/noun kurios

“owner” + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. ampleon])?

He will come and destroy the vine-growers, and will give the vineyard to others

(evleu,setai kai. avpole,sei tou.j gewrgou,j kai. dw,sei to.n avmpelw/na a;lloij [fut.dep.ind.3s.

erchomai come + conj + fut.act.ind.3s. apollumi destroy + d.a.w/noun acc.m.p. georgos

vine-growers + conj + fut.act.ind.3s. didomi give + d.a.w/noun acc.m.s. ampelon

vineyard + pro.dat.m.p. allos other]).

VERSE 10 "Have you not even read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE

BUILDERS REJECTED, THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone (ouvde. th.n grafh.n

tau,thn avne,gnwte( Li,qon o]n avpedoki,masan oi oivkodomou/ntej( ou-toj evgenh,qh eivj kefalh.n gwni,aj

[interrog part oude not even + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. graphe scripture + adj.acc.f.s. houtos

this + aor.act.ind.2p. anaginosko read + noun acc.m.s. lithos stone + rel.pro.acc.m.s.

hos + aor.act.ind.3p. apodokimazo reject + d.a.w/pres.act.part.nom.m.p. oikoeomeo

build; “builders” + pro.nom.m.s. houtos this + aor.pass.ind.3s. ginomai + prep eis + noun

acc.f.s. kephale head; “chief” + noun gen.f.s. gonia corner-stone]);

VERSE 11 THIS CAME ABOUT FROM THE LORD, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR

EYES' (para. kuri,ou evge,neto au[th kai. e;stin qaumasth. evn ovfqalmoi/j h`mw/n [prep para + noun

abl.m.s. kurios + aor.dep.ind.3s. ginomai + pro.nom.f.s. houtos this + conj +

pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + adj.nom.f.s. thaumastos extraordinary, marvelous, astonishing +

prep en + noun loc.m.p. ophthalmos eye + pro.gen.m.p. ego])?"

VERSE 12 And they were seeking to seize Him, and yet they feared the people, for

they understood that He spoke the parable against them (Kai. evzh,toun auvto.n

krath/sai( kai. evfobh,qhsan to.n o;clon( e;gnwsan ga.r o[ti pro.j auvtou.j th.n parabolh.n ei=pen [conj

+ impf.act.ind.3p. zeteo seek + pro.acc.m.s. autos + aor.act.infin. krateo seize + conj +

aor.dep.ind.3p. phobeomai fear + d.a.w/noun acc.m.s. ochlos crowd + aor.act.ind.3p.

ginosko know, understand + conj gar + conj hoti + prep pros + pro.acc.m.p. autos;

“against them” + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. parabole + aor.act.ind.3s. eipon spoke]).

And so they left Him and went away (kai. avfe,ntej auvto.n avph/lqon [conj +

aor.act.part.nom.m.p. aphiemi leave + pro.acc.m.s. autos + aor.act.ind.3p. aperchomai

go away]).

ANALYSIS: VERSES 1-12 1. This is the most elaborate story-parable in Mark’s gospel. 2. It comes immediately after the confrontation with the top leaders of the Jewish

Sanhedrin. 3. “To them” refers to the three constituent factions of the Israel’s official ruling

leadership (cf. 11:17). 4. Jesus taught more than just one parable on this occasion, but Mark presents only

the parable of the vineyard (see Matt. 21:1), hence the plural “in parables” here. 5. In Matthew this parable is the middle member of a trilogy of parables placed

between the challenge to Jesus’ authority and the other controversy stories, in each of which there is a message of displacement: the religious authorities displaced in favor of the tax collectors and prostitutes who responded to John’s preaching (Matt. 21:31-32), the firing of the tenants in place of the new tenants who will produce the fruit (Matt. 12:41; another ‘nation’, 21:43), the first-invited guests displaced in favor of those brought in from the streets, ‘both bad and good’ (Matt. 22:10).

6. Matthew’s expansion shows well how the vineyard parable functions in this temple context.

7. Those who are observing the confrontation between the religious authorities and Jesus are faced with a choice; there is no room for both.

8. In speaking the parable ‘against them’ (v. 12) Jesus is implicitly claiming that it is in Him, not in the current regime that people will find the truth.

9. The allusion is unmistakable to anyone with a knowledge of Isaiah: the vineyard is national Israel.

10. The choice of a vineyard as the setting for the story suggests that this is about the long saga of God’s dealings with Israel from OT times to the present.

11. Again, the vine or vineyard as an image for Israel in its relation to Yahweh is well known from the OT (e.g., Ps. 80:8, 18; Isa. 27:2-6; Jer. 2:21; 12:10; Ezek. 19:10-14; Hos. 10:1).

12. But the wording of v. 1 is more specific, in that it echoes in detail the introduction to Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1-2), an allegory, explicitly drawn out, of God’s disappointment with His people.

13. Jesus’ parable does not develop the image in the same way: in Isaiah the vineyard is to be abandoned and devastated, here it will be entrusted to new tenants.

14. Isaiah’s message is one of unrelieved disaster, whereas Jesus’ parable offers hope for a new beginning which will come after rejection of the existing regime.

15. In Isaiah it is the vineyard that is destroyed and in Jesus’ parable it is the failed tenants that face displacement and destruction.

16. In this parable much of this was obscure to the Jewish leaders. 17. Even Jesus’ disciples would have been over their heads as they have not as yet

come to grips with the passion-resurrection predictions.

18. The details of the preparation of the vineyard (five aorist indicatives; “planted, put, dug, built, and rented”) reflect LXX Isa. 5:2, though the items are not in the same order.

19. The analogy is to a capital investment expecting a return. 20. The planting aspect is the establishment of Israel in the Promised Land. 21. The protective wall points to the protection God promised Israel from her enemies. 22. In the story the vineyard is not left to the intrusion of unwanted and destructive

animals (fox, etc.). 23. In other words the investment needs to be protected and the owner saw to this. 24. Within the vineyard the owner set up a wine press with a ‘vat’ beneath it in order to

extract the juice of the grapes that would be crushed at harvest. 25. What the tower represents has been the subject of debate. 26. A watchtower in a city is an observation post to warn of approaching danger. 27. One interpreter see the tower as the Jewish temple. 28. The idea being that the leaders of the temple were the spiritual guardians of the

people. 29. The fruit (wine production) represents divine good production. 30. The owner of the vineyard represents God the Father as is clear from v. 6. 31. The landowner entrusts the care of the vineyard to tenant farmers. 32. The renting it out aspect suggests that owner would reward the tenants for services

rendered and suggests that the owner expected a return on his investment. 33. The idea of an absentee landlord of a large estate was well known to first century

Palestine, where much of the land was held in large estates rather than by owner-occupants.

34. This situation escalated during the Hellenistic period, leading to an increase in landless Jewish peasantry, and therefore to widespread popular resentment and unrest.

35. The normal method of payment for the tenancy was for an agreed portion of the crop to be surrendered to the landowner.

36. In the case of a new vineyard it would be at least four years before the first crop could be harvested.

37. So in the parable story there would a long interval between the beginning of the tenancy and the season (kairos) for the sending of the collector; the tenants have had time to feel fully entrenched.

38. The fact that those who are sent to collect the rental fee (v. 2) are douloi (“slaves”) does not mean that they can easily be ignored.

39. The slave of a rich landowner was himself a person of consequence. 40. In not only refusing the rent, but also assaulting and insulting the collectors the

tenants, is in the plainest terms repudiating the owner’s claim to the vineyard, and challenging him to enforce payment if he can.

41. As presented here by Jesus the ill-treatment of the slaves is incremental. 42. The first slave suffers a beating and is sent away empty-handed (v. 3). 43. The slaves here represent the long line of prophets culminating in the ministry of

John the Baptist. 44. The second example (v. 4) increases the abuse in mentioning a head injury and

other shameful treatment.

45. The killing of the third slave brings the story to a climax. 46. This refers to the most extreme abuse that the prophets of God sent to Israel

suffered (cf. Acts 7:52; Lk. 11:51). 47. So while many prophets, not just two or three (see v. 5b), came to Israel with

Yahweh’s word, and while many were rejected and ill-treated, some were also killed (Jer. 20:20-23; 2Chron. 24:20-22; Matt. 23:34, 37).

48. The most recent had been John the Baptist, whose ministry Jesus has just implicitly defended in 11:29-33.

49. In real life it is even more improbable that the landlord would risk his son after such clear evidence that the tenants were completely corrupt, and would expect any different response, than that after sending so many slaves before reaching this point.

50. But in the allegory this is no mortal landlord, but God who is slow to anger (cf. Ex. 34:6, etc.) and very patient (Jer 15:15; Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Pet. 3:20; cf. Jam. 5:10).

51. The decision to send the landowner’s son in v. 6 is marked with a sense of climax: “still he had one more to send”, and “a beloved son”, and “he sent him last of all to them”, and the landowner’s assumption that his son, unlike the slaves, would at last command respect.

52. This is not just another attempt, but one last throw. 53. God’s last appeal to Israel in this story is presented as a incredible risk. 54. The position of hena (acc.adj. ‘one’) before the verb (“having”) and separated from

“beloved son” adds both to the finality of the this expedient (there is only one person left to send) and theologically, to the uniqueness of the son over against the numerous slaves.

55. The addition of “beloved” recalls the language of the voice from heaven in 1:11 and 9:7 (this echoes Abraham’s sacrifice the “your son, the beloved whom you love” in Gen. 22:3).

56. So the reader is in no doubt who ‘the son’ represents. 57. The single climatic figure is Jesus the Son of God. 58. Without using ‘Son of God’ as a title for himself, Jesus has by this parable already

given sufficient grounds for the question asked in 14:61 by the chairman of the Sanhedrin.

59. In the story the great risk taken by the owner of the vineyard is designed to illustrate Jn. 3:16 (et al).

60. “Sent him to them last” refers to the final official call to the nation of Israel to repent before the onset of the new dispensation the official point in the displacement of the old order with the new.

61. Jesus and His rejection by the tenants (religious establishment) marked a watershed—a transition to the new age (CA).

62. “They will respect my son” points to the clear evidence as to Jesus’ messianic identity that even the leaders of Israel could not logically refute.

63. This is evident from the tenant’s assumption in v. 7—“this is the heir.” 64. They assumed that if they killed the son/heir that they would be able to take over

and run the vineyard as they saw fit. 65. This is the current mentality of Judaism relative to the Land of Promise.

66. In the development of the story/parable the tenants’ hope of ownership of the vineyard serves as the foil to their eventual expulsion from it.

67. The casting of the son out of the vineyard has obvious symbolic significance in relation to the rejection of Jesus.

68. In Matthew and Luke’s account the order of killing and casting out is the correct sequence of events with the casting out being the crucifixion of Jesus outside Jerusalem.

69. As in Isa. 5:3-4, a question (cf. v. 9) invites the hearers to adjudicate the case. 70. Matthew produces an ironic effect by having Jesus’ hearers answer the question

themselves, and in so doing pronounce judgment on themselves (Matt. 21:42). 71. The punishment that befell the 2nd commonwealth was not just for their history of

abuse of God’s servants, and murder of the heir, but the destruction of all that the old regime stood for.

72. The phrase in v. 9 “and gave the vineyard to others” refers to the birth of the church even though the judgment came some 37 years later (70 AD).

73. The destruction of the tenants means the end of the vineyard (cf. Isa. 5:5-6) and new vineyard where new tenants will be installed.

74. In vv. 10 & 11 Jesus introduces an OT messianic quotation to highlight the point of the rejection of God’s final messenger that was rejected and killed.

75. These two verses are outside the parable proper where Jesus provides documentation for the Messiah’s rejection under the figure of a stone building with its chief corner stone.

76. The quotation is from Ps. 118:22-23 (LXX) which anticipates a deliverance and reversal of fortunes expressed in Ps. 118:21 in the singular though celebrated by “us” in vv. 22-23.

77. The rejection of “the stone” by the builders (tenants in the parable) is reflected in the parable by the rejection of the son and heir.

78. What is not reflected in the parable is the vindication of the son, but is, in the imagery of “a stone” becoming “the chief corner stone.”

79. The parable does not anticipate the final state of the son via resurrection, ascension and glorification.

80. The parable plus the quotation fit with His three passion predictions. 81. This creative use of Scripture which Jesus’ hearers were not able to work out for

themselves, despite the implied rebuke in the opening question (v. 10a). 82. Ps. 118 was a favorite Christian text for Jesus’ vindication after His rejection and

death (Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4, 7). 83. The thrust of the quote is that the one rejected has become the most important of

all. 84. As such Christ is the head of the Church with believers making up the many stones

of this great metaphorical edifice. 85. The second verse of the quotation (v. 11) might serve as a motto for Mark’s gospel

of paradox, of human amazement at the unexpected work of God. 86. The kingdom of God has been shown, especially in chapter 10, to demand a

reversal of human values and expectations.

87. In it the first are last and the last first, the rejected stone becomes the most important of all, and “we” are left gazing in amazement at the wondrous ways of God.

88. The inhibition of the authorities because of the crowd (v. 12) has already been noted in 11:32.

89. Here the crowd’s support for Jesus is more explicit, and this underlies the need for the chief priests to gain the help of Judas in order to make a secret arrest (14:1-2).

90. The primary targets of the parable were the authorities and they knew this much (and so did the crowd), and wanted very much to arrest Jesus then and there, but they feared a violent reaction from the crowd.

91. They did not want that as it would have involved the Romans. 92. This was not the time for Jesus to be taken into custody.

The Roman Pole Tax (vv. 13-17)

VERSE 13 Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to

trap Him in a statement (Kai. avposte,llousin pro.j auvto,n tinaj tw/n Farisai,wn kai. tw/n

~Hrw|dianw/n i[na auvto.n avgreu,swsin lo,gw| [conj + pres.act.ind.3p. apostello send + prep

pros + pro.acc.m.s. autos + pro.acc.m.p. tis some + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. Pharisee +

conj + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. Herodians + conj hina + aor.act.subj.3p. agreuo trap + noun

loc.m.s. logos]).

VERSE 14 They came and said to Him, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful

and defer to no one (kai. evlqo,ntej le,gousin auvtw/|( Dida,skale( oi;damen o[ti avlhqh.j ei= kai. ouv

me,lei soi peri. ouvdeno,j [conj + aor.act.part.nom.m.p. erchomai come + pres.act.ind.3p.

lego + pro.dat.m.s. autos + noun voc.m.s. didaskalos + perf.act.ind.3p. oida know +

conj. hoti + adj.nom.m.s. alethes truthful + pres.act.ind.2s. eimi + conj + neg ou +

pres.act.ind.3s. melei of no concern; “defer” + pro.dat.s. su + prep peri + adj.gen.m.s.

oudeis no one]; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. [ouv

ga.r ble,peij eivj pro,swpon avnqrw,pwn( avllV evpV avlhqei,aj th.n o`do.n tou/ qeou/ dida,skeij e;xestin

dou/nai kh/nson Kai,sari h' ou;È dw/men h' mh. dw/men [neg ou + conj gar + pres.act.ind.2s. blepo

see + prep eis + noun acc.nt.s prosopon face; “partial” + noun gen.m.p. anthropos man;

“to any” + conj alla + prep epi + noun gen.f.s. aletheia truth + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. hodos

way + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. theos + pres.act.ind.2s. didasko teach]).

Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not (pres.act.ind.3s. exesti be lawful +

aor.act.infin. didomi give; “to pay” + noun acc.m.s. kenous tax + noun dat.m.s. Caesar +

conj e or + neg ouk])?

VERSE 15 "Shall we pay or shall we not pay (aor.act.subj.1p. didomi + conj e + neg

me + aor.act.subj.1p. didomi; “pay])?"

But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why are you testing Me (o` de. eivdw.j

auvtw/n th.n u`po,krisin ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ti, me peira,zete [conj de + d.a.w/perf.act.part.nom.m.s.

oida know + pro.gen.m.p. autos + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. hupokrisis hyprocrisy +

aor.act.ind.3s. eipon said + pro.dat.m.s. autos + interrog. tis why? + pro.acc.s. ego +

pres.act.ind.2p. peirazo test])?

Bring Me a denarius to look at (fe,rete, moi dhna,rion i[na i;dw [pres.act.imper.2p. phero

bring + pro.dat.m.s. ego + noun acc.m.s. denarius + conj hina + aor.act.subj.1s. eidos

see, look at])."

VERSE 16 They brought one (oi` de. h;negkan [d.a.nom.m.p. ho “they” + conj de +

aor.act.ind.3p. phero bring]).

And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this (kai. le,gei auvtoi/j(

Ti,noj h eivkw.n au[th kai. h evpigrafh, [conj + pres.act.ind.3s. lego + pro.dat.m.p. autos +

interrog.gen.m.s. tis whose + d.a.w/noun nom.f.s. eikon image, likeness + pro.nom.f.s.

houtos this + conj + d.a.w/noun f.s. epigraphe inscription])?"

And they said to Him, "Caesar's (oi de. ei=pan auvtw/|( Kai,saroj [d.a.nom.m.p. ho “they” +

conj de + aor.act.ind.3p. eipon + pro.dat.m.s. autos + noun gen.m.s. Caesar’s])."

VERSE 17 And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are

Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's (o` de. VIhsou/j ei=pen auvtoi/j( Ta. Kai,saroj

avpo,dote Kai,sari kai. ta. tou/ qeou/ tw/| qew/|Å [d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. Jesus + conj de +

aor.act.ind.3s. eipon said + pro.dat.m.p. autos + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. Caesar +

aor.act.imper.2p. apodidomi render +d.a.acc.nt.p. to “the things + noun dat.m.s. Caesar

+ conj + d.a.acc.nt.p. to “the things” + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. theos])."

And they were amazed at Him (kai. evxeqau,mazon evpV auvtw/ [conj + impf.act.ind.3p.

ekthaumazo to marvel + prep epi + pro.dat.m.s. autos]).

ANALYSIS: VERSES 13-17 1. The series of approaches to Jesus by different religious sects of Judaism,

interrupted in 12:1-12 by the parable of the vineyard, now resumes with questioners from the sect of the Pharisees and from the Herodians, who approach Jesus with hostile intentions (v. 1).

2. This second attempt to cast Jesus in an unfavorable light does not originate with those posing the question, but with with others (they were ‘sent’).

3. There is little doubt as to who the senders are; these individuals were sent by the Sanhedrin (see 11:27).

4. So this is an official delegation with the objective of discrediting Jesus. 5. The makeup of the delegation is interesting. 6. The Pharisees are not surprising as they were an important segment within the

Sanhedrin (cf. Acts 23:6-7). 7. They have figured prominently as critics of Jesus in Galilee (2:16, 24; 7:1-5; 8:11). 8. On one occasion the Herodians and the Pharisees conspired against Jesus in

Galilee (cf. 3:6). 9. The natural sphere of influence of the Herodians was Galilee, not Jerusalem, so it is

surprising to find them readily available to do the dirty work of the Sanhedrin. 10. They were there at Passover, and no doubt accompanied Antipas on his Passover

visit (cf. Lk. 23:7). 11. The verb “trap” (aor.subj.) is used here as a vivid metaphor for their hostile purpose

(the verb agreuo is used of hunting game). 12. Viewing the preplanned introduction praising Jesus’ integrity as a teacher of the “the

way of God” within the context of vv. 13 & 15, it is blatantly apparent that they are guilty of flattery.

13. What they affirm about Jesus as a teacher is true, but they speak in insincerity. 14. They praise Jesus for His truthful and unprejudiced approach to teaching “the way

of God in truth.” 15. Jesus is one who is not swayed by any special interest as noted in their words,

“and defer to no one.”

16. The idiom is literally “for you do not see into the face of men” (ou gar blepeis eis prosopon anthropon)

17. There is also, “receive a face” (lambano prosopon) in Gal. 2:6. 18. And, “admire faces” (thaumazontes prosopa) in Jude 16. 19. And finally, there is prosopolempsia (one who shows favoritism) in Acts. 10:34;

Rom. 2:1; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25; Jam. 2:1, 9. 20. This idiom is familiar from the OT: Lev. 19:15; Deut. 10:17; Ps. 82:2; Prov. 18:5,

where nasa panim translated in the LXX by either lambano prosopon or thaumazo prosopon.

21. Jesus’ questioners claim to recognize Him as God’s unprejudiced spokesman. 22. This is blatant flattery, but Mark would expect his readers to recognize in these

words a true assessment of Jesus the ‘Teacher.’ 23. The question that follows is in terms of what is ‘permitted’ (ezestin). 24. All of Mark’s previous uses of the verb (2:24, 26; 3:4; 6:18; 10:2) has referred to

what is permitted under divine law, whether that of the OT directly or that of current scribal interpretation of the OT.

25. With regards to the matter under discussion it is one not only permitted, but mandatory under the law of Roman occupation.

26. To phrase the question in the terms of what is ‘permitted’ is to set up a conflict between divine and human law.

27. It invites Jesus to claim divine sanction for opposing Gentile/pagan government. 28. The question presupposes the ‘Zealot’ ideology of a fundamental opposition

between Caesar and God. 29. ‘Caesar’, originally the name of Julius, was by now the regular title of the Roman

emperor in common speech. 30. The question relates to the principle of the office rather than to the current holder,

Tiberius. 31. All Roman taxes were unpopular (customs, tolls, etc.), but the poll tax (kensos) was

of particular offense for Jewish patriots. 32. First imposed less than a generation earlier by means of Quirinius’s census, when

Judea became a Roman province under direct rules in A.D. 6, it was the immediate cause of a revolt by Judas of Galilee (Josephus, War 2.118; Ant. 18:4-10, 23-25).

33. That revolt was quickly stamped out, but it remained the inspiration for subsequent patriotic leaders, culminating in the Zealot movement which precipitated the revolt of 66 AD, and the consequent siege leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

34. The question was essentially a political one aimed at aligning Jesus with ‘Zealot’ ideology.

35. As a Galilean He was not liable to pay the poll-tax, which applied only to provinces such as Judea, which were under direct Roman rule.

36. They approach him as a ‘foreign visitor’ who might be expected to offer a more ‘objective’ judgment.

37. His expected response would be used to illicit an unfavorable reaction from the political authorities in Judea.

38. Here is what Josephus relates as to the call to revolt from Judas: ‘He called his fellow countrymen cowards for being willing to pay tribute to the Romans and for putting up with the mortal masters in place of God: ‘They have an unconquerable

love for freedom, since they accepted God as their only leader and master’ (Ant. 18:23).

39. The theology underlying such language is that obedience to God and to Rome as a pagan occupying power is fundamentally incompatible.

40. So this was their ‘trap’ consisting of the impossibility of answering the question to everyone’s satisfaction.

41. ‘Yes” would alienate Jewish patriots, who would see it as a pro-Roman answer; ‘No” would provide a basis for denouncing Jesus to the political authorities as a rebel (Lk. 20:20, makes this explicit).

42. The question is publically presented in v. 15a requiring either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer.

43. A ‘yes’ answer would alienate Jesus’ popular support; and a ‘no’ answer would open the door to a charge of sedition.

44. For Jesus knowledge of people’s thoughts cf. 2:8; 5:30. 45. What He knew about His questioners was that they were insincere—that is they did

not really want to know the will of God in regards to this matter. 46. For ‘testing’ see 1:13; 8:11 and 10:2. 47. Jesus first requests a silver denarius which was the required coinage for payment of

the poll tax. 48. It carried a portrait of the emperor with his official title, which at this time under

Tiberius. 49. It had on it the words DIVI AUG FILIUS ‘son of the divine Augustus.’ 50. To the strict Jew this was offensive, involving a graven image with the words that

should not be applied to any human being. 51. For everyday commerce the Jews used copper coins to avoid ‘idolatry.’ 52. These were locally minted and bore no image. 53. By asking His questioners to supply Him with a silver denarius threw them curve! 54. He did not have on Him such a coin, but they were able to produce one. 55. They were in no position to criticize Him for lack of patriotism on religious scruples,

if they were already carrying the ‘idolatrous’ imperial money. 56. As the recognized day wage of a laborer (Matt.20:2), it represented a significant

sum. 57. The full inscription around the garlanded head of Tiberius would be TIBERIUS

CAESAR DIVI AGUUSTUS FILIUS. 58. On the reverse there would be the title PONTIFEX MAXIMUS, ‘High Priest.’

(another provocation to Jewish sensibilities). 59. He answers the question in v. 17. 60. The logic of Jesus’ pronouncement is to be found in the verb ‘render’ (apodidomi)

which means literally ‘to repay.’ 61. The question had been about ‘giving’ (didomi) the hated poll-tax to Caesar (v. 14);

but Jesus speaks of ‘giving back’, i.e., giving that which already belongs to the receiver, like paying a debt.

62. The use of Caesar’s coin symbolizes the dependence of the subject people to the benefits of Roman rule.

63. And to use that coin to pay the poll tax is to recognize and discharge that indebtedness for services rendered.

64. The verb suggests that the payment is not only ‘permitted’, but is in fact right in itself, so that to withhold it would be to defraud, and that would place the individual at odds with God!!

65. What ‘belongs to Caesar’ in this context is the obligation to pay the poll tax with a silver denarius, though Jesus’ words permit a more expansive understanding of civic responsibility on the part of the believer as well living under Roman rule.

66. The second part of the pronouncement (kai ta tou theou to theo) ‘and the things of God to God’ is open-ended, and must be defined as the individual’s understanding of God’s claim on His people.

67. The nature of the pronouncement suggests that such conflict should be expected as exceptional rather than normal.

68. V. 17c narrates the response of all the listeners to Jesus’ answer. 69. The verb ‘marveled’ (exethaumazo) is an elevated term for amazement. 70. This advances the buildup to the conclusion in v. 34 that as a result of Jesus’

answers no one dared ask Him any more questions.

A Question Posed by the Sadducees (vv. 18-27)

VERSE 18 Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to

Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying (Kai. e;rcontai Saddoukai/oi pro.j auvto,n(

oi[tinej le,gousin avna,stasin mh. ei=nai( kai. evphrw,twn auvto.n le,gontej [conj + pres.dep.ind.3p.

erchomai + noun nom.m.p. Sadducee + prep pros + pro.dat.m.s. autos + pro.nom.m.p.

hostis who + pres.act.ind.3p. lego + noun acc.f.s. anastasis resurrection + neg me +

pres.act.ind. eimi + conj + impf.act.ind.3p. eperotao ask; “questioning” + pro.acc.m.s.

autos + pres.act.part.nom.m.p. lego]),

VERSE 19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN'S BROTHER DIES and

leaves behind a wife AND LEAVES NO CHILD, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY

THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER (Dida,skale( Mwu?sh/j e;grayen

h`mi/n o[ti eva,n tinoj avdelfo.j avpoqa,nh| kai. katali,ph| gunai/ka kai. mh. avfh/| te,knon( i[na la,bh| o`

avdelfo.j auvtou/ th.n gunai/ka kai. evxanasth,sh| spe,rma tw/| avdelfw/| auvtou/ [noun voc.m.s.

didakalos + noun nom.m.s. Moses + aor.act.ind.3s. graphe + pro.dat.p. ego “for us” +

conj hoti + part ei if + pro.gen.m.s. tis; “a man’s” + noun nom.m.s. adelphos brother +

aor.act.subj.3s. apothnesko die + conj + aor.act.subj.3s. kataleipo leave behind + noun

acc.f.s. gune wife + conj + neg me + aor.act.subj.3s. aphiemi leave + noun acc.nt.s.

teknon child + conj + aor.act.subj.3s. lambano receive; “marry” + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s.

adelphos + pro.gen.m.s. autos + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. gune wife + conj + aor.act.subj.3s.

exanistemi “raise up” + noun acc.nt.s sperma offspring; “children” + d.a.w/noun dat.m.s.

adelphos + pro.gen.m.s. autos]).

VERSE 20 "There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving

no children (epta. avdelfoi. h=san\ kai. o` prw/toj e;laben gunai/ka kai. avpoqnh,|skwn ouvk avfh/ken

spe,rma [adj.nom.m.p. hepta seven + noun nom.m.p. adelphos + impf.act.ind.3p. eimi +

conj + d.a.w/adj.nom.m.s. protos first + aor.act.ind.3s. lambano receive; “took” + noun

acc.f.s. gune + conj + pres.act.part.nom.m.s. apothenesko die + neg ouk +

aor.act.ind.3s. aphiemi leave + noun acc.nt.s sperma descendant]).

VERSE 21 "The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and

the third likewise (kai. o` deu,teroj e;laben auvth,n kai. avpe,qanen mh. katalipw.n spe,rma\ kai. o`

tri,toj w`sau,twj [conj + d.a.w/adj.nom.m.s. deutros 2nd + aor.act.ind.3s. lambano take +

pro.acc.f.s. autos + conj + aor.act.ind.3s. apothenesko die + neg me +

aor.act.part.nom.m.s. kataleipo leave behind + noun acc.nt.s sperma + conj +

d.a.w/adj.nom.m.s. tritos 3rd + adv hosautos likewise]);

VERSE 22 and so all seven left no children (kai. oi epta. ouvk avfh/kan spe,rmaÅ e;scaton

pa,ntwn [conj + d.a.w/adj.nom.m.p. hepta seven + neg ouk + aor.act.ind.3p. aphiemi

leave + noun acc.nt.s. sperma]).

Last of all the woman died also (e;scaton pa,ntwn kai. h` gunh. avpe,qanen [adv. eschatos +

adj.gen.nt.p. pas “of all” + d.a.w/noun nom.f.s. gune + aor.act.ind.3s. apothnesko die]).

VERSE 23 "In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one's wife will she be

(evn th/| avnasta,sei Îo[tan avnastw/sinÐ ti,noj auvtw/n e;stai gunh,È [prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.f.s.

anastsis resurrection + adv hotan when + aor.act.subj.3p. anistemi rise +

interrog.gen.m.s. tis + pro.gen.m.s. autos + fut.dep.ind.3s. eimi + noun nom.f.s. gune])?

For all seven had married her (d.a.w/adj.nom.m.p. hepta + conj gar + aor.act.ind.3p.

echo have + pro.acc.f.s. aute her + noun acc.f.s. gune])."

VERSE 24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you

do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God (e;fh auvtoi/j o` VIhsou/j( Ouv dia.

tou/to plana/sqe mh. eivdo,tej ta.j grafa.j mhde. th.n du,namin tou/ qeou/ [aor.act.ind.3s. phemi say

+ pro.dat.m.p. autos + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. Jesus + neg ou + prep dia + pro.acc.nt.s.

houtos this + pres.act.ind.2p. planao stray away; “mistaken” + neg me +

perf.act.part..nom.m.p. oika know, understand + d.a.w/noun acc.f.p. graphe scripture +

conj mede neither + d.a.w/noun acc.f.s. dunamis power + d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. theos])?

VERSE 25 "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in

marriage, but are like angels in heaven (o[tan ga.r evk nekrw/n avnastw/sin ou;te gamou/sin

ou;te gami,zontai( avllV eivsi.n wj a;ggeloi evn toi/j ouvranoi/j [adv hotan when + conj gar + prep

ek + adj.abl.m.p. nekros dead + aor.act.subj.3p. anistemi rise + conj oute neither +

pres.act.ind.3p. gameo marry + conj oute nor + pres.pass.ind.3p. gamizo give in

marriage + conj alla + pres.act.ind.3p. eimi + conj hos “like” + noun nom.m.p. angelos +

prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.m.s. ouranos heaven]).

VERSE 26 "But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in

the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to

him, saying (peri. de. tw/n nekrw/n o[ti evgei,rontai ouvk avne,gnwte evn th/| bi,blw| Mwu?se,wj evpi.

tou/ ba,tou pw/j ei=pen auvtw/| o` qeo.j le,gwn [prep peri + conj de + d.a.w/adj.gen.m.p. nekros

dead + conj hoti + pres.pass.ind.3p. egeiro raise up + neg ouk + aor.act.ind.2p.

anaginosko read + prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.f.s. biblos bood + noun gen.m.s. Moses +

prep epi + d.a.w.noun gen.m.s. batos bush + conj pos how + aor.act.ind.3s. eipon spoke

+ pro.dat.m.s. autos + d.a./noun nom.m.s. theos + pres.act.part.nom.m.s. lego], 'I AM

THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, and the God of Jacob' [Abraa.m

kai. Îo`Ð qeo.j VIsaa.k kai. Îo`Ð qeo.j VIakw,b [pro.nom.m.s. ego I + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. theos +

noun gen.m.s. Abraham + conj + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. theos + noun gen.m.s. Isaac +

conj + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. theos + noun gen.m.s. Jacob])?

VERSE 27 "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly

mistaken (ouvk e;stin qeo.j nekrw/n avlla. zw,ntwn\ polu. plana/sqe [neg ouk + pres.act.ind.3s.

eimi + noun nom.m.s. theos + adj.gen.m.p. nekros dead + conj alla +

pres.act.part.gen.m.p. zao live + adv polus much; “greatly + pres.pass.ind.2p. planao be

mistaken])."

ANALYSIS: VERSES 18-27 1. The question of the Pharisees and the Herodians was political with theological

overtones. 2. The question from the Sadducees is purely of a theological nature. 3. It is anchored in a specific test case, absurd and improbable as it is framed (Latin

reducitio absurdum). 4. It focuses on a current controversy within the sects of Judaism, specifically the

Pharisees and the Sadducees, who were in sharp conflict with regards to a subject related to the afterlife.

5. The questioners assume that Jesus supports the Pharisees on this doctrine. 6. So they present Him with a scenario that apparently would embarrass any Phariasic

teacher, and so make Jesus look ridiculous before the crowd. 7. ‘Sadducee’, a name used only here in Mark, appears from Josephus and rabbinic

sources to denote a theological and legal viewpoint, associated with the more ‘aristocratic’ elements in Jewish society, rather than a tightly organized sect.

8. Sadducean views were espoused by most of the prominent priestly families, resulting in this viewpoint being held as a dominant position in the Sanhedrin (see Acts 23:6-8; also is strongly emphasized by Josephus).

9. This delegation therefore probably represents the chief priests which figure prominently from 11:18 onwards, and who were at the heart of the conspiracy against Jesus.

10. The specific name ‘Sadducees’ is being used here since the issue was one of a theological nature.

11. The basis of their views was the primacy that they gave to the first five books of the OT.

12. They rejected what they considered to be the recently developed views on the afterlife.

13. The Sadducees affirmed that they could find no basis for the doctrine of resurrection in the Pentateuch, and the relatively rare references to that doctrine in OT were insufficient for them to embrace the doctrine.

14. For them Sheol was the final resting place and beyond that there was nothing more to be said!

15. There is more than adequate support for the doctrine of resurrection in the gospel accounts to support the position that Jesus held to the doctrine of bodily resurrection (Lk. 14:14; 16:19-31; 23:43).

16. Also there are Jesus’ predictions of His own resurrection. 17. Their question assumes that Jesus shares the position of the Pharisees. 18. V. 18 with Mark’s parenthetical insertion (‘who say there is no resurrection’) set the

tone for a question about resurrection of the dead which they did not believe in. 19. Hence, their question is cynical as it is based on a doctrine which they themselves

do not believe in. 20. The address ‘Teacher’ is particularly appropriate for a serious theological question

such as a rabbi might be expected to expound on. 21. ‘Moses’ refers to a particular regulation from the Pentateuch (cf. also 1:44; 7:10;

10:3-4). 22. What follows is a paraphrase of the basic levirate law of Deut. 25:5-6, which also

incorporates an echo of the clause anasterson sperma to adelpho in the LXX of Gen. 38:8, a familiar example of that law in practice.

23. The levirate law is based on the assumption that a man’s ‘survival’ is through the continuation of the family line/name, and for those who could see no other form of ‘resurrection’ this remained an important issue.

24. The use of the verb exanistemi (‘RAISE UP’) coming immediately after the notation that the Sadducees do not believe in anastasis cleverly emphasizes that this is the only sort of ‘resurrection’ they held to.

25. While there is little evidence of the use of this law in the OT (and in the two instances recorded there is resistance on the part of the survivor; Gen. 38:9-10; Ruth 4:6-8) it nevertheless was held as important through the centuries.

26. The existence of a large body of rabbinic law on the subject (Mishnah, tractate Yebamot) indicates that it was still in force in Jesus’ day.

27. The test case (vv. 20-23) is no doubt fictitious, but they intended it to be taken as factual.

28. This elaborate and highly improbable scenario was designed to discredit the doctrine of resurrection by leading to an embarrassing outcome (one wife with seven husbands in the afterlife).

29. So the question in v. 23 is: ‘when all eight of them rise again which one will claim her as wife?’

30. As with the poll tax question, Jesus begins by repudiating the assumption on which it is based.

31. His opening statement “Is this not the reason you are mistaken” is followed up with the explanation (v. 24).

32. The verb “mistaken” (pres.pass.ind. planao) means ‘to be misled.’ 33. As is commonplace a false understanding of what the Bible actually teaches on a

given the subject is what the Sadducees fell into. 34. Additionally, Jesus asserts that they were at odds with the divine attribute of

omnipotence (ten dunamin tou theou). 35. So the basis for their doctrinal error is twofold. 36. For the Sadducees who saw their position as based on a erroneous interpretation of

Scripture this was especially galling. 37. One on which Jesus will provide documentation in vv. 26 & 27. 38. Also, and maybe even more fundamentally, they have missed the importance of the

power of God. 39. Resurrection is not a matter of human potential, but is solely dependant on divine

omnipotence. 40. Their rejection of it is based on a strictly rationalistic and secular perspective (e.g.,

human viewpoint). 41. It is this charge that is taken up in v. 25. 42. The actual process of marriage is here expressed as ‘marrying’ or ‘giving in

marriage’ (the verbs are gameo ‘to marry’ and gamizo ‘to give marriage’ or ‘take a bride’).

43. Jesus is saying that marriage is a institution, appropriate to this earthly life, but not to the life to come, that is, to those who “rise from the dead.”

44. The status of resurrected humans is like that of the angels who do not marry, and by implication do not reproduce their own kind.

45. Another way of viewing this is that those who are raised from the dead are celibate, not that they are sexless.

46. Furthermore, all angels are of the masculine gender. 47. So in heaven or Ph 3 resurrected believers will no longer exist under the divine

institution of marriage. 48. The relationship between husbands and wives will no longer exist. 49. Death of a married person dissolves the union. 50. The argument from the standpoint of the Sadducees would have carried little weight

since they did not believe in the existence of angels according to Acts 23:8-10. 51. How could this be so since there is no shortage of angels in the Pentateuch? 52. The first five books of Moses were essentially their sole scriptural reference and

authority. 53. The words “But concerning the dead, that they rise” returns to the specific question

asked by the Sadducees with respect to their rejection of the doctrine of resurrection.

54. Jesus now challenges them by citing a text from the only source that they held authoritative, namely to a text in the book of Exodus the second book of the Pentateuch.

55. The change from the active voice of the verb ‘to arise’ to the passive voice in v. 26 serves to show that resurrection is not automatic, but is the result of the exercise of the power which God alone possesses.

56. The citation Jesus references is not immediately apparent on the surface of Ex. 3:1ff.

57. In the absence of chapter and verse numbers, the use of a striking feature of the text, in this case is Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush, serves in place of chapter and verse.

58. The means of reference here is epi with the genitive ‘the book of Moses” along with the reference to “the burning bush’ and this serves to denote Ex. 3:1ff.

59. Jesus’ argument depends on a understanding of the living God and His relationship via covenant with the founders of the Hebrew race—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

60. While Jesus’ inference from this incident may be subtle, they ought to recognize the conclusion that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (v. 27).

61. To speak of Him as otherwise is demeaning and erroneous. 62. To deny the doctrine of a future resurrection for those whom Yahweh made a

covenant, promising descendants and a homeland, is to be “greatly mistaken”, affirms Jesus (v. 27).

63. To experience to the fullest extent the promises connected with that covenant requires a future resurrection for God’s covenant people.

64. To leave their bodies in their graves is beyond ignorance, hence Jesus’ verdict “you are greatly mistaken.”

65. He adds to the same verb as in v. 24 the adverb polu meaning “greatly.” 66. No reaction on the part of the people is here mentioned, but is supplied by a

scribe’s recognition in v. 28 that Jesus has answered well.

The Greatest Commandment (vv. 28-34)

VERSE 28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that

He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of

all (Kai. proselqw.n ei-j tw/n grammate,wn avkou,saj auvtw/n suzhtou,ntwn( ivdw.n o[ti kalw/j

avpekri,qh auvtoi/j evphrw,thsen auvto,n( Poi,a evsti.n evntolh. prw,th pa,ntwn [conj +

aor.act.part.nom.m.s. proserchomai approach + adj.nom.m.s. heis one + d.a.w/noun

gen.m.p. grammateus scribe + aor.act.part.nom.m.s. akouo + pro.gen.m.p. autos +

pres.act.part.gen.m.p. suzeteo argue + aor.act.part.nom.m.s. eidos “recognizing” + conj

hoti + adv kalos well + aor.dep.ind.3s. apokrinomai answer + pro.dat.m.p. autos “them”

+ aor.act.ind.3s. eperotao ask + pro.acc.m.s. autos + interrog.adj. nom.f.s. poios which

+ pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + noun nom.f.s. entole commandment + adj.nom.f.s. prote first;

“foremost” + adj.gen.nt.p. pas all])?"

VERSE 29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR

GOD IS ONE LORD (avpekri,qh o` VIhsou/j o[ti Prw,th evsti,n( :Akoue( VIsrah,l( ku,rioj o qeo.j

h`mw/n ku,rioj ei-j evstin [aor.dep.ind.3s. apokrinomai answer + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. Jesus

+ conj hoti + ad.nom.f.s. prote foremost + pres.act.indl.3s. eimi + pres.act.imper.2s.

akouo + noun voc.m.s. Israel + noun nom.m.s. kurios + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. theos +

pro.gen.p. ego “our” + noun nom.m.s. kurios + adj.nom.m.s. heis one + pres.act.ind.3s.

eimi]);

VERSE 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR

HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL

YOUR STRENGTH (kai. avgaph,seij ku,rion to.n qeo,n sou evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj

th/j yuch/j sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j dianoi,aj sou kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj sou [conj +

pres.act.imper.2s or fut.act.ind.2s agapao love + noun acc.m.s. kurios + d.a.w/noun

acc.m.s. theos + pro.gen.m.s. su + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holos whole + d.a.w/noun

gen.f.s. kardia + pro.gen.m.s. su + conj + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holos + d.a.w/noun

gen.f.s. psuche soul + pro.gen.m.s. su + conj + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holos +

d.a.w/noun gen.f.s. dianoia mind + pro.gen.s. su + conj + prep ek + d.a.w/noun gen.f.s.

ischus strength + pro.gen.s. su]).'

VERSE 31 The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS

YOURSELF (deute,ra au[th( VAgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on sou wj seauto,n [adj.nom.f.s. deuteros

second + pro.nom.f.s. houtos + fut.act.din.2s. agapao + d.a.w/adj.acc.nt.s. plesion

neighbor + pro.gen.s. su + conj hos as + pro.acc.m.s. seautous yourself]).'

There is no other commandment greater than these (mei,zwn tou,twn a;llh evntolh. ouvk

e;stin [adj.nom.f.s. meizon greater + pro.gen.f.p. houtos + adj.nom.f.s. allos other + noun

nom.f.s. entole + neg ouk + pres.act.ind.3s. eimi])."

VERSE 32 The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE

IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM (kai. ei=pen auvtw/| o` grammateu,j(

Kalw/j( dida,skale( evpV avlhqei,aj ei=pej o[ti ei-j evstin kai. ouvk e;stin a;lloj plh.n auvtou/ [conj +

aor.act.ind.3s. eipon said + pro.dat.m.s. autos + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. grammateus +

adv kalos “Right” + noun voc.m.s. didaskalos + prep epi + noun gen.f.s. aletheia truth;

“truly” + aor.act.ind.2s. eipon “stated” + conj hoti + adj.nom.m.s. heis one +

pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + conj + neg ouk + pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + adj.nom.m.s. allos other

+ prep plen besides + pro.gen.m.s. autos]);

VERSE 33 AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE

UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S

NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF (kai. to. avgapa/n auvto.n evx o[lhj th/j kardi,aj kai. evx o[lhj th/j

sune,sewj kai. evx o[lhj th/j ivscu,oj kai. to. avgapa/n to.n plhsi,on w`j e`auto.n [conj +

d.a.w/pres.act.infin. agapao + pro.acc.m.s. autos + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holos +

d.a.w/noun gen.f.s. kardia + conj + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holos + noun gen.f.s. sunesis

understanding + conj + prep ek + adj.gen.f.s. holo + d.a.w/noun gen.f.s. ischus strength

+ conj + d.a.w/pres.act.infin. agapao + d.a.w/noun acc.m.s. plerion neighbor + conj hos

as + pro.acc.m.s. eautou himself], is much more than all burnt offerings and

sacrifices [perisso,tero,n evstin pa,ntwn tw/n o`lokautwma,twn kai. qusiw/n [adj.nom.nt.s.

perissos more + pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + adj.gen.m.p. pas + d.a.w/noun gen.nt.p.

holokartoma whole burnt offering + conj + noun gen.f.p. thusia sacrifice])."

VERSE 34 When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him,

"You are not far from the kingdom of God (kai. o` VIhsou/j ivdw.n Îauvto.nÐ o[ti nounecw/j

avpekri,qh ei=pen auvtw/|( Ouv makra.n ei= avpo. th/j basilei,aj tou/ qeou/ [conj + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s.

Jesus + aor.act.part.nom.m.s. eidos saw + conj hoti + adv nounechos wisely +

aor.dep.ind.3s. apokrinomai answer + aor.act.ind.3s. eipon said + pro.dat.m.s. autos +

neg ou + adv markran far + pres.act.ind.2s. eimi + d.a.w/noun abl.f.s. basileia +

d.a.w/noun gen.m.s. theos])."

After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions (kai. ouvdei.j ouvke,ti

evto,lma auvto.n evperwth/sai [conj + pro.nom.m.s. oudeis no one + adv ouketi no longer +

impf.act.ind.3s. tolumao dare + pro.acc.m.s. autos + aor.act.infin. eperotao ask]).

ANALYSIS: VERSES 28-34 1. Two hostile questions are followed by one which, while it deals with one of rabbinic

debate, and therefore offers the possibility of an unpopular answer, is presented by Mark in a positive light.

2. Matthew provides a more detailed background to this encounter informing the reader that this scribe was of the Pharisee group (Matt. 22:14), and that he approached Jesus because he and his colleagues were pleased with the fact that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection of the dead.

3. Matthew says he was a ‘lawyer’ (textually questionable nomikos) and that he ‘tested’ Jesus (22:35).

4. Mark labels him a scribe (same thing) one who was an expert in matters of interpretation of the Law and the rabbinic rulings on the Law.

5. Mark presents this individual in a more favorable light. 6. He was so impressed with Jesus’ rebuttal of Sadducean theology that he took it on

himself to ask Jesus the question about the greatest commandment. 7. The words “he had heard them arguing/debating” refers to the confrontation

between Jesus and the Sadducees. 8. This question comes solely from the initiative of an individual apart from any official

authorization. 9. He comes favorably disposed towards Jesus as noted in Mark’s comment

“recognizing that He has answered them well” (v. 28).

10. The man’s minority support is to be found even in the Sanhedrin (15:34; Jn. 7:50-51; 19:38-40; Acts 5:33-39).

11. The man has listened carefully, and with an open mind to the previous dialogues. 12. For him Jesus had answered his opponents “well” (kalos). 13. This is repeated in the man’s commendation of Jesus for His answer to his question

(cf. v. 32 where ‘well’ is repeated along with “You have spoken the truth.”). 14. His question opens with an interrogative (poios) which literally is: ‘what kind/sort of”;

and is here used as a substitute for tis (what?). 15. The adjective prote (fem.) ‘foremost’ signifies that which is most important—that

which is of highest ranking. 16. The adjective ‘of all’ (neuter for of pas all) is not the same gender as the

‘commandment’ or ‘foremost.’ 17. This perhaps means that the gender of pas is derived from a stereotyped idiom

(prote panton) rather than from the gender of the noun entole. 18. Only Mark makes mention of Jesus’ use of Deut. 6:4 as a preamble to the foremost

commandment in Deut. 6:5 (v. 29). 19. By including Deut. 6:6 (“HEAR, O ISRAEL, THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD”)

the commandment to follow serves to demonstrate that the foremost/first commandment is grounded in the essential tenet of Jewish belief, monotheism thus establishing Jesus theological orthodoxy.

20. That God is ‘one’ means that God is one is essence, that is, all three members of the Godhead possess individually the same attributes.

21. Mark lists four nouns in Jesus’ citation of the Deuteronomy text as the sphere of love expressed for God.

22. First is “all your heart” which denotes passion for an object; second, is “with all your soul” which denotes free will’; third is “with all your mind” which denotes thought or intellect; and fourth is “with all your strength” which relates to physical assets employed in the service of God.

23. Jesus is asked for the ‘foremost commandment”, but He responds with two which hold the preeminent position (v. 31).

24. The two are both linked by the key verb “you shall love” (present imperative 2s. agapao).

25. Together they sum up the first and second parts of the Ten Commandments which deal with relationship to God and to one’s fellow man (commandments 1-5 toward God and 6-19 toward man).

26. In 10:19 Jesus quoted only the commandments of the ‘second tablet’ in His encounter with the rich young ruler.

27. Here He cites both the ‘first’ (prote) and the ‘second’ (deutera) establishing the levels of priority.

28. Genuine love for one’s “neighbor” only finds its purest expression on the basis of prior love of God.

29. This second most important commandment is reflected in Lev. 19:18b (“you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD”) following a commandment not to take vengeance or bear a grudge.

30. Both of which are fundamental violations of “love your neighbor.”

31. The noun ‘neighbor’ (plerion) brings up the question as to the scope of this commandment.

32. That question is answered in the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk. 10:29). 33. Even in Leviticus the requirement of the second greatest commandment is applied

to the ‘resident alien’ (Lev. 19:34). 34. In Matt. 5:43 it is taken to include even a heightened object; one’s enemies. 35. But for this scribe and his enthusiasm for Jesus’ answer it was probably toward a

much more limited understanding of the ‘neighbor’ than was intended for subsequent Christian application of this commandment.

36. The scribe’s enthusiastic response is found in vv. 32-33. 37. For kalos here is an exclamation for, ‘Well said’ (cf. Rom. 11:20). 38. His approving paraphrase of Jesus’ pronouncement picks up its theology and its

ethics. 39. “HE IS ONE” is directly from Deut. 6:4, but “there is no one else besides Him” is an

even more explicit monotheistic formula taken from Deut. 4:35 and is cited inIsa. 45:21 (cf. Ex. 20:3).

40. The scribe uses only three of the four nouns in the quotation of Deut. 6:5 as compared to Jesus expansion to four verbs.

41. The second of them is suneuos (‘understanding’), which has no place in the textual tradition.

42. Its meaning is not far removed from ‘mind’ (dianoia) and has a similar ‘intellectual’ tone.

43. While the alteration to the form of the text quoted makes little difference to the sense, his words which follow in v. 33b are striking (“is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices”).

44. Jesus’ “There is no other commandment greater than these” is now given by the scribe a very specific focus by setting the double love commandment against the constrast of: “is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

45. The scribe uses the comparative adjective perissoteron (‘much more than’) which carries the sense of ‘utterly.’

46. In so doing he affirms the greater importance of the double love commandment over against the ritual code.

47. His sweeping ‘demotion’ of the whole system of temple sacrifice on his part is remarkable to say the least.

48. His language here recalls Hos. 6:6. 49. His words are of course not to be taken as questioning the validity of the ceremonial

code of Israel, any more than did Hos. 6:6 (and cf. 1Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:10-17; Jer. 7:22-23).

50. Jesus commendation of the scribe’s sense of perspective will not have been lost on Christians, who even before the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, faced the question as to whether or not they should be involved in the ceremonial aspect of the Law in light of Jesus’ ‘fulfillment’ of it.

51. Jesus’ response (v. 34) to the scribe’s reply assured Jesus that his mind was attuned to the divine perspective (e.g., “Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently/wisely”).

52. This placed the man “not far from the kingdom of God”, but not yet a part of it.

53. This scribe showed himself as a potential convert. 54. Here was a person already a good part of the way through the readjustment of

values which the kingdom of God demands (principal of which is to acknowledge who and what Jesus is).

55. Of course the man’s journey and entry into the kingdom of God required that he came to recognize who Jesus was in fact.

56. After such an encouraging comment it is surprising to read that no one else dared ask any more questions (coming up Jesus poses the question to His antagonists).

57. This statement serves as a bridge to prepare the reader to the new pattern from v. 35 where it is Jesus himself who poses the question of speaks on His own initiative.

The Status of Messiah (vv. 35-37)

VERSE 35 And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the

scribes say that the Christ is the son of David (Kai. avpokriqei.j o VIhsou/j e;legen

dida,skwn evn tw/| i`erw/|( Pw/j le,gousin oi grammatei/j o[ti o Cristo.j ui`o.j Daui,d evstin [conj +

aor.dep.part.nom.m.s. apokrinomai answer + d.a.w.noun nom.m.s. Jesus +

imfp.act.ind.3m.s. lego + pres.act.part.nom.m.s. didasko teach + prep en + d.a.w/noun

loc.nt.s. heiros temple + interro. Pos hos? + pres.act.ind.3s. lego “say” + d.a.w/noun

nom.m.p. grammateus + conj hoti + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s. Christos + noun nom.m.s.

huios son + noun gen.m.s. David +pres.act.ind.3s. eimi]?

VERSE 36 "David himself said in the Holy Spirit (auvto.j Daui.d ei=pen evn tw/| pneu,mati tw/|

a`gi,w| [pro.nom.m.s. autos “himself” + noun nom.m.s. David + aor.act.ind.3m.s. eipon

“said” + prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.nt.s. pneuma spirit + d.a.w.adj.loc.nt.s. hagios holy],

'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR

ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET [Ei=pen ku,rioj tw/| kuri,w| mou\ Ka,qou evk dexiw/n mou( e[wj

a'n qw/ tou.j evcqrou,j sou u`poka,tw tw/n podw/n sou [aor.act.ind.3s. eipon “said” + noun

nom.m.s. kurios + d.a.w/noun dat.m.s. kurios + prol.gen.s. ego + impf.dep.ind.2s.

kathemai sit down + prep ek + adj.gen.nt.p. dexios right hand + pro.gen.s. ego + conj

eos until + part an + aor.act.subj.1s. tithemi “make” + d.a.w/adj.acc.m.p. echthros

enemy + prol.gen.s. su + prep hupokato beneath + d.a.w/noun gen.m.p. pous foot +

pro.gen.s. su])."'

VERSE 37 "David himself calls Him 'Lord'; so in what sense is He his son (auvto.j

Daui.d le,gei auvto.n ku,rion( kai. po,qen auvtou/ evstin uio,j [pro.nom.m.s. autos “himself” + noun

nom.m.s. David + pres.act.ind.3s. lego + pro.acc.m.s. autos “Him” + noun nom.m.s.

kurios + conj. kai + interro. Adv. pothen why; “in what sense” + pro.gen.m.s. autos +

pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + noun nom.m.s. huios son])?"

And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him (kai. Îo`Ð polu.j o;cloj h;kouen auvtou/ h`de,wj

[conj + d.a.w/noun nom.m.s.ochlos crowd + impf.act.ind.3s. akouo “listening” +

pro.gen.m.s. autos + adv hedeos glady; “enjoyed”]).

ANALYSIS: VERSES 35-37 1. The location of this dialogue is fixed with 11:27 when Jesus was walking about in

the Temple (cleansed), and members of the Sanhedrin confronted Him regarding the source of His authority.

2. In v. 35a we are reminded that the scene is the same (e.g., “as He taught in the temple”).

3. This scene prevails until 12:41. 4. As a Passover visitor, with no place of His own in Jerusalem, He has made the

public arena of the Court of the Gentiles His base of operations since His arrival. 5. He is by now a familiar figure there. 6. This is the only question posed by Jesus in the sequence of temple dialogues. 7. It is enigmatic, since it is left unanswered. 8. The hearers are left to connect all the dots. 9. It presents a theological question about “the Christ/Messiah.” 10. In this question Jesus identifies the Messiah with “the son of David.” 11. This is something that scribes believed to be true (e.g., “How is it that the scribes

say…”). 12. In fact, this identity of the Messiah/Christ as a descendant of David was the general

and popular viewpoint of the people of Israel at this time (note the words of the multitude as they exclaimed this on Monday during the Royal procession; cf. Matt. 21:9 “Hosanna to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Hosanna in the highest!”; Mk. 11:9-10 Those who were in front and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD; Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David; Hosanna in the highest!”).

13. These words were taken up by children in the temple, which was not appreciated by the chief priests and scribes, because it pointed to Jesus as “the son of David” (Matt. 21:15 “But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He has done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David”; they became indignant.”).

14. What Jesus’ enemies believed to be true about the relationship of the Messiah to David, they refused to acknowledge Jesus as that person.

15. So even though there was a point of agreement between the two, there was no hope of rapprochement between them.

16. They stubbornly refused to identify Jesus as that person, and the scribes figure predominantly in Jesus’ condemnation of them in vv. 38-40; and they will be one of the parties in Jesus’ condemnation in chapters 14 & 15.

17. The dominant view among the Jews was derived from the oracle of 2 Sam. 7:12-16. 18. That oracle affirms that God would raise up a descendant in the line of David that

would liberate Israel at His coming thus establishing the long-awaited kingdom. 19. The “scribes” here are those which aligned themselves with the sect of the

Pharisees which made up the majority of scribes. 20. The first part of Jesus’ argument was not controversial as it was linked to scribal

teaching already. 21. According to Paul in Rom. 1:13 the proper content of the gospel recognizes Jesus

as the Son of God who is of Davidic descent (see vv. 1-4; cf. also Rev. 22:16). 22. In Matthew’s account he has Jesus asking some Pharisees (who probably reacted

with alarm to one of their own who had just given a favorable reply to Jesus’ question about the commandments) this question about the identity of who was the father of the Christ (“whose son is He?”; Matt. 22:41-42b).

23. They answer that Messiah’s father was David (“They said to Him, ‘The son of David.’”; v. 42b).

24. This opened the door for the second part of Jesus’ query which has to do with Messiah’s relationship to God (Matt. 22:43).

25. Mark leaves out this second question of Jesus, and cites a text from Ps. 110:1 (v. 38).

26. Mark (as does Matthew and Luke) attributes Ps. 110 to David. 27. Ps. 110 is one of the ‘royal psalms’ dealing with kingship as related to the Messiah

as well as His status as Priest. 28. It was so recognized as such by the sect of the Pharisees and the scribes. 29. Mark (and Matthew) has Jesus claiming that David’s words were the product of

prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit (“David said in the Holy Spirit…”; v. 36a; Matt. 22:43).

30. David during his lifetime functioned as a prophet according to Acts 2:25-30. 31. The scribes would have agreed that this prophecy was divinely inspired. 32. So God the Holy Spirit is featured in this verse along with God the Father and God

the Son. 33. The first line in the poetic text features a wordplay that reads: “THE LORD SAID TO

MY LORD…” 34. The LXX (Greek version of the OT) features the noun kurios which indicates one

who is superior.

35. Who is “my Lord” refers to David’s Lord. 36. The next line further advances the “my Lord” as the “Lord” who is invited to sit at the

right hand of the “Lord” who issues the invitation to ‘sit. 37. Of course the informed Christian reader knows that this is Jesus Christ at His final

ascension (see doctrine for the two ascensions of Christ). 38. The second line features what we call the session of Christ at the right hand. 39. So “THE LORD” in the first instance is God the Father. 40. In the Hebrew this noun is Yahweh. 41. “MY LORD” is David’s superior who is prophetically seen as One who will be

enthroned at God the Father’s right hand. 42. This was realized just after Jesus’ ascension to the 3rd heaven from the Mount of

Olives. 43. The third and final line of this quotation will be realized at the Second Advent. 44. The subjugation of all enemies will be accomplished by the highly esteemed One

who is seated on heaven’s throne. 45. When Jesus finally explicitly declares Himself to be the “coming” One at His trial

before the Sanhedrin it will produce the most virulent response (14:61-63). 46. Jesus interprets Ps. 110:1 in v. 37 and in so doing sets up a conundrum (a riddle to

a set of seemingly contradictory ideas). 47. He asks His opponents the question as to how David could call Messiah ‘Lord’ and

at the same time be David’s son (v. 37a). 48. This is resolved within the doctrines of Christology. 49. Jesus’ relationship to David as ‘son’ applies only to His humanity as He was a

descendant within the line of David. 50. As David’s “Lord” Jesus’ divine nature is in view. 51. Apparently this left the scribes speechless as they did not reply. 52. They failed to reply because they did not hold to the doctrine of the trinity, taking the

designation “God is one” in the wrong direction. 53. Also, the scribes did not acknowledge the doctrine of the hypostatic union. 54. Anyone who was in the know could have answered this question, but it just

happened to be posed by David’s “Lord.” 55. The approval of the Jerusalem audience to Jesus teaching which stymied the

religious leaders is noted here in v. 37b (“And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.”).

56. A favorable response is noted already in 11:18 and implied in 11:32 and 12:12. 57. This verse serves as a transition to Jesus’ blistering condemnation of the hypocrisy

that follows in the next segment. 58. When we next here of the crowd in the trial scene in chapter 15 their attitude will be

very different.

Ostentation of the Scribes & Their Exploitation of Widows (vv. 38-40)

VERSE 38 In His teaching He was saying: "Beware of the scribes who like to walk

around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places (Kai. evn th/|

didach/| auvtou/ e;legen( Ble,pete avpo. tw/n grammate,wn tw/n qelo,ntwn evn stolai/j peripatei/n kai.

avspasmou.j evn tai/j avgorai/j [conj + prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.f.s. didache teaching +

pro.gen.m.s. autos + impf.act.ind.3s. lego + pres.act.imper.2p. blepo see; beware of +

prep apo + d.a.w/noun gen.m.p. grammateus scribe + d.a.w/pres.act.part.gen.m.p. thelo

wish; “like” + prep en + noun loc.f.p. stole festive robe that is long + pres.act.infin.

peripateo walk around + conj + noun acc.m.p. aspasmos greeting + prep en +

d.a.w/noun loc.f.p. agora market place]),

VERSE 39 and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets

(kai. prwtokaqedri,aj evn tai/j sunagwgai/j kai. prwtoklisi,aj evn toi/j dei,pnoij [conj + noun

acc.f.p. protokathedria place of honor + prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.f.p. sunagoge + conj +

noun acc.f.p. protokathedria place of honor + prep en + d.a.w/noun loc.nt.p. deipnon

banquet]),

VERSE 40 who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long

prayers; these will receive greater condemnation (oi` katesqi,ontej ta.j oivki,aj tw/n

chrw/n kai. profa,sei makra. proseuco,menoi\ ou-toi lh,myontai perisso,teron kri,ma

[d.a.w/pres.act.part.nom.m.p. kathestheo devour, eat up; exploit + d.a.w/noun acc.f.p.

oikia house + d.a.w/adj.gen.f.p. chera widow + conj + noun dat.f.s. prophasis pretense;

“for appearance’s sake” + adv macros long + pres.dep.part.nom.m.p. proseuchomai

pray + pro.nom.m.p. houtos this; “these” + fut.dep.ind.3p. lambano receive +

adj.acc.nt.s. perissous more; “greater” + noun acc.nt.s. krima judgment; condemnation])

."

ANALYSIS: VERSES 38-40 1. “In His teaching” refers to yet another aspect of Jesus’ singular activity in the Court

of the Gentiles beginning with the confrontation with the religious authorities over the source of His authority (11:27ff.)

2. Wednesday (April 1, 33 AD) was devoted exclusively to teaching, whether in response to questions asked Him (dialogue), or to unprovoked monologue (i.e., the parable of the vineyard).

3. A common thread through all this is the rebuttal and rebuke of the corruption of the religious elite within Judaism.

4. The content in these three verses is an aggressive attack (polemic) on the scribal class.

5. Mark’s account is an abbreviated version of a much lengthier account in Matthew (23:1-36; the Pharisees were targeted as well).

6. Both Mark and Luke (20:45-46) greatly limit all that Jesus had to say on the topic of scribal corrupt.

7. Mark (and Luke) only makes mention of scribal ostentation and exploitation. 8. Right here in the temple where the religious authorities exercised their most obvious

dominance, Jesus launches into a scathing public exposure of their abuses. 9. The words “Beware of” (blepete apo) recalls a similar denunciation against the

Pharisees and Herodians in 8:15. 10. It is the responsibility of the communicator of truth to expose the corruption of those

who pretend to represent the interests of God. 11. Jesus specifies the culprits; that is, those who are in reality harmful to the public

good. 12. It is here in Jerusalem that Jesus’ principal opposition comes to a head. 13. All the scribes Jesus encountered in Mark (apart from 12:28-34) have been His

critics and enemies. 14. The warning here is not about what they desire to do to Jesus, but their general

character as ostentatious, exploitative, and hypocritical. 15. The effect is to open the eyes of the crowd so they can make a choice as to the kind

of spiritual leader they will follow. 16. Jesus here pulls no punches in exposing the abuses of the scribes (and Pharisees). 17. In vv. 38 & 39 Jesus presents the ostentation of the scribes. 18. So “Beware of” constitutes a serious public warning with respect to those who have

held sway over the people. 19. “Who like” (simple verb thelo) within this context carries the idea of ‘take pleasure

in.’ 20. The four objects of their approbation lust as related to social prominence (e.g.,

“walking around”) are: ‘dressing up’; deferential treatment in public (“respectful greeting”); special seating in the synagogues; and the best couch at a dinner.

21. The stole is not an everyday garment but a festive or celebratory robe (cf. Lk. 15:22; Rev. 6:11; 7:9), and suggests ‘dressing up.’

22. Deferential “greetings” are a mark of social standing (Matt. 23:7-12 expands the point).

23. They demanded the front seats in the synagogue (those in front of the ark, facing the congregation; compare Jam. 2:2-4 for an abuse within the church).

24. For the best couch at dinner cf. Lk. 14:7-10. 25. Also see Jn. 13:1-17 for a graphic repudiation of a similar preoccupation with status

and reputation among Jesus’ own disciples (foot washing of the disciples and one of its implications; esp. vv. 13-14).

26. The scribes were not only self-intoxicated with their own importance, but were active exploiters of the very people they pretended to care for (v. 40).

27. Widows in particular (along with orphans) were particularly vulnerable to financial exploitation, and to defraud them in the name of God was particularly despicable.

28. “Devour houses” is a vivid phrase for taking material advantage of them. 29. Cf. Lk. 15:30 “but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with

prostitutes…(same verb has here which means ‘to eat up’ as in food). 30. The tactics they used to achieve this is a matter of speculation. 31. Eating up houses would indicate fraud of some kind (like promising them special

consideration in the life to come if they gave their substance to the temple). 32. The words “for appearance’s sake” (e.g. a pretext) comes within the context of the

exploitation of widows rather than in the listing of v. 39. 33. This no doubt is to signify that the scribes engaged in “long prayers” to further con

their victims into relinquishing their “houses.” 34. In Matt. 6:5 the public prayers of the scribes were part of their tactics to gain public

approbation. 35. “These will receive the greater condemnation”, accesses the eschatological pain

these types will endure. 36. Jesus’ pronouncement against the scribes (et al) cannot be a temporal judgment. 37. If this is a prophetic announcement related to the Last Judgment of unbelievers then

the idea is that these types will suffer the greater shame (cf. Matt. 11:22-24 for a parallel dealing with those who are more culpable at the GWT judgment).

A Lesson on Sacrificial Giving (vv. 41-44)

VERSE 41 And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the

people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting

in large sums (Kai. kaqi,saj kate,nanti tou/ gazofulaki,ou evqew,rei pw/j o` o;cloj ba,llei calko.n

eivj to. gazofula,kionÅ kai. polloi. plou,sioi e;ballon polla, [conj + aor.act.part.nom.m.s.

kathizo sit down + prep katenanti opposite + d.a.w/noun gen.nt.s. gazophulakion

offering box; “the treasury” + impf.act.ind.3s. theoreo watch, observe + adv pos how +

noun nom.m.s. ochlos crowd + pres.act.ind.3s. ballo cast + noun acc.m.s. chalkos

copper coin + prep eis + d.a.w/noun acc.nt.s gazophulakion + conj + adj.nom.m.p. polus

+ adj.nom.m.p. palousios well-to-do + impf.act.ind.3p. ballo + adj.acc.nt.p. polus much]).

VERSE 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount

to a cent (kai. evlqou/sa mi,a ch,ra ptwch. e;balen lepta. du,o( o[ evstin kodra,nthj [conj +

aor.act.part.nom.f.s. erchomai + adj.nom.f.s. mia one + adj.nom.f.s. chera widow + noun

f.s. ptoche poor + aor.act.ind.3s. ballo + adj.acc.nt.p. lepton copper coin + adj.acc.nt.p.

duo two + pro.nom.nt.s. hos + pres.act.ind.3s. eimi + noun nom.m.s. kodrantes quadran

(Roman copper coin)]).

VERSE 43 Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this

poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury (kai.

proskalesa,menoj tou.j maqhta.j auvtou/ ei=pen auvtoi/j( VAmh.n le,gw u`mi/n o[ti h` ch,ra au[th h ptwch.

plei/on pa,ntwn e;balen tw/n ballo,ntwn eivj to. gazofula,kion [conj + aor.dep.part.nom.m.s.

proskaleomai summon + d.a.w/noun acc.m.p. mathetes + pro.gen.m.s. autos +

aor.act.ind.3s. eipon + pro.dat.m.p. autos + part amen + pres.act.ind.1s. lego +

pro.dat.m.p. su + conj hoti + adj.nom.f.s. chera widow + adj.nom.f.s aute this +

d.a.w/adj.nom.f.s. potche poor + adj.acc.nt.s. polus more + adj.gen.m.p. pas all +

aor.act.ind.3s. ballo + d.a.w/pres.act.part.gen.m.p. ballo “the contributors” + prep eis +

d.a.w/noun acc.nt.s. gazophulakion]);

VERSE 44 for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put

in all she owned, all she had to live on (pa,ntej ga.r evk tou/ perisseu,ontoj auvtoi/j e;balon(

au[th de. evk th/j u`sterh,sewj auvth/j pa,nta o[sa ei=cen e;balen o[lon to.n bi,on auvth/j [adj.nom.m.p.

pas + conj gar + prep ek + d.a.w/pres.act.part.abl.nt.s. perisseuo be left over; “out of

their surplus” + pro.dat.m.p. autos “their” + aor.act.ind.3p. ballo cast + pro.nom.f.s aute

+ conj de + d.a.w/noun abl.f.s. husteresis need; poverty + pro.gen.f.s. aute +

adj.acc.nt.p. pas + pro.acc.nt.p. hosos as much as + impf.act.ind.3s. echo “she owned”

+ aor.act.ind.3s. ballo “put” + adj.acc.m.s. holos entire + d.a.w/noun acc.m.s. bios

livelihood; “she had to live on” + pro.gen.f.s. aute literally: “her entire livelihood”])."

ANALYSIS: VERSES 41-44 1. There has been a continual sequence of Jesus’ speaking, without response, since

v. 35. 2. The noun translated ‘treasury’ is used in the LXX and Josephus of the treasure

stores in the temple complex, but its reference here is to the collection chests in the Court of the Women.

3. This is demanded by the context, which has a crowd (“the people”), including a poor widow, ‘throwing in” donations.

4. There was a niche in the outer court where people could make donations (cf. Jn. 8:20).

5. Jesus watches as people put ‘money’ into the collection chests. 6. The term for ‘money’ (chalkos) refers exclusively to copper coins; and widow’s two

coins were made of copper. 7. Also, He saw well-to-do people making contributions (“And many rich people were

putting in large sums.”). 8. The large sums donated by the rich would presumably be silver and gold coin (as

were the half-shekels for the temple tax, which had to be paid in Tyrian silver coins). 9. The objects for which the money was given (apart from the two chests designated

for the temple tax) was freewill offerings for which there was six dedicated chests. 10. All contributions were for the work of the temple. 11. Charitable donations for the poor were made separately. 12. There is an extreme contrast between the polloi plousioi…polla (“many rich…in

large sums”) of v. 42 and the mia chera ptoche (“one poor widow”) of v. 42. 13. There is no reason to suggests that she was the only such person of meager

circumstances, but Jesus singles her out as an object lesson. 14. The leptron (“small copper coins”) was the smallest denomination of currency in use

less than a centimeter in diameter and worth less than on hundredth of a denarius (which itself was itself half the value of the half-shekel temple tax).

15. Mark supplies for his gentile readers a comparison to the Roman quadrans, which was the smallest Roman coin.

16. The quadran is transliterated here by the Greek kodrantes. 17. The translation “a penny” is for modern readers. 18. Jesus called His disciples together so He could present to them another lesson on

the values of the kingdom of God as opposed to human values; another example of the last shall be first and the first shall be last.

19. “Truly/assuredly” (Amen) marks out His words as a saying to be taken seriously. 20. Jesus’ pronouncement (v. 43b) turns upside down the normal human viewpoint of

people. 21. What matters in God’s sight is not what a person has (and therefore is able to give

without pain) but the devotion which motivated her to give from her impoverishment. 22. Her gift was totally negligible in comparison with the enormous wealth in the temple

treasury (e.g., bank). 23. The gift does not matter so much as the mental attitude of the giver. 24. The bottom line is that she gave all that she had. 25. Again, this was a freewill offering, not an offering demanded by Jewish law. 26. For another example of sacrificial giving see 2 Cor. 8:1-2 as well as 2 Cor. 8:9.

27. Buy such a valuation Jesus asserts that this widow’s monetary offering was of a much higher caliber “than all those who have given (that day) to the treasury.

28. For Jesus to have singled her out in the first place, and for Him to have been able to ascertain that she cast two coins into the chest, requires that the reader remembers that Jesus knew all men.

29. Furthermore it is not a stretch that He knew that she was a believer. 30. The point Jesus makes in v. 43 is reiterated and expanded upon in v. 44. 31. Her destitution (husteresis; another synonym for ‘poverty’) as here defined as “put in

all that she owned/had” and, “all she had to live on” or “all her livelihood” is contrasted with “they all put in out of their surplus” (pres.part. perisseuo be more than enough; here the participle is used as adjectivally).

32. In respect to a different situation this is what the disciples did in order to follow Jesus (Mk. 10:28).

33. Note that she gave both coins rather than just one! 34. In the first-century Palestine the donation of two copper coins would have left her

without the means for even a meager next meal (cf. the widow of Zarephath, 1 Kgs. 17:12).

35. Her sacrificial gift was based on her faith, and it would not be overlooked by God who observes all human behavior, and rewards accordingly those who make the necessary sacrifices to honor Him.

END: Mark Chapter Twelve February 2016 Jack M. Ballinger